A Simple Primacy of Honor? Answering Eastern Orthodoxy

A Simple Primacy of Honor? Answering Eastern Orthodoxy

Does the pope have a mere primacy of honor? Is he simply the first among equals? Michael goes over Orthodox scholarship on the matter and discusses Pope Leo the Great's authority over the Council of Chalcedon.

The books referenced are The Roman Primacy in the East at the Time of St. Leo the Great by Martin Jugie and The Papacy and the Orthodox by Edward Siecienski.

#orthodox #orthodoxy #easternorthodox #catholic #pope #theology #debate #debates #apologetics
_________________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: Any view expressed by a host, contributor or guest is not necessarily reflective of the views of other hosts, contributors or guests.

🔴PLEASE HELP THIS CHANNEL GROW🔴

🔴SUPPORT

🔴VISIT

🔴LISTEN

🔴VERBUM DISCOUNT
As a fan of R&T, you can get 5 free books and 10% off packages if you use the following link:

[mertonhirsch]

As an Orthodox Christian I would like to say that I believe that the proper relationship between the Pope and the Eastern Patriarchs is that he have doctrinal primacy and administrative primacy. Benedict wrote that the Pope only had primacy, not supremacy with regard to the Eastern Patriarchates. Primacy means he would have certain abilities, to call ecumenical councils, to set the agenda, and preside over them, and to decide that consensus has not been reached on a doctrinal or jurisdictional issue. He could be appealed to for jurisdictional disputes. Nevertheless the church held doe 1000 years the the Holy Spirit should lead the Ecumenical Councils into strong consensus. When consensus isn't reached, we need to pray more, not receive a unilateral declaration. He was the leader and president of the Patriarchs. That is what I think Orthodox should accept, though most jurisdictions wouldn't do that today. The primacy of honor is contrived. That being said, the Orthodox have only not named their own replacement for the Pope or Rome because Constantinople has jurisdiction, and does not wish to do so at this time, and wishes to keep the door open for large scale reunification. Technically, for the Orthodox, Constantinople now retains all of the primacy of the Pope of Rome, although I'm sure Moscow would contest that.

[pmg]

Well answered. Probably also simplistically supported by "... in communion with the Catholic church".

[davidstanton]

The pope is the vice regant before Jesus Christ, he is given the key of the Kingdom of heaven wich is prefigured in the old testament as the king of Jerusalem would place the key of David upon a vice regency, what this creates is a solid line starting with Peter 1 who bears the key of the kingdom of heaven, the pope crowned emperors like charlimagn, so one king under God through Christ the lord of lords so all true valid authority that the people of the faith have a right to have will come directly through Christ through the church as Peter will make the archbishop that crowns the king or emperor, so you can trace all the authority back to Jesus Christ directly ordained throgh the Roman bishop, Christ is a Monarch of the house of David, the key of his kingdom is placed on the Roman bishop as the key of David was placed on a regent, whatever is bound eg certain laws can be sealed and unsealed by the whole church through the volition of the Petrine office because he receives this sacred duty to teach and be ther as a wittness as well (this is a sacred thing) people forget this ..thus the church was raised slightly above the nations so all men will be drawn, Christ is active in the church full on ⚜️🛡️🦅🛡️⚜️

[mertonhirsch]

Peter founded 24 different diocese, was resident bishop of Antioch, and was never the resident bishop (episcopa) of Rome. He co-founded it and died there. And he didn't ordain Linus who Rome considers to be the second (or third) Pope. Linus was ordained by Paul. The earliest evidence that Peter cofounded the Church of Rome was Irenaeus. Rome claims that Irenaeus then describes Linus being named as Peter's successor, but that's not true at all. Irenaeus wrote that Peter and Paul installed Linus as episcopa (overseer) of Rome, plus it happened during Peter's lifetime which would have been completely inconsistent with current Roman Catholic practice regarding the Pope. Irenaeus, used by Rome to demonstrate that Peter cofounded the church of Rome explicitly says that Peter and Paul made Linus the first Episcopa of Rome, not succeeding upon Peter's death. And other sources state that Linus was actually ordained by Paul.

[junesilvermanb]

The doctrine of papal primacy was further developed in 1870 at the First Vatican Council.

In the dogmatic constitution named Pastor aeternus, ultramontanism achieved victory over conciliarism with the pronouncement of papal infallibility (the ability of the pope to define dogmas free from error ex cathedra) and of papal supremacy, i.e., supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary jurisdiction of the pope.

Indeed, Pastor aeternus states papal supremacy is a dogma:

"according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord. [...] Whence, whosoever succeeds to Peter in this See, does by the institution of Christ himself obtain the Primacy of Peter over the whole Church. [...] The Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other churches, and that this power of jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff, which is truly episcopal, is immediate; to which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, to submit not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world, so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme pastor through the preservation of unity both of communion and of profession of the same faith with the Roman Pontiff. [...] And since by the divine right of Apostolic primacy the Roman Pontiff is placed over the universal Church, we further teach and declare that he is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that in all causes, the decision of which belongs to the Church, recourse may be had to his tribunal, and that none may re-open the judgment of the Apostolic See, than whose authority there is no greater, nor can any lawfully review its judgment. Wherefore they err from the right course who assert that it is lawful to appeal from the judgments of the Roman Pontiffs to an œcumenical Council, as to an authority higher than that of the Roman Pontiff."

— Vatican I, Pastor Aeternus, ch. I, III

[lionheart]

Great video, many Orhtodox are aware of the primacy of the bishop lf rome, idk why they choose to remain in limbo

[matthewoburke]

Wish I could like this video more than once.

[kayedal-haddad]

Why do the Coptic church have a title called Pope?

[frankperrella]

Love the video keep up the work brother 🙏🛐🗝️🗝️💯%Catholic

[paradox]

Brother Michael which blue Book is it in 6:45, which you are holding? Please title and author

[talisman]

Michael, could you do a video critiquing Baptist practice and theology?

[JamesBarber-cudz]

Jesus didn't say, "Upon you I will build my Church. Instead, He said, " Upon this I will build my Church." Thus, the question remains....what is "this?"

I say Peter's confession of who Jesus was is what made him a rock, not who he was in himself. Don't believe it? The hard evidence is rock solid. Let's have a look.

1 Corinthians 1:10-13: Paul addresses the divisions among the Corinthians, where some were claiming allegiance to different apostles (Paul, Apollos, Peter, or Christ). Paul emphasizes that faith and unity in Christ is what truly matters, not allegiance to any human leader, including Peter.

1 Corinthians 1:12-13: "What I mean is this: One of you says, 'I follow Paul'; another, 'I follow Apollos'; another, 'I follow Cephas' (note that Peter wasn't even referred to as Peter here but by his original name, Cephas); still another, 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptized in the name of Paul?"

Galatians 2:6-14: Paul speaks about how Peter's position did not matter to him and should not matter to others, emphasizing that what truly mattered was the truth of the Gospel. Also, in Galatians 2:11-14, Paul recounts how he publicly corrected Peter for his hypocrisy when Peter withdrew from eating with Gentiles due to pressure from certain Jewish Christians.

Galatians 2:6: "As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message."

Galatians 2:11-14: "When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas (Peter) in front of them all, 'You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?'"

Galatians 2:7-8: Paul described Peter as simply the apostle to the Jews, while he himself was the apostle to the Gentiles.

Galatians 2:7-8: "On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles."

Galatians 2:9: Paul lists James before Peter when referencing apostles he met in Jerusalem.

Galatians 2:9: "James, Cephas (again, calling Peter by his original name), and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me."

Acts 15: James, brother of Jesus and senior leader for the Jerusalem church, had the final word in the discussion about whether Gentile converts to Christianity needed to follow the Law of Moses, particularly circumcision. After much debate, James offered a summary and issued the final judgment.

Acts 15:13-19: "When they had finished, James spoke up: 'Brothers, ' he said, 'listen to me. Simon (Like Paul, James also does not always refer to Peter as Peter] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written... It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.'"

1 Peter 1:1; 5:1: In his first letter, Peter refers to himself simply as an elder even as he is an apostle. Not as a bishop and not as a Pope but collegially as an elder. Also in 2 Peter 1:1, he refers to himself even more humbly, simply as a servant of Jesus Christ and an apostle.

1 Peter 1:1: "Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, ...."

1 Peter 5:1: "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed."

2 Peter 1:1: " Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ...."

These direct Scripture quotations demonstrate Paul's focus on the centrality of the Gospel and Christian unity in Christ Himself over personal allegiance to any human leaders, including Peter. They also emphasize Peter's original name, Cephas, revealing the essential irrelevance of his name change. They say that his primary mission was to evangelize Jews just as Paul's was to evangelize the larger Gentile population. They demonstrate James's supremacy over Peter in Jerusalem, the Mother Church of early Christianity. And, indeed, Peter's own letter demonstrates that he held no office of primacy in the early Church. Clearly, then, he could not have held anything resembling general authority over other apostles or churches.

Finally, when looking at church history, we find that not a single church named in the New Testament was ever under the Roman Pope except for Rome itself.

Therefore, all Catholic claims about Petrine-Papal supremacy are shown to be indefensible - biblically, theologically, and historically.

[lukebrasting]

In your recent video where you responded to Jay Dyer, you mentioned that Allexander Schmeman knows that the Fathers accepted the papal claims at the councils, so how does he justify remaining Eastern Orthodox then? He must have a way to get around it otherwise he would be forced to hold two contradictory positions

[xpictos]

Pope St. Gregory the Great condemed the concept of a Universal Bishop for good reason. It was quite telling what Pope Emeritus Benedict did by secretly removing "Patriarch of the West" from his title, because us Orthodow know that is exactly what he is. His "universal juridiction" applies to his juridiction in West only, just as our Patriarchs are the supreme authority in their juridictions, but are limited to their juridictions. Catholics don't understand this because when the schism happend you were only left one out of the five Pentarchy, we are we got the other four. Naturally they couldn't step on each other's toes so we understand this concept. At best you are one fifth of the original Church (admittedly with the first amongst equals) and we are four fifths owing to where the Pentarchy Patriarchs landed post the schism. I agree that neither of us are fully "Catholic" or "Complete" until we come back together, but lets not pretend that Rome's current idea of a universal Pope existed in the historical pre-schism Church.

[lionheart]

michael i agreed with you on the pronunciation of Chalcedon but primacy is pronounced prime-acy. prim icy sounds totally unnatural

[john-el]

Is it "prime-acy" or "prim-acy"?

[alexanderbrown]

♥️ I have some genuine questions if any of you Catholics could answer me that would be wonderful thank you have a nice day.

Why do Catholics bow down to the pope when Peter would not allow men to bow down to him.

Acts 10 KJV
25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Why do Catholics think priests can take away their sins?

Hebrews 10 KJV
10 By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.
11 And every priest standeth daily ministering and offering oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins:
12 But this man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God;

Why do Catholics not believe the gospel? For salvation.
2 Corinthians 4 KJV
3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

1 Corinthians 15 KJV
1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
2 By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.
3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
4 And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures:

Romans 3 KJV
25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;

Why do Catholics believe Peter is the rock and not Jesus Christ?

1 Corinthians 10 KJV
4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

Deuteronomy 32 KJV
4 He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he.