Bishop of Rome – Towards the Divine Nature

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE EASTERN APOSTOLIC SUCCESSIONS

1 Corinthians 15 3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

Examine this text. Paul had spent part of his ministry exhorting his brethren on Christ the King but was realizing he was meant to become apostle to the Gentiles instead (Acts 13:46). In the above passage, we see a clearer distinction of a third James, as we discuss in a prior blog post, and contrary to the belief in the Latin tradition. In this narrative of the sequence of the Risen Lord appearing to many, there is His appearance first to the 12, that we know includes James the son of Zebedee and James (the Lesser) the son of Alphaeus (Luke 6:12-14). Paul then clearly makes mention of another James before ending with himself. Why would this distinction be made if this were not truly a third James who he also calls “the Lord’s brother” (Galatians 1:19)? And if the James he mentions in 1 Corinthians 15:7 is one of the 12, why is he not specifying which one? There IS a third James. This James in the eastern tradition is called James the Just and was martyred by being thrown from the temple before its destruction in 70 AD. He is the half-first-born brother of Jesus from Joseph before he became a widow.

This is not a matter necessary for salvation. Christians do not have to believe either way. But let us examine why this could be important. As explained earlier (1,2,3,4), there is a symmetry from the transgression of the 8th commandment that lead to the lineage of the Messiah through Isaac’s son Jacob, his and his mother Rebecca’s deception to steal the first-born birth right, and the new Jacob the father of Joseph (Matthew 1 genealogy). There is an undoing here of the temporal effect of this sin, even though it produced the Messiah (Remember the words of our Lord in Luke 8:17-“For all that is secret will eventually be brought into the open, and everything that is concealed will be brought to light and made known to all.” May God have mercy on us all!). This undoing became the crowning of James the Just from the genealogy, the first born of Joseph, to become the first Bishop of Jerusalem. It is the replacement of the reign of lineage of the people of God but with an Apostolic continuity sealed with blood of the Messiah. Could this be related to Paul’s realization that he was called to be the Apostle of the Gentiles and had to abandon his zeal to evangelize his people who he loved so much? This former disciple of Gamaliel would have been a reasonable candidate for Bishop of Jerusalem. Here the eastern apostolic churches originated and evolved in the east, separate from the traditions in Rome. They are the apostolic continuity of the genealogy, keeping the ancestral prophets and patriarchs in the Liturgical calendar.

We have then in the eastern apostolic traditions a type of familial order at work from this perspective that has nothing to do with denying the primacy of the See of Peter, the Holder of the Keys. We have apostolic succession but with a national or regional character. These apostolic traditions were granted an autonomy in propagating their own apostolic lineage at the Council of Nicea while defending the faith and morality. Recall that after the persecutions under the Roman Emperor Diocletian ended, all the apostolic churches emerged intact. There was no direct interventions from the Pope during the period. Administrative jurisdiction from the Bishop of Rome is unnatural in this scheme.

Think of the Roman Church as a large tree with new trees emerging around it from dropped seed. These are the eastern churches. This is the Spirit at work in the Book of Acts. All are unified by the same Spirit, Sacraments, and Love for the Theotokos. Similar to how each organic family is a domestic church. How unnatural it is then for the Holy See to demand administrative jurisdiction over all the apostolic churches. To return the apostolic administrative independence would not have altered God’s work in the Latin Church since the complete schism at the turn of the first millennium. Look at our world. The middle east could soon have no Sacramental presence, something that never happened under Moslem rule. This clinging to administrative authority is even replacing the faith, ethics and morals. Even attacking the Latin tradition itself.

From Vatican I (1870)

“I adjure you by God, most venerable fathers, how can we proclaim and publish and practice a constitution established in this manner? How can we defend it before the dissidents and present it to the Catholics? Let them [Orthodox] not accuse us of despising holy antiquity and let them not despise us as contradictors of the councils and canons. What will we say to those who give extreme respect to the councils, which took place in the east? How can Catholics persevere in the faith and how can the separated return when they see in this constitution the destruction of their autonomy and the loss of dignity and rights for their patriarchal sees? Unity consists in the fact that bishops are united in faith and love with their patriarch, the patriarchs among themselves and above all with the Roman patriarch. According to divine right, one of them, the Roman pontiff, is the prince of the others; according to canonical right there are five princes of the Church and successors of the Apostles. The Eastern Church attributes to the pope the highest and most complete power, but in a manner that the fullness of his power be in harmony with the rights of the patriarchal sees…The definition in canon 3, chapter 3, entirely destroys the foundations of the Greek Church and drags it to its ruin and to its complete dissolution. Our conscience refuses to accept this constitution because, for eighteen centuries, that is, from the origins of Christianity until today, this Church has been organized and ruled according to a law which is proper and conforms to nature, according to a special discipline, according to usages and ancient customs going back to the apostles; new definitions of this kind renew troubles, create difficulties and put obstacles which harm the salvation of souls.”

Melkite Catholic Patriarch Gregory II Yousef Sayour before the General Assembly of Vatican I concerning the declaration of papal infallibility. 1870. [1]

Now, 150 years later, that insistence for an unnatural papal authority over the natural canonical right codified soon after Pentecost, has come to turn on traditions even within the Latin Rite itself, where that unnatural right was defined. And in another example of how the arrogance of pride degrades, and degrades endlessly, that “authority” seems to take on morality itself.

[1] Steward of the Mysteries, Bishop Nicholas Samra, Sophia Press. West Roxbury, Massachusetts, 2010. pp 89-90.

The Bishop of Rome and the Twelve

The crises of our time compel us to look at the history and in the current ecclesial crisis we can look at Christ’s foundational and therefore eternal work for perspective. The Melkite Eparchy of Newton has an excellent document, The Melkite Church at the Council, in support of the argument to be presented here, particularly Chapters 5-7. This much shorter discussion will touch on the history of the College of Cardinals after primarily presenting the case for election of the Bishop of Rome by all apostolic churches.

That all the apostolic churches, including the Orthodox churches recognize the Primacy of the See of Peter is assumed here. This is generally case with the definition of primacy more the subject of controversy than its existence.

“He showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God… The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them the twelve names of the twelve Apostles of the Lamb” (Revelation 21:10,14).

John’s reference is for the Church defined by Christ in the 12 Apostles. Most would agree that the number 12 represents the entire Church he founded. His foundation is an ecclesial mystery not founded by of the apostles, including the apostle Peter, rather by the mystery that is His presence after the resurrection. This Presence is Sacramental and in the case of the present day apostles, it is the Sacrament of Holy Orders that creates the new generation of apostles. The work and collegiality of the 12 apostles including the addition of more, not the least of whom is Paul, is well documented in the Acts of the Apostles. These works are both autonomous while in recognition of the Primacy of Peter, even with disagreements that are at worst temporary in the mystery of Christ’s Presence.

From Chapter 6 of the above reference:

“Holy Scripture affirms a power of primacy, on the part of Peter, over the rest of the Apostles and over the whole Church. But Scripture does not affirm in any way that no bishop can be constituted in the Church except through the intervention, “direct or indirect,” of Peter and his successors, the bishops of Rome. We even explicitly see the other Apostles constituting bishops without referring in any way to Peter. The same is true of their disciples, such as Titus or Timothy. If it is necessary to understand the text as applying to bishops in the strict sense, doesn’t the Scripture say that it is the Holy Spirit who instituted the bishops to rule the Church (cf. Acts 20:28)? It is difficult, without doing violence to the text, to find in the Scripture a basis which permits affirming that no bishop obtains jurisdiction over his Church except through the “direct or indirect” intervention of the Bishop of Rome, successor of Peter.”

Just as the validity of the Sacraments of Eucharist and Penance are direct works of God the Holy Spirit and are operational, i.e. valid, in all the apostolic churches and as affirmed by the Latin Church, so must the priesthood and episcopal ascendancy to Patriarchs of the eastern churches be valid. If the concern by the Latin Church under the See of Peter is that allowing full communion of the Eastern apostolic Churches with the Latin Church would compromise the Church instituted by Christ, then that same concern should be for any Sacramental event. A glaring witness of our time is the both doctrinal and personal perversion of priests and bishops, yet this does not compromise the efficacy of the Sacrament offered to the recipient. Christ guarantees His work and Presence in the Sacrament while waiting for the personal conversion of the administrator if necessary. He will confront the Bishop as he does with the seven Bishops in Asia Minor in the Book of Revelation, interpreted symbolically or literally. Therefore the ascendancy of the Bishop of Rome could involve the Patriarchy of the Eastern Churches to complete the role of the Bishop of Rome as representative of the 12 apostles. This completeness may have been wanting for over 1000 years.

This theory suggests certain degradation in those churches excluded from their “birth right” as part of the “12”. This can be the loss of the reach commanded by Christ to Peter to “feed my sheep”. Similarly, degradation to autocracy of the role of the See of Peter becomes a risk in any exclusion of the “12”.

“There is, in fact, among the bishops only one Church, only one soul, only one heart… There is, through the institution of Christ, one and only one Church, spread out over the whole world, one and only one episcopacy represented by a multiplicity of bishops united among themselves… The Church forms a single whole, whose bond is the union of bishops” (St. Cyprian of Carthage, Epistle 66, 8,3).

As a final note, we touch on the body used to elect the Bishop of Rome in our current time and for the last 1000 years, namely the College of Cardinals. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that this was initially a closed group of individuals that included non-clergy and grew at the expense of the successors of the Apostles. Compare this to the notion of the “12” in full effect at the time of the Acts of the Apostles and for the first millennium.