Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[josie_L]

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)

Let me requote what was said in the article:

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.

You are not applying the appropriate historical context (which was pretty much delineated for you in my earlier post) to his letter and therefore you assume that he is denying his own primacy (apostolic see was code for the see of Rome).

 

[John_Larocque]

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?

All that being true, we have earlier (courtesy of Pope St. Gregory) proof that the patriarch of Alexandria considered himself as having sat upon the Chair of St. Peter, a statement which was NOT DENIED by St. Gregory. Rome always held a pre-eminence among the three “Petrine” sees, but a magic wave of the wand does not make the others non-Petrine.

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.

Look it up yourself. I already cited in previous posts of mine (including one in this thread) references to St. Chrysostom as well as the above St. Gregory citation. The search button is there for you to use… make use of it.

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??

You are confusing - maybe deliberately - several discrete things. First is primacy, the second is the role of the Pope of Rome, and finally… who is the successor of St. Peter. I suppose for the sake of argument, you could toss in a fourth question, “what is a Petrine see?”

I have already stated that in the narrower sense of St. Gregory (citing the letter from the Patriarch of Alexandria), as well as previous Chrysostom citations (which I invite you to look up, on your own), that refer to previous occupants of these sees as successors to St. Peter. I have no desire to reprint these quotation again, except perhaps to improve your reading comprehension.

We already know from the above St. Gregory citation that he viewed Rome as having a special “honour” among the three Petrine sees. But he also viewed the Chair of Peter as being the UNITY of the three Petrine sees, which he defined as Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. A previous quotation from Pope Damasus makes it clear why the bishops of Rome viewed the City of Rome as being pre-eminent - it was St. Peter’s see AND it was blessed by the presence of St. Paul AND the place of their dual martyrdoms and it was orthodox.

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.

Again, we go back to several discrete things. First, why does Rome have a form of primacy. Is it because it is a “Petrine” see (as defined by St. Gregory, or in the exclusive post-Chalcedonian sense)… or is there another reason for its primacy. Consider those other elements that Pope Damasus cited which made it pre-eminent - namely its orthodoxy (“having no spot or any other defect”) and that it was the city of the dual-martyrdoms of St. Peter and Paul.

But it is a form of revisionism to state, against the testimony of SS. Gregory and Chrysostom, that those who occupied the see of Alexandria or Antioch did not view themselves as successors of St. Peter. Is this truly what you are arguing? That Eulogius of Alexandria (by way of St. Gregory) and Chrysostom are flat-out wrong in referring to their apostolic successors as such?

We know that Pope Damasus definitely believed that “Petrine” primacy was extra-synodal and came from Our Lord’s promise to St. Peter. This view has been consistently held by the occupants of the See of Rome. However, as cited above, St. Gregory believed that this Petrine promise was shared across the three Petrine sees, the “See of one.” The adherents of Canon 28 (and those who downgraded Alexandria and Antioch below Byzantium) had a different conception, but I’m trying to focus you on the mind of St. Gregory and the earlier conceptions of what Petrine primacy meant according to previous popes of Rome.

 

[Madaglan]

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…

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.

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

Hi John,

When you write there are not many people to whom God has spoken directly, I have to kindly disagree. During his earthly life even, Jesus spoke with many people from all walks. After the Ascension, God spoke to Saul (made Paul), and has continued to speak to persons to present times. I believe that in the West this tradition of listening to inner voice of God is even stronger than in the East.

I agree with you that Peter is not portrayed in any way arrogant or overbearing in the Scripture.

Here is from the Tridentine Catechism that shows that the Church is built upon Peter:

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body; the visible one, the Pope, who, as legitimate successor of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, fills the Apostolic chair.
It is the unanimous teaching of the Fathers that this visible head is necessary to establish and preserve unity in the Church. This St. Jerome clearly perceived and as clearly expressed when, in his work against Jovinian, he wrote: One is elected that, by the appointment of a head, all occasion of schism may be removed. In his letter to Pope Damasus the same holy Doctor writes: Away with envy, let the ambition of Roman grandeur cease! I speak to the successor of the fisherman, and to the disciple of the cross. Following no chief but Christ, I am united in communion with your Holiness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that on that rock is built the Church. Whoever will eat the lamb outside this house is profane; whoever is not in the ark of Noah shall perish in the .flood.
The same doctrine was long before established by Saints Irenaeus and Cyprian. The latter, speaking of the unity of the Church observes: The Lord said to Peter, I say to thee, Peter! thou art Peter: and upon this rock I will build my Church. He builds His Church on one. And although after His Resurrection He gave equal power to all His Apostles, saying: As the Father hath sent me, I also send you, receive ye the Holy Ghost; yet to make unity more manifest, He decided by His own authority that it should be derived from one alone, etc.
Again, Optatus of Milevi says: You cannot be excused on the score of ignorance, knowing as you do that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, who occupied it as head of the Apostles; in order that in that one chair the unity of the Church might be preserved by all, and that the other Apostles might not claim each a chair for himself; so that now he who erects another in opposition to this single chair is a schismatic and a prevaricator.
Later on St. Basil wrote: Peter is made the foundation, because he says: Thou art Christ, the Son of the Living God; and hears in reply that he is a rock. But although a rock, he is not such a rock as Christ; for Christ is truly an immovable rock, but Peter, only by virtue of that rock. For Jesus bestows His dignities on others; He is a priest, and He makes priests; a rock, and He makes a rock; what belongs to Himself, He bestows on His servants.
Lastly, St. Ambrose says: Because he alone of all of them professed (Christ) he was placed above all.

Source: catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm

The Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes that the Church is built upon the faith confessed by St. Peter. (see CCC 424) There are many Catholics who hold to this; there are others who see the Church being built on the faith of St. Peter as possibly implying that the Church is not built on St. Peter, and so are wary of this interpretation, especially in light of Protestant interpretations that pitch the person against the faith professed.

By “per Roman Catholicism” I meant to reinforce that these were not my own personal beliefs but as I understand they are taught in Roman Catholicism, from personal experience.

 

[Mickey]

Uhh, no. It’s formally called the “tu quoque” fallacy. Take a freshman-level logic class.

If you think it’s valid, then write out a formal syllogism with two premises, and you’ll see how silly it looks - if you can even get it into formal syllogism.

Uh-oh—a true scholar is calling me to the carpet on syllogisms and premises.

You gotta love the scholastic mind set!

It is very simple. Rome approves of birth control in some manner (NFP).

 

[Mickey]

Pope Honorius is a non-issue.

I agree. He was a heretic.

**The Sixteenth Session of the Council of **Constantinople

”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”

 

[Mickey]

Everybody including the man on the moon knows that the Church condemns artificial contraception.

Rome approves of birth control (NFP), but claims to condemn ABC. Yet I know of some Byzantine Catholic spiritual Fathers who will take the path of the Orthodox for extra-ordinary circumstances and approve of condom use.

It seems to me like you’re just being argumentative

I was going to say the same thing to you.

 

[Mickey]

YOU are being disingenuous. It was YOU who introduced the sins of Catholics to buttress a flawed argument. Check the thread.

Wrong. I said that many do not follow the teaching. YOU called them sinners.

 

[Mickey]

it is Mickey who is being disingenuous because he very well knows that the Church does not accept the usage of artificial contraceptives (this is a teaching throughout the Church).

Wrong. You do not know me or my experience so you cannot call me disingenous (seems like a new apologetics tactic).
When I was a Byzantine Catholic, I personally know of people who were given the green light for condom use by their spiritual father for an extreme extra-ordinary circumstance.

Furthermore, anyone acquainted with NFP (the billings method in particular) is more effective in preventing conception than condoms are (if one goes by the UN study which has shown that condoms are 90% effective as opposed to NFP/billings method which can be 93% to 98% effective)

So then condom use is more open to life.

 

[rinnie]

I’m not baiting…this is a serious question posed by someone who has absolutely no contact with anyone who is Orthodox…me.

Assuming (and that’s a big deal, I know) that all doctrinal and liturgical issues are worked out, do the Orthodox even want to be re-united with Rome?

If so, why?

If not, why not?

I think so, because deep down inside everyone wants to be part of the same family. And I think that they want to be in communion with the Pope and I think all of us Christians want to be part of the same Flock.

As stupid as it sounds its like when a family is together and happy and getting along, look at the face of the Mother and Father. It makes us learning to pull together as a family worth it when we look into the eyes of our parents.

We need to feel that love, that protection, and we need to see that look, and live to see it on the face of God our Father.

And because how a family fighting and hating eachother goes against nature, so does the faiths doing it go against nature.

It just don’t feel right to love eachother so much, and yet not have eachother all a part of one family.

 

[josie_L]

All that being true, we have earlier (courtesy of Pope St. Gregory) proof that the patriarch of Alexandria considered himself as having sat upon the Chair of St. Peter, a statement which was NOT DENIED by St. Gregory. Rome always held a pre-eminence among the three “Petrine” sees, but a magic wave of the wand does not make the others non-Petrine.

I never said they were non-Petrine, I am denying however that the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch held a primacy, i.e., Rome was referred to as the first, sometimes even supreme see. Moreover, if one reads St. Gregory the Great’s epistles, one would naturally come to the conclusion that he supports Rome’s primacy or rather universal jurisdiction:

**

With regard to the other Western Churches limits of space prevent any detailed account of Gregory’s dealings, but the following quotation, all the more valuable as coming from a Protestant authority, indicates very clearly the line he followed herein:

“In his dealings with the Churches of the West, Gregory acted invariably on the assumption that all were subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Of the rights claimed or exercised by his predecessors he would not abate one tittle; on the contrary, he did everything in his power to maintain, strengthen, and extend what he regarded as the just prerogatives of the papacy. It is true that he respected the privileges of the Western metropolitans, and disapproved of unnecessary interference within the sphere of their jurisdiction canonically exercised. . . . But of his general principle there can be no doubt whatever” (Dudden, I, 475).

In view of later developments Gregory’s dealings with the Oriental Churches, and with Constantinople in particular, have a special importance. There cannot be the smallest doubt that Gregory claimed for the Apostolic See, and for himself as pope, a primacy not of honor, but of supreme authority over the Church Universal. In Epistle 13.50, he speaks of “the Apostolic See, which is the head of all Churches”, and in Epistle 5.154, he says: “I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church.” As successor of St. Peter, the pope had received from God a primacy over all Churches (Epistle 2.46; 3.30; 5.37; 7.37). His approval it was which gave force to the decrees of councils or synods (Epistle 9.156), and his authority could annul them (Epistles 5.39, 5.41, 5.44). To him appeals might be made even against other patriarchs, and by him bishops were judged and corrected if need were (Epistles 2.50; 3.52; 3.63; 9.26; 9.27).

This position naturally made it impossible for him to permit the use of the title Ecumenical Bishop assumed by the Patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster, at a synod held in 588. Gregory protested, and a long controversy followed, the question still at issue when the pope died. A discussion of this controversy is needless here, but it is important as showing how completely Gregory regarded the Eastern patriarchs as being subject to himself; “As regards the Church of Constantinople,” he writes in Epistle 9.12, “who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious lord the emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it.”

At the same time the pope was most careful not to interfere with the canonical rights of the other patriarchs and bishops. With the other Oriental patriarchs his relations were most cordial, as appears from his letters to the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria.

newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm

**

also:

To show examples of prominent Evangelicals today who still make the objection, I’ll quote from Norm Geisler/Ralph MacKenzie in Roman Catholics and Evangelicals (Baker Books, 1995), quoting another prominent Evangelical Harold O.J. Brown :

“In every age there have been those who considered the claims of a single bishop to supreme authority to be a sure identification of the corruption of the church, and perhaps even the work of the Antichrist. Pope Gregory I (A.D. 590-604) indignantly reproached Patriarch John the Faster of Constantinople for calling himself the universal bishop; Gregory did so to defend the rights of all the bishops, himself included, and not because he wanted the title for himself.” (Geisler/MacKenzie, page 206 citing Brown, Protest of a Troubled Protestant)

The main question that should be asked in considering what I’ll call the “universal bishop” controversy is: What did Gregory the Great precisely mean by the terms “universal” and “universal bishop” in his letters to the Patriarch of Constantinople? Evangelical apologists do not stop to ask that question, nor have they done much research into Pope Gregory’s actual writings which are full of his claims to papal authority and universal jurisdiction. If he really was denying his own papal authority (as asserted above by Geisler/MacKenzie and Brown), why would such an eminent Protestant (Anglican) scholar as J.N.D. Kelly write that Gregory I

“was indefatigable…in upholding the Roman primacy, and successfully maintained Rome’s appellate jurisdiction in the east…Gregory argued that St. Peter’s commission [e.g. in Matthew 16:18f] made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome” (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 67).

Indeed, most Protestant (and Orthodox) scholars concede that Pope Gregory was one of the first real Popes, and believed himself to have universal jurisdiction and authority over the Catholic Church.

bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Hi John,

When you write there are not many people to whom God has spoken directly, I have to kindly disagree. During his earthly life even, Jesus spoke with many people from all walks.

Obviously I meant God the Father. By ‘spoke’ I mean spoke from heaven. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear.

After the Ascension, God spoke to Saul (made Paul), and has continued to speak to persons to present times. I believe that in the West this tradition of listening to inner voice of God is even stronger than in the East.

Here is from the Tridentine Catechism that shows that the Church is built upon Peter:
Source: catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/trentc.htm
And here’s the first sentence of the passage you cited:

The Church has but one ruler and one governor, the invisible one, Christ, whom the eternal Father hath made head over all the Church, which is his body;

That’s all we need. The rest deals with the earthly leader of the Church. Peter and the Apostles were the foundation of the Church.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church emphasizes that the Church is built upon the faith confessed by St. Peter. (see CCC 424) There are many Catholics who hold to this; there are others who see the Church being built on the faith of St. Peter as possibly implying that the Church is not built on St. Peter, and so are wary of this interpretation, especially in light of Protestant interpretations that pitch the person against the faith professed.

The matter is not defined by individual Catholics and certainly not by protestants. The Lord said, “You are Peter and upon this rick I will build my church…” It can mean Peter’s faith, it can mean Peter, it can mean both. The Church teaches what she teaches and that’s what I subscribe to.

By “per Roman Catholicism” I meant to reinforce that these were not my own personal beliefs but as I understand they are taught in Roman Catholicism, from personal experience.

I forget what you were ascribing to ‘Roman Catholicism’ but I know I didn’t agree with it. Probably still don’t.

My name is ‘Ferde.’

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

It is very simple. Rome approves of birth control in some manner (NFP).

Is that your syllogism?

Birth control in a technical sense, with conditions. Artificial birth control, never.

 

[josie_L]

Wrong. You do not know me or my experience so you cannot call me disingenous (seems like a new apologetics tactic).

When I was a Byzantine Catholic, I personally know of people who were given the green light for condom use by their spiritual father for an extreme extra-ordinary circumstance.
So then condom use is more open to life.

You know very well that the autocephalous churches within the Orthodox community do not uniformly teach and/or practice against artificial contraception, that being said, the spiritual father in question is in error only if the person was not suffering from a debilitating illness of some kind that precipated the need for birth control (I know someone for example who would hemorrhage all month long had she not inserted a birth control device) however, such cases as you said are extreme. And this is the part where I find you to be disingenuous in that you make it out to be that there are contradictions in Church teachings because of this. Moreover, the point that Leo the Great was trying to make is this: before the 1930’s all Christian faiths believed using artificial contraceptives was immoral, now, only the Catholic Church continues to teach this (there are obvious and extreme exceptions however).

Edit: NFP is used because it does not violate God’s laws, wherein condoms do.

 

[josie_L]

double post

 

[John_Larocque]

I never said they were non-Petrine, I am denying however that the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch held a primacy, i.e., Rome was referred to as the first, sometimes even supreme see. Moreover, if one reads St. Gregory the Great’s epistles, one would naturally come to the conclusion that he supports Rome’s primacy or rather universal jurisdiction:

Ah, we’re getting somewhere. (once you get past your peculiar habit of text-dumping…) You have separated the two issues - primacy and Petrine succession. Good. Setting aside primacy for the moment, do you admit that the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria also claimed to be successors of St. Peter? Earlier you said that was something only possessed by the City of Rome.

 

[John_Larocque]

For your reading pleasure. You will note earlier that when St. Gregory first referred to the Seat of Peter, it was in reference to the Patriarch of Alexandria.

magnoliamountain.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/gregory-the-great-friend-or-foe-of-the-papacy-part-1/

St. Gregory has become quite close to me, and I wish to honor him and his spirit by listening to his words with humility and tenderness, and not to plunder them for proof-texts for academic ammunition. All quotes and summations should reveal the Saint’s heart, and I do not mean them to deal directly with a dilemma of which St. Gregory was not familiar.

Thus, we should begin with some history. As it applies to his dispute with John the Faster, it should be noted that John’s title “ecumenical patriarch” did not translate well into Latin. John’s use of “ecumenical” had an implied sense of “imperial”, because the role of the Emperor and the Senate affects the church and ecumenical gatherings. This same argument explains a great deal of Rome’s original placement in primacy (though it is not the sole reason, as we see in St. Ignatius’ praise for its loving and charitable example). St. Gregory’s reaction is based on a misunderstanding of John’s claim, though the misunderstanding is telling: namely of the fact that St. Gregory saw a claim of a certain kind of primacy as threatening the very offices of bishop and priest. What exactly this is will be looked at later, though it will not be answered comprehensively.

…

I tried approaching the texts with the assumption that St. Gregory held the current Roman Catholic belief about the papacy. However, this I simply did not see. Indeed, almost all of the Roman Catholic proof-texts can be dealt with forthwith due to a couple Orthodox (and common-sense) considerations. First, reference to St. Peter, as “Prince” of the Apostles is coherent with St. Cyprian’s understanding of all bishops being successors of the “Seat of Peter” (a phrase which St. Cyprian originated). Second, this does not mean that St. Peter does not have a particular relationship and kinship to the Roman bishop, but the nature of this relationship is not clearly exposited by St. Gregory. Nor does St. Gregory’s exercising authority, even particular authority, make the case for spiritual authority or papal infallibility. (The closest to this seems to be in Book III, Epistle 30, but the implications of the text are far from clear, especially since “Apostolic See” does not denote Rome only.) Condemnation of other bishops and priests, and critiques of the goings outside of Rome is a frequent occurrence among the writings of many ancient and contemporary bishops, and does not imply Roman supremacy.

Therefore, most of what I was anticipating simply was not there. This lack is conspicuous, especially considering the context. Many of the Epistles deal with his disagreement with Patriarch John, which one would expect to warrant an articulation of the papal claims. St. Gregory, however, gives nothing of the sort. In considering John’s claims St. Gregory is politically blind (the cause of his misunderstanding), giving consideration only to spiritual authority.

At this juncture, many of the RC sources I looked at would quote something from the Saint, usually something like, “ For my honour is the honour of the universal Church”. Typifying my frustration, I would go back to the Epistle to read the rest of the sentence: “For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren.” For your consideration I have posted the rest of the context of the Epistle.

Book VIII, Epistle 30: (To Eulogius)

Your Blessedness has also been careful to declare that you do not now make use of proud titles, which have sprung from a root of vanity, in writing to certain persons, and you address me saying, As you have commanded]/i]. This word, command, I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am, and who you are. For in position you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I did not, then, command, but was desirous of indicating what seemed to be profitable. Yet I do not find that your Blessedness has been willing to remember perfectly this very thing that I brought to your recollection. For I said that neither to me nor to any one else ought you to write anything of the kind; and lo, in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself. For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them.

For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally. But far be this from us. Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.

And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors . And yet not one of them would ever use this title, that, while regarding the honour of all priests in this world, they might keep their own before Almighty God.

 

[josie_L]

Look it up yourself. I already cited in previous posts of mine (including one in this thread) references to St. Chrysostom as well as the above St. Gregory citation. The search button is there for you to use… make use of it.

What you posted does not in any way, shape or form (you gave but two or three references that you took out of context, moreover, St. Cyprian was wrong in his views as per what the famous Orthodox theologian Nicholas Afanassieff stated, i.e., the throne of Peter par excellence was the see of Rome) deny Rome’s primacy which enabled it unique prerogatives.

Edit: I will make use of the search button John but not in the way you might imagine.

You are confusing - maybe deliberately - several discrete things. First is primacy, the second is the role of the Pope of Rome, and finally… who is the successor of St. Peter. I suppose for the sake of argument, you could toss in a fourth question, “what is a Petrine see?”

It is you who is obfuscating the matter John, not I, moreover you are being spiteful in your manner towards me (do not think for a second that I haven’t noticed your continual digs since last we argued). And by the way, telling me I’m confusing the matter without actually arguing the points is patently ridiculous. I have made the claim that the Pope
could ratify or revoke conciliar decisions made I have cited multiple fathers as well as examples to prove this, however, since you remain UNCONVINCED, I will continue on my quest to lead you out of darkness , here comes more evidence of Rome’s primacy:

Eusebius - an appeal to Emperor Aurelian against the heretic Paul of Samosata

“As Paul had fallen from the episcopate, as well as from the orthodox faith, Domnus, as has been said, became bishop of the church at Antioch. But as Paul refused to surrender the church building, the Emperor Aurelian was petitioned; and he decided the matter most equitably, ordering the building to be given to those to whom the bishops of Italy and of the city of Rome should adjudge it.”

“Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all , that so a just sentence might prceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons. And why was nothing said to us concerning the Church of the Alexandrians in particular? Are you ignorant that the custom has been for word to be written first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If then any such suspicion rested upon the Bishop there, notice thereof ought to have been sent to the Church of this place; whereas, after neglecting to inform us, and proceeding on their own authority as they pleased, now they desire to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned him. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed; this is another form of procedure, a novel practice. I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.”

Athanasius,Pope Julius to the Eusebians,Defense Against the Arians, 35(A.D. 347),in NPNF2,IV:118

Defense against the Arians 1, 4, 58, NPNF2, 4:130

"Ursacius and Valens to the most blessed lord, pope Julius.

“Whereas it is well known that we have heretofore in letters laid many grievous charges against the Bishop Athanasius, and whereas, when we were corrected by the letters of your Goodness. . . . Wherefore we earnestly desire communion with the aforesaid Athanasius, especially since your Piety, with your characteristic generosity, has vouchsafed to pardon our error. But we also declare, that if at any time the Eastern Bishops, or even Athanasius himself, ungenerously should wish to bring us to judgement for this matter, we will not depart contrary to your judgement. . . I Ursacius subscribed this my confession in person; and likewise I Valens.”

to be continued. . . .

 

[josie_L]

Ah, we’re getting somewhere. (once you get past your peculiar habit of text-dumping…) You have separated the two issues - primacy and Petrine succession. Good. Setting aside primacy for the moment, do you admit that the bishops of Antioch and Alexandria also claimed to be successors of St. Peter? Earlier you said that was something only possessed by the City of Rome.

I made mention of the fact that I viewed both Alexandria and Antioch as Petrine sees, so I’m not sure why you act surprised? Moreover, I said that the bishop of Rome is the direct heir of St. Peter (i.e. they have inherited/hold his office of which there can only be one), and I still hold to that position ( I have read it somewhere that St. Peter was bishop of Rome before he was even bishop of Antioch). Both, Antioch and Alexandria are “successors” of St. Peter (in that their churches were started by Peter and/or his legate Mark on behalf of Peter) but not the direct heir, wherein they hold his office. For me, the successor to Peter must mean the person who holds his office, and that is none other than the bishop of Rome, that is why Nicholas Afanassieff stated what he did about Rome being Peter’s throne par excellence. In other words, my understanding of “successor to Peter” is different than yours.

 

[josie_L]

Again, we go back to several discrete things. First, why does Rome have a form of primacy. Is it because it is a “Petrine” see (as defined by St. Gregory, or in the exclusive post-Chalcedonian sense)… or is there another reason for its primacy. Consider those other elements that Pope Damasus cited which made it pre-eminent - namely its orthodoxy (“having no spot or any other defect”) and that it was the city of the dual-martyrdoms of St. Peter and Paul.

The successor to St. Peter (the one who held his office) was the bishop of Rome, whether pre or post Chalcedon (many examples of her primacy can be attested for). And the fact of the matter is that the Church in Rome had no spot or blemish because she is the successor to St. Peter, and hence obtained special charisms as per the promises of Christ to Peter, i.e., the gates of Hell (i.e., heresy) would not prevail. Why don’t you check out the quotes of the fathers I mentioned two pages ago that link Peter’s successors/church in Rome with infallibility, in fact, even St. Cyprian mentions the inerrancy of the Roman Church:

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance.

 

[josie_L]

For your reading pleasure. You will note earlier that when St. Gregory first referred to the Seat of Peter, it was in reference to the Patriarch of Alexandria.

Error no# 1

I tried approaching the texts with the assumption that St. Gregory held the current Roman Catholic belief about the papacy. However, this I simply did not see. Indeed, almost all of the Roman Catholic proof-texts can be dealt with forthwith due to a couple Orthodox (and common-sense) considerations.** First, reference to St. Peter, as “Prince” of the Apostles is coherent with St. Cyprian’s understanding of all bishops being successors of the “Seat of Peter” **(a phrase which St. Cyprian originated).

Let me quote again the famous Orthodox theologian:

Even Orthodox Nicholas Afanassieff, "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)

Now, for the next:

Second, this does not mean that St. Peter does not have a particular relationship and kinship to the Roman bishop, but the nature of this relationship is not clearly exposited by St. Gregory.

Yes, it is clear, as per the famous Anglican theologian J.N.D. Kelly, and other scholars (as well as Orthodox) that I cited (only one intent on divorcing Pope Gregory’s many epistles by obsessing over one letter taken out of context is going to say it is not clear):

With regard to the other Western Churches limits of space prevent any detailed account of Gregory’s dealings, but the following quotation, all the more valuable as coming from a Protestant authority, indicates very clearly the line he followed herein:

"In his dealings with the Churches of the West, Gregory acted invariably on the assumption that all were subject to the jurisdiction of the Roman See. Of the rights claimed or exercised by his predecessors he would not abate one tittle; on the contrary, he did everything in his power to maintain, strengthen, and extend what he regarded as the just prerogatives of the papacy. It is true that he respected the privileges of the Western metropolitans, and disapproved of unnecessary interference within the sphere of their jurisdiction canonically exercised. . . . But of his general principle there can be no doubt whatever" (Dudden, I, 475).

and:

Protestant (Anglican) scholar as J.N.D. Kelly write that Gregory I

“was indefatigable…in upholding the Roman primacy, and successfully maintained Rome’s appellate jurisdiction in the east…Gregory argued that St. Peter’s commission [e.g. in Matthew 16:18f] made all churches, Constantinople included, subject to Rome” (The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, page 67).

Indeed, most Protestant (and Orthodox) scholars concede that Pope Gregory was one of the first real Popes, and believed himself to have universal jurisdiction and authority over the Catholic Church.

to be continued. . . .