Byzantine debate #2 | Did the Eastern Church believe in papal supremacy before Photian affair?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 27 июл 2024
- 1:50:40The greatest debate on the papacy 2022: Fr. Patrick Ramsey vs Paweł Głowacki. The debate is if the Church in the East (the Orthodox Church) accepted papal supremacy before the ninth century.
Don't forget to subscribe to this RUclips channel!
Support: / accordingtojohn
I write on Substack in Swedish: enligtjohannes.substack.com/a...
Twitter: / accordingjohn
Father Patrick Ramsey has degrees both in science and theology. He is a distance Tutor for the Institute for Orthodox Christian Studies, in Cambridge, UK, and has a Ph.D. in Orthodox Christian Ecclesiology.
Pawel Glowacki is a Catholic theologian and apologist from Poland. He received his master's degree in theology from Cardinal Stefan Wyszyński University in Warsaw. He is the editor of the digital Catholic magazine SIEJMY and I also run a blog on Facebook - Apologetyka Katolicka - about the defense of the Catholic faith according to the Fathers of the Church.
00:00-03:30 Introduction
03:31-27:22 Paweł Głowacki's first statement
27:23-50:22 Fr. Patrick Ramsey's first statement
50:23-57:45 Paweł Głowacki's first rebuttal
57:46-1:05:09 Fr. Patrick Ramsey's first rebuttal
1:05:10-1:13:45 Paweł Głowacki's second rebuttal
1:13:46-1:21:00 Fr. Patrick Ramsey's second rebuttal
1:21:01-1:50:40 Paweł Głowacki's cross-examination
1:50:41-2:21:49 Fr. Patrick Ramsey's cross-examination
2:21:50-2:30:03 Extra discussion
2:31:00-2:32:24 Support and "commercial"
2:32:25-2:38:27 Paweł Głowacki's closing statement
2:38:28-2:44:30 Fr. Patrick Ramsey's closing statement
2:44:31 Final words
#orthodox #catholic #papacy #discussion
Under the community tab, you can vote on who won the debate!
"Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others."
- Pope Saint Gregory the Great - defender of Orthodoxy (or as he is known in the Orthodox Church, Saint Gregory the Dialogist; Book VII: Epistle XXXIII)
This quote mine is retarded. Pope Saint Gregory said that Constantinople was subject to Rome.
?
It’s interesting that Fr. Ramsey admitted that the Pope is the final court of appeals.
Why is that interesting? No orthodox should deny that.
@@djfan08 because he has the final decision on matters that affect the entire church
@@Mkvine again, what is interesting about this for an Orthodox Christian?
@Lovemusic78566 Would you say that the Pope as the final court of appeals is compatible with first among equals?
Sadly, the Pope is NOT the final arbiter. If he was, none of us are Christians. We would have had to become Jews first, under the Law, and be physically circumcised.
The end.
There is a BIG difference between recognition of a legitimate verdict from a fellow Bishop, and surrender of ecumenical authority to Rome.
True. Funny, though, how the fellow Bishop whose legitimate verdict is sought is alyays the bishop of Rome, the see of Peter. I wonder why that is....
It is interesting that Father Ramsey accepts the universal jurisdiction that extends over the Eastern Churches.
Ramsey was in the end only concerned with the limit of jurisdiction.
No to catholic & orthodox unity.
The concerns of the jurisdiction are and have always been on the basis on the popes Orthodoxy which is tested by conciliatory, but this definition still would invalidate the claims of papal infallibility and papal supremacy even if it's considered universal
Yeah, lots of EOs have a high papal view. They just reject immediate jurisdiction & that the office has powers due to divine institution; those powers are from the canons, accidente of history, etc.
The issue: the bishop of rome prior to the schism clearly goes beyond what they say, so they’re saying the first primate was wrong about his own authority for a millenium (or, at the very least, about 750 years since Pope St. Stephen clearly believed the powers of his office was divinely established).
yes, that is the case for all well-informed orthodox theologians
The Chieti document, signed also by Roman Catholic theologians, clearly states that the Roman Pope did *not* have authority over the East. This is chapter 19.
"19. Over the centuries, a number of appeals were made to the bishop of Rome, also from the East, in disciplinary matters, such as the deposition of a bishop. An attempt was made at the Synod of Sardica (343) to establish rules for such a procedure.(14) Sardica was received at the Council in Trullo (692).(15) The canons of Sardica determined that a bishop who had been condemned could appeal to the bishop of Rome, and that the latter, if he deemed it appropriate, might order a retrial, to be conducted by the bishops in the province neighbouring the bishop’s own. Appeals regarding disciplinary matters were also made to the see of Constantinople,(16) and to other sees. Such appeals to major sees were always treated in a synodical way. Appeals to the bishop of Rome from the East expressed the communion of the Church, but the bishop of Rome did not exercise canonical authority over the churches of the East."
Do you know any good books or articles written by Eastern Orthodox responding to Roman Catholic claims that Theodore the Studite was a proponent of the papal primacy in terms of jurisdiction?
Francis Dvornik who is Catholic has a book on the papacy (which you can find online if you know where to look) that shows that Theodore also stated all the Patriarchs possessed the keys.
I believe he also said the same about St Basil but cant recall the source of that statement
Edit: Actually I think it's on Ubi Petrus' website
St Theodore the Studite's conception of the Pope in relation to the Church is based upon the relation between primate and synod expressed in Apostolic canon 34 but expanded to the ecumenical church.
Greetings from Poland ;)
I am not permitted, as an Orthodox Christian, to vote on who "won" a debate about a matter that has been settled over a thousand years ago, by our Church Fathers. Especially since "winning" debates leads to pride and arrogance, and the deadliest of sins! I will NOT partake in assisting others, or myself, in falling into error and sin.
The Church Fathers teach. I listen, learn and obey.
I think you’re projecting your personal spiritual life onto others, which is even more not permitted us. All avenues to pride for one don’t apply to another. We all have our own temptations.
The Church fathers accepted papal claims at Ephesus, Chalcedon, Constantinople III, and Nicea II.
@@jebbush2527 Sure they did, that's why the canons of those Councils are incongruous with Vatican I's claims, such as canon 28 of Chalcedon. Also, the eastern Churches, via the 6th Ecumenical Council, believed it was within their authority to judge and condemn a Pope as a heretic, i.e. Honorius.
If the churches united again, would Pawel agree that an Ecumenical Council could depose Pope, as has happened in history? Yes Rome have changed some traditions but they are not essential, Rome's dogmas are unchanged, where East had changed some things like divorce and remarriage, contraception.
Roman Catholics like quotes .. but out of context.
Ohh noo. We ALWAYS stay in context. 🤗
Orthodox like to say this sentence without engaging the arguments in themselves
The whole discussion around 1’25”: Isn’t it that the bishop of Rome universally teaches the Tradition of the Church and not something new? He is the universal teacher in that he teaches the Faith and not that he determines or of himself defines the Faith? In other words, he is beholden to the Faith, the Faith is in no wise beholden to him. As an EO, this is how I understand the schism: that the pope was rejected because it added to the deposit of the Faith rather than guaranteeing it, as it has so often done.
The keys to the kingdom are not what you think because of what Peter said in 2 Peter 1:5-11 and because of what the Lord said in Mark 10:42-44.
"...Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them. BUT SO SHALL IT NOT BE AMONG YOU: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all" (Mark 10:42-44).
Peter was commanded three times to “feed My sheep” (John 21:15-17). Peter has been feeding the sheep by sharing the keys to the kingdom with the sheep in 2 Peter 1:5-11 and the entrance to the kingdom will be abundantly ministered to them. And they will never fall.
And Peter said, “...add to your faith virtue; and to virtue knowledge; And to knowledge temperance; and to temperance patience; and to patience godliness; And to godliness brotherly kindness; and to brotherly kindness charity. For if these things be in you, and abound, they make you that ye shall neither be barren nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and hath forgotten that he was purged from his old sins. Wherefore the rather, brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure: for if ye do these things, ye shall never fall: For so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11).
In other words, instead of the keys to the kingdom being totalitarian power to demand that other people and churches obey you, Peter says that the keys to the kingdom is the sheep having the power to live holy and to never fall.
Peter by his personal example never acted as if having the keys to the kingdom meant asserting authority over other people. For example in Acts 15 when a very important matter was to be decided before the assembly the final verdict was given by James and not by Peter (Acts 15:19). Paul gave commandments to the churches he established and not Peter (1 Corinthians 7:17 and 16:1). Also, Paul did not take his orders from Peter. In fact Paul rebuked Peter to his face. “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed” (Galatians 2:11).
... ... ...
Yes!!! And let us NOT forget that if Peter was dictator of the Church, as Rome likes to claim, then we are NOT Christians!!!
Question: If uncircumcised, did you first accept Judaism, and get yourself circumcised as an adult before you came to Christ and received baptism?
"The rock is the unity of faith - not the person of Peter" - Saint Cyprian, III century
@@aleksandarstavric2226Where did he say that?
The discussion was really interesting. What the catholic side forgets to mention is that all the catholics are obliged to accept the ordinary magisterium of the Pope XY. If he is wrong .. what then? This kind of discussions leave lot of open questions. I'm not telling that they are bad. Open questions in sense .. leave open space for a personal reflections .. put in questions the modern catholic councils; especially Vatican II and I. It is eyes opening to realise; that the majority of catholics (including myself) think about the Church and Pope from the prospective of Vatican I. And if I may say; the actual issues in the Church are fruit of the wrong conception about supremacy, infallibility of the Pope.
So you believe, that there is a problem with V II?
Pozzzz hrvat😉
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319 Both. V II and V I. Vatican I just prepared the way to follow. Since the Pope has an absolute authority it was easy to make a revolution in the Church. And if you objected something the people would say.. the Pope says... don't be more Catholic as the Pope. I think that the Orthodox Church has a better way of doing things - if one bishop leaves the doctrine ... there are still others that follow the true faith. If the Pope says for example you need to do this or that (e.g. Traditionis custodes) you need to obey - Supreme authority.
@@igormandic4654 well but i think this is pre conciliar
Vatican I is pretty much pope agatho & pope hormisdas 2.0
Vatican II closes V I & to think there was some kind of "revolution" (if you mean something a la Taylor Marshall revolution) rememer what Jesus promised
@@katholischetheologiegeschi1319
Pope Agatho's letter seems to state that all the apostles were princes IIRC.
Hormisdas was in response to all the other Patriarchs being in communion with each other BUT NOT Rome so it's not really surprising that the formula would try trumping up the See of Romes claims about herself a bit.
As per Ephesus Rome's legate Presbyter Philip tried to trump up their claim yet it also included Cyril's letter where he mentions Peter and John were equals in rank. Clearly the church was fine placating Rome at times even though they didn't believe Rome's claims themselves as Cyril ecclessiology witnesses to.
@@ThruTheUnknown Exactly. The papal supremacy is something medieval. Whenever the popes seem to loose the power and influence they would write a letter… saying I’m the „big boss“. E.g Dictatus Papae and Unam Sanctam. Everything culminates with Vatican I when the previous claims receive a garment of „infallibility dogma“.
Difference between Roman Catholic and Orthodox apologetics: Roman Catholics quote individual Fathers and Saints to support their positions while Orthodox quote the canons of the 1st millennium Church's Councils to support their positions. This is why the Roman Catholic arguments fall flat to Orthodox ears.
Did you watch the debate? In my opening statement for papal supremacy, I have large section about Council of Ephesus, so yes I appeal solemn Church's Ecumenical Council of the antiquity. Church' canons are product of the Church (de iure humano), papal authority is product of the Jesus Christ given to Peter (de iure divino).
It seems to me that there is one salient point that none of the debaters touched (surprising to me): what is the value of an Ecumenical Council if the Pope is Supreme in the sense that is being implied by Pawel Glowacki? What was the value of Efesus, if the matters were settled by the Pope already? The bishops congregated just to agree with the leader, in Communist style?
The reality is the opposite: the councils were needed precisely because Pope's opinion wasn't enough; establishing orthodoxy had to be ratified by the whole Church, represented in the form of a council. From this, the reverse is also true: the consent of the Roman Pope was also sought, because there was no Church without the Pope - the Roman Bishop being part of the Church at the time, part of the Pentarcy and even more, the first among the five Patriarchs.
In other words, far from being an argument for Supremacy, the very existence of Ecumenical Synods (including Efesus, which continues for more sessions beyong the initial 'consenting' one) is testimony that the consent of the Church (which included the Pope) was instrumental both to confirm orthodoxy and to preserve unity.
Erick Ybarra writes about this in his book, and Elijah Yasi has an entire video on this too.
@@jebbush2527 Erick Ybarra and Elijah Yasi are neither the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith nor the text of the Vatican I which proclaimed Papal Infallibility - the latter charism literally stating that the Pope isn't bound by the Church to establish dogmatic expressions of Divine Revelation.