The Apostle Peter and the Papacy

"a fundamental supreme authority established by Christ in the person of St. Peter"

Any Christian has as much authority as Peter. God honors spiritual offices (Pastor, Evangelist, Teacher, etc.), but it is clear He honors faith above any person. The Bible says, "God is no respector of persons". If Peter is esteemed higher than others, then God is lying.

When Jesus told Peter, "upon "this" will I establish my church", Jesus wasn't talking about a person, the "this" he was talking about was what Peter said, and where Peter got the information. Remember, Jesus asked them, "who do people say that I am". And ... what did Peter say, "you are the Son of God, the Christ (the anointed one)". Jesus then told Peter that He knew Peter didn't think of this by himself, but that God had revealed it to Peter. This "revealed information" was what Jesus said he would build his church on - the church was built on revealed information that could only come from God, and not on Peter the person.

This is not to say Peter was not a great man of God. After Peter was Baptized in the Holy Ghost, he stood up and preached to 5,000 - who got saved. But ... there are preachers on the earth today who have preached to and saved more than 5,000 at one time.

You tell the story differently even than most Latin apologists. I have never heard anyone from the West before accuse St. Photius of heresy, only of being a schismatic. The fact that you do so suggests that you are even more wedded to the error of the filioque than are most modern Latins. St. Photius himself was willing to have Ignatius appeal hear by Rome. The real problem came from the fact that Pope Nicholas arrogated to himself authority which was not his. The Canon of the Council of Sardica, given Ecumenical force by incorporation into the Canons of the Fourth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils was the only basis for an appeal to Rome. It permitted the Pope to appoint three Metropolitans from neigbhoring provinces to judge disputes between bishops when the local Holy Synod could not resolve them (as was the case with Ignatius' claim against his deposition).

Dvorik (sp?) a notable Byzantinist has shown convincingly that your claim of a second "Photian" schism is Western polemics rather than history.

The anti-Photian synod of 867 which you Latins call the "Eighth Ecumenical Council" was anathematized by the Council of Constantinople of 897, which was accepted by Pope John VIII of Rome (and I add emphasis for your benefit since your erroneous ecclesiology makes papal assents very imrportant).

The main point of my post vis-a-vis the Soloviev article was the fact that the Palamite Synods are rightly regarded as the Ninth Ecumenical Council of the Holy Orthodox Catholic and Apostolic Church, invalidating his claim of "silence" on the part of the Orthodox episcopate since the departure of Rome. (And I needed to bring the count up to nine.)

I don't see how pointing out history which support the Orthodox (not generically Eastern) position against the Latin (not generically Western) position switches the debate to one between East and West.

I see from your later post that you go beyond your coreligionists in accusing St. Photius the Great (hymned with St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus as one of the Three Pillars of Orthodoxy) of heresy rather than mere schism, so perhaps you erroneously thought I was lumping an "Eastern heretic" with the Orthodox as is your the wont of Latin apologists. Nothing of the sort: St. Photius' Orthodox critique of the heretical filioque is still quite current, whatever our "liberals" who seem willing to join your confession in papering over the seriousness of the error may think.

If support of arian and monophysite beliefs isn't heretical, then what is? I suspect most latin apologists would agree with me about Photius.

What is odd about the filioque is the nature of the disute--that the holy spirit came from both the father and the son was traditional christian belief, a part of trinitaian orthodoxy upheld against every eastern variation of the monophysites. What made it controversial was its insertion by the Roman church into the nicene creed in order to make this point clear to the newly converted tribes of the west, some of whom who had been arians and did not understand the trinity.

But to Photius the insertion of the filioque as a stick with which to beat the Roman church, claiming it to be heretical. And as I stated in my other post eventually arranged a council to deny the addition of the filioque to the creed, and to approve expansion in constantinople's ecclesiatical power.

The final evidence against photius is that after he had been excommunicated for the second time he was also banished by the byzantine emperor on grounds of treason.

Regardless, I do not see any refutation of Soloviev in your posts. But I do appreciate you giving them some consideration and look forward to engaging you again.

If this is where Jesus declares Peter the head (pope) of the universal church (catholic church) then I must be show in the scriptures where he assumes and executes this role.

Well, let me give it a shot:

Mt 16:17 -- Jesus tells Peter (alone) he has divine knowledge by special revelation
Mt 16:18-19 -- Jesus gives Peter "the keys"
Mt 16:19 -- the power to bind and loose
Is 22:22 -- keys assigned to officeholder
Rev 1:18 -- keys as symbol of authority
Jn 1:42 -- Simon is Cephas (Aramaic: rock)
Mt 16:18 -- Simon is Petras (Greek: rock)
Jn 21:15-17 -- Jesus tells Peter "feed my sheep"
Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; -- Peter first, foremost apostle
Act 1:13; Lk 9:32 -- more of Peter first, foremost apostle
Mk 8:29; Jn 6:68 -- Peter speaks for apostles
Lk 12:41-48 -- Peter, the faithful steward
Lk 22:32 -- Jesus prays for faith of (only) Peter
Lk 22:32 -- "Simon...strengthen your brethren"
Act 4:1-13 -- Jews consider Peter as the leader
Acts 5:2-11 -- Peter utters first anathema (emphatically affirmed by God!)
Act 2:14-40 -- Pentecost: Peter’s first preach
Act 3:6-7 -- Peter works first healing
Acts 8:14-24 -- Peter first to recognize/refute heresy
Act 9:40 -- Peter first after Jesus to raise the dead
Act 10:9-28 -- catholicism revealed to Peter
Act 10:46-48 -- Peter orders Gentile baptism
Act 15:7 -- Peter’s leadership at first Council

The filioque is NOT part of traditional Christian belief. To claim this is to claim that the Holy Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council did not know what they were doing when they wrote the sections of the Creed dealing with the Holy Spirit. They stuck with Our Lord's plain words "who proceeds from the Father".

The "second procession" confounds the temporal mission of the Spirit with the Eteranal Procession from the Father. It is an error analogous to confusing the Incarnation with the Eternal Begottenness of the Son. As such it is the root and ground of almost all Western errors most of which flow from a confusion between the Uncreated and the created (created grace being the one which is most obnoxious).

It is absurd to claim that denying the filioque supports Arianism, since the Holy Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils which opposed the Arians and their offshoot the pneumatomachians did not confess it, and found the Creed as originally written without the filioque sufficient statement of the Orthodox faith against them. To claim it is also to calumnate the Holy Fathers of the Council of Ephesus who forbade changes to the Creed of which the filioque is the only one attempted since. I realize that the Council of Toledo, which promulgated the error, thought it was a good way to deal with the persistence of Arianism in the West where it was very popular among the Vandals and Visgoths. However, the Popes of Rome did not concur until the time of the schism (which from the point of view of Constaninople dates to 1009 or 1014). St. Gregory the Dialogist (whom you call St. Gregory the Great) caused the Creed in its original wording without the heretical filoque to be carved in silver tablets in St. Peter's in Rome. I am told the tablets are still there for all to see.

It is likewise absurd to claim that the filioque is in any way important to opposition to monophysitism. The destruction of the monarchy of the Father--the traditional ground of the unity of the Godhead as opposed to the Western notion of God's unity being grounded in an abstractly conceived "common essence"--does nothing to oppose the error of confounding Christ's human and divine natures.

I often have the clear sense in discussing the classical heresies with Westerners that you by and large have forgotten what the issues were.

It was in fact the papal assent to the filioque (either in the no longer extant election encyclical of Pope Sergius VI or in the extant cornation rite for the German Emperor Henry II--hence the ambiguity of dates) which caused the Popes of Rome to be removed from the Diptychs of the Great Church of Constantinople. The unfortunate embassy of Cardinal Humbert in 1054 was an attempt to restore communion which had already been broken by Rome's acceptance of the modified Creed.

I would not dryly that when Emperors agree with you, their ecclesiatical acts are taken as "evidence" for your side, but when they are heretics in both our judgements, their acts are used polemically against the "Easterners".

The filioque is NOT part of traditional Christian belief.

Will you please cite your sources for this statement. You are inconflict with the events that happened at the synod of Constantinople in 867.

The dogma of the Filioque can be traced back to the founding fathers, and I can do so if you wish. It seems to me you pride yourself on revisionist history. There is plenty of sources that can give accurate accounts begining with this one from New Advent encyclopedia:

The dogma of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost from Father and Son as one Principle is directly opposed to the error that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father, not from the Son. Neither dogma nor error created much difficulty during the course of the first four centuries. Macedonius and his followers, the so-called Pneumatomachi, were condemned by the local Council of Alexandria (362) and by Pope St. Damasus (378) for teaching that the Holy Ghost derives His origin from the Son alone, by creation. If the creed used by the Nestorians, which was composed probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia, and the expressions of Theodoret directed against the nineth anathema by Cyril of Alexandria, deny that the Holy Ghost derives His existence from or through the Son, they probably intend to deny only the creation of the Holy Ghost by or through the Son, inculcating at the same time His Procession from both Father and Son. At any rate, the double Procession of Holy Ghost was discussed at all in those earlier times, the controversy was restricted to the East and was of short duration.

The first undoubted denial of the double Procession of the Holy Ghost we find in the seventh century among the heretics of Constantinople when St. Martin I (649-655), in his synodal writing against the Monothelites, employed the expression "Filioque". Nothing is known about the further development of this controversy.

Again, please cite your sources in regard to the Filioque not being a part of Christian tradition. Thanks.

The Acts 10: 9-26 confuses me. After reading it again I am convinced it was God revealing that Gentiles were hereby declared "clean" and the Good News was to be revealed to them as well.

Saying it was Catholisizm revealed is a stretch, in my opinion.

Also, I will admit that Peter did a lot of good stuff and he had a special place in Jesus' heart. But that doesn't make him the beginning of a long line of Popes. My intercessor is Jesus himself - in the order of Melchizedek.

When Jesus is dead, I'll look for another - if you get my drift.

Peter was a good example for all of us to follow, as was Paul and, of course, Jesus himself. But that is all he was - a man doing the will of God (better than most from what I read).

Go to Rome and read the Creed on the tablet set up by St. Gregory. The filioque is nowhere to be found, despite its popularity throughout the non-Roman population of the Patriarchate of Rome at the time of St. Gregory's papacy. I have already cited my source: the Creed as written by the Holy Fathers of the First and Second Ecumenical Councils, and the prohibition of additions to the Creed by the Third Ecumenical Council. The filioque is an addition to the Creed.

Citing the acta of a synod which was anathematized by the Holy Orthodox Church does not move me. All additions to the Creed and the (pitfully attended) synod of 867 were anathematized by the Council of Constantinople in 897, which (I add for the benefit of Westerners) was accepted by the Pope of Rome at the time, John VIII.

I suggest you read the writings of St. Photius the Great on the matter. He was at least as learned as the compilers of your "New Advent" encyclopedia, though I'm sure he lacks "accuracy", which you seem to believe is synonymous with accepting the interpretation of events offered by papal apologists.

The Acts 10: 9-26 confuses me. After reading it again I am convinced it was God revealing that Gentiles were hereby declared "clean" and the Good News was to be revealed to them as well. Saying it was Catholisizm revealed is a stretch, in my opinion.

Acts 10:9-26 (or -28 or -48) is about Peter coming to understand that Christ's message was universal (catholic with a lower case "c"), it was was for all peoples. Not only does Peter receive the message through divine revelation, but he also immediately implements it.

Also of note is the necessity of such instructions to Peter, for it reveals that not even the apostles fully grasped the implications of Jesus' teaching on the law at first. The Apostles did not receive doctrine fully formed at Pentecost, but came to fuller understandings over time. Doctrine developed.

Further, Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church in Acts 11:5-18. Without Peter's early leadership role, probably neither of us would be here discussing this issue.

Also, I will admit that Peter did a lot of good stuff and he had a special place in Jesus' heart. But that doesn't make him the beginning of a long line of Popes. My intercessor is Jesus himself - in the order of Melchizedek... Peter was a good example for all of us to follow, ... but that is all he was - a man doing the will of God.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think Jesus was up to in these verses:
Mt 16:18-19 -- Jesus gives Peter "the keys"
Mt 16:19 -- the power to bind and loose
Jn 21:15-17 -- Jesus tells Peter "feed my sheep"
Lk 22:32 -- Jesus prays for faith of (only) Peter
Lk 22:32 -- "Simon...strengthen your brethren"

Mt 16:18-19 -- Jesus gives Peter "the keys"
He was giving all believers the keys.

Mt 16:19 -- the power to bind and loose
He was giving all believers the power.

Jn 21:15-17 -- Jesus tells Peter "feed my sheep"
He was sending him on a missionary journey.

Lk 22:32 -- Jesus prays for faith of (only) Peter
Peter was the one with the specific need (Satan had asked to sift him like wheat).

Lk 22:32 -- "Simon...strengthen your brethren"
What he was going to go throug would put him in a unique position to strengthen his brothers at that time. They all knew each other. Going to "hell and back" gives someone a unique perspective as well as credibility regarding their opinion on some issues.

Polemikos, Peter was a great man, as were many Christians and Jews in the Bible. However, all power I have comes directly from Jesus. I need no other intercessor.

To imply that Peter was given special dispensation that I cannot also have goes against the word of God. God is no respector of persons. Peter was just a man, as am I.

I apologize for an inaccuracy in my posts: I am dyslexic and transpose digits easily. The Council of Constantinople to which I refer, which anathematized the anti-Photian synod which you Latins consider the Eight Ecumenical Council but was accepted by Pope John VIII was in 879 not 897. Perhaps this inaccuracy in my posts made you skeptical of my sources. Most of what I know of the history is drawn from Hussey's book on church history (Hussey is a noted Byzantinist), I think the title is "The Church in the Byzantine Empire", but as it is at home, a three hour drive away, I must rely on my memory. I think I generally have cited my sources: most of my argument has involved the Creed and the Acta of the Ecumenical Councils. Do you really want to know which compilation I'm reading them in? I think it's in a series published by Eerdman's.

If you really want to go back to talking about Soloviev, rather than St. Photius (since you offered me the last word on that), you need to engage my point about the Palamite Synods being a plain counter-example to his purported "silence" of the Eastern episcopate. They have all the marks shared by the Ecumenical Councils as understood by the Orthodox--facing down an error which plagued the Church (the rationalism of Barlaam the Calabrian), upholding traditional doctrine in this case the understanding of Grace as Uncreated and the traditional understanding of prayer, and reception throughout the Church (which, alas, by that time no longer included the Patriarchate of Rome).

I suppose I should take comfort, though, in finding a Latin who is true to the Frankish roots of his confession and bandies the accusation of heresy against those who defend the original wording of the Niceo-constantinoplitan Creed against later additions just as Charlemagne's publicists did.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.