This is the best version of the Eastern Orthodox position I've heard. Fr. can reasonably account for the fullness of Church history, unlike the low-brow polemical arguments I'm used to hearing. It's as convincing a case as I've heard from the Eastern Orthodox. There are problems with it though, and it only makes me more convincedly Catholic. Why is Constantine's establishment of New Rome seemingly held in the same regard as divine revelation? This was a decree from a man in charge of the secular sphere. He had no spiritual authority. Why should that decision have such a lasting impact on the church's governance? Perhaps we can grant that Constantine establishing a New Rome is the result of divine providence, and carries with it some authority. But Constantinople has fallen and has been Muslim for centuries. The empire no longer exists. Why is it the case that the establishment of Constantinopole as the New Rome is evidence of divine providence, but the fall of Constantinople is not evidence of the same? What does that mean for the hierarchical structure of the Church and of Petrine authority? And who has the God-given authority to make that interpretation? Moreover, what would the Russian Orthodox say about the ecclesiology Fr. Ramsey has espoused here? The Eastern Orthodox become less coherent the more you scope out to the universal level. It seems to me the Catholic Church's view of the Eastern Orthodox is more consistent with Church history than are the diversity of views we hear in the reverse direction. We as Catholics are bound to certain beliefs with respect to the Eastern Orthodox. The Church protects us from making errors in our evaluations of them; it has exercised its teaching authority with prudence in that regard. It does not take much engagement with the Eastern Orthodox to know the reverse is not true. And this is not reserved to the online sphere, as many Catholics like to say. The Eastern Orthodox priests and lay people I meet in their churches often tell me we have no sacraments and no clergy, and like to use the Catholic Church's clear teaching on the Eastern Orthodox as a gotcha against the Catholic Church. How is it the supposed One True Church can't get this right after a thousand years? All of that being said, this is extremely helpful. It ought to push conversation forward, though I would not bet my shoes on that happening any time soon. Thank you both.
St Constantine's establishment of New Rome was a political decision within the scope of his authority as the legitimate Roman Emperor. He had no authority in regard to the priorities of the bishops of the Church. I haven't seen any evidence that he intended an elevation of the bishop of then Byzantium to a higher rank and such an intention would have no effect in the Church other than perhaps a title of honour, just as St Leo states. (As an aside, the faithful are to obey the government in the place in which they are located as long as that obedience is not contrary to the Tradition of the Apostles. Thus, the emperor could not be said to have absolutely no authority on matters affecting the Church. The argument must be rather whether that authority has been exercised consistently with Apostolic Tradition.) It was the bishops, following the decision of the Apostles to establish Rome as the first See, that recognised the bishop of Constantinople as having the priorities of honour after Rome on account of the identity of Constantinople to Rome as New Rome. This was confirmed at an ecumenical council about 50 years after the founding of Constantinople as New Rome and nothing to do with St Constantine himself. A further explanation of the recognition as well as the privileges was given at Chalcedon as well as limits to protect metropolitan rights in line with St Leo's protection of these rights. Chalcedon did not implement the rank of New Rome, which had already occurred 70 years prior, but only confirmed it. God's will on the matter was testified by the canons passed in these two councils by the bishops. The recognition was not at the emperor's authority and the bishops had no control on the founding of Constantinople as New Rome. The argument of St Leo was directed against the bishops for failing to decide consistently with Apostolic Tradition and not about the emperor's interference in regard to this matter. Normally establishing a new city does not change the order of churches. Establishing a new capital would be likewise. Thus, on the surface, the position of St Leo seems to be correct regarding the ranking of Constantinople. The justification of the Fathers in recognising the rank of Constantinople must be more than this because the evidence at the Council in other canons that they confirmed is consistent with St Leo's position. These Fathers, most, if not all, of whom are saints, were quite capable and determined to understand and defend the doctrine of one hypostasis from and in two natures, which is not a matter of simplistic logic. Thus, they were not likely to affirm a canon that was inconsistent with their other canons or with the Tradition of the Church. We need to look more carefully at the reason for the ranking, which is clearly stated as being "New Rome". The "Fathers" in Canon 28 of Chalcedon refer to the Apostles; there is no other record of a decision to recognise the priorities of Old Rome after them. The Fathers of Chalcedon speak of "the same object and aim", that is they are following and implementing the decision of the Apostles for the same reason as the Apostles and according to the logic of the Apostles as from Christ. The Fathers considered that they were obeying the Apostolic, and Divine, will and fulfilling their decision. How so? The reason is that Constantine did not establish a new capital in Constantinople, but rather he cloned Rome onto the then Byzantium. Constantinople was the same city as Rome according to her position as capital; Constantinople was the same capital city as Rome, hence New Rome. It is this identity with Rome that is key and not simply being capital as a capital. Its identity with Rome in found in being the same capital and same city as cloned onto another location. The Fathers acted not because Constantinople was established as an imperial capital, as St Leo understood, but because Constantinople was identified as the city of Rome itself. Given that Constantinople was not understood as a distinctly new city, but rather as another manifestation of the same city, the issue moves away from a change according to a new city in the Empire to one of confirming the privileges already given by the Apostles to the bishop of that city because it was the same Rome to which they gave the privileges. The Fathers either had to deny that Constantinople was New Rome, which would deny the legitimate authority of the Emperor as Emperor, which would be contrary to the command of St Paul, or to deny the intent of the Apostles regarding Rome and thus deny Apostolic Tradition. The only other question is how could another bishop hold the same authority as the bishop of Rome as being singular among the bishops. The answer is the same as that justifying St Paul to be prince of Apostles alongside St Peter and equal to him, even though St Paul was not qualified to be an Apostle according to the rules in Acts for choosing Mathias to replace Judas. The reason for this is that the singularity of authority is not found in man himself, nor in an institution on earth, but in Christ in His one Body that is manifest in the institutions on earth, which point to this singularity, but are not the singularity in themselves. That Constantinople is second to Rome also preserves the singularity even on earth. Also, because Constantinople is Rome, it does not displace Alexandria from second place, because Alexandria is still second to only Rome, Old and New as St Leo argued correctly if Constantinople was distinctly a new city. That the Empire no longer exists is irrelevant to the continuing authority of the churches that are established in the Tradition of the Church. The eastern churches did not reject the priorities of Old Rome when it ceased to function as the capital of the Empire nor when it effectively broke from the Empire in the Ninth Century. While the Apostles mapped the hierarchal structure of the Church on the rankings of the Empire, once established the church hierarchal structure does not change according to Imperial changes, but remains even when the Empire finished. There are a number of canons making this clear. The Russians have moved to a very flat model of hierarchy in regard to the patriarchs, although they have a very centralised structure within the Patriarchate of Moscow, so exhibit a level of inconsistency. That the Russians may be wrong on this point is not an issue, there are many times even in the first Millennium where churches or whole regions of churches had different opinions on matters without denying them as churches in the Church or the unity of the Church as such. There is a point where the differences do lead to a break in communion as between Old and New Rome in the Eleventh Century, but that is after centuries of divergence. If we go to the Ninth Century, we will find an increasing incoherence between the positions of Old and New Rome on a wide range of matters, but still they continued as churches in the unity of the Church until the Eleventh Century. From my consideration of the historical evidence, the position of the papacy regarding Orthodox churches has shifted over time and its consistency is only true in so far as it is expressed by the official documents of a specific time. It may well change in a century or three. This only demonstrates a centralisation of authority, which is itself a matter of dispute so that the Orthodox have a wider range of view may support the Orthodox position as in opposition to this level of centralisation. One aspect of Old Roman centralisation is that the position of the "Church" is expressed and found in modern official documents of present authority. The Orthodox position is maintained in her universally received councils in decrees and canons, obedience to which each bishop confesses at his consecration. Yes, there are a variety of positions now, but the official position is not to be found in a modern document of the Moscow Patriarchate or the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but the in the Ecumenical Councils. One may then argue that the present sees are not speaking consistently with these and this doesn't matter so long as the bishops are not consecrated confessing obedience to these modern statements. To say that the Orthodox churches have not got it right for a thousand years is actually to say that even the papacy has not got it right, because the official positions of the Orthodox Churches are claimed to be the official position of the papacy, excepting some canons that seem to be accepted and then unaccepted depending on the pope in power. Hence, we come to the present discussion as to whose continuing structure, setting aside certain corruptions in practice and ideas, is more consistent with this common heritage. We can break this down into, is the continuing structure of Orthodox Catholic churches reasonably consistent with this heritage, even if abused or misunderstood, and whether the papal additions to this heritage are consistent with it as well as its continuing structure, even if abused or misunderstood. The next discussion in a couple of weeks should hopefully address these questions further.
Very educational, like someone else said the best presentation I’ve seen of an actually patristic Orthodox view of Petrine power. I would really appreciate Erick’s reply to the parts he disagrees with
Excellent content and discussion Erick with Fr. Patrick. Between following you and the Catholic Brothers these are the ways to be engaging one another in these open dialogues. Thanks for your great work! Your book Melchizedek And The Last Supper is amazing......Thank you both!
Why do multiple fathers compare Peter to Moses, e.g. St Makarios: "Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ and the true priesthood"? (Hom. 26)
🙏 “In the Old Testament, Moses and Aaron, when they held the priesthood, had much to suffer. Caiaphas (Peter) when he occupied their seat, himself persecuted and condemned the Lord; yet the Lord, in respect for the priesthood, suffered him to execute the office. The prophets likewise were persecuted by their own nation. Peter was the successor of Moses, entrusted with Christ's new church and with the true priesthood; for we have now a baptism of fire and the Spirit, and a circumcision in the heart. For the divine and heavenly Spirit lodges in the mind; nevertheless even these perfect ones, so long as they are in the flesh, are not free from anxiety, because of the freedom of their will, but are still subject to fear…” -St. Macarius of Alexandria, Homily 26, Paragraph 21-23, page 195-197 (4th century. Died- A.D. 395; One of the Desert Fathers, advanced the ideal of monasticism in Egypt and influenced its development throughout Christendom.) -Translation by: AJ Mason D.D, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (1908) Back to the 2nd century Church: “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.” -St Irenaeus of Lyons, ‘On The Roman See, Book 3, chapter/section 3.2-3.3 (180AD) ❤️🔥
It would be interesting to hear Father's thoughts on which canonized saints in his view provide the clearest articulation of his theory of one divinely instituted Rome manifested in the cities of Rome and Constantinople and irrevocably graced with ecclesiastical primacy.
First 1000 years of orthodox bishops, "we support the papacy forever" 2nd 1000 years of newage orthodox in name only, "yea we lost power, the papacy is wrong now, we want yeast"
Now we want yeast? Obviously a degradation of our Eucharist. I suggest you read your own historians , who concur Rome had yeast from the beginning as did the East.
Pray for a woman named Daniela.She suffers from lung cancer.Pray that she may converts to the Catholic faith if she is not Catholic and may she be healed
Very interesting. EO here, and Fr Patrick could solve all the schisms, correcting Rome, Constantinople, and Moscow. Also, he’s argued for “Rome” as a point of scared geography, like Sinai/Horeb/Mountain of God, Jerusalem, Babylon, etc. I’m thinking of Richard Rollin’s accounts of sacred geography on Pageau’s channel.
This just complicated things for me even more. I appreciate the civility of the dialogue, unlike many in this sphere. The Catholics at least recognize the Orthodox as valid churches which the Orthodox do not reciprocate. I just can’t get over the universalism of the Catholic Church with 1.3 billion members where there’s just over 230 million Orthodox and it seems very regional. The Bishop of Rome document from a few weeks ago seems to concede many points to the Orthodox. I just want to be in an Apostolic Church, receive the Eucharist and worship God correctly.
@@b0ondockz838 it’s called the “Bishop of Rome” document or if you type that in, it will show up. It came out on June 13, 2024 and states the Orthodox maintained their Synod structure from the first millennia and seems to concede ground to them on the infallibility issue.
The papacy document was a study document which tries to portray the positions of other communions. This was not a magisterial document nor a proposal for changes by Rome. So take it with a grain of salt.
@@forehead949 sorry it seems to echo everything this Priest said. They maintained their synod structures, have valid sacraments and Apostolic succession? I’m in RCIA right now and this is very eye opening.
@@MrAwak3 i commend the you for doing a deep dive as a new convert. While this document seems troubling, it explicitly states that it is not a teaching document so don’t lose sleep over it. The Catholic Church has a history of trying to reconcile apparent dissenters with Herself. I’d encourage you to watch Timothy Flanders video on “the Greek schisms” it shows how it was Rome that historically upheld orthodoxy in the first millennium and how each schisms was a result of a lack of a true Pentecostal spirit of certain churches. This is the spirit of ONE faith in MULTIPLE languages which the Catholic Church has attempted to honor.
Pray for a man named Sven-Göran Erikkson who has a few months left to live that he may converts to the Catholic faith if he is not Catholic.Spread the information
What is stopping Vladimir Putin from building a city on 7 hills and calling it new new Rome and making the Bishop there equal to the bishop of Rome, in fr Ramseys view?
Vladimir Putin isn't an emperor of the Roman Empire in succession from Augustus so he has no legitimate authority to found a city for the Empire, let alone a new Rome. Secondly, the decision to recognise the bishop of such a city as has the privileges of Rome is that of the bishops as confirmed at an ecumenical council. The Russian "Third Rome" concept fails on this account and it is was never recognised other than by Russians.
Quite interesting and thought-provoking, it is nice how this was the first part, as everything in this video is equally true for EO and Catholics. I would like to hear Father Ramsey's thoughts on Peter's brother Andrew's connection with Constantinople. I find it quite interesting how it seems that Andrew followed Christ first, Peter is chosen to be the head of the Apostles, very reminiscent of Manasseh and Ephraim. Another apostolic mark that you might give Rome is if you put any stock in the account of John being boiled there. This would give Rome its own Pillars of the Church as Paul referred to Paul, James and John as in Jerusalem.
"I would like to hear Father Ramsey's thoughts on Peter's brother Andrew's connection with Constantinople" There is zero proof that Andrew ever went even near Constantinople. It is a legend to bolster the orthodox claim to historicity and tradition: "our See was founded by Andrew, the first called!" There is no historical proof whatsoever supporting this. It is an orthodox legend, fabricated to serve political goals.
@@voxpopuli8132 I don't reject St Andrew's connection with then Byzantium and it may be true. However, I don't think that it adds anything to the position and I tend to agree that it seems to be a rather late idea to bolster the position of Constantinople. Even if it is true, it is not the grounds for the rank of Constantinople as founded by St Constantine. If the rank was due to St Andrew then it would have had the rank from the time of the Apostles as Byzantium, but rather it was a minor city and minor rank in the churches until the foundation of New Rome. At this stage, it is actually the privileges of St Peter that are inherited and not of St Andrew.
@@johnramsey5651 "At this stage, it is actually the privileges of St Peter that are inherited and not of St Andrew." So it means, that the See of Peter has absolute Historical Primacy, correct? Probably, the See of Constantinople did not exist until Constantine founded it in 330. Also, if that is the case, then the first bishop or patriarch must have been directly consecrated by the Pope right? the Pope consecrates bishops. This in itself is a deadly blow to any claims of ortho sovereignty. If you claim St Andrew founded your church, you can have some of that (independence) _in_theory_. But, if your first bishop was consecrated by the pope, any such claims are instantly out the window, onto the garbage heap it goes.
@@voxpopuli8132 I am not sure what you mean by "absolute Historical Primacy?" The See of Byzantium may have existed from the time of the Apostles, but that the bishop of that location became the Bishop of New Rome was not until Constantine. The bishops of Constantinople or previously of Byzantium were never ordained by the Bishop of Rome. The bishops were consecrated by their local metropolitan synods. The metropolitan was ordained by the exarch or patriarch of the wider region (diocese in Roman Imperial terms). The exarchs or patriarchs were ordained by their local metropolitan synod, just as the Bishop of Rome was ordained by the bishops of his local metropolis. The patriarchs were not ordained by the Bishop or Pope of Rome. That the Pope consecrates "all" bishops is part of the reason for the Schism and it was contrary to prior canonical practice and Canon 28 made it clear that this was not a privilege of the See of Rome, which had to respect the jurisdiction of metropolitans to ordain the bishops of their provinces. Also, papal authority, or that of any see of priority, is not inherited through ordination by a prior pope or metropolitan because ordination of a new bishop happens only after the death of the previous bishop and is done by the bishops of the local metropolis headed by the second bishop of the metropolis. Thus, the papal authority cannot be passed from bishop to bishop of Rome, but it resides in the throne of the city such that the bishop ordained for that city inherits and exercises that authority.
Just like in the end only Judah lasted, so it will happen with the See of Peter. The rock that the constructors rejected became the founding rock. There were 5 Sees, 5 rocks, but David defeated the Giant with only 1.
Would Moscow be considered Third Rome in Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology? If Moscow and Constantinople were to remain in schism, would this be “another Roman” schism? And are the actions of Moscow in the territories of Alexandria a way to establish the other Petrine sees after the schism (seems like Antioch is already on the side of Moscow, so Constantinople might be losing Antioch).
On a theological level, this would explain many things.Especially that Alexandria and Antioch were in fact, not demoted, as old Rome thought. So if I understand correctly, the East also have Peter and Paul. And if so, this puts the ball back to Old Rome and its claims.
This explains nothing of the sort. Peter is first and signifies the unity of the Church - Peter's barque. You are either under his jurisdiction, or not in the Church at all.
@@voxpopuli8132 tell that to the Eastern rite Catholics who no longer use the filioque, venerate Orthodox saints that reject Romes claims, and say they believe everything the Orthodox believe..
@@ronfeledichuk531 Yawn. That was the sign of Papal goodwill and tolerance after the union of Brest, to leave the ortho liturgical calendar untouched. It speaks to the kind and gentle approach of the popes more than anything else. While I emphatically disagree with this, i do understand it. With me at the helm, my very first thing would have been to throw out those heretics, believe you me.
![The Papacy: Revisiting the Debate Between Catholics and Orthodox [Introduction]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mVSlhmjvDB0/mqdefault.jpg)
This is the best version of the Eastern Orthodox position I've heard. Fr. can reasonably account for the fullness of Church
history, unlike the low-brow polemical arguments I'm used to hearing. It's as convincing a case as I've heard
from the Eastern Orthodox.
There are problems with it though, and it only makes me more convincedly Catholic.
Why is Constantine's establishment of New Rome seemingly held in the same regard as divine revelation?
This was a decree from a man in charge of the secular sphere. He had no spiritual authority. Why should
that decision have such a lasting impact on the church's governance?
Perhaps we can grant that Constantine establishing a New Rome is the result of divine providence, and carries with
it some authority. But Constantinople has fallen and has been Muslim for centuries. The empire no longer exists.
Why is it the case that the establishment of Constantinopole as the New Rome is evidence of divine providence,
but the fall of Constantinople is not evidence of the same? What does that mean for the hierarchical
structure of the Church and of Petrine authority? And who has the God-given authority to make that
interpretation?
Moreover, what would the Russian Orthodox say about the ecclesiology Fr. Ramsey has espoused here? The Eastern
Orthodox become less coherent the more you scope out to the universal level.
It seems to me the Catholic Church's view of the Eastern Orthodox is more consistent with Church history
than are the diversity of views we hear in the reverse direction. We as Catholics are bound to certain beliefs
with respect to the Eastern Orthodox. The Church protects us from making errors in our evaluations of them; it
has exercised its teaching authority with prudence in that regard. It does not take much engagement with the Eastern
Orthodox to know the reverse is not true. And this is not reserved to the online sphere, as many Catholics like
to say. The Eastern Orthodox priests and lay people I meet in their churches often tell me we have no sacraments
and no clergy, and like to use the Catholic Church's clear teaching on the Eastern Orthodox as a gotcha against
the Catholic Church. How is it the supposed One True Church can't get this right after a thousand years?
All of that being said, this is extremely helpful. It ought to push conversation forward, though I would not bet
my shoes on that happening any time soon. Thank you both.
St Constantine's establishment of New Rome was a political decision within the scope of his authority as the legitimate Roman Emperor. He had no authority in regard to the priorities of the bishops of the Church. I haven't seen any evidence that he intended an elevation of the bishop of then Byzantium to a higher rank and such an intention would have no effect in the Church other than perhaps a title of honour, just as St Leo states. (As an aside, the faithful are to obey the government in the place in which they are located as long as that obedience is not contrary to the Tradition of the Apostles. Thus, the emperor could not be said to have absolutely no authority on matters affecting the Church. The argument must be rather whether that authority has been exercised consistently with Apostolic Tradition.)
It was the bishops, following the decision of the Apostles to establish Rome as the first See, that recognised the bishop of Constantinople as having the priorities of honour after Rome on account of the identity of Constantinople to Rome as New Rome. This was confirmed at an ecumenical council about 50 years after the founding of Constantinople as New Rome and nothing to do with St Constantine himself. A further explanation of the recognition as well as the privileges was given at Chalcedon as well as limits to protect metropolitan rights in line with St Leo's protection of these rights. Chalcedon did not implement the rank of New Rome, which had already occurred 70 years prior, but only confirmed it. God's will on the matter was testified by the canons passed in these two councils by the bishops. The recognition was not at the emperor's authority and the bishops had no control on the founding of Constantinople as New Rome. The argument of St Leo was directed against the bishops for failing to decide consistently with Apostolic Tradition and not about the emperor's interference in regard to this matter. Normally establishing a new city does not change the order of churches. Establishing a new capital would be likewise. Thus, on the surface, the position of St Leo seems to be correct regarding the ranking of Constantinople. The justification of the Fathers in recognising the rank of Constantinople must be more than this because the evidence at the Council in other canons that they confirmed is consistent with St Leo's position. These Fathers, most, if not all, of whom are saints, were quite capable and determined to understand and defend the doctrine of one hypostasis from and in two natures, which is not a matter of simplistic logic. Thus, they were not likely to affirm a canon that was inconsistent with their other canons or with the Tradition of the Church. We need to look more carefully at the reason for the ranking, which is clearly stated as being "New Rome". The "Fathers" in Canon 28 of Chalcedon refer to the Apostles; there is no other record of a decision to recognise the priorities of Old Rome after them. The Fathers of Chalcedon speak of "the same object and aim", that is they are following and implementing the decision of the Apostles for the same reason as the Apostles and according to the logic of the Apostles as from Christ. The Fathers considered that they were obeying the Apostolic, and Divine, will and fulfilling their decision. How so? The reason is that Constantine did not establish a new capital in Constantinople, but rather he cloned Rome onto the then Byzantium. Constantinople was the same city as Rome according to her position as capital; Constantinople was the same capital city as Rome, hence New Rome. It is this identity with Rome that is key and not simply being capital as a capital. Its identity with Rome in found in being the same capital and same city as cloned onto another location. The Fathers acted not because Constantinople was established as an imperial capital, as St Leo understood, but because Constantinople was identified as the city of Rome itself. Given that Constantinople was not understood as a distinctly new city, but rather as another manifestation of the same city, the issue moves away from a change according to a new city in the Empire to one of confirming the privileges already given by the Apostles to the bishop of that city because it was the same Rome to which they gave the privileges. The Fathers either had to deny that Constantinople was New Rome, which would deny the legitimate authority of the Emperor as Emperor, which would be contrary to the command of St Paul, or to deny the intent of the Apostles regarding Rome and thus deny Apostolic Tradition. The only other question is how could another bishop hold the same authority as the bishop of Rome as being singular among the bishops. The answer is the same as that justifying St Paul to be prince of Apostles alongside St Peter and equal to him, even though St Paul was not qualified to be an Apostle according to the rules in Acts for choosing Mathias to replace Judas. The reason for this is that the singularity of authority is not found in man himself, nor in an institution on earth, but in Christ in His one Body that is manifest in the institutions on earth, which point to this singularity, but are not the singularity in themselves. That Constantinople is second to Rome also preserves the singularity even on earth. Also, because Constantinople is Rome, it does not displace Alexandria from second place, because Alexandria is still second to only Rome, Old and New as St Leo argued correctly if Constantinople was distinctly a new city.
That the Empire no longer exists is irrelevant to the continuing authority of the churches that are established in the Tradition of the Church. The eastern churches did not reject the priorities of Old Rome when it ceased to function as the capital of the Empire nor when it effectively broke from the Empire in the Ninth Century. While the Apostles mapped the hierarchal structure of the Church on the rankings of the Empire, once established the church hierarchal structure does not change according to Imperial changes, but remains even when the Empire finished. There are a number of canons making this clear.
The Russians have moved to a very flat model of hierarchy in regard to the patriarchs, although they have a very centralised structure within the Patriarchate of Moscow, so exhibit a level of inconsistency. That the Russians may be wrong on this point is not an issue, there are many times even in the first Millennium where churches or whole regions of churches had different opinions on matters without denying them as churches in the Church or the unity of the Church as such. There is a point where the differences do lead to a break in communion as between Old and New Rome in the Eleventh Century, but that is after centuries of divergence. If we go to the Ninth Century, we will find an increasing incoherence between the positions of Old and New Rome on a wide range of matters, but still they continued as churches in the unity of the Church until the Eleventh Century.
From my consideration of the historical evidence, the position of the papacy regarding Orthodox churches has shifted over time and its consistency is only true in so far as it is expressed by the official documents of a specific time. It may well change in a century or three. This only demonstrates a centralisation of authority, which is itself a matter of dispute so that the Orthodox have a wider range of view may support the Orthodox position as in opposition to this level of centralisation. One aspect of Old Roman centralisation is that the position of the "Church" is expressed and found in modern official documents of present authority. The Orthodox position is maintained in her universally received councils in decrees and canons, obedience to which each bishop confesses at his consecration. Yes, there are a variety of positions now, but the official position is not to be found in a modern document of the Moscow Patriarchate or the Ecumenical Patriarchate, but the in the Ecumenical Councils. One may then argue that the present sees are not speaking consistently with these and this doesn't matter so long as the bishops are not consecrated confessing obedience to these modern statements. To say that the Orthodox churches have not got it right for a thousand years is actually to say that even the papacy has not got it right, because the official positions of the Orthodox Churches are claimed to be the official position of the papacy, excepting some canons that seem to be accepted and then unaccepted depending on the pope in power. Hence, we come to the present discussion as to whose continuing structure, setting aside certain corruptions in practice and ideas, is more consistent with this common heritage. We can break this down into, is the continuing structure of Orthodox Catholic churches reasonably consistent with this heritage, even if abused or misunderstood, and whether the papal additions to this heritage are consistent with it as well as its continuing structure, even if abused or misunderstood. The next discussion in a couple of weeks should hopefully address these questions further.
Very educational, like someone else said the best presentation I’ve seen of an actually patristic Orthodox view of Petrine power. I would really appreciate Erick’s reply to the parts he disagrees with
Excellent content and discussion Erick with Fr. Patrick. Between following you and the Catholic Brothers these are the ways to be engaging one another in these open dialogues. Thanks for your great work! Your book Melchizedek And The Last Supper is amazing......Thank you both!
thanks! God bless
Why do multiple fathers compare Peter to Moses, e.g. St Makarios: "Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ and the true priesthood"? (Hom. 26)
Papacy in Exodus 18
🙏
“In the Old Testament, Moses and Aaron, when they held the priesthood, had much to suffer. Caiaphas (Peter) when he occupied their seat, himself persecuted and condemned the Lord; yet the Lord, in respect for the priesthood, suffered him to execute the office. The prophets likewise were persecuted by their own nation.
Peter was the successor of Moses, entrusted with Christ's new church and with the true priesthood; for we have now a baptism of fire and the Spirit, and a circumcision in the heart.
For the divine and heavenly Spirit lodges in the mind; nevertheless even these perfect ones, so long as they are in the flesh, are not free from anxiety, because of the freedom of their will, but are still subject to fear…”
-St. Macarius of Alexandria, Homily 26, Paragraph 21-23, page 195-197 (4th century. Died- A.D. 395; One of the Desert Fathers, advanced the ideal of monasticism in Egypt and influenced its development throughout Christendom.)
-Translation by: AJ Mason D.D, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Cambridge (1908)
Back to the 2nd century Church:
“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things.”
-St Irenaeus of Lyons, ‘On The Roman See, Book 3, chapter/section 3.2-3.3
(180AD)
❤️🔥
Always enjoy hearing from Fr. Ramsey. Great conversation thank you for this.
It would be interesting to hear Father's thoughts on which canonized saints in his view provide the clearest articulation of his theory of one divinely instituted Rome manifested in the cities of Rome and Constantinople and irrevocably graced with ecclesiastical primacy.
First 1000 years of orthodox bishops, "we support the papacy forever"
2nd 1000 years of newage orthodox in name only, "yea we lost power, the papacy is wrong now, we want yeast"
The Roman church used yeast from the beginning. Please read your own historians and quit showing everyone how uneducated you are.
Now we want yeast? Obviously a degradation of our Eucharist. I suggest you read your own historians , who concur Rome had yeast from the beginning as did the East.
I loved this and happy that there will be part two 🙏🏻 thanks to both
Excellent Conversation! Love the content!
Pray for a woman named Daniela.She suffers from lung cancer.Pray that she may converts to the Catholic faith if she is not Catholic and may she be healed
So what to make of Moscow being “third Rome”
Nothing, it has no legitimacy. All the major dogmas of the faith had been defined long before there was even a church in Russia.
Great conversation 👌 💯🙏
Amazing video
Very interesting. EO here, and Fr Patrick could solve all the schisms, correcting Rome, Constantinople, and Moscow.
Also, he’s argued for “Rome” as a point of scared geography, like Sinai/Horeb/Mountain of God, Jerusalem, Babylon, etc. I’m thinking of Richard Rollin’s accounts of sacred geography on Pageau’s channel.
This just complicated things for me even more. I appreciate the civility of the dialogue, unlike many in this sphere. The Catholics at least recognize the Orthodox as valid churches which the Orthodox do not reciprocate. I just can’t get over the universalism of the Catholic Church with 1.3 billion members where there’s just over 230 million Orthodox and it seems very regional. The Bishop of Rome document from a few weeks ago seems to concede many points to the Orthodox. I just want to be in an Apostolic Church, receive the Eucharist and worship God correctly.
Which document are you referring to?
@@b0ondockz838 it’s called the “Bishop of Rome” document or if you type that in, it will show up. It came out on June 13, 2024 and states the Orthodox maintained their Synod structure from the first millennia and seems to concede ground to them on the infallibility issue.
The papacy document was a study document which tries to portray the positions of other communions. This was not a magisterial document nor a proposal for changes by Rome. So take it with a grain of salt.
@@forehead949 sorry it seems to echo everything this Priest said. They maintained their synod structures, have valid sacraments and Apostolic succession? I’m in RCIA right now and this is very eye opening.
@@MrAwak3 i commend the you for doing a deep dive as a new convert. While this document seems troubling, it explicitly states that it is not a teaching document so don’t lose sleep over it. The Catholic Church has a history of trying to reconcile apparent dissenters with Herself. I’d encourage you to watch Timothy Flanders video on “the Greek schisms” it shows how it was Rome that historically upheld orthodoxy in the first millennium and how each schisms was a result of a lack of a true Pentecostal spirit of certain churches. This is the spirit of ONE faith in MULTIPLE languages which the Catholic Church has attempted to honor.
Pray for a man named Sven-Göran Erikkson who has a few months left to live that he may converts to the Catholic faith if he is not Catholic.Spread the information
What is stopping Vladimir Putin from building a city on 7 hills and calling it new new Rome and making the Bishop there equal to the bishop of Rome, in fr Ramseys view?
Vladimir Putin isn't an emperor of the Roman Empire in succession from Augustus so he has no legitimate authority to found a city for the Empire, let alone a new Rome. Secondly, the decision to recognise the bishop of such a city as has the privileges of Rome is that of the bishops as confirmed at an ecumenical council. The Russian "Third Rome" concept fails on this account and it is was never recognised other than by Russians.
Quite interesting and thought-provoking, it is nice how this was the first part, as everything in this video is equally true for EO and Catholics.
I would like to hear Father Ramsey's thoughts on Peter's brother Andrew's connection with Constantinople. I find it quite interesting how it seems that Andrew followed Christ first, Peter is chosen to be the head of the Apostles, very reminiscent of Manasseh and Ephraim.
Another apostolic mark that you might give Rome is if you put any stock in the account of John being boiled there. This would give Rome its own Pillars of the Church as Paul referred to Paul, James and John as in Jerusalem.
Andrew probably never went even close to Constantinople. It is a legend, a myth to bolster ortho claims to legitimacy.
"I would like to hear Father Ramsey's thoughts on Peter's brother Andrew's connection with Constantinople"
There is zero proof that Andrew ever went even near Constantinople. It is a legend to bolster the orthodox claim to historicity and tradition: "our See was founded by Andrew, the first called!"
There is no historical proof whatsoever supporting this. It is an orthodox legend, fabricated to serve political goals.
@@voxpopuli8132 I don't reject St Andrew's connection with then Byzantium and it may be true. However, I don't think that it adds anything to the position and I tend to agree that it seems to be a rather late idea to bolster the position of Constantinople. Even if it is true, it is not the grounds for the rank of Constantinople as founded by St Constantine. If the rank was due to St Andrew then it would have had the rank from the time of the Apostles as Byzantium, but rather it was a minor city and minor rank in the churches until the foundation of New Rome. At this stage, it is actually the privileges of St Peter that are inherited and not of St Andrew.
@@johnramsey5651 "At this stage, it is actually the privileges of St Peter that are inherited and not of St Andrew."
So it means, that the See of Peter has absolute Historical Primacy, correct? Probably, the See of Constantinople did not exist until Constantine founded it in 330.
Also, if that is the case, then the first bishop or patriarch must have been directly consecrated by the Pope right? the Pope consecrates bishops.
This in itself is a deadly blow to any claims of ortho sovereignty. If you claim St Andrew founded your church, you can have some of that (independence) _in_theory_.
But, if your first bishop was consecrated by the pope, any such claims are instantly out the window, onto the garbage heap it goes.
@@voxpopuli8132 I am not sure what you mean by "absolute Historical Primacy?" The See of Byzantium may have existed from the time of the Apostles, but that the bishop of that location became the Bishop of New Rome was not until Constantine. The bishops of Constantinople or previously of Byzantium were never ordained by the Bishop of Rome.
The bishops were consecrated by their local metropolitan synods. The metropolitan was ordained by the exarch or patriarch of the wider region (diocese in Roman Imperial terms). The exarchs or patriarchs were ordained by their local metropolitan synod, just as the Bishop of Rome was ordained by the bishops of his local metropolis. The patriarchs were not ordained by the Bishop or Pope of Rome. That the Pope consecrates "all" bishops is part of the reason for the Schism and it was contrary to prior canonical practice and Canon 28 made it clear that this was not a privilege of the See of Rome, which had to respect the jurisdiction of metropolitans to ordain the bishops of their provinces.
Also, papal authority, or that of any see of priority, is not inherited through ordination by a prior pope or metropolitan because ordination of a new bishop happens only after the death of the previous bishop and is done by the bishops of the local metropolis headed by the second bishop of the metropolis. Thus, the papal authority cannot be passed from bishop to bishop of Rome, but it resides in the throne of the city such that the bishop ordained for that city inherits and exercises that authority.
Just like in the end only Judah lasted, so it will happen with the See of Peter. The rock that the constructors rejected became the founding rock. There were 5 Sees, 5 rocks, but David defeated the Giant with only 1.
That’s a rather novel take, which makes it suspicious
Would Moscow be considered Third Rome in Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology? If Moscow and Constantinople were to remain in schism, would this be “another Roman” schism? And are the actions of Moscow in the territories of Alexandria a way to establish the other Petrine sees after the schism (seems like Antioch is already on the side of Moscow, so Constantinople might be losing Antioch).
On a theological level, this would explain many things.Especially that Alexandria and Antioch were in fact, not demoted, as old Rome thought. So if I understand correctly, the East also have Peter and Paul. And if so, this puts the ball back to Old Rome and its claims.
This explains nothing of the sort. Peter is first and signifies the unity of the Church - Peter's barque.
You are either under his jurisdiction, or not in the Church at all.
@@voxpopuli8132 tell that to the Eastern rite Catholics who no longer use the filioque, venerate Orthodox saints that reject Romes claims, and say they believe everything the Orthodox believe..
@@ronfeledichuk531 Ok, forward this message to them. In any case, they are wrong to do all those things.
@@voxpopuli8132 yet they are part of the "Catholic" Church. But as long as you accept the papal teaching, all is good.
@@ronfeledichuk531 Yawn. That was the sign of Papal goodwill and tolerance after the union of Brest, to leave the ortho liturgical calendar untouched. It speaks to the kind and gentle approach of the popes more than anything else. While I emphatically disagree with this, i do understand it.
With me at the helm, my very first thing would have been to throw out those heretics, believe you me.
Constantinopolitan papism.
Excellent content!
Erick, could you enable my comments? It would be important.
Thank you, in advance.
Enable? I did nothing to see them here
@@Erick_Ybarra Then youtube must be holding them back, so to speak. I try to comment again. Thanks.