They may claim to, yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do, in my understanding of how it works. Maybe they do. It would be news to me, if so, but welcome news. (If I am not convinced of it, it doesn't mean ill will--the RCs don't accept that the Anglican churches have Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean they hate us or anything.)
Well, yeah—is it ever more than “claim to have it”? Can any bishop in any church actually establish a “family tree” that traces back to one or more of the apostles?
All the churches that think apostolic succession matters claim to have it, and other churches to whom it matters either accept or reject those claims.
Well, we believe we can of course. But (I assume) we’re all Christians regardless of AS or Filioque. (Obviously some people aren’t, even in my own denomination, but where the line is would be another thread…)
What I find rather odd is that most of us are quite prepared to differ from the ancient Church's views on (for example) Hell, or divorce, or other religions, but are much more militant about how our understanding of the Trinity is phrased...
Re Papal diktat ..
My understanding is that the use of filioque started in Spain and slowly spread through the West until it was in widespread use. Not papal diktat at all, but an example maybe of Newmans idea of the development of doctrine (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) which is accepted tacitly in other areas of belief. But it's not about doctrine or the truth at all as has been made clear here. It's about pride and grudges.
They may claim to, yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do, in my understanding of how it works. Maybe they do. It would be news to me, if so, but welcome news. (If I am not convinced of it, it doesn't mean ill will--the RCs don't accept that the Anglican churches have Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean they hate us or anything.)
Well, yeah—is it ever more than “claim to have it”? Can any bishop in any church actually establish a “family tree” that traces back to one or more of the apostles?
All the churches that think apostolic succession matters claim to have it, and other churches to whom it matters either accept or reject those claims.
I suspect that the various Coptic and Oriental churches would claim such descent.
They may claim to, yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do, in my understanding of how it works. Maybe they do. It would be news to me, if so, but welcome news. (If I am not convinced of it, it doesn't mean ill will--the RCs don't accept that the Anglican churches have Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean they hate us or anything.)
Well, yeah—is it ever more than “claim to have it”? Can any bishop in any church actually establish a “family tree” that traces back to one or more of the apostles?
All the churches that think apostolic succession matters claim to have it, and other churches to whom it matters either accept or reject those claims.
I suspect that the various Coptic and Oriental churches would claim such descent.
And the bishops of those tiny breakaway churches with multiple clergy with fancy titles and few lay folk seem keen on showing their lines of succession.
Re Papal diktat ..
My understanding is that the use of filioque started in Spain and slowly spread through the West until it was in widespread use. Not papal diktat at all, but an example maybe of Newmans idea of the development of doctrine (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) which is accepted tacitly in other areas of belief. But it's not about doctrine or the truth at all as has been made clear here. It's about pride and grudges.
Yes, it's about pride and grudges.
Pride on the part of the Papacy.
Grudges on the part of the Orthodox.
So, we are all square.
Now let's drop the clause.
Admit the 'West' got it wrong and we can all move on ...
@Lamb Chopped - of course 'the Lord matters more' - but how do we measure or assess that? How do we know whether the Lord 'matters more' to you or I or the gal or guy down the road?
This isn't about assessing someone's spirituality or commitment to Christ - although I'll accept that there are hot-heads on both sides who'd go in for that - but of agreeing what should or shouldn't be in the Creed.
If it's not an issue then let's not bother with Creeds at all and then everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. Which is pretty much where we're at by the looks of it ...
They may claim to, yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do, in my understanding of how it works. Maybe they do. It would be news to me, if so, but welcome news. (If I am not convinced of it, it doesn't mean ill will--the RCs don't accept that the Anglican churches have Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean they hate us or anything.)
Well, yeah—is it ever more than “claim to have it”? Can any bishop in any church actually establish a “family tree” that traces back to one or more of the apostles?
All the churches that think apostolic succession matters claim to have it, and other churches to whom it matters either accept or reject those claims.
I suspect that the various Coptic and Oriental churches would claim such descent.
They do.
But I was asking whether in any church that makes such a claim, the claim can be substantiated by evidence establishing an unbroken line of ordination/consecration from one or more apostles to a current bishop. My point was that what @ChastMastr said of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches—“They may claim to [have apostolic succession], yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do”—can be said of all churches that claim apostolic succession.
Unless there are verified “family trees” out there that I'm not aware of, the claims of apostolic succession made by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the Anglican churches, the Lutheran churches, the Coptic and Oriental churches, or any other churches that claim apostolic succession can only be accepted on faith. We cannot, 20 centuries on, verify those claims.
NB: I’m not saying there are no reasonable arguments for why the claim of apostolic succession should be accepted. I’m just saying there’s no definitive proof, so it’s always going to be a matter of “I think it’s reasonable to accept this claim” rather than “the truth of this claim has been unquestionably established.”
Well, I can't verify this of course, but various Orthodox Churches claim to be able to trace themselves back to one or another of the Apostles.
But they would say that wouldn't they? 😉
I believe I'm right in thinking that the Church of Cyprus does. St Andrew?
There'll be others too of course and the Copts and Syriacs, Jacobite etc probably would as well.
This may sound odd coming from an Orthodox Christian, but in one sense of course we are all descended in varying degrees of separation as it were from those early disciples. Otherwise none of us would be here in the first place.
That's not to go all 'Protestant' all of a sudden. I'm not saying that Apostolic Succession isn't important, but from an Orthodox perspective it's keeping the faith and passing it on that's of utmost importance. Apostolic Succession in and of itself is no guarantee that the faith is going to be handed down 'intact' as it were.
The Papacy is a case in point.
No, I'm being serious. It's not that the Orthodox don't recognise the Apostolic origin and credentials behind the Church of Rome in terms of its antiquity and so on. Rather it's a case, I'm afraid, that we think they've wandered out of line on certain things. We've been discussing one of those on this thread - the unilateral addition of the filioque clause to the Creed without conciliar consultation.
We'd see further departures from what we'd regard as 'normative' from the 13th century onwards and also at the Council of Trent. In general, we'd see Vatican 2 as clearing up some late medieval excesses but also introducing some further issues at the same time.
I'm sorry to sound like a stuck gramophone record but that's one of the reasons why we make such a fuss about the filioque clause. We see it as an unnecessary and unconciliar addition which presage further wonky departures from what we'd regard as the 'fullness of the faith' in due course.
Having unilaterally played fast and loose with the Creed the nefarious Papacy could then go on to wreak further havoc leading to further splits, divisions and rebellions. The Protestant Reformation was the biggest and most far-reaching of those.
Ok, I'm simplifying things but that's generally the way the argument runs from the Orthodox side of things. The West innovated unilaterally and without due regard to the Eastern Churches over the filioque clause and thereby caused Schism and chaos.
Rome has a different perspective of course. We were in the wrong and should have toed the 'Petrine' line.
I am putting things in stark terms to underline the reasons why there's been an issue and yes, I fully accept that there are two sides to this and my particular side isn't squeaky clean either.
You'll all know me well enough by now, I hope, to appreciate that I strive to be as eirenic as can be and certainly do not hold my RC and Protestant brothers and sisters in anything other than the highest regard, whatever our theological differences.
If I had my way then that statement @Nick Tamen shared with us from Presbyterian/Orthodox dialogue would be adopted as soon as possible.
Well, I can't verify this of course, but various Orthodox Churches claim to be able to trace themselves back to one or another of the Apostles.
But they would say that wouldn't they? 😉
I believe I'm right in thinking that the Church of Cyprus does. St Andrew?
There’s a difference, though, between saying the Church in/of Wherever was founded or established by the Apostle A, and saying “the Apostle A laid hands on Bishop B, who laid hands on Bishop C, . . . who laid hands on Bishop Y, who laid hands on our bishop, Bishop X.” The latter is what I'm talking about when I ask whether any church can do more than claim to have apostolic succession.
To put it another way, most people wouldn’t question that Peter was the first (or at least the first major) leader of the Church in Rome, and that understandings of the role of the Bishop of Rome are grounded in that fact. Saying that Pope Francis occupies the Chair of Peter and is the successor of Peter is different from saying that Pope Francis/Jorge Mario Bergoglio was consecrated a bishop by these three bishops, who were consecrated by those three bishops, etc., in a line that can be traced and verified, with names in every “generation,” back to one or more of the apostles.
It all depends on believing that the apostles, when they commissioned others to lead communities, imagined they were doing the same thing as present day bishops when they consecrated new bishops.
To put it another way, most people wouldn’t question that Peter was the first (or at least the first major) leader of the Church in Rome, and that understandings of the role of the Bishop of Rome are grounded in that fact.
I, for one, would question that. The Church in Rome was flourishing long before Saint Peter arrived.
To put it another way, most people wouldn’t question that Peter was the first (or at least the first major) leader of the Church in Rome, and that understandings of the role of the Bishop of Rome are grounded in that fact.
I, for one, would question that. The Church in Rome was flourishing long before Saint Peter arrived.
Fair enough. I was searching for a way to say what I thought might be generally accepted, which is why I added “or at least the first major.” Perhaps a better way to put it might be that most people wouldn’t question that Peter is inextricably associated with the early leadership of the Church in Rome?
To put it another way, most people wouldn’t question that Peter was the first (or at least the first major) leader of the Church in Rome, and that understandings of the role of the Bishop of Rome are grounded in that fact.
I, for one, would question that. The Church in Rome was flourishing long before Saint Peter arrived.
Fair enough. I was searching for a way to say what I thought might be generally accepted, which is why I added “or at least the first major.” Perhaps a better way to put it might be that most people wouldn’t question that Peter is inextricably associated with the early leadership of the Church in Rome?
In the New Testament we see a distiction between the role of Apostle (i.e. the 12 Apostles plus Saint Paul), on the one hand, who were itinerant missionaries, and the role of Bishop, on the other hand, as the pastor of a local congregation. The function of Bishop at that time seems to be similar to the fucntion of a Parish Priest today. Saint Peter, as the Chief of the Apostles, was, in a sense, the leader of the whole Church. Most places had only one congegation, and therefore only one Bishop. Current scholarship seems to trend towards the idea that Rome, as a very large city, had several congrgations, and therefore several Bishops, long before Saint Paul and Saint Peter arrived. Saint Peter's major role in Rome seems have been to die as a Martyr and be buried there.
Ok, @Nick Tamen I can see what you are getting at of course and don't see it as that much of a tangent in this particular discussion as concepts like the 'Petrine' office and so on play into the issues around authority and so on that are associated with the adoption of the filioque clause.
@Ex_Organist will correct me if I'm wrong but I think I've seen Antiochian Orthodox claims that Saint Peter has as much of an association with the Church there as he had with Rome. If not more.
Of course, the Orthodox are going to down-play the Petrine element in reaction to what we see as the RCs over-playing it. Protestants the same. We both have a different take to the one Rome is generally seen to have on the interpretation of 'You are Peter and upon this rock ...'
'This rock' is Peter's confession of Christ.
Be all that as it may, I think we are getting into into very literal territory if we look for proof positive that Saint Barnabas or Saint Thaddeus or Philip or ... laid hands on Bishop Bob who in turn laid hands on Bishop Tony who then laid hands on Bishop Bert who ...
I don't know whether @Ex_Organist would agree with me on that but I don't quite see it in such straightforward terms. That doesn't mean I don't believe in Apostolic Succession nor that some ancient churches can't trace themselves back to the earliest days of the Christian faith.
To put it another way, most people wouldn’t question that Peter was the first (or at least the first major) leader of the Church in Rome, and that understandings of the role of the Bishop of Rome are grounded in that fact.
I, for one, would question that. The Church in Rome was flourishing long before Saint Peter arrived.
Fair enough. I was searching for a way to say what I thought might be generally accepted, which is why I added “or at least the first major.” Perhaps a better way to put it might be that most people wouldn’t question that Peter is inextricably associated with the early leadership of the Church in Rome?
In the New Testament we see a distiction between the role of Apostle (i.e. the 12 Apostles plus Saint Paul), on the one hand, who were itinerant missionaries, and the role of Bishop, on the other hand, as the pastor of a local congregation. The function of Bishop at that time seems to be similar to the fucntion of a Parish Priest today. Saint Peter, as the Chief of the Apostles, was, in a sense, the leader of the whole Church. Most places had only one congegation, and therefore only one Bishop. Current scholarship seems to trend towards the idea that Rome, as a very large city, had several congrgations, and therefore several Bishops, long before Saint Paul and Saint Peter arrived.
You’re preaching to the choir here, at least as far as this Presbyterian is concerned.
What I was trying to do, quite inartfully perhaps, was frame the distinction between a church founded or established by specific apostles on one hand and continuity of ordination/consecration from bishop to bishop on the other hand.
The "rock" is a pun on Peter's name which means rock in Greek. The rock is Peter, not his confession.
I'm interested in the assertion that there was a flourishing Christian community before Peter got to Rome. Presumably there is evidence. Even so, how does that impact his leadership of the church there?
@Lamb Chopped - of course 'the Lord matters more' - but how do we measure or assess that? How do we know whether the Lord 'matters more' to you or I or the gal or guy down the road?
This isn't about assessing someone's spirituality or commitment to Christ - although I'll accept that there are hot-heads on both sides who'd go in for that - but of agreeing what should or shouldn't be in the Creed.
If it's not an issue then let's not bother with Creeds at all and then everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. Which is pretty much where we're at by the looks of it ...
I think you misread me. I said nothing to do with spirituality.
The quote I responded to was:
TurquoiseTastic wrote: »
What I find rather odd is that most of us are quite prepared to differ from the ancient Church's views on (for example) Hell, or divorce, or other religions, but are much more militant about how our understanding of the Trinity is phrased...
My point was simply that people are more militant about the Trinity because the Trinity (the Lord) matters much more than hell, or divorce, or other religions. He is the center of everything. If people are going to be militant about anything, I'd expect it to be here.
To the point as to why Scandanavian Lutherans claim apostolic succession is that when the king of Sweden became Lutheran, he allowed Roman Catholic bishops to stay in office on the condition they would allow for Lutheran ordinations. Recent discussions between the Scandanavian Churches and the Roman Catholic Church indicates that the RC are not necessarily denying the apostolic succession of the Scandinavians nor are they accepting of it. It remains a topic of further discussion.
With the eventual retirement of Boomers and Gen Xers, it is safe to say ELCA pastors will be able to claim apostolic succession through the Anglican process. When my son became ordained, a retired Episcopalian bishop who was a good friend of the family participated with the permission of the current bishop.
Certainly in the case of the Bishops of Rome we can trace their names back to the Apostle Peter followed by Linus,Cletus,and Clement which takes us up to approximately the year 100 of the Christian era.
What is less certain is the idea of one bishop for the whole of Rome. There may have been a number of Christian communities, each of which had 'their' bishop. It is not until the year 142 AD with the election of Pius I that we have definitely only 'one' Bishop of Rome.
Whether these bishops were ordained with exactly the same ceremony as we have today is doubtful but we can believe that the same intentions were present.
There is, to my mind, nothing unusual about this. Over the centuries dioceses have been split up ,suppressed or amalgamated,but what has remained is the belief that certain members of the Christian flock have been commissioned to serve that flock in the service of Word and Sacrament.
If I am not wrong Presbyterians ordain clergy to the ministry of Word and Sacrament by the laying on of hands. It's a sort of Apostolic Succession without calling it that.
@Lamb Chopped - of course 'the Lord matters more' - but how do we measure or assess that? How do we know whether the Lord 'matters more' to you or I or the gal or guy down the road?
This isn't about assessing someone's spirituality or commitment to Christ - although I'll accept that there are hot-heads on both sides who'd go in for that - but of agreeing what should or shouldn't be in the Creed.
If it's not an issue then let's not bother with Creeds at all and then everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. Which is pretty much where we're at by the looks of it ...
I think you misread me. I said nothing to do with spirituality.
The quote I responded to was:
TurquoiseTastic wrote: »
What I find rather odd is that most of us are quite prepared to differ from the ancient Church's views on (for example) Hell, or divorce, or other religions, but are much more militant about how our understanding of the Trinity is phrased...
My point was simply that people are more militant about the Trinity because the Trinity (the Lord) matters much more than hell, or divorce, or other religions. He is the center of everything. If people are going to be militant about anything, I'd expect it to be here.
Rightio. Ok. Apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick.
The "rock" is a pun on Peter's name which means rock in Greek. The rock is Peter, not his confession.
I'm interested in the assertion that there was a flourishing Christian community before Peter got to Rome. Presumably there is evidence. Even so, how does that impact his leadership of the church there?
Ok, very briefly, both the Orthodox and Protestants would acknowledge that 'rock' is a pun on Peter's name - a form of Cephas in Aramaic and Petros in Greek.
What we'd both insist on, I think, is that the Church's foundation is on Jesus Christ and Peter's confession of Christ and his steadfast obedience even unto death ('Quo Vadis, Petrus?') flows out from that. A kind of 'Big Rock'/'Little rock' thing.
Peter, in and of himself, is only 'foundational', if we can put it that way, in a secondary sense and on the basis of his confession of Christ.
No Christ, no confession. No confession of Christ no Church.
Ok, I'm being pedantic. It's not as if the Orthodox despise Peter and want to take him down a peg or two. Far from it. I can't remember which controversy it was nor which Pope Leo it was but there is the famous incident (so famous that I've forgotten which one!) when the Pope settled an issue to a chorus of, 'Peter has spoken through Leo!' from the eastern Patriarchs.
The Orthodox understanding is that the Church is built through Peter on the basis of his confession of Christ. I think Tertullian made that point as did Saint John Chrysostom.
The true Rock is Christ himself - see 1 Corinthians 10:4.
By consigning the Apostle Peter to Little Rock Arkansas, as it were we aren't diminishing him nor his office. Rather, we are putting him in his proper place with Christ as Mount Rushmore or Ayers Rock or Boulder Colorado or whatever Big Rocks and Even Bigger, Bigger, Bigger, Bigger Rocks there might be.
We are all in the foothills. The Apostle Peter included.
I don't see how it diminishes Saint Peter's importance in the overall scheme of things if there were Christians in Rome before he arrived. Why should it?
In the Book of Acts and in the Epistles we see both mission into virgin territory and visits to places to where Christianity had already gained some kind of foothold. The two aren't mutually exclusive. We also find people who were in some kind of half-way house stage having 'only' received the 'baptism of John.'
My suspicion is that the situation in the early Church was far more fluid and messy than many of us might care to acknowledge. That doesn't mean that 'anything goes', but it does mean that some kind of 'system' or consensus steadily emerged.
And the consensus things leads me back to the conciliarity point. Ha! See what I did there?
But it is interesting that whilst Antioch claims Saint Peter as its first bishop, it makes no claim to universal authority on the basis of that, unlike Rome which does.
@Gamma Gamaliel Ah. I see what you mean about Rock etc ..... and agree.
Maybe if Antioch had been, and had continued to be the centre of an Empire.........
Looking back from Rome towards the East, the Roman Church celebrates the martyrdom of Peter and Paul on 29th June, but there were two other special days for Peter.
18th January was St Peter's Chair at Rome (which became the beginning of the Octave for Christian Unity) . Pope John XXIII deleted this day from the General Roman Calendar but retained the other Petrine feast day,22nd February as the Chair of St Peter at Antioch.
From Jerusalem we believe that Peter went to Antioch and from there on to Rome.
As well as the play on words 'Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram' (You are Peter and on this rock)there was the fact that the Apostle died in Rome and that Rome was at that time an extremely important city.
I don't think anyone is disputing the importance of Rome. It's a question of emphasis.
From an Orthodox perspective Rome can be an elder brother as it were, but not Big Brother.
There are weirdoes who will insist that the Pope is antichrist of course, same as there are within Protestant fundamentalism.
On the filioque thing, the Orthodox wouldn't only insist on the removal of the clause they'd also want to see a reevaluation of the emphasis on the Pope as Universal Pontiff. Primus inter pares perhaps. Not Primus Uber Pares.
Certainly in the case of the Bishops of Rome we can trace their names back to the Apostle Peter followed by Linus,Cletus,and Clement which takes us up to approximately the year 100 of the Christian era.
Yes, but that’s a different point from the one I was making. The point I was making had to do with who ordained/consecrated as bishops in the first place.
If I am not wrong Presbyterians ordain clergy to the ministry of Word and Sacrament by the laying on of hands. It's a sort of Apostolic Succession without calling it that.
Yes, and at least among US Presbyterians, deacons and elders are also ordained by laying on of hands. And yes, it is sort of Apostolic Succession without calling it that, but only sort of. Apostolic succession as understood in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches—including other concepts that flow from it, such as sacraments only being valid if administered by one ordained by one in apostolic succession—simply isn’t part of our understanding.
I'm interested in the assertion that there was a flourishing Christian community before Peter got to Rome. Presumably there is evidence. Even so, how does that impact his leadership of the church there?
To whom was Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans written if there was no community there? This appears to have been written around 8-10 years before the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. The individuals in Rome named in the Epistle do not include Peter, so the reasonable assumption is that he only arrived some time later. There seems to be no to little evidence of any activity by Saint Peter in Rome prior to his martyrdom.
But it is interesting that whilst Antioch claims Saint Peter as its first bishop, it makes no claim to universal authority on the basis of that, unlike Rome which does.
The relative prestige of the ancient Patriarchates seems to be based entirely on the ranking of their cities within the Roman Empire rather than on their foundation as Christian communities.
I'm interested in the assertion that there was a flourishing Christian community before Peter got to Rome. Presumably there is evidence. Even so, how does that impact his leadership of the church there?
To whom was Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans written if there was no community there? This appears to have been written around 8-10 years before the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. The individuals in Rome named in the Epistle do not include Peter, so the reasonable assumption is that he only arrived some time later. There seems to be no to little evidence of any activity by Saint Peter in Rome prior to his martyrdom.
Peter seems to be rather absent from the post-gospel New Testament. Who wrote the letters that carry his name, I wonder.
I think Francis is trying to spread the load of the papacy by appointing a cabinet of advisors from dioceses across the world and by borrowing the idea of synod from other churches. But he is kicking against centuries of power in the Vatican, and there are those on the Conservative wing who are having none of it and are waiting for his successor.
Happily Francis and Patriarch Bartholemew seem to get on very well, despite what is thought and felt in the pews. The same can't be said of Kirill of Moscow.
We could get into another tangent here. There are some Orthodox who claim that Patriarch Bartholomew has acted in a positively 'Papal' fashion and I've seen some young hot-heads posting stuff he's alleged to have said that they claim point in that direction.
I'd have thought the other Patriarchates would have had something to say if Bartholomew was acting positively Papal.
As you are probably aware, there's been bad blood between Moscow and Constantinople for some time now and there's nothing new in that. It's got worse though, with the Ukrainian thing. There's been a situation for some considerable time where Russian or Russian-affiliated Orthodox who can't, for whatever reason, in all conscience come under the jurisdiction of Moscow can opt to join an 'Exarchate' directly under Constantinople.
A number of dissident Russian priests in continental Europe have done that. A while back when there was a spat within the Diocese of Sourozh here in the UK, a number of British parishes did the same. It all got very complicated and I think Patriarch Bartholomew changed the arrangements. Whatever the case, many of them returned to Sourozh only for the Ukrainian thing to erupt.
I don't know all the ins and outs and don't get involved. You'll hear some claims that Patriarch Bartholomew has dementia, others that he's a CIA stooge ...
Neither Kyrill nor Bartholomew will last forever, of course but I can't see any way out of the current mess and tangle right now. FWIW I tend to see both Bartholomew and Francis as the good guys but I don't know all the ins and outs.
We could get into another tangent here. There are some Orthodox who claim that Patriarch Bartholomew has acted in a positively 'Papal' fashion and I've seen some young hot-heads posting stuff he's alleged to have said that they claim point in that direction.
I'd have thought the other Patriarchates would have had something to say if Bartholomew was acting positively Papal.
The current Greek Archbishop of America, when he was Secretary to the Patrarch of Constantinople, put forward the idea that the Patriarch of Constantinople was "first without equals".
As you are probably aware, there's been bad blood between Moscow and Constantinople for some time now and there's nothing new in that. It's got worse though, with the Ukrainian thing. There's been a situation for some considerable time where Russian or Russian-affiliated Orthodox who can't, for whatever reason, in all conscience come under the jurisdiction of Moscow can opt to join an 'Exarchate' directly under Constantinople.
A number of dissident Russian priests in continental Europe have done that. A while back when there was a spat within the Diocese of Sourozh here in the UK, a number of British parishes did the same. It all got very complicated and I think Patriarch Bartholomew changed the arrangements. Whatever the case, many of them returned to Sourozh only for the Ukrainian thing to erupt.
None of them returned to Sourozh. A minority moved with their Archbishop in Paris to be under Moscow, but separate from Sourozh. Most remained under Constantinople and transferred to the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain.
One priest, formerly under the Ukrainians in USA (under Constantinople), moved back to Sourozh (where he had originally been ordained).
As I said earlier The Roman Church in all its Latin rites sees the 'filioque' as a reasonable addition to the Nicene Creed but is happy for those who do not use it to omit it from the Creed. In searching for agreement then that seems to me again a 'reasonable' statement about something which we cannot really understand.
No we can easily understand what an Ecumenical Council is, and why it's not on to change the proclamations of one without convening another. Not at all difficult to understand.
In attempting to answer the question it raises other questions about what exactly is the 'Petrine ministry' which is not only theological, but also a historical, cultural and political topic which is best left undiscussed.
What I find rather odd is that most of us are quite prepared to differ from the ancient Church's views on (for example) Hell, or divorce, or other religions, but are much more militant about how our understanding of the Trinity is phrased...
This suggests you really don't understand the argument, which is not about how our understanding of the Trinity is phrased.
They may claim to, yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do, in my understanding of how it works. Maybe they do. It would be news to me, if so, but welcome news. (If I am not convinced of it, it doesn't mean ill will--the RCs don't accept that the Anglican churches have Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean they hate us or anything.)
Well, yeah—is it ever more than “claim to have it”? Can any bishop in any church actually establish a “family tree” that traces back to one or more of the apostles?
All the churches that think apostolic succession matters claim to have it, and other churches to whom it matters either accept or reject those claims.
I suspect that the various Coptic and Oriental churches would claim such descent.
I wonder if they even use that phrase (or a translation thereof) at all. Where did it arise? Was it a fudge so that Protestant churches could claim they were catholic (small c)?
I'm interested in the assertion that there was a flourishing Christian community before Peter got to Rome. Presumably there is evidence. Even so, how does that impact his leadership of the church there?
To whom was Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans written if there was no community there? This appears to have been written around 8-10 years before the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. The individuals in Rome named in the Epistle do not include Peter, so the reasonable assumption is that he only arrived some time later. There seems to be no to little evidence of any activity by Saint Peter in Rome prior to his martyrdom.
As I said earlier The Roman Church in all its Latin rites sees the 'filioque' as a reasonable addition to the Nicene Creed but is happy for those who do not use it to omit it from the Creed. In searching for agreement then that seems to me again a 'reasonable' statement about something which we cannot really understand.
No we can easily understand what an Ecumenical Council is, and why it's not on to change the proclamations of one without convening another. Not at all difficult to understand.
In attempting to answer the question it raises other questions about what exactly is the 'Petrine ministry' which is not only theological, but also a historical, cultural and political topic which is best left undiscussed.
I'm happy to leave it undiscussed.
Well, some of us wanted to discuss it ... 😉
@Ex_Organist - it does seem that sources that the Orthodox would respect and recognise such as St Clement of Rome, St Iranaeus of Lyons and Origen (acceptable in parts) all claimed that St Peter was in Rome. We accept all sorts of extra-biblical evidence for other things, why not accept it in this instance?
I don't see why we shouldn't accept that St Peter was in Rome before his martyrdom.
That doesn't mean we have to accept the full 'Petrine' Papal package as it developed in subsequent centuries.
They may claim to, yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do, in my understanding of how it works. Maybe they do. It would be news to me, if so, but welcome news. (If I am not convinced of it, it doesn't mean ill will--the RCs don't accept that the Anglican churches have Apostolic Succession, but that doesn't mean they hate us or anything.)
Well, yeah—is it ever more than “claim to have it”? Can any bishop in any church actually establish a “family tree” that traces back to one or more of the apostles?
All the churches that think apostolic succession matters claim to have it, and other churches to whom it matters either accept or reject those claims.
I suspect that the various Coptic and Oriental churches would claim such descent.
I wonder if they even use that phrase (or a translation thereof) at all. Where did it arise? Was it a fudge so that Protestant churches could claim they were catholic (small c)?
Whether they use the phrase or not, the Copts & Co do believe in Apostolic Succession and claim it also, of course.
I understand the Copts claim descent from Mark and a date of somewhere around 50CE for the establishment of the Church in Egypt.
@Martin54 as is often said on these boards, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence.
It's generally accepted in Christian circles that St Peter was martyred in Rome. I don't see why it's beyond the realms of possibility that he was there for a whole before that took place, unless he was seized as soon as he set foot in the city or stepped off the plane at the airport.
Wrongly. It's often wrongly said. There is no historical evidence, just self-serving myth. Paul never spoke of Peter in Rome, among the 50 odd people he named there, and the First Epistle of Peter wasn't written or even dictated by Peter; it doesn't pass the Bart D. Ehrman test.
Although the text identifies Peter as its author, the language, dating, style, and structure of this letter have led most scholars to conclude that it is pseudonymous.
...
Many scholars argue that Peter was not the author of the letter because its writer appears to have had a formal education in rhetoric and philosophy, and an advanced knowledge of the Greek language, none of which would be usual for a Galilean fisherman.
Mark or Silvanus may have had of course, but would they have dressed up Peter's words?
Another dating issue is the reference to "Babylon" in chapter 5 verse 13, generally agreed to be a claim the letter was written from Rome. It is believed that the identification of Rome with Babylon, the ancient enemy of the Jews, only came after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.
...
Other scholars doubt Petrine authorship because they are convinced that 1 Peter is dependent on the Pauline epistles and thus was written after Paul the Apostle's ministry because it shares many of the same motifs espoused in Ephesians, Colossians, and the Pastoral Epistles.
...
Others argue that it makes little sense to ascribe the work to Peter when it could have been ascribed to Paul.
and finally
On the one hand, some scholars such as Bart D. Ehrman are convinced that the language, dating, literary style, and structure of this text makes it implausible to conclude that 1 Peter was written by Peter. According to these scholars, it is more likely that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous letter, written later by an unknown Christian in his name.
Comments
Well, we believe we can of course. But (I assume) we’re all Christians regardless of AS or Filioque. (Obviously some people aren’t, even in my own denomination, but where the line is would be another thread…)
The Lord matters more.
My understanding is that the use of filioque started in Spain and slowly spread through the West until it was in widespread use. Not papal diktat at all, but an example maybe of Newmans idea of the development of doctrine (under the guidance of the Holy Spirit) which is accepted tacitly in other areas of belief. But it's not about doctrine or the truth at all as has been made clear here. It's about pride and grudges.
I suspect that the various Coptic and Oriental churches would claim such descent.
And the bishops of those tiny breakaway churches with multiple clergy with fancy titles and few lay folk seem keen on showing their lines of succession.
Theres a very thorough Wiki article on the history of the filioque.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_filioque_controversy
Yes, it's about pride and grudges.
Pride on the part of the Papacy.
Grudges on the part of the Orthodox.
So, we are all square.
Now let's drop the clause.
Admit the 'West' got it wrong and we can all move on ...
@Lamb Chopped - of course 'the Lord matters more' - but how do we measure or assess that? How do we know whether the Lord 'matters more' to you or I or the gal or guy down the road?
This isn't about assessing someone's spirituality or commitment to Christ - although I'll accept that there are hot-heads on both sides who'd go in for that - but of agreeing what should or shouldn't be in the Creed.
If it's not an issue then let's not bother with Creeds at all and then everyone can do what is right in their own eyes. Which is pretty much where we're at by the looks of it ...
But I was asking whether in any church that makes such a claim, the claim can be substantiated by evidence establishing an unbroken line of ordination/consecration from one or more apostles to a current bishop. My point was that what @ChastMastr said of the Scandinavian Lutheran churches—“They may claim to [have apostolic succession], yes, but I mean whether or not they actually do”—can be said of all churches that claim apostolic succession.
Unless there are verified “family trees” out there that I'm not aware of, the claims of apostolic succession made by the Catholic Church, the Orthodox churches, the Anglican churches, the Lutheran churches, the Coptic and Oriental churches, or any other churches that claim apostolic succession can only be accepted on faith. We cannot, 20 centuries on, verify those claims.
NB: I’m not saying there are no reasonable arguments for why the claim of apostolic succession should be accepted. I’m just saying there’s no definitive proof, so it’s always going to be a matter of “I think it’s reasonable to accept this claim” rather than “the truth of this claim has been unquestionably established.”
But they would say that wouldn't they? 😉
I believe I'm right in thinking that the Church of Cyprus does. St Andrew?
There'll be others too of course and the Copts and Syriacs, Jacobite etc probably would as well.
This may sound odd coming from an Orthodox Christian, but in one sense of course we are all descended in varying degrees of separation as it were from those early disciples. Otherwise none of us would be here in the first place.
That's not to go all 'Protestant' all of a sudden. I'm not saying that Apostolic Succession isn't important, but from an Orthodox perspective it's keeping the faith and passing it on that's of utmost importance. Apostolic Succession in and of itself is no guarantee that the faith is going to be handed down 'intact' as it were.
The Papacy is a case in point.
No, I'm being serious. It's not that the Orthodox don't recognise the Apostolic origin and credentials behind the Church of Rome in terms of its antiquity and so on. Rather it's a case, I'm afraid, that we think they've wandered out of line on certain things. We've been discussing one of those on this thread - the unilateral addition of the filioque clause to the Creed without conciliar consultation.
We'd see further departures from what we'd regard as 'normative' from the 13th century onwards and also at the Council of Trent. In general, we'd see Vatican 2 as clearing up some late medieval excesses but also introducing some further issues at the same time.
I'm sorry to sound like a stuck gramophone record but that's one of the reasons why we make such a fuss about the filioque clause. We see it as an unnecessary and unconciliar addition which presage further wonky departures from what we'd regard as the 'fullness of the faith' in due course.
Having unilaterally played fast and loose with the Creed the nefarious Papacy could then go on to wreak further havoc leading to further splits, divisions and rebellions. The Protestant Reformation was the biggest and most far-reaching of those.
Ok, I'm simplifying things but that's generally the way the argument runs from the Orthodox side of things. The West innovated unilaterally and without due regard to the Eastern Churches over the filioque clause and thereby caused Schism and chaos.
Rome has a different perspective of course. We were in the wrong and should have toed the 'Petrine' line.
I am putting things in stark terms to underline the reasons why there's been an issue and yes, I fully accept that there are two sides to this and my particular side isn't squeaky clean either.
You'll all know me well enough by now, I hope, to appreciate that I strive to be as eirenic as can be and certainly do not hold my RC and Protestant brothers and sisters in anything other than the highest regard, whatever our theological differences.
If I had my way then that statement @Nick Tamen shared with us from Presbyterian/Orthodox dialogue would be adopted as soon as possible.
Beardie-wierdies on Mount Athos, are you listening?
To put it another way, most people wouldn’t question that Peter was the first (or at least the first major) leader of the Church in Rome, and that understandings of the role of the Bishop of Rome are grounded in that fact. Saying that Pope Francis occupies the Chair of Peter and is the successor of Peter is different from saying that Pope Francis/Jorge Mario Bergoglio was consecrated a bishop by these three bishops, who were consecrated by those three bishops, etc., in a line that can be traced and verified, with names in every “generation,” back to one or more of the apostles.
Sorry for prolonging the tangent.
Saint Barnabas (one of the 70 Apostles) is regarded as the founder of the Church in Cyprus.
Saint Andrew is associated with Constantinople.
I, for one, would question that. The Church in Rome was flourishing long before Saint Peter arrived.
In the New Testament we see a distiction between the role of Apostle (i.e. the 12 Apostles plus Saint Paul), on the one hand, who were itinerant missionaries, and the role of Bishop, on the other hand, as the pastor of a local congregation. The function of Bishop at that time seems to be similar to the fucntion of a Parish Priest today. Saint Peter, as the Chief of the Apostles, was, in a sense, the leader of the whole Church. Most places had only one congegation, and therefore only one Bishop. Current scholarship seems to trend towards the idea that Rome, as a very large city, had several congrgations, and therefore several Bishops, long before Saint Paul and Saint Peter arrived. Saint Peter's major role in Rome seems have been to die as a Martyr and be buried there.
@Ex_Organist will correct me if I'm wrong but I think I've seen Antiochian Orthodox claims that Saint Peter has as much of an association with the Church there as he had with Rome. If not more.
Of course, the Orthodox are going to down-play the Petrine element in reaction to what we see as the RCs over-playing it. Protestants the same. We both have a different take to the one Rome is generally seen to have on the interpretation of 'You are Peter and upon this rock ...'
'This rock' is Peter's confession of Christ.
Be all that as it may, I think we are getting into into very literal territory if we look for proof positive that Saint Barnabas or Saint Thaddeus or Philip or ... laid hands on Bishop Bob who in turn laid hands on Bishop Tony who then laid hands on Bishop Bert who ...
I don't know whether @Ex_Organist would agree with me on that but I don't quite see it in such straightforward terms. That doesn't mean I don't believe in Apostolic Succession nor that some ancient churches can't trace themselves back to the earliest days of the Christian faith.
What I was trying to do, quite inartfully perhaps, was frame the distinction between a church founded or established by specific apostles on one hand and continuity of ordination/consecration from bishop to bishop on the other hand.
But I may have royally flubbed it up.
I'm interested in the assertion that there was a flourishing Christian community before Peter got to Rome. Presumably there is evidence. Even so, how does that impact his leadership of the church there?
I think you misread me. I said nothing to do with spirituality.
The quote I responded to was:
My point was simply that people are more militant about the Trinity because the Trinity (the Lord) matters much more than hell, or divorce, or other religions. He is the center of everything. If people are going to be militant about anything, I'd expect it to be here.
With the eventual retirement of Boomers and Gen Xers, it is safe to say ELCA pastors will be able to claim apostolic succession through the Anglican process. When my son became ordained, a retired Episcopalian bishop who was a good friend of the family participated with the permission of the current bishop.
What is less certain is the idea of one bishop for the whole of Rome. There may have been a number of Christian communities, each of which had 'their' bishop. It is not until the year 142 AD with the election of Pius I that we have definitely only 'one' Bishop of Rome.
Whether these bishops were ordained with exactly the same ceremony as we have today is doubtful but we can believe that the same intentions were present.
There is, to my mind, nothing unusual about this. Over the centuries dioceses have been split up ,suppressed or amalgamated,but what has remained is the belief that certain members of the Christian flock have been commissioned to serve that flock in the service of Word and Sacrament.
If I am not wrong Presbyterians ordain clergy to the ministry of Word and Sacrament by the laying on of hands. It's a sort of Apostolic Succession without calling it that.
Rightio. Ok. Apologies for getting the wrong end of the stick.
Ok, very briefly, both the Orthodox and Protestants would acknowledge that 'rock' is a pun on Peter's name - a form of Cephas in Aramaic and Petros in Greek.
What we'd both insist on, I think, is that the Church's foundation is on Jesus Christ and Peter's confession of Christ and his steadfast obedience even unto death ('Quo Vadis, Petrus?') flows out from that. A kind of 'Big Rock'/'Little rock' thing.
Peter, in and of himself, is only 'foundational', if we can put it that way, in a secondary sense and on the basis of his confession of Christ.
No Christ, no confession. No confession of Christ no Church.
Ok, I'm being pedantic. It's not as if the Orthodox despise Peter and want to take him down a peg or two. Far from it. I can't remember which controversy it was nor which Pope Leo it was but there is the famous incident (so famous that I've forgotten which one!) when the Pope settled an issue to a chorus of, 'Peter has spoken through Leo!' from the eastern Patriarchs.
The Orthodox understanding is that the Church is built through Peter on the basis of his confession of Christ. I think Tertullian made that point as did Saint John Chrysostom.
The true Rock is Christ himself - see 1 Corinthians 10:4.
https://biblehub.com/1_corinthians/10-4.htm
By consigning the Apostle Peter to Little Rock Arkansas, as it were
We are all in the foothills. The Apostle Peter included.
I don't see how it diminishes Saint Peter's importance in the overall scheme of things if there were Christians in Rome before he arrived. Why should it?
In the Book of Acts and in the Epistles we see both mission into virgin territory and visits to places to where Christianity had already gained some kind of foothold. The two aren't mutually exclusive. We also find people who were in some kind of half-way house stage having 'only' received the 'baptism of John.'
My suspicion is that the situation in the early Church was far more fluid and messy than many of us might care to acknowledge. That doesn't mean that 'anything goes', but it does mean that some kind of 'system' or consensus steadily emerged.
And the consensus things leads me back to the conciliarity point. Ha! See what I did there?
Google also threw up this interesting blog-post on Orthodox vs RC understandings of the Petrine office:
https://jessicahof.blog/2012/07/09/peter-speaks-through-leo/
Sleight of hand on both sides?
But it is interesting that whilst Antioch claims Saint Peter as its first bishop, it makes no claim to universal authority on the basis of that, unlike Rome which does.
Maybe if Antioch had been, and had continued to be the centre of an Empire.........
18th January was St Peter's Chair at Rome (which became the beginning of the Octave for Christian Unity) . Pope John XXIII deleted this day from the General Roman Calendar but retained the other Petrine feast day,22nd February as the Chair of St Peter at Antioch.
From Jerusalem we believe that Peter went to Antioch and from there on to Rome.
As well as the play on words 'Tu es Petrus et super hanc petram' (You are Peter and on this rock)there was the fact that the Apostle died in Rome and that Rome was at that time an extremely important city.
From an Orthodox perspective Rome can be an elder brother as it were, but not Big Brother.
There are weirdoes who will insist that the Pope is antichrist of course, same as there are within Protestant fundamentalism.
On the filioque thing, the Orthodox wouldn't only insist on the removal of the clause they'd also want to see a reevaluation of the emphasis on the Pope as Universal Pontiff. Primus inter pares perhaps. Not Primus Uber Pares.
Yes, and at least among US Presbyterians, deacons and elders are also ordained by laying on of hands. And yes, it is sort of Apostolic Succession without calling it that, but only sort of. Apostolic succession as understood in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and other churches—including other concepts that flow from it, such as sacraments only being valid if administered by one ordained by one in apostolic succession—simply isn’t part of our understanding.
To whom was Saint Paul's Epistle to the Romans written if there was no community there? This appears to have been written around 8-10 years before the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul. The individuals in Rome named in the Epistle do not include Peter, so the reasonable assumption is that he only arrived some time later. There seems to be no to little evidence of any activity by Saint Peter in Rome prior to his martyrdom.
The relative prestige of the ancient Patriarchates seems to be based entirely on the ranking of their cities within the Roman Empire rather than on their foundation as Christian communities.
Peter seems to be rather absent from the post-gospel New Testament. Who wrote the letters that carry his name, I wonder.
I think Francis is trying to spread the load of the papacy by appointing a cabinet of advisors from dioceses across the world and by borrowing the idea of synod from other churches. But he is kicking against centuries of power in the Vatican, and there are those on the Conservative wing who are having none of it and are waiting for his successor.
Happily Francis and Patriarch Bartholemew seem to get on very well, despite what is thought and felt in the pews. The same can't be said of Kirill of Moscow.
I'd have thought the other Patriarchates would have had something to say if Bartholomew was acting positively Papal.
As you are probably aware, there's been bad blood between Moscow and Constantinople for some time now and there's nothing new in that. It's got worse though, with the Ukrainian thing. There's been a situation for some considerable time where Russian or Russian-affiliated Orthodox who can't, for whatever reason, in all conscience come under the jurisdiction of Moscow can opt to join an 'Exarchate' directly under Constantinople.
A number of dissident Russian priests in continental Europe have done that. A while back when there was a spat within the Diocese of Sourozh here in the UK, a number of British parishes did the same. It all got very complicated and I think Patriarch Bartholomew changed the arrangements. Whatever the case, many of them returned to Sourozh only for the Ukrainian thing to erupt.
I don't know all the ins and outs and don't get involved. You'll hear some claims that Patriarch Bartholomew has dementia, others that he's a CIA stooge ...
Neither Kyrill nor Bartholomew will last forever, of course but I can't see any way out of the current mess and tangle right now. FWIW I tend to see both Bartholomew and Francis as the good guys but I don't know all the ins and outs.
The current Greek Archbishop of America, when he was Secretary to the Patrarch of Constantinople, put forward the idea that the Patriarch of Constantinople was "first without equals".
None of them returned to Sourozh. A minority moved with their Archbishop in Paris to be under Moscow, but separate from Sourozh. Most remained under Constantinople and transferred to the Archdiocese of Thyateira and Great Britain.
One priest, formerly under the Ukrainians in USA (under Constantinople), moved back to Sourozh (where he had originally been ordained).
Incidentally, I've heard that's what the Greek Archbishop of America said but have no idea whether it represents what Patriarch Bartholomew thinks.
All this is new to me and I find it a pain in the arse to be honest.
No we can easily understand what an Ecumenical Council is, and why it's not on to change the proclamations of one without convening another. Not at all difficult to understand.
I'm happy to leave it undiscussed.
This suggests you really don't understand the argument, which is not about how our understanding of the Trinity is phrased.
I wonder if they even use that phrase (or a translation thereof) at all. Where did it arise? Was it a fudge so that Protestant churches could claim they were catholic (small c)?
And even then.
Coming to Rome.
According to First Peter.
Well, some of us wanted to discuss it ... 😉
@Ex_Organist - it does seem that sources that the Orthodox would respect and recognise such as St Clement of Rome, St Iranaeus of Lyons and Origen (acceptable in parts) all claimed that St Peter was in Rome. We accept all sorts of extra-biblical evidence for other things, why not accept it in this instance?
I don't see why we shouldn't accept that St Peter was in Rome before his martyrdom.
That doesn't mean we have to accept the full 'Petrine' Papal package as it developed in subsequent centuries.
Just sayin' ...
Whether they use the phrase or not, the Copts & Co do believe in Apostolic Succession and claim it also, of course.
I understand the Copts claim descent from Mark and a date of somewhere around 50CE for the establishment of the Church in Egypt.
@Martin54 as is often said on these boards, absence of evidence isn't necessarily evidence of absence.
It's generally accepted in Christian circles that St Peter was martyred in Rome. I don't see why it's beyond the realms of possibility that he was there for a whole before that took place, unless he was seized as soon as he set foot in the city or stepped off the plane at the airport.
Mark or Silvanus may have had of course, but would they have dressed up Peter's words?
and finally