Arguments against the Supremacy of the Papacy/Petrine Primacy?

[Virgil the Roman]

Can you kindly provide me with arguments and writings of the early Church Fathers against Petrine supremacy? I read St Matthew chapter XVI, and I see that St Peter specifically was given keys to Heaven's Kingdom; this seems so clear to me. However, if it can be refuted by the early Church, I may potentially be considering Orthodoxy. However, thus far, I have as of yet, not found any argument, convincing. I am very cautious regarding this. As I only wish to make sure, that with God's help, I am doing what God wills for me.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you kindly.

Pax Christi.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

I wish to learn what the early Church Fathers believe regarding this issue. So as to educate myself and grow in Faith; where God wants me.


I welcome replies and response regarding this.

 

[Coralie]

Papal Supremacy

This Q & A outlines some Orthodox arguments; could you comment on those that don't hold water for you, and then perhaps the discussion can build up from there?

When I was attending the Divine Liturgy on the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul the other day, I heard the phrase "care of all the Churches" in the Epistle reading. To me, as a former Roman Catholic, this sounded rather strange, since I had been brought up to believe that the Pope, as the successor of St. Peter, had "the care of all the Churches." If St. Paul claims this for himself, does this not invalidate the Roman Catholic arguments for Papal primacy? On the other hand, how do we Orthodox explain the verse in the Gospel reading in which Christ tells St. Peter that He will give him the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven? Does this mean that only St. Peter was given this prerogative? And what about the controversial verse, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church"? Was St. Peter himself the foundation of the Church? This is all confusing and seems contradictory. (M.S., CT)

You are quite right with regard to your suspicions about the problems occasioned for the Roman Catholic doctrine of Papal supremacy by St. Pauls comments about his responsibility for the Church.

Largely in recognition of this and other challenges to Papism, since the Second Vatican Council Roman Catholic theologians have studiously avoided characterizing the Pope with such exaggerated terms as "the voice of God on earth," as they were wont to do in bygone days. Yet, astonishingly enough, in their efforts to make the doctrine of Papal supremacy more palatable to Orthodox and Protestants, they have tended, of late, to emphasize the Popes alleged "sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum," as the Latin Vulgate renders the original Greek of II Corinthians 11:28, "he merimna pason ton ekklesion" or "the care of all the Churches."

That this statement is from the mouth of St. Paul, describing his own duties, and not a statement by St. Peter, hardly reinforces the notion of Petrine primacy on which the doctrine of Papal supremacy rests. Indeed, if one were to take it as literally as the Papists take Christs statement to St. Peter with regard to his Apostolic prerogatives in the Church, he would of necessity have to attribute to St. Paul the primacy which Roman Catholics give to the former.

In his homily on this Epistle, St. John Chrysostomos expounds on the nature of St. Pauls care for the Churches. He says that this was the heaviest of the burdens with which St. Paul wrestled in his Apostolic ministry: "...His soul too was distracted, and his thoughts divided. For even if nothing from without had assailed him; yet the war within was enough, those waves on waves, that sleet of cares, that war of thoughts."

St. John adds that, though it is difficult enough for one to look after a single house, St. Paul had "the care not of a single house, but of cities and peoples and nations and of the whole world" (Homily 12, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, First Series, Vol. XII [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978], p. 395).

Several Roman Catholic exegetes, in keeping with their misunderstanding of Christs words about the ministry of St. Peter, have misunderstood this all-embracing pastoral care with which St. Paul, as the Apostle to the Nations, was naturally entrusted as an institutional prerogative. In so doing, however, they once more compromise their own arguments. For, if St. Paul was given such care of all the Churches, then primacy in the Church would logically belong, again, not to St. Peter, but to St. Paul and, by implication, to his successors.

Clearly, however, St. Paul was not speaking, in the passage under consideration, of an institutional prerogative, as St. John Chrysostomos points out, but of a burden imposed on him by the nature of his ministry.
With regard to the other verse which you cite, St. Theophylact of Ochrid points out that the words, "I will give unto thee,""...were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles," since Christ also said, Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted." (The Explanation by Blessed Theophylact of the Holy Gospel According to St. Matthew [House Springs, MO: Chrysostom Press, 1994], p. 141.)

The second verse to which St. Theophylact refers is St. John 20:23. As the translator rightly observes, the verb "remit" is in the second person plural, and thus refers not to St. Peter alone, but to all of the Apostles. As for the "controversial verse" (St. Matthew 16:18), St. Theophylact, following St. John Chrysostomos and the overwhelming consensus of both Greek and Latin Fathers, interprets the words "this rock" to denote St. Peters confession of faith in the Divinity of Christ, and not the Apostles person.

Any other interpretation would, of course, violate the Christocentric nature of the Church and the rather clear Scriptural affirmation that "Christ is the head of the Church" (Ephesians 5:23) and the "head of the Body" (Colossians 1:18).

Let us note, also, that the honor which the Orthodox Church has bestowed on both St. Peter and St. Paul, that is, the title of Protokoryphaioi, i.e., "leaders" or "chiefs" of the Apostles, gives us some insight into what the distinctions between the Disciples of Christ actually mean. They describe functions, responsibilities, cares, and rôles; they do not, however, refer to special privileges, prerogatives, or authority. For, in the final analysis, despite these distinctions, all of the Apostles were equal, just as all of the Bishops of the Orthodox Church—who are their successors—, whether they be simple Bishops or Patriarchs or Œcumenical Patriarchs, are absolute equals.

This fact helps to explain both the passage which you cite from II Corinthians and the Gospel passages which Papists have wholly unjustifiably used to support the doctrine of Papal supremacy.

(I've inserted line breaks for easier online reading)

 

[Michael G]

Other Quotes From the Fathers on the Visible, Unified Church

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Magnesians, 6-7 (ANF, Vol., I)
Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for "of His kingdom there shall be no end," says Daniel the prophet. Let us all therefore love one another in harmony, and let no one look upon his neighbor according to the flesh, but in Christ Jesus. Let nothing exist among you which may divide you; but be united with your bishop, being through him subject to God in Christ.

As therefore the Lord does nothing without the Father, for says He, "I can of mine own self do nothing," so do you, neither presbyter, nor deacon, nor layman, do anything without the bishop. Nor let anything appear commendable to you which is destitute of his approval. For every such thing is sinful, and opposed[to the will of] God. Come together into the same place for prayer. Let there be one common supplication, one mind, one hope, with faith unblameable in Christ Jesus, than which nothing is more excellent. Do you all, as one man, run together into the temple of God, as unto one altar, to one Jesus Christ, the High Priest of the unbegotten God.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Trallians, 2-3 (ANF, Vol. I)
Be subject to the bishop as to the Lord, for "he watches for your souls, as one that shall give account to God." Wherefore also, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order that, by believing in His death, you may by baptism be made partakers of His resurrection. It is therefore necessary, whatsoever things you do, to do nothing without the bishop. And be subject also to the presbytery, as to the apostles of Jesus Christ, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found.

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. Concerning all this, I am persuaded that you are of the same opinion. For I have received the manifestations of your love, and still have it with me, in your bishop, whose very appearance is highly instructive, and his meekness of itself a power; whom I imagine even the ungodly must reverence.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Philadelphians, 4,1 (ANF, Vol. I)
Wherefore I write boldly to your love, which is worthy of God, and exhort you to have but one faith, and one [kind of] preaching, and one Eucharist. For there is one flesh of the Lord Jesus Christ; and His blood which was shed for us is one; one loaf also is broken to all [the communicants], and one cup is distributed among them all: there is but one altar for the whole Church, and one bishop, with the presbytery and deacons, my fellow-servants. Since, also, there is but one unbegotten Being, God, even the Father; and one only-begotten Son, God, the Word and man; and one Comforter, the Spirit of truth; and also one preaching, and one faith, and one baptism; and one Church which the holy apostles established from one end of the earth to the other by the blood of Christ, and by their own sweat and toil; it behooves you also, therefore, as "a peculiar people, and a holy nation," to perform all things with harmony in Christ.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 8-9 (ANF, Vol. I)
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is[administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude[of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid... It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize, or to offer, or to present sacrifice, or to celebrate a love-feast. But that which seems good to him, is also well-pleasing to God, that everything you do may be secure and valid.

And say I, Honor God indeed, as the Author and Lord of all things, but the bishop as the high-priest, who bears the image of God—of God. inasmuch as he is a ruler, and of Christ, in his capacity of a priest. After Him, we must also honor the king. For there is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist. Nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop, who ministers as a priest to God for the salvation of the whole world. Nor, again, is there any one among rulers to be compared with the king, who secures peace and good order to those over whom he rules. He who honors the bishop shall be honored by God, even as he that dishonors him shall be punished by God. For if he that rises up against kings is justly held worthy of punishment, inasmuch as he dissolves public order, of how much sorer punishment, do you suppose, shall he be thought worthy, who presumes to do anything without the bishop, thus both destroying the[Church's] unity, and throwing its order into confusion? For the priesthood is the very highest point of all good things among men, against which whosoever is mad enough to strive, dishonors not man, but God, and Christ Jesus, the First-born, and the only High Priest, by nature, of the Father. Let all things therefore be done by you with good order in Christ. Let the laity be subject to the deacons; the deacons to the presbyters; the presbyters to the bishop; the bishop to Christ, even as He is to the Father.

Ignatius, the boy who sat on the lap of Christ when the Lord said "let the children come to me" talks A LOT in the 1st century about the bishop and his role in the Church, but never once mentions the idea that the Roman bishop is superior to any other bishop.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I know that St Augustine writes that St Peter was the leader from within the Apostles, but was never above them.

Pentecost happened to all Apostles, not Peter first than the others.

St Paul corrects St Peter's judiazing errors

Honorius, Pope of Rome, was decreed a heretic for being a monothelite

St Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome, says that no bishop is above any other bishop.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

ArmyMatt:

Can you provide the specific quotations regarding:

i. Pope Honorious's official condemnation by God's Church as a heretic and his subsequent alleged, excommunication or anathematising.

ii. Wherein, St Gregory said that: 'no bishop is above any other bishop'.

 

[choirfiend]

This site has some good articles (though it is loading REALLY slowly for me and stopping all other internet useage while it loads.
St. Peter the Rock

I think I remember the author at one time listing a book, which is hard to find, that he said was the most comprehensive, scholarly, and convincing argument he had ever read....I can't find it, or the author....Has anyone ever read that comment or know what I'm talking about? Maybe it was a different author...

 

[buzuxi02]

ArmyMatt:

Can you provide the specific quotations regarding:

i. Pope Honorious's official condemnation by God's Church as a heretic and his subsequent alleged, excommunication or anathematising.

ii. Wherein, St Gregory said that: 'no bishop is above any other bishop'.

Pope Honorus condemnation came at the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Here is the 13th session of the council:

The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to our promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal god-protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasis and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God-preserved city, and were like-minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God-preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.


In the 16th session of the council, the bishops cry out:

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches! O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!
Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!
To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!
To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!
May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!


I just want to point out at the praise and hyperbole used for the emperor. The emperor recieved more praise than any patriarch. The emperor was even called, 'the keeper of the faith'. Now if that praise was given to the roman pope, how man roman apologists would have plastered the above excerpt all over the internet and in their apologetic writings, and been used and abused to try to prove papal supremacy????

Also many centuries later Rome rehabilitated Honorius memory. Today Rome claims Honorius was not a heretic while never showing what the original source material above says. Anotherwords the modern papacy falls under the anathema of the council! 'May all who side with the heretics anathema....long years to the orthodox and ecumenical council."

Romes rehabilitation of Honorius along with their suppression of this council makes them be cast out, as this council declares.

 

[ArmyMatt]

i. Pope Honorious's official condemnation by God's Church as a heretic and his subsequent alleged, excommunication or anathematising.

there is a Latin document as well, called the Liber Diurnus, which all Popes had to swear to, naming Honorius as one of the heretics.

ii. Wherein, St Gregory said that: 'no bishop is above any other bishop'.

in a letter to the Patriarch of Alexandria he said, "Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity.”

and it was in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople that he stated that no bishop is above any other bishop, when the Patriarch of Constantinople wanted the title of Ecumenical.

 

[Ignatius21]

Other Quotes From the Fathers on the Visible, Unified Church



Ignatius, the boy who sat on the lap of Christ when the Lord said "let the children come to me" talks A LOT in the 1st century about the bishop and his role in the Church, but never once mentions the idea that the Roman bishop is superior to any other bishop.

Further, I think one of the great curiosities about the writings of Ignatius is that the epistle to the Romans is the only one of his surviving letters that does NOT mention the local bishop at all. This has produced centuries of speculation as to why...I've found the most convincing argument (and one that aligns with much of what I've read, from numerous sources) to be that the Roman church coalesced into "mono-episcopacy" later than the middle eastern or eastern churches, and may not yet have had anyone who was THE bishop at that time (early 2nd C.)

One of the best discussions I've read about this matter, and one that I found to be fairly even-handed when I was looking into this before converting, was His Broken Body. It looks at the arguments surrounding the Papacy in pretty thorough detail.

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Bo...=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1309265953&sr=1-1

 

[Kristos]

there is a Latin document as well, called the Liber Diurnus, which all Popes had to swear to, naming Honorius as one of the heretics.


in a letter to the Patriarch of Alexandria he said, "Your Holiness has been at pains to tell us that in addressing certain persons you no longer give them certain titles that have no better origin than pride, using this phrase regarding me, ‘as you have commanded me.’ I pray you let me never again hear this word command; for I know who I am and who you are. By your position you are my brethren; by your virtue you are my fathers. I have, therefore, not commanded; I have only been careful to point out things which seemed to me useful. Still I do not find that Your Holiness has perfectly remembered what I particularly wished to impress on your memory; for I said that you should no more give that title to me than to others; and lo! in the superscription of your letter, you gave to me, who have proscribed them, the vainglorious titles of Universal and Pope. May your sweet holiness do so no more in the future. I beseech you; for you take from yourself what you give excess to another. I do not esteem that an honor which causes my brethren to lose their own dignity. My honor is that of the whole Church. My honor is the unshakable firmness of my brethren. I consider myself truly honored when no one is denied the honor due to them. If Your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what I should be altogether. God forbid! Far from us be words that puff up vanity and wound charity.”

and it was in a letter to the Patriarch of Constantinople that he stated that no bishop is above any other bishop, when the Patriarch of Constantinople wanted the title of Ecumenical.

The irony of Pope Gregory's protest always strikes me as almost humorous given how things have turned out...

 

[Lukaris]

Another major problem with this doctrine is that for centuries a forged document was used to legitimize it. This document is called the Donation of Constantine & Rome later realized that it was a forgery although many sincere, well meaning theologians used it for centuries. see Donation of Constantine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Not to sound crass, but my faith and religion would be rather flimsy if it were to be contingent largely upon a forgery. I am well aware of the Donation of Constantine; it was more of an issue used to justify the Papal States' existence, rather than per se, the authority of the Papacy over the Church.

 

[Kristos]

So no comment on the Pope Gregory quotation? It's a double-edge sword...

 

[Lukaris]

Not to sound crass, but my faith and religion would be rather flimsy if it were to be contingent largely upon a forgery. I am well aware of the Donation of Constantine; it was more of an issue used to justify the Papal States' existence, rather than per se, the authority of the Papacy over the Church.

I think it was used to assert much more than that. I do not think any of us have an issue with the legitimacy of the Papal State just its concept of authority; this document was used as a prominent source of Rome's perceived excommunication of the Orthodox in 1054. Granted, there is much more to the state of circumstances to 1054 & i do not want to minimize it but in a nutshell & confirmed by historic misfortunes the explanation is adequate.

Again, I want to stress that I do not perceive Rome's usage of this document as collectively diabolic just horribly & (mostly inadvertant) incorrect with ongoing consequences of mutual misfortunes. There have been extreme problems in our history too but mostly within a given nation state & not affecting the whole church. For ex. the 17th c old believers crisis in Russia in which authoritarian cruelty inflicted upon a helpless illiterate laity caused drastic upheaval within Russia but not the whole Orthodox Church.

 

[Virgil the Roman]

Pope St Gregory the great seems a very humble and meek man. That is about all I can say. It is interesting to process. I think that I shall re-read it a few times and let it sink in.

 

[Macarius]

Not to sound crass, but my faith and religion would be rather flimsy if it were to be contingent largely upon a forgery. I am well aware of the Donation of Constantine; it was more of an issue used to justify the Papal States' existence, rather than per se, the authority of the Papacy over the Church.

That's a bit historically inaccurate, as it implies a division between the temporal and spiritual roles of the papacy's authority that did not exist in the minds of at least some of the reforming Popes of the 11th c.

If I go back to the most extreme example (Dictatus Papae), Hildebrand clearly thought of himself as akin to a feudal king or emperor, with his private holdings (the papal states) and the direct, irrevocable allegiance of all Christian monarchs as vassals on his behalf. He also believed he had similar authority as the highest authority over all bishops as vassals on his behalf, though bishops were supposed to the spiritual authority and kings / lords the temporal authority. The papal states were, yes, directly ruled by the papacy - but the ideas contained in the Donation of Constantine (that the pope is lord over all of Christendom) predate any sense of a separation of church and state implied in the way you are rationalizing it.

It is, furthermore, historic fact that the popes of the 8th - 15th c. justified a great deal of their authority on the backs of forgeries like the Donation of Constantine and the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore. At the outset, if I am to believe current scholarship on the 6th & 7th c. Western Church, the West had a similar idea of tradition as the East (namely that the form, function, and beliefs of the church had not changed since the apostolic age). The forgeries were necessary to "paint in" a papacy that, in fact, was NOT apostolic tradition. Either the later medieval popes were dupped (victimized into believing a false tradition) by these forgeries or participated in them willingly, but it is also a fact that by the time they were exposed the structure of papal authority was largely in place and self-authenticating.

Once you take the forgeries away, the case is much, much less compelling. So what has happened? Catholic scholarship has had to turn to ANOTHER innovative doctrine - the idea that theology "develops" from "seed" form. So any line from the early church mentioning Rome in a positive light or Peter in a positive light can now be anachronistically deemed evidence of a "seed" tradition for the papacy.

The problem is that this development was not universal in the Church. In the East, that seed never developed (or wasn't there at all). This poses an interesting problem for the West. Why should a Western Christian accept that a theological development in Rome (the papacy) but NOT the theological stasis of the East (decentralized conciliarism)?

The only answer an RCC can possibly give is "Because the Pope is the successor of St. Peter and inheritor of the keys." Here's the problem, now you're using circular reasoning. You have to BELIEVE the papacy a-priori for the "seed" argument to hold any water as a warrant for the papacy.

So its a twice innovative, circular doctrine.

I believe in the ongoing guidance of the Holy Spirit over the Church - I think the early church did as well, to an extent. I wouldn't call it development, though, but "meditation" or "deepening," and I'd rarely, if ever, want to dogmatize such a thing. Even something like the use of icons has an ancient precedent (iconography in the catacombs of 3rd c. Rome) and developed universally in the Church. This is similarly true for things like the teachings concerning Mary. In both cases, as well, the doctrines taught dogmatically are taught as such because they are needed to protect the Incarnation - a central tennant of Christianity.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Ignatius21]

The problem is that this development was not universal in the Church. In the East, that seed never developed (or wasn't there at all). This poses an interesting problem for the West. Why should a Western Christian accept that a theological development in Rome (the papacy) but NOT the theological stasis of the East (decentralized conciliarism)?

The only answer an RCC can possibly give is "Because the Pope is the successor of St. Peter and inheritor of the keys." Here's the problem, now you're using circular reasoning. You have to BELIEVE the papacy a-priori for the "seed" argument to hold any water as a warrant for the papacy.

So its a twice innovative, circular doctrine.

For that matter, why accept one Western doctrine (papacy) and not another? You can find seeds (big ones) of Calvinism in Augustine, and even Aquinas and other medeivalists. Or seeds of just about anything else, really. This just reinforces the point made here, namely, the validity of the Papacy has to be presupposed in order to justify the "seed" argument, to justify the papacy. Intellectually it's really not different than the "sola scriptura" argument on the Protestant side, where the canon of Scripture and a certain theory of interpretation and "inerrancy" must simply be presupposed before one can even begin to interpret the writings. And of course, those presuppositions always lead one to a Protestant understanding of Scripture, which then justifies the presuppositions.

There's a certain degree of presupposition and circularity in the Eastern view too, I suppose, but I'm finding it to be somewhat less blatant. It's also much more vague, with fewer all-or-nothing dogmas that have to be justified in order for one to believe Orthodoxy to be the right way.

 

[Macarius]

For that matter, why accept one Western doctrine (papacy) and not another? You can find seeds (big ones) of Calvinism in Augustine, and even Aquinas and other medeivalists. Or seeds of just about anything else, really. This just reinforces the point made here, namely, the validity of the Papacy has to be presupposed in order to justify the "seed" argument, to justify the papacy. Intellectually it's really not different than the "sola scriptura" argument on the Protestant side, where the canon of Scripture and a certain theory of interpretation and "inerrancy" must simply be presupposed before one can even begin to interpret the writings. And of course, those presuppositions always lead one to a Protestant understanding of Scripture, which then justifies the presuppositions.

There's a certain degree of presupposition and circularity in the Eastern view too, I suppose, but I'm finding it to be somewhat less blatant. It's also much more vague, with fewer all-or-nothing dogmas that have to be justified in order for one to believe Orthodoxy to be the right way.

Actually, the kicker for me with the Orthodox version of the above circularity (which tends to circle around the mutual affirmation of aposotlic succession, Holy Tradition, and Holy Scripture) is that it was very clearly evident in the mind of the ancient church - and not in seed form. It was the first line of response to the first heresy (Judaizing) and the second / third heresy (Gnosticism & Docetism). So it isn't circular, really, just internally consistent.

Also, unlike papal supremacy, Orthodox conciliarism developed universally. By the time of the ecumenical councils (and before them) literally the entire church utilized the above three-fold method of thought. Papal supremacy has always been seen as an authority the pope holds within the college of bishops (according to Roman Catholic doctrine) - the idea of the college of bishops necessarily predates it. So the whole "lack of universality" trap that papal supremacy falls to just doesn't hit Orthodoxy the same way.

Universal in antiquity and geography, Orthodox conciliarism (really, decentralized episcopacy with conciliar tools for ecumenical responses to crises) must be acceptable or the Church would have died at a very, very, very early time. In which case, Christ's words in Matt 16 would seem false OR we're all really off-base on this whole Christianity thing since the very sources we use to discuss Christ's teachings were composed and selected by an already-dead church! That's how early this stuff shows up.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Can you kindly provide me with arguments and writings of the early Church Fathers against Petrine supremacy? I read St Matthew chapter XVI, and I see that St Peter specifically was given keys to Heaven's Kingdom; this seems so clear to me. However, if it can be refuted by the early Church, I may potentially be considering Orthodoxy. However, thus far, I have as of yet, not found any argument, convincing. I am very cautious regarding this. As I only wish to make sure, that with God's help, I am doing what God wills for me.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thank you kindly.

Pax Christi.

Considering to go EO on the base of Petrine supremacy on the church fathers, is quite distubing to me, is as if you were saying that the Catholic Church to which the church father belong is out of their teachings.

Well I will give you the proof that EO understanding of petrine role in our days is far from the understanding of the petrine role that the first Patriarch of Constantinople had, to you, Saint John Chrysostom.


Saint John Chrysostom
Homily 88 on the Gospel of John

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 88 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)
John 21:19

This spoke He, signifying by what death he should glorify God.

He said not, Should die, but, Should glorify God, that you may learn, that to suffer for Christ, is glory and honor to the sufferer.

And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

Saint John Chrysostom
Homily 54 on the Gospel of Mathew
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 54 on Matthew (Chrysostom)
...

I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?...