Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[Cecilianus]

If you have read Humanae Vitae, then you should know NFP is not allowed only in grave circumstances. HV says:

“[R]esponsible parenthood is exercised by those who prudently and generously decide to have more children, and by those who, for serious reasons seriis causis] and with due respect to moral precepts, decide not to have additional children for either a certain or an indefinite period of time.” Humanae Vitae no. 10

“If therefore there are just reasons iustae causae] for spacing births, arising from the physical or psychological condition of husband or wife, or from external circumstances, the Church teaches that married people may then take advantage of the natural cycles immanent in the reproductive system and engage in marital intercourse only during those times that are infertile, thus controlling birth in a way which does not in the least offend the moral principles which We have just explained.” Humanae Vitae no. 16

I should have said “serious”, not “grave”. Whether the cause is just or not depends on the criterion given in the first paragraph, namely “serious”.

Which use of NFP does not do. Conjugal acts are open both to the expression of love and to conception.

Not when you’re refusing to have sex except when there’s a 100% chance of it not procreating, according to NFP advertising. That’s not being “open to conception” at all.

 

[aspirant]

NFP doesn’t separate the unitive and procreative dimensions of sex. If spouses are not having sex, there is no conjugal act in which the unitive and procreative dimensions can be separated from one another. If spouses are having sex without contraception or sterilization, the conjugal act is open to both unitive and procreative dimensions, because neither is being deliberately frustrated by either person.

This thread is now totally off topic.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

This thread is now totally off topic.

Yes. I suggest we abandon the contraception line and get back to beating up on our Orthodox brothers.

 

[aspirant]

Yes. I suggest we abandon the contraception line and get back to beating up on our Orthodox brothers.

I’ll give up the first and try not to take up the second.

 

[Aramis]

I should have said “serious”, not “grave”. Whether the cause is just or not depends on the criterion given in the first paragraph, namely “serious”.

Not when you’re refusing to have sex except when there’s a 100% chance of it not procreating, according to NFP advertising. That’s not being “open to conception” at all.

Except that there is no such point prior to ovarian exhaustion.

 

[Ignatios]

Josie L,

Well, if you have them all why don’t you tell me how you interpret them, i.e., the ball’s in your court Ignatios? As for myself, I take to heart what the fathers of the Church said, literally, i.e., it was not a primacy of honour that was given to Peter (no such thing was expressed by the patristic quotes I posted) but a primacy of prerogatives (which allowed for the pope to intervene in matters of faith and discipline everywhere throughout the Church that is, to ratify or revoke conciliar decisions). To further my arguments I will quote some fathers to put into perspective what I wish to convey. First let me begin with this, the pope is the supreme guardian of Christian tradition in that he had the final say, a last court of appeal if you will (likened to a secular supreme Court). You see this most especially through the appeals of orthodox and unorthodox alike to the bishop of Rome, here are but a few of these examples:

Very well, then, I will respond in general to all of them.

Let us, look at your very first respond first, you said:

“As for myself, I take to heart what the fathers of the Church said, literally…”

Before you take to heart what the fathers said literally you must distinguish what writing is doctrine, teaching or Dogma and what is not, I am sure you do not take everything the fathers said or wrote to heart, because if you do you would simply be ripped into a 1000 pieces (Orientally speaking, mentally that is), BUT why and how is that?

I will not go into too much details for the simple reason, that there isn’t enough time to do that on a thread on line, BUT, as it appears, you are a loyal RC, and since you are, I do not think you take to heart what** Thomas Aquinas, or St. Bernard of Clairvaux, or even Alexander of Hales, and St. Bonaventure, said concerning the Immaculate conception, (St. Bonaventure, teaching at Paris, called it “this foreign doctrine”, indicating its association with England).**

Okay, but now about the Primacy of St Peter? Which it seems to be your concern.
Josie, you couldn’t succeed on taking to heart all of the fathers teachings since all of their teaching contradict each others, if we look at it the way you do, then, your heart would be torn apart, let us put forth some examples to give this some weight:

St Ambrose of Milan, calls the primacy of Peter only a:

“primacy of confession, not of honor; of faith, not of rank” De incarnat. Domini, c. 4: “Primatum confessionis utique, non honoris, primatum fidei, non ordinis.” .” and places the apostle Paul on an equality with Peter De Spiritu S. ii. 12: “Nec Paulus inferior Petro, quamvis ille ecclesiae fundamentum.” Sermo ii. in festo P. et P.

The above contradict your Church Dogma BUT it is much closer to the Eastern Orthodox, BUT he is a Western father. Can you take to heart this patristic when it contradicts your Church teachings? Where he says “NOT OF RANK” I hope your answer is not yes, or do I hope it is yes?

Okay how about St. Jerome, why not look at his opinion and see if it is in line with the modern RCC or with the Orthodox Church:

St. Jerome’s Ep. 125, “where submission to one head is enforced on monks by the instinctive habits of beasts, bees, and cranes, the contentions of Esau and Jacob, of Romulus and Remus, the oneness of an emperor in his dominions, of a judge in his province, of a master in his house, of a pilot in a ship, of a general in an army, of a bishop, the archpresbyter, and the archdeacon in a church; but there is no mention of the one universal bishop.”

The above is a 1000% Orthodox, I say, yet he is a Western father, Now can you take this to heart ??? and remain faithfull to your church??? I don’t think so.
Josie Patristic concerning some issues like this cannot be taken to heart, and if it is patristic what we go by, then, what was the purpose of the Councils I ask you? Or why did the councils came out and drew a line that tells everyone where he stand as far as the Jurisdiction? Because the so mnay opinions of the fathers concerning these issues and or alike issues.

Let us give few more just to illustrate for you in an obvious way the division in opinion over this issue, and also to illustrate for you why the Councils had to make a boundaries for all the Bishop’s jurisdictions.
How about the brightest Father in your Church that almost the whole Western theology is based on, St Augustine that is:

** “Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee. For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ. “And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”**
Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25, quoted Ibid, pp31-32

Now this is Patristic teaching and Orthodox, do you accept it and still be the faithful daughter of the Pope??? I don’t think you can accept it and reject your Pope teaching at the same time.

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…continued

Also Hefele (a Roman Catholic bishop besides being historian) said in his comments on the Nicene canons:

"that the bishop of Rome did not exercise over the whole West the full rights of patriarch; for in several provinces simple bishops were ordained without his co-operation." [Conciliengeschichte, § 42.]**

Never mind the Eastern Patriarchates; he did not even have a jurisdiction over the whole Western Churches. According to one of the best Roman Catholic historian. Why do you think he is saying this ? because the Orthodox maybe paid him off to say so? 

Now all this proves that the phraseology of the those Eastern fathers were just an insincere praises or a poems, flattery etc… but not to be taking as patristic or dogmatic.
Maybe, just maybe some fathers, had the Idea of the RCC today concerning the primacy of Jurisdiction, BUT you cannot say that this was half of the fathers Idea, and a zillion light year away from being the majority of them.

So let us continue:

Abbé Guettée says

**“The truth confessed by St. Peter is, therefore, the foundation of the Church, and no promise was made to his person, nor, consequently, to his subjective faith.” **

Now is it either there was a contradiction between the fathers of the same Church, or there is clear evident that the Greek fathers were flattering the Pope with their phraseology. Therefore you couldn’t take all of the fathers writing to heart, you must distinguish what is what, or why do you think all those things are not discussed among the real scholars and the real theologians of both Churches? Josie, you only took to heart what it agrees with your assertions in order to win the argument or feel better, but your church would not bother with such humorous quotes so called patristic, do you know why? I tell you why, because they are smarter than that, and at the end this does not triumph their endeavor, simply because their assertion to the claim of the Papacy is not of patristic but of Apostolic, and that is where they lay their work and effort on, one thing I cannot refrain from saying here that the RCC has some genius and extremely brilliant scholars.

Well let us stop here … or … I will go a little further, with those quotes.

let us see what Cyprian had to say for all this:

Thus, St. Cyprian says ”For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose, when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself insolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held primacy, and that he out to be obeyed to novices and those lately come

.”

Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of Heretics quoted in Whelton, p34

I still don’t see anything that would support the RCC claim from all those patristic, but only contradiction to your Papal primacy of Jurisdiction, again would you take to heart St. Cyprian as Patristic, if you answer yes, then, you are Orthodox but you don’t know it yet.

Now let me touch up on St Theodoret briefly, If I was to analyze your Patristic quotes, using St Theodoret for this matter, I see nothing in his writing that is worthy to be consider as a testimony of what the role of the Pope of Rome was, since his phraseology is well known in that time and that region among the learned, scholars and Theologians, in which the Greeks were very well known for that flowery and exaltation talks, Besides you are not taking in to consideration the Historical context and the circumstances in that time also, what St Theodoret was, he definitely used a very flowery, flattery insincere praise, let us address some of those issues with an evidence:

St Theodoret was a hymnographer, poet, theologian etc…

The following is from your earlier posting St Theodoret i.e.–“ …** from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God**…”

The poetry is very evident in his writing here, Note the “ …** from old and from the beginning …O Emperor …highest of the Churches** …” loool … sorry … this is a poem …there is no teaching …not every sneeze from the father can be considered patristic…. Some things are, but not everything.

Besides you forgot the circumstances that he wrote under, he was being persecuted in his own Church the guy was for over a week going in and out of death ( orientaly speaking not literally) because of the ill treatment he suffered from the Iconoclasts while the other 3 Patriarchate were cut off by the Muslims and the only possible see was Rome, and yes Rome was still one of the Orthodox Churches actually was still theeee Most pious Orthodox Church of all.

BUT I wonder if you consider his theology as patristic? Have you read his theology??? I bit you didn’t. Study them first and then will see if you still want to take to heart his patristic teaching or not.

Now to St Flavian, again I see nothing but phraseology and flattery, Besides St Flavian did not send letters only to the Pope but to other Bishops too.

“ … Flavian, as president of the council, thought it his duty to acquaint the bishops of Rome and other Sees of the first rank with what had taken place. For some unknown reason his letter to Leo was delayed, and the appeal of Eutyches and a letter from the Emperor was the first information that he received

…” ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iii.i.html

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…continued
If appeal is a sign of inferiority then the same goes to Pope Leo since he appealed to other bishops too and other people in order to get the Emperor to agree with him to hold a council in Italy, but to no avail.

…** There is a letter to Flavian, of whose death of course he was not yet aware; there are others to the archimandrites and the whole church of Constantinople, to Julian, bishop of Cos, and to Anastasius, bishop of Thessalonica. He used all his influence to prevail on the Emperor to summon a fresh council, this time in Italy, writing to him himself, and getting Pulcheria on the spot, and Valentinian, his mother Placidia and his wife Eudoxia, by letters from Rome, to assist his cause. As yet, however, the very stars in their courses seemed to fight against him, and the outlook grew yet darker. In the spring of 450 Dioscorus’ predominance in the East had become so great that ten bishops were found to join with him in actually excommunicating the bishop of Rome**…

As for st. Maximos the confessor, let me post part of your posting:

“…that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

"…How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which** from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun**? Having surely received this canonically, **as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), **and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate …even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)…”

With this one I will not get into so much details but I will touch up on a couple things, that, St. Maximos sided with the Roman See because of its Orthodoxy and not because of its Papacy, Note he said “…she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him…” so through the Orthodox faith and confession that she (Rome) can locks up every heretical mouth, and not through her Papacy.

Now as for the rest of it, about 2 years ago, I asked if any, and I mean “ANY” could verify the underline for us, and show us what are those Councils??? and what are those Canons??? And where are those synodical documents? And what sacerodotal law? That gave the Roman See to preside over all the Churches under the sun, and all be subject to her, where are they so we can look them up, there is nothing.

There is nothing in the Canons or the Councils or the Apostles that says, that the Church of the Romans presides over all the other Churches under the sun and that they are subject to her…

I have scrutinized my questioning on this from all sides and I have looked for years now on line in the some very old Church libraries record in many countries, I could not find anything that would confirm the above assertion.

I came to the conclusion that, Since those documents are “fragmented” and they are Latin, and that, around that time in the Western Church there was many cases of forgery circulating around, the Latin Fragmented Document of St. Maximos was forged after St Maximos or that St Maximos was presented by the Romans with a forged documents about the Canons and the Councils, BUT the Apostles is where I am having a hard time since St. Maximos was well versed with the Bible, then that would make me fall back to, that those documents were forged or tampered with after St. Maximos.

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

Now off to Pope Leo I:

If Papacy was as you see it to be through the phraseology of the Greeks to Pope Leo, I have something that it is much more convincing to the objective mind or any mind that is not ready to deny the facts, what facts? Let us take a look together:

The following are not phraseology nor a flattery neither a flowery words, But they are “FACTS” a historical facts…

sxws.com/charis/pope-5.htm

"…The Vandals made a trainwreck of the African church and, in 445, Pope Leo I attempted to establish his authority over the church in southern Gaul. The response of Hilary of Arles, leader of that church, so shocked the Pope that he described (Letters, X, 3) it as having been couched “in language which no layman even should dare to use and no priest to hear.”
Leo I did not give up. He managed to get Valentinian, the last of the Roman emperors, issue an edict granting to the Roman See authority over all the church. But even this “authority” was insufficient to establish Rome’s authority over the Eastern church, as demonstrated by Leo’s inability to block the 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon from declaring Leo’s rival in Constantinople to to be officially equal in authority to the Bishop of Rome.

The following is extracts from the acts of Chalcedon, Again and Again facts not poems or flattery words out of desparate:

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 93.)
Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; **if now your holiness so commands **let him be expelled or else we leave. (1)
The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?
Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.
The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place. (2)
Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop “Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
The most glorious judges and the full senate, said: It is proper that you should set forth specifically in what he hath gone astray. Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment]. The glorious judges and the whole senate said: If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged.
And when **Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly (ths ieras sugklhtou (3)) had sat down in the midst, **and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence, Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylaeum, stepping into the midst, said:
the then presented a petition, and the Acts of the Latrocinium were read. Also the Acts of the council of Constantinople under Flavian against Eutyches (col. 175).]
And when they were read, the most glorious judges and immense assembly ((uperfuhs sugklhtos) said: What do the most reverend bishops of the present holy synod say? When he thus expounded the faith did Flavian, of holy memory, preserve, the orthodox and catholic religion, or did he in any respect err concerning it?
Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith. His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome.
Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople said; The blessed Flavian hath beautifully and orthodoxly set forth the faith of our fathers.

Now as for the famous “Peter has spoken by Leo”

Let us shad some light on this, and put it back into its proper context:

** “After this was done, the bishops exclaimed: `That is the faith of the fathers, that is the faith of the apostles! We all believe thus! the orthodox believe thus! Anathema to him who believes otherwise! Peter has spoken by Leo: thus Cyril taught! That is the true faith! Why was not that read at Ephesus (at the Robber Synod)? dioscurus kept it hidden.’**”)

The letter of Leo was accepted because it agreed with what the members of the Council believed, “After” they had heard it read they said, “Peter hath spoken by Leo.” they did not say, “Let us hear and obey what Peter will say by Leo.” That is, they acknowledged its authority because they thought he was right; they did not think he was right because they acknowledged his authority.

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

And here we find an undeniable proof about the attempts of Rome from early times “and” by Leo in which he was the most among the Popes to try to make a bold move towards the usurpation of power of the Churches, but with no avail.
Again the following are not phraseology or flattery:

… **again no doubt in good faith, to quote the sixth Canon of Nicaea as beginning, “The Roman Church hath always held the primacy.” This was met with cries of disapprobation. These words, they declared, were not in the original. They had been added at Rome. And on examination it was found to be so. The Imperial Commissioners made it quite clear that to the Roman Church might be conceded precedence and chief honors, as befitted so ancient and distinguished a Church, but no more. Leo regarded this as opposing his claim and tried to get the Churches of Alexandria and Antioch to object, but in vain. The Canon was afterwards further ratified by the Council in Trullo **(A.D. 692). (Denny, 450, 754, pp. 210, 382.)

And in spite of the Pope’s attempts to annul the 28th canon, the church ignored Leo, accepted the 28th canon, and made Constantinople an apostolic see, Leo even admits this in one of his letters (Letter CXVI).

The above are deeds, you cannot dispute them, that is why your church does not bother with patristic in regard to this issue, because those deeds stops your church’s claim dead in its track.

How about few more, I promise 2 more, events concerning this issue:

In the year 340, Pope Julius again attempted to give orders to the Bishops of the Eastern church, who were not at all receptive. In fact, their response was

"full of irony and not devoid of serious threats" (Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History, III, 8).

And In 382, Pope Damasus tried once again to assert his authority over the Eastern church, with essentially the same results. (Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History, V. 9) With that, the Roman church essentially abandoned its attempts to exert control over the Eastern church and concentrated its efforts on consolidating its claims in the West.

BUT I must answer also to your quote about chrysostom:

First I must thank you for bringing this one up because things does easily get lost or forgotten when you have 100s of Patristic quotes. So I agree with St Chrysostom on all of his homolies and not only the one you posted: -->” For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. Naturally then did Christ say, "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his Lord shall make ruler over His household.’ "
Well according to St Chrysostom the successor of St Peter is Ignatius

** Ignatius of Antioch a “successor of Peter, on whom, after Peter, the government of the church devolved”**

And in another place Chrysostom says this:

: “Since I have named Peter, I am reminded of another Peter [Flavian, bishop of Antioch], our common father and teacher, who has inherited as well the virtues as the chair of Peter. Yea, for this is the privilege of this city of ours [Antioch], to have first (ἐν ἀρχῇ) had the coryphaeus of the apostles for its teacher. For it was proper that the city, where the Christian name originated, should receive the first of the apostles for its pastor. But after we had him for our teacher, we, did not retain him, but transferred him to imperial Rome.

Now do you accept the above Patristic, as the Bishops of Antioch being the successors of Peter on whom the government of the church devolved?
Josie I am giving just a glimpse of what is out there, and I know that the RCs have a few more than what you have posted, but not enough to go all the way to make a triumphant case for the supremacy of the pope out of the Patristics.
Just think that I can give you a testimony of over 600 fathers that would put the claim of the Papacy to rest, and 600 is not all, trust me.
okay now go take a coffee break.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[John_Larocque]

In a very narrow sense, Anitoch along with Alexandria were considered by Rome to be Petrine sees whose patriarchs were occupied by successors of Peter. And thus it was the teaching of the Bishops of Rome (at least two) that all three sees - together - possessed Petrine primacy. I’ve produced quotes in other threads (which I know that JosieL has seen) that made it clear this is what Rome believed and practiced before Chalcedon.

I read about Rome’s objections to Canon 28 in this interesting essay:
aoiusa.org/2009/09/canon-28-and-eastern-papalism-cause-or-effect/

The author was countering “Eastern papalism” by recent Ecumenical Patriarchs (including claims outside modern Turkey and Greece over “barbarian lands”) and also touched on Rome’s problems with it. (Interestingly enough, the author in other essays was defending your primate +Philip against representatives of the EP who argued North America is the EP’s territory).

Leo grudgingly conceded that because of Canon 10 of the second council, Constantinople had the right to claim second place in the primatial sequence. On the other hand this new canon, with its expanded powers over other dioceses, was an obvious violation to Canon 8 of the Third Ecumenical Council:

“None of the bishops who are most beloved by God should extend their authority to another diocese, which had not previously and from the beginning been under them or their predecessors.”

Leo’s championship of the canonical precedents of the first three councils stood him on solid ground. He certainly could not be accused of inconsistency nor was he being self-serving: he himself respected the prerogatives independent sees, as can be evidenced by the letter that he wrote (the “Tome of Leo”) and submitted for the approval of the council.

The invalidity of Canon 28 was therefore obvious. In a letter to Marcian, Leo stated in no uncertain terms that Constantinople was not an apostolic see. 9 Writing in a separate letter to the Empress Pulcheria, he used even more forceful language: “As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter.” 10 Faced with this opposition Anatolius quietly withdrew it, never openly bringing it up again.

Time however, was on Anatolius’ side. Leo had more serious problems to contend with, particularly trying to dissuade Attila from attacking Rome. As far as Leo and his successors were concerned, the illegality of the canon remained in force (at least in theory) but given the dire straits of the see of Rome, there was little that they could do as Constantinople quietly enhanced its grip over the three archdioceses in question.

Gregory told John in no uncertain terms to not call himself “universal,” saying that reference to such a title was “ill-advised.” Simple logic dictated to Gregory that if one patriarch was universal, it would deny the very “office of bishop to all their brethren.” 12 For good measure, he wrote both the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch regarding his concerns as well, informing them “Not one of my predecessors ever consented to the use of this profane title, for to be sure, if one patriarch is called ‘universal,’ the name of patriarch is denied to the others.” 13 Nor did he stop there: in a letter to the emperor, Leo flatly stated that such a title amounted to “blasphemy.” 14 In any event, John, like Anatolius before him, decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and refrained from using that title again, at least in correspondence with the West. This was true of most of his successors as well.15

The controversy surrounding the very title itself merits some mention at this point. There is sufficient contemporaneous evidence that it was hardly ever used even in Constantinople. As shocking as this sounds, evidence for this assertion is not lacking. As noted above, John IV himself never used it again in public, nor did the majority of his successors. Even Photius the Great (d. 867), whose irregular elevation to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople precipitated a schism with Rome and who enjoyed the full support of the emperor in his rivalry with the pope dared not use it in his correspondence with the pope.

This validity — indeed, legality-of Canon 28 is therefore troubling to say the least. The fact that it was excised from the official drafts of the Council of Chalcedon should tell us something. It was conceived during a time of great turmoil in the West, and its unsettling nature was apparent to many in its own day and context. It was never accepted by Rome and only surreptitiously in the East. Thus it is impossible to take it seriously given its origins; one can only do so by means of tortuous logic (as was demonstrated by the language used by Phanar’s own apologist — see section 5 above).

Likewise, the evolution of the Archbishop of Constantinople to patriarch, and then to ecumenical patriarch, was done in fits and starts and only when popes or emperors were unable to contain the ambitions of these bishops. This should tell us something about its provenance and those who stake ecclesiastic claims on it would do well to reconsider their position. If this title had little legitimacy when it was first proposed, then it strains logic to believe the passage of time has made it more so.

In the final analysis, such posturing stands in stark contrast to the Gospel. The legitimacy of any bishop is his fidelity to the Gospel of Jesus and not to grandiose titles that were arrogated during a time that no longer exists and by legalisms that are only tenuously related to the spirit of the Gospel. As Pope Gregory the Great said in reaction to John IV, the only title he wanted for himself was servus servorum Dei (“servant of the servants of God.”)

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Peter is the mouthpiece of the Apostles. He speaks for and with the Apostles.
It’s a different perception…

Catholics see Matthew 16 primarily as the Institution of the Papacy. Christ singles out Peter amongst the Apostles, gives him the keys, and the other Apostles are understood as witnesses but not partakers of this enthronement. The impression I received as a Roman Catholic was that only Peter knew what to say, the other Apostles being in ignorance of the answer. It mattered less what Peter actually said, or how he was able to say it, than the fact that it was he of the Apostles who said it.

Half right, but the important half. It was he of the Apostles who said it and it is noteworthy, and I ask you to take note of it and consider its meaning, that none of it was reported by Peter, but by others who were witnesses to the events. Had Peter written these things about himself, maybe those who denigrate his primacy and delegated authority would have a point. But there is no point. Matthew wrote what he wrote and if anyone has a problem with the primacy of Peter, he should take it up with Matthew and the Lord.

WHAT Peter said is not irrelevant. When he proclaimed the Lord the Son of the living God, he was, as the Lord said, revealing information he acquired from the Source. There aren’t too many people in the history of the world God has spoken to directly. Peter is one of them. That, IMO, is significant.

As to the ‘enthronement’ of Peter, to him it was one of duty and responsibility and it was the Lord who put him there. If you have a problem, take it up with the Lord. There is not one single instance in the Gospels or in his letters that indicates in any way the slightest hint of the kind of arrogance some associate with him. Peter was the most humble, the kindest of pastors and Scripture bears this out. Paul, on the other hand…

The Church is built on the person of Peter, not so much faith in the Son of the living God (perceived as a Protestant interpretation by many Catholics). Per Roman Catholicism.

That is false. The Catholic Church is built on the person of Jesus Christ and I’d like you to cite any doctrine of the Church which says otherwise, especially any doctrine that we believe the Church is built on Peter.

I don’t understand your parenthetical remark or “Per Roman Catholicism.” but I’m sure I wouldn’t like it if I did.

The Orthodox elevate Peter quite highly but without making any Petrine authority superior to that received by the Apostles, or subordinating the authority given the Apostles.

And in that the Orthodox reject the authority of Jesus Christ to build His Church as He sees fit.

 

[josie_L]

In a very narrow sense, Anitoch along with Alexandria were considered by Rome to be Petrine sees whose patriarchs were occupied by successors of Peter. And thus it was the teaching of the Bishops of Rome (at least two) that all three sees - together - possessed Petrine primacy. I’ve produced quotes in other threads (which I know that JosieL has seen) that made it clear this is what Rome believed and practiced before Chalcedon.

What quotes from the fathers have you produced to induce me to think that someone other than the bishop of Rome was the direct heir of St. Peter, in fact, I have asked and requested of you as well as others to please supply the evidence necessary that the Bishop of Antioch and/or the Bishop of Alexandria are referred to as the successor of Peter by the Church fathers. Moreover, there are tons of examples before Chalcedon that already indicated that Rome held a Primacy above and beyond that of Alexandria and Antioch. Here is something that I once posted to Mickey, that came from a famous Orthodox theologian:

I never denied that all bishops are successors to the apostles, I am however emphatically stating that the Bishop of Rome was the only bishop to be a successor to a specific apostle, i.e., St. Peter (therefore no one other than the bishop of Rome was the direct heir to St. Peter which is why Rome held a primacy). Even the well-known Orthodox Nicholas Afanassief, "who was professor of canon law and Church history at the Orthodox Theological Institute in Paris, writes,

“To posterity {Cyprian] has left an ideal picture of ’ the Bishop’ which shines so brightly and clearly that our minds really see it; he has left us a literary heritage broken by frequent self-contradiction, which has been a matter for controversy from then until the present day. . . . According to Cyprian’s] doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church. He was unwilling to place the Bishop of Rome outside the concors numerositas of bishops, and yet the place given by him to the Roman Church did raise it above the harmonious multitude. **The ideal ‘Peter’s throne’ occupied by the whole episcopate became confused in Cyprian’s mind with the actual throne occupied by the Bishop of Rome. ** According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter’s throne (the bishop of Rome among others), but the see of Peter is Peter’s throne par excellence. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian’s insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian’s passage that there is is no doubt: to him, **the See of Rome was ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est.” **

(“The Church which Presides in Love”, in Meyendorff, Primacy of Peter, 98-99)

 

[josie_L]

In a very narrow sense, Anitoch along with Alexandria were considered by Rome to be Petrine sees whose patriarchs were occupied by successors of Peter. And thus it was the teaching of the Bishops of Rome (at least two) that all three sees - together - possessed Petrine primacy. I’ve produced quotes in other threads (which I know that JosieL has seen) that made it clear this is what Rome believed and practiced before Chalcedon.

Furthermore, I have never denied that Antioch and Alexandria were Petrine sees, however, there could only be one direct heir to St. Peter, and that person was and always will be the bishops of Rome:

According to John Meyendorff, an Orthodox scholar:

(3) There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this – and to deny this is based purely on "anti-Roman prejudice"

"Finally we come to the highest and ultimate form of primacy: universal primacy. An age-long anti-Roman prejudice has led some Orthodox canonists simply to deny the existence of such primacy in the past or the need for it in the present. But an objective study of the canonical tradition cannot fail to establish beyond any doubt that, along with local ‘centers of agreement’ or primacies, the Church has also known a universal primacy…

"It is impossible to deny that, even before the appearance of local primacies, the Church from the first days of her existence possessed an ecumenical center of unity and agreement. In the apostolic and the Judaeo-Christian period, it was the Church of Jerusalem, and later the Church of Rome – ‘presiding in agape,’ according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.

“It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance. It has happened, however, that if Roman historians and theologians have always interpreted this evidence in juridical terms, thus falsifying its real meaning, their Orthodox opponents have systematically belittled the evidence itself. Orthodox theology is still awaiting a truly Orthodox evaluation of universal primacy in the first millennium of church history – an evaluation free from polemical or apologetic exaggerations.” (Schmemann, page 163-164)

(2) The earliest Fathers recognized the primacy of Rome (or what might be called “priority”) and Orthodox scholars generally concede this

on ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (c. 96 AD)

“Let us turn to the facts. We know that the Church of Rome took over the position of ‘church-with-priority’ at the end of the first century. That was about the time at which her star ascended into the firmament of history in its brightest splendor…Even as early as the Epistle to the Romans, Rome seems to have stood out among all the churches as very important. Paul bears witness that the faith of the Romans was proclaimed throughout the whole world (Rom 1:8)…we have a document which gives us our earliest reliable evidence that the Church of Rome stood in an exceptional position of authority in this period. This is the epistle of Clement of Rome…We know that Clement was ‘president’ of the Roman Church…” (page 124)

“The epistle is couched in very measured terms, in the form of an exhortation; but at the same time it clearly shows that the Church of Rome was aware of the decisive weight, in the Church of Corinth’s eyes, that must attach to its witness about the events in Corinth. So the Church of Rome, at the end of the first century, exhibits a marked sense of its own priority, in point of witness about events in other churches. Note also that the Roman Church did not feel obliged to make a case, however argued, to justify its authoritative pronouncements on what we should now call the internal concerns of other churches. There is nothing said about the grounds of this priority…Apparently Rome had no doubt that its priority would be accepted without argument.” (page 125-126)

bringyou.to/apologetics/num12.htm

Now, I would like to know why it is the Bishop of Antioch, i.e., St. Ignatius said that Rome “presides in love” over the other churches? I mean he could have easily said Antioch since he is as you say a (not the) successor to St. Peter?

Edit: Your picture of what the early Church believed and/or practiced does not fly with reality, scripture, or the church fathers/tradition.
.

 

[josie_L]

Gregory told John in no uncertain terms to not call himself “universal,” saying that reference to such a title was “ill-advised.” Simple logic dictated to Gregory that if one patriarch was universal, it would deny the very “office of bishop to all their brethren.” 12 For good measure, he wrote both the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch regarding his concerns as well, informing them “Not one of my predecessors ever consented to the use of this profane title, for to be sure, if one patriarch is called ‘universal,’ the name of patriarch is denied to the others.” 13 Nor did he stop there: in a letter to the emperor, Leo flatly stated that such a title amounted to “blasphemy.” 14 In any event, John, like Anatolius before him, decided that discretion was the better part of valor, and refrained from using that title again, at least in correspondence with the West. This was true of most of his successors as well.15

The controversy surrounding the very title itself merits some mention at this point. There is sufficient contemporaneous evidence that it was hardly ever used even in Constantinople. As shocking as this sounds, evidence for this assertion is not lacking. As noted above, John IV himself never used it again in public, nor did the majority of his successors. Even Photius the Great (d. 867), whose irregular elevation to the patriarchal throne of Constantinople precipitated a schism with Rome and who enjoyed the full support of the emperor in his rivalry with the pope dared not use it in his correspondence with the pope.

Well, let’s put into context why St. Gregory the Great thought the term “universal patriarch” was blasphemous:

A brief article attacking the Papacy has recently been circulated among the Eastern Orthodox. Entitled “The Universal Patriarch”, it originally appeared in “The Orthodox Christian Witness” [issue of] 8/16/81, and serves to revive familiar Protestant and Orthodox polemics attempting to show that Pope St. Gregory the Great rejected with horror the concept of Papal supremacy which allegedly emerged only with Pope St. Nicholas I in the 9th century. The evidence for this is said to be found in the famous letters of Pope St. Gregory the Great to John the Faster, the first Patriarch of Constantinople to be termed “Ecumenical Patriarch”. As the author of this anti-papal diatribe writes:

St. John’s new title ‘Ecumenical Patriarch’ was translated into Latin as ‘Universal Patriarch’. Here is where some of the papacy’s troubles began. Today’s papacy, that is.
…Pope Saint Gregory the Great did not know Saint John personally; he did not know that Saint John had not assumed this title himself, nor that he had not wanted to become patriarch, and that he was not the power-hungry, ambition-driven despot that his supposed new title ‘Universal Patriarch’ seemed to imply. Alarmed at the thought that one bishop was claiming authority over all the other bishops, Saint Gregory wrote to Saint John. Thus, history has bequeathed to us these incredibly beautiful letters written by the saintly pope, letters which gently but firmly demolish the foundations of the papacy as it later came to be known and hated."

The following quotations from Pope St. Gregory’s letters are given as “proof” that he repudiated Papal supremacy over the entire Church:

"Therefore, dearly beloved brother, have humility with all your heart. It is that which inspires peace among the brethren…What will you say to Christ, Who is the Head of the universal Church - what will you say to Him at the last judgment - you, who by your title of universal, would bring all His members into subjection to yourself? Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?..But if anyone usurp in the Church a title which embraces all the faithful, the universal Church - O blasphemy! - will then fall with him, since he makes himself to be called the universal. May all Christians reject this blasphemous title - this title which takes the sacerdotal honor from every priest the moment it is insanely usurped by one."

The import of Pope St. Gregory’s letters is totally distorted by our polemicist.

He is correct in observing that the title ‘Ecumenical Patriarch’ really meant nothing more than “the Imperial Patriarch” (since the bishop of the city of Constantinople had become in effect the “right-hand man” of the Emperor). When the title was translated into Latin as “Universal Patriarch”, it caused Pope St. Gregory the Great to denounce the title as “a name of blasphemy, of diabolic pride, and a forerunner of Antichrist”. But what our Eastern Orthodox writer utterly fails to note is that the Pope rejected the title because he understood it as involving a claim to be the one sole bishop in the Church (“solus conetur appellari episcopos”) - thereby un-churching all other bishops including their Primate, the Bishop of Rome! Such a claim was also suspected to represent an assault by the Imperial power on the entire episcopacy as well as on the divine Primacy of the Roman See over all the Patriarchs and Bishops of the Church. The mischievous title “Universal Patriarch” granted by the Emperor similarly implied the assumption that the spiritual jurisdiction exercised by members of the hierarchy derived from determination by the Emperor rather than from Jesus Christ.

to be continued . . . .

 

[josie_L]

That Pope St. Gregory the Great expressed traditional Catholic belief in the universal Jurisdiction of the See of Rome over the universal Church is clear from testimonies in his other correspondence — testimonies which our polemicist suppresses. For example, the holy Pontiff wrote:

**“As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city.” (Lib. ix., Ep. 12);

and again, “If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.” (Lib. ix., Ep. 59)**

In gazing upon the battered Church in the East torn by various schisms and heresies and increasingly subject to imperial interference, Pope St. Gregory the Great strongly defended Papal power and the prerogatives of the See of Peter. Reacting firmly to the presumptuous title of “Universal Patriarch” assumed by the [self-]aggrandizing Bishop of Constantinople, the Pope took to himself the title of “servus servorum Dei” (“servant of the servants of God”) in upholding the authority of his fellow Bishops. That title would be used by all subsequent occupants of the Chair of Peter.

Eastern Orthodox writers often appeal to the “Church of the 7 Ecumenical Councils” (of the first 8 centuries) to justify their unwarranted schism. Pope St. Gregory the Great was the Roman Pontiff from 590-604 A.D. Acknowledged by the Eastern Orthodox themselves as a Saint, he may be said to have destroyed the fundamental rationale for the Byzantine Schism when he affirmed in unmistakable terms:

"Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?..Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles…received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate." (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

 

[John_Larocque]

What quotes from the fathers have you produced to induce me to think that someone other than the bishop of Rome was the direct heir of St. Peter, in fact, I have asked and requested of you as well as others to please supply the evidence necessary that the Bishop of Antioch and/or the Bishop of Alexandria are referred to as the successor of Peter by the Church fathers.

You have set up a false dichotomy. You are assuming there is only one. St. Chrysostom definitely referred two of his predecessors as successors of Peter. I have posted these before and have no desire to reprint it here. Knock yourself out.

Here is Pope Leo the Great:

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. …And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi. 17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. (To Evlogios, Patriarch of Alexandria, Ep XL)

Pope Gregory came up with the venerable expression “servant of the servants of God” and campaigned against the concept of a universal bishop. And here, he is asserting that Petrine primacy is shared across the three ancient sees. In other words according to St. Gregory, the see of Peter is not one singular see, but all three, That this is not the commonly accepted Orthodox view - or for that matter, ultramontanist keyboard warriors - is beside the point, it was Rome’s view in the era of Gregory.

This was Gregory’s argument to Eulogius of Alexandria, against the concept of a “universal bishop” or ecumenical patriarch. (Earlier I referenced an Orthodox essay which argued that Canon 28 has been used by proponents of a form of Eastern papalism)

Now, in a broader sense, all bishops are successors of Peter, but for the purpose of this reply, I am working within the framework of St. Gregory.

Now, I would like to know why it is the Bishop of Antioch, i.e., St. Ignatius said that Rome “presides in love” over the other churches? I mean he could have easily said Antioch since he is as you say a (not the) successor to St. Peter?

Another false dichotomy.

He didn’t say WHY Rome presided in love, he only said that it presided. You are reading more into it than is there.

I did enjoy this quote from Fr. Dom Chapman.

Thus far it is clear that the charge to Peter is taken as the type of the commission given to all pastors of souls. Father Puller’s quotation [of Chrysostom] begins after this point:

"It was not Christ's intention to show how much Peter loved Him, because this already appeared in many ways, but how much He himself loves His Church; and He desired that Peter and we all should learn it, that we may also be very zealous in the same work. For why did God not spare His Son and only-begotten, but gave Him up, though He was His only One. That He might reconcile to Himself those who were His enemies, and make them a people for Himself. Why did He also pour forth His blood? To purchase those sheep whom he committed to Peter and his successors."

Here Father Puller stops, remarking correctly that “his successors” does not mean the Popes, but all bishops.

 

[John_Larocque]

newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

Ah, found it, the full unedited letter to Eulogius of Alexandia from Pope St. Gregory. This was enlightening. Let’s go through this piece by piece.

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

You will note, it is Eulogius of Alexandria who is stating that he sits on the “chair of St. Peter”

And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me.

And here, St. Gregory also admits that he is in the number of those who occupy Peter’s chair. He also makes reference to a “special honour”, which may be his way of referring to the Chair of St. Peter… in the City of Rome.

For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17.

Peter the Rock i.e. “the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles… so as to be called Petrus from Petra.”

Now what folllows is the previously quoted portion.According to Pope St .Gregory, the Chair of St. Peter isn’t one singular See. The Chair of Peter is the unity of the three sees! St. Gregory, opponent of the concept of a Universal Bishop, views the Chair of St. Peter and Petrine authority, as an office shared across the three sees of St. Peter.

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21.

Here’s the rest of the letter.

Moreover, in paying you the debt of salutation which is due to you, I declare to you that I exult with great joy from knowing that you labour assiduously against the barkings of heretics; and I implore Almighty God that He would aid your Blessedness with His protection, so as through your tongue to uproot every root of bitterness from the bosom of holy Church, lest it should germinate again to the hindrance of many, and through it many should be defiled. For having received your talent you think on the injunction, Trade till I come Luke 19:13. I therefore, though unable to trade at all nevertheless rejoice with you in the gains of your trade, inasmuch as I know this, that if operation does not make me partaker, yet charity does make me a partaker in your labour. For I reckon that the good of a neighbour is common to one that stands idle, if he knows how to rejoice in common in the doings of the other.

Furthermore, I have wished to send you some timber: but your Blessedness has not indicated whether you are in need of it: and we can send some of much larger size, but no ship is sent hither capable of containing it: and I think shame to send the smaller sort. Nevertheless let your Blessedness inform me by letter what I should do.

I have however sent you, as a small blessing from the Church of Saint Peter who loves you, six of the smaller sort of Aquitanian cloaks (pallia), and two napkins (oraria); for, my affection being great, I presume on the acceptableness of even little things. For affection itself has its own worth, and it is quite certain that there will be no offense in what out of love one has presumed to do.

Moreover I have received the blessing of the holy Evangelist Mark, according to the note appended to your letter. But, since I do not drink colatum and viritheum with pleasure, I venture to ask for cognidium , which last year, after a long interval, your Holiness caused to be known in this city. For we here get from the traders the name of cognidium, but not the thing itself. Now I beg that the prayers of your Holiness may support me against all the bitternesses which I suffer in this life, and defend me from them by your intercessions with Almighty God.

 

[josie_L]

You have set up a false dichotomy. You are assuming there is only one. St. Chrysostom definitely referred two of his predecessors as successors of Peter. I have posted these before and have no desire to reprint it here. Knock yourself out.

Did the famous Orthodox theologian, Nicholas Afanassief also set a false dichotomy when he himself states that the see of Peter par excellence is the see of Rome, i.e., THE DIRECT HEIR TO ST. PETER is the BISHOP OF ROME? Furthermore, even Meyendorff admits that Rome held a primacy (Antioch nor Alexandria had this privilege, why is that???) which put it at the center of sacerdotal and ecumenical unity!!! Moreover, provide the evidence of the Church fathers that I have requested if you wish for others to believe that there is more than one direct heir to St. Peter.

Pope Gregory came up with the venerable expression “servant of the servants of God” and campaigned against the concept of a universal bishop. And here, he is asserting that Petrine primacy is shared across the three ancient sees. In other words according to St. Gregory, the see of Peter is not one singular see, but all three, That this is not the commonly accepted Orthodox view - or for that matter, ultramontanist keyboard warriors - is beside the point, it was Rome’s view in the era of Gregory.

If he said that the Petrine primacy was shared then why do ecumenical councils attest to the fact that both Antioch and Alexandria are put after Rome with respect to importance, i.e., it was dubbed “first” see, or would you prefer I say primacy?? Furthermore, Pope St. Gregory the Great states unequivocally that the apostolic see (which is code for the see of Rome) has universal authority:

“As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city.” (Lib. ix., Ep. 12);

and again, “If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it (the Apostolic See); but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility.” (Lib. ix., Ep. 59)

“Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?..Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles…received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)

The direct heir to St. Peter is the bishop of Rome (i.e., it was he who held a primacy, and Church history, canon law, scripture, as well as the fathers prove this)

Moreover, I have stated in many quotes/examples how it was custom and tradition that the Bishop of Rome (not Alexandria or Antioch) be appealed to by the rest of the Church. The reason being is that the pope had the power to revoke/reverse and/or ratify decisions made by bishops on a local as well as universal level. The Pope reversed many decisions (or witheld ratifying certain conciliar decisions) because he was the supreme guardian of Christian tradition. In fact, one very famous example of this was the reinstatement of the Bishop of Alexandria, i.e., St. Athanasius to his see by Pope Julius, this despite the conciliar decision to brand him as a heretic. There are many other cases of schismatics/heretics as well as orthodox Catholic bishops/clergy who sought out the bishop of Rome to help confirm them in their orthodoxy. It was he alone not the bishop of Antioch nor the bishop of Alexandria that had this privilege, because again, Rome had the primacy.

Another false dichotomy.

He didn’t say WHY Rome presided in love, he only said that it presided. You are reading more into it than is there.

So why does the Roman Church preside in love over the other churches, and why did the Church in Corinth seek out the help of the bishop of Rome (Pope Clement) instead of Alexandria and/or Antioch???

 

[Marlow]

Fortunately His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, Bishop of Rome, is not among the Latin Catholics with that notion (submission) of what reunion would look like.

That is my impression too. In fact I’ve never seen anything to suggest Catholics want submission. As I looked through this thread i didn’t see anyone that did. I certainly don’t.

Now certainly there are difficulites. A thousand years and certain practices have drifted apart. And I’m sure both sides will be reluctant to give up something. Still I do think we are in philosophic agreement on just about everything.

Where is any evidence that catholics want submission?