Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[josie_L]

Only the bishop of Rome? Certainly you must forget Antioch having a line of succession going back to Peter as well. The Patriarch of Jerusalem traces its lineage to James the Apostle. It is the oldest See, much older than any of the others.

Yes, only the bishop of Rome because even though Antioch had has its first bishop, Peter, it was the bishop of Rome who inherited his office because this is where Peter lived and died as bishop (Peter’s primacy fell to him). And even though Jerusalem traces its lineage to James, his office was no different than that of other apostles (with the exception of Peter whose office was granted unique charisms), hence, there is no need to clarify that the Bishop of Jerusalem is the successor to James. In other words, because Peter had a primacy it was essential that he have a direct heir, to pass on the special charisms/role that his successors would play.

Now that is again strange; so if a bishop doesn’t die in office, and gives his ministry to another, the one succeeding him doesn’t inherit that ministry? Strange, another strange notion I read here…

No, it’s not strange because as I mentioned earlier, Jesus only gave the primacy to one person, that is, to Peter. Thus, it was a unique office that Peter possessed and so could only devolve to one successor, and that successor was/are the bishops of Rome.

Edit: Even in the Bible we see “Peter and the apostles” mentioned quite a few times as if to hint/imply the fact that Peter’s office/role is was unique from the rest.

 

[josie_L]

You know full well where I stand on the issue, Josie. Milliardo cleared up what I was trying to convey.

In Christ,
Andrew

No, he didn’t because he nor you have answered the questions I asked, that is, how can Jesus who gave primacy to one person, Peter, have no particular successor to succeed him? Did his primacy/office not devolve to someone or am I to believe that it died with Peter?

Edit: To believe that there is no direct successor with respect to Peter would contradict scripture.

 

[John_Larocque]

No, he didn’t because he nor you have answered the questions I asked, that is, how can Jesus who gave primacy to one person, Peter, have no particular successor to succeed him? Did his primacy/office not devolve to someone or am I to believe that it died with Peter?

Edit: To believe that there is no direct successor with respect to Peter would contradict scripture.

According to the St. Chrysostom quote, which you were so kind to funish us with, St. Peter was indeed given a primacy. But Chrysostom also adheres to the belief that Mat 16:18 promise refers to Peter’s faith. So instead of the familiar phrase, “where Peter is, there is the church”, you could say, “where Peter’s faith is, there is the church.” Chrysostom believed that Peter lost his primacy when he denied Jesus, but won it back in Jn 21:15. Whether the real St. Peter lost his faith is really not the point that he is making. But rather, that the promise refers not to the person of St. Peter, but the faith of St. Peter. By citing that example, he was driving that point home. One would could easily come to the conclusion that this also applies to St. Peter’s successors in the church of Rome, and indeed, the rule could be applied to any catholic bishop sitting on the “seat of Peter.” Any bishop who loses his orthodoxy (St. Peter’s faith), loses whatever primacy he has.

I think it’s fair game to assume that the (undefined) primacy of the bishop of Rome was something which was honoured by the other churches. For example, Pope St. Julius commenting that nobody bothered to consult him when St. Athanasius was removed from his see, after Alexandria asked him to confirm his Arian successor. “Can you be ignorant that this is the custom, that we should be written to first, so that from here what is just may be defined.” Although not a universal council, one could easily look back at Sardica for evidence of the type of primacy that the bishop of Rome exercised during the first millenium.

I do think that one could get hung up on the notion that because any catholic bishop can be seen as a successor to all of the apostles, that this in some way is a denial of the relationship of the bishops of Rome to St. Peter and that line of succession. But you’ve tripped over that wire before and probably will again.

Tne question that you could answer: do you believe that a bishop can exercise a form of primacy over multiple episcopal territories (or indeed, all of them), while at the same time affirming that there is no higher office than that of a bishop?

 

[josie_L]

I agree with most of what you said here. It is an obviously cheery view that didn’t always jive with reality, but it was how things were supposed to work.

But the customs and traditions of which I speak of Nine_two is a result of Rome’s primacy/prerogatives, hence the reason, that people sought out Rome’s help in matters of faith and discipline, i.e., as Peter the “rock” was to strenghten the brethren, so to would the bishops of Rome. He is to be the supreme guardian of Christian tradition (“upon this rock I will build my church”):

The emperor Valentinian III (423-455) says:

“We must defend the faith handed down by our fathers with all care, and we must keep the proper reverence due to the blessed apostle Peter incorrupt in our time also. Therefore the most blessed bishop of the Roman city, to whom ancient right has given the authority of the priesthood over all, shall have his place, and power to judge about the faith and about bishops.”

Ad Theodosium among St. Leo I’s letters, Ep. LV (al. post XLVII, PL LIV, 859)

and

Pope Innocent I (407-417) to the synod at Carthage:

“Keeping the ancient tradition, remembering the discipline of the Church, you now strengthen your religion by consulting us, as much as when you made the decree. You have decided to refer to our judgement, knowing what is due to the Apostolic see. For we [the pope], being placed here, intend to follow the apostle, from whom the episcopate itself and all the authority of this name is derived.”

to be continued. . . .

 

[josie_L]

According to the St. Chrysostom quote, which you were so kind to funish us with, St. Peter was indeed given a primacy. But Chrysostom also adheres to the belief that Mat 16:18 promise refers to Peter’s faith. So instead of the familiar phrase, “where Peter is, there is the church”, you could say, “where Peter’s faith is, there is the church.” Chrysostom believed that Peter lost his primacy when he denied Jesus, but won it back in Jn 21:15. Whether the real St. Peter lost his faith is really not the point that he is making. But rather, that the promise refers not to the person of St. Peter, but the faith of St. Peter. By citing that example, he was driving that point home. One would could easily come to the conclusion that this also applies to St. Peter’s successors in the church of Rome, and indeed, the rule could be applied to any catholic bishop sitting on the “seat of Peter.” Any bishop who loses his orthodoxy (St. Peter’s faith), loses whatever primacy he has.

Here is the quote again:

. . . Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith 'If thou lovest Me, PRESIDE over thy brethren."

" ’ And I say unto thee, thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd."

"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.’ "

“For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. 'For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.”

“Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed are thou, Simon Bar Jona, because because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in Heaven '; this very Peter, - **and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed.” **

The “rock” refers to Peter but also (in a secondary sense) his confession of faith because when one reads Matthew 16:18, we read literally the direct issuance by Jesus to Peter (whose name was deliberately changed to "rock’ just at that moment) wherein “upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail”. Moreover, Peter cannot be separated from his confession of faith nor for that matter did Peter lose that faith (he did however act cowardly). In fact, all the apostles, with the exception of one abandoned Jesus (and yet did Jesus have to restore their apostleship). Furthermore, Jesus despite knowing that Peter would act thusly, mentions that he should (the first of two occassions) “strengthen the brethren” (Luke 22:32) so nothing was in fact taken away. And if indeed a pope should act unworthily of his post, then that would not nullify the primacy given to that office but the person in office (read Isaiah 22:22 for your answers).

I think it’s fair game to assume that the (undefined) primacy of the bishop of Rome was something which was honoured by the other churches. For example, Pope St. Julius commenting that nobody bothered to consult him when St. Athanasius was removed from his see, after Alexandria asked him to confirm his Arian successor. “Can you be ignorant that this is the custom, that we should be written to first, so that from here what is just may be defined.” Although not a universal council, one could easily look back at Sardica for evidence of the type of primacy that the bishop of Rome exercised during the first millenium.

Actually, the canons at Sardica became common law for both East and West, “in the East they were confirmed by the synod of Constantinople in Trullo (692).”

(The Early Papacy to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 by Adrian Fortesque, pg. 73)

The question that you could answer: do you believe that a bishop can exercise a form of primacy over multiple episcopal territories (or indeed, all of them), while at the same time affirming that there is no higher office than that of a bishop?

I’ll let Adrian Fortesque answer for me:

Anglicans often tell us that all bishops are equal, as if this principle were an objection to the papacy. So they are, as far as the order of the episopate is concerned. There is only one order of bishops; no one can be, in any sense, more a bishop than another. If a man is ordained Bishop of Rome, he receives exactly the same sacrament as one who is ordained bishop of the smallest suffragan see in the most remote land. The Bishop of Rome, as far as order goes, is no more a bishop than the bishop of Krishnagar. But all bishops are not equal, in the sense that none has authority over any other. In this sense the statement is false and can be proved to be false from the very beginning of Church history. It can be proved false by other examples than that of Rome. From the beginning there have been cases of bishops who had extradiocesan authority, that is, jurisdiction, real jurisdiction, over their fellow bishops.

 

[John_Larocque]

Er… Em… Actually, that wasn’t the quote in question, so you weren’t posting it “again”, hence everything contained in it is out of context because its contents were not referred to in my post.

But never mind. It’s easier to imagine that one is “conversing” with an artifical intelligence similacrum such as this one:

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Sadly, it was Rome who twisted the text to retroactively justify a universal/supreme/infallible pontiff–an innovation that was brought forth in the 19th century.

Now Mickey, you know better than that. The primacy of Peter is evident before the Crucifixion. The Church reads the text the way it was translated into Latin by St. Jerome. So do you, but, protestant-like, you twist it to deny what it says. That’s on the record.

I’m sure you know the reason the Council of Trent defined papal infallibility is because Luther’s condemnation of papal authority had gained traction in Germany, largely through the political machinations of the German princes. From the beginning, from the day of Pentecost, when Peter walked out the door ahead of the others and was first to preach the Gospel, he was looked to as the leader of the Church. Nothing’s changed.

  <snipped presumption of what St. Peter would have done>

We can see plain as day during the Council of Jerusalem that St Peter did not claim such “powers”. And it was St James who headed that council in the book of Acts.

You should know better than that. James presided because he was the Bishop of Jerusalem. When John Paul II came to Los Angeles in, I believe, 1984, I was privileged to attend the welcoming ceremony at the Cathedral. The Archbishop of Los Angeles presided. That’s nothing but protocol.

As Scripture shows, St. Peter was an exceedingly kind and modest man. He would NEVER claim such powers. They were given to him by the Lord.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

According to the St. Chrysostom quote, which you were so kind to funish us with, St. Peter was indeed given a primacy. But Chrysostom also adheres to the belief that Mat 16:18 promise refers to Peter’s faith. So instead of the familiar phrase, “where Peter is, there is the church”, you could say, “where Peter’s faith is, there is the church.” Chrysostom believed that Peter lost his primacy when he denied Jesus, but won it back in Jn 21:15.

To believe that we’d have to believe Our Lord knew nothing of Peter’s impending denial. But He did, didn’t He? He told Peter, before the cock crowed three times, he would deny Him. That was after He had given Peter primacy. Did He take it away? Did Our Lord make a mistake? I don’t think so.

Any bishop who loses his orthodoxy (St. Peter’s faith), loses whatever primacy he has.

And that comes from who? St. John of Larocque? Your and St. John Chrysostom’s conjecture makes for excellent eisegesis and not so good scholarship.

 

[Formosus]

To believe that we’d have to believe Our Lord knew nothing of Peter’s impending denial. But He did, didn’t He? He told Peter, before the cock crowed three times, he would deny Him. That was after He had given Peter primacy. Did He take it away? Did Our Lord make a mistake? I don’t think so.

And that comes from who? St. John of Larocque? Your and St. John Chrysostom’s conjecture makes for excellent eisegesis and not so good scholarship.

I am sorry I wasn’t aware that ad hominem attacks were appropriate on this forum? If you have a problem with the views of St. John Chrysostom on this issue, then you won’t find much sympathy from St. Augustine who (in his retractions) admitted that it could be either Peter’s confession of faith as the rock or Peter himself as the rock. I agree that there is something about Peter’s person that makes his successors in Rome hold primacy, but this doesn’t exclude that Peter’s confession is not also the rock of the faith. Nor does this mean that Antioch and Alexandria are not equally Petrine Sees as well (this is the view of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome btw) nor does it exclude the position that all Bishops are in some way successors of Peter. This forum is meant to be a place of friendly discussion where members can learn from each other and if you want to come in here and use the Church’s Dogmas as stick which to beat our Orthodox brothers and sisters over the head with, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

Oh and just some food for thought for you
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.” -Cardinal Ratzinger

 

[josie_L]

I am sorry I wasn’t aware that ad hominem attacks were appropriate on this forum? If you have a problem with the views of St. John Chrysostom on this issue, then you won’t find much sympathy from St. Augustine who (in his retractions) admitted that it could be either Peter’s confession of faith as the rock or Peter himself as the rock. I agree that there is something about Peter’s person that makes his successors in Rome hold primacy, but this doesn’t exclude that Peter’s confession is not also the rock of the faith. Nor does this mean that Antioch and Alexandria are not equally Petrine Sees as well (this is the view of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome btw) nor does it exclude the position that all Bishops are in some way successors of Peter. This forum is meant to be a place of friendly discussion where members can learn from each other and if you want to come in here and use the Church’s Dogmas as stick which to beat our Orthodox brothers and sisters over the head with, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

No one is excluding Peter’s confession, but when reading Mattew 16:18 no one should doubt that the rock refers to Peter, i.e., when Jesus changes Peter’s name, he does so right at the moment he says “upon this rock I will build my Church” (also name changes in the Bible signify a new role/mission for the person whose name was changed). Mind you, since you cannot separate the confession from the one who confessed it, it can very well be that both Peter and his confession of faith are the “rock”. Moreover, St. Gregory the Great was well aware of his primacy, and admitted as much in his many epistles (please look several pages back to see a full discourse on the subject matter in question).

Oh and just some food for thought for you
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.” -Cardinal Ratzinger

But what does this mean when we don’t even agree about what that primacy entailed during the first millenium? Anyways, if you wish to ascertain what Pope Benedict believes with respect to primacy/ecclesioloy read his book “Called to Communion”.

p.s. Something else you should know, in the Bible only God and Abraham (other than Peter) were called or referred to as “rock”.

 

[Matariel]

Of course not. It is an Ecclesiatical divorce.

Apparently you’re not familiar with the practices of the holy Catholic Church. An annulment is not “an ecclesiastical divorce”— it’s a declaration that a marriage was never valid to begin with. “Annulment” is the colloquial way of saying it. More accurately, it’s a declaration of pre-existing nullity of a marriage. Next time you should be certain you know what you’re speaking of before you attempt to zing one-liners.

 

[Palamas]

As an Orthodox convert from protestantism, I am only too aware of the ethnic flavor of Orthodoxy. However, as some one said earlier, the ethnic/juridictional division is only superficial. All the Orthodox jurisdictions are in communion together precisely because they all share the same faith. Though I am a member of the Antiochian Archdiocese in the United States, I can attend and take communion and participate in any of the sacraments(except ordination) in the Greek,Romanian, Serbian, and OCA parishes in my city, Houston, without anyone batting an eye. I can do in any Orthodox parish in the world. The liturgy and the faith are one and the same, even if in different languages. In the United States, there is unity of sorts in what is called SCOBA, a pan Orthodox body to which all the jurisdictions belong. In it, many issues and common concerns are dealt with on a regular basis. It does not have any binding authority, but it often speaks with one voice, both to the non-Orthodox in America, and to the various Orthodox patriarchates.

The desire for complete unity among the laity in all the jurisdictions is widespread and deep. We all hold the multiple jurisdictions in America to be a scandal to the body of Christ and feel the need to overcome the episcopal disunity. We can only pray and be patient while our bishops and laity work to bring this to fruition.

Unity with the Roman Catholic Church is a non-issue for most of us. I don’t hate or fear the RCC. I don’t know any Orthodox who do. Its just not something we worry about.
We would welcome union, but don’t see how the RCC can put the genie back into the bottle and return to her Orthodox roots she left in the 11th century. We Orthodox are still happily stuck in the 11th century, as well as the 1st-10th centuries. The Roman Catholic Church to me is the first protestant church, in the same sense that the protestants in the 16th century wanted to change what had been believed and practiced for 1500 years. The Roman patriarch wanted to change what had been believed and practiced for the first 1000 years. We have chosen to stand steadfast in the same Orthodox faith handed down by the Church fathers and the councils of the church.

As to not having missions in the so called third world, the Orthodox Church is the fastest growing Christian body in Africa. We are also growing in the 4th world of secular/Islamist western Europe. We also have missions in India, Indonesia and South America, all of which are growing rapidly.

 

[Matariel]

As an Orthodox convert from protestantism, I am only too aware of the ethnic flavor of Orthodoxy. However, as some one said earlier, the ethnic/juridictional division is only superficial.

With respect to you and the holy Eastern churches separated from the Holy See, the divisions are more than superficial. Some Eastern churches are in communion, while others are not; some are in communion with one, but not the rest, ect. How can such divided churches, who do not even universally recognize one another, be considered as having the sacred unity of Christ?

That is one of the reasons I chose the holy Catholic Church over the holy Eastern Orthodox churches when I left the Protestant sects. The Catholic Church has 22 Rites, Latin and Eastern, but they still maintain the same faith and creeds, and all hold to the Chair of St. Peter, from which, St. Cyprian says, “sacerdotal unity has its source”.

 

[Aramis]

As an Orthodox convert from protestantism, I am only too aware of the ethnic flavor of Orthodoxy. However, as some one said earlier, the ethnic/juridictional division is only superficial. All the Orthodox jurisdictions are in communion together precisely because they all share the same faith.

There have been points in the last 100 years where ROCOR was not in communion with Russia nor the OCA, yet was in communion with Constantinople.

Certain other particular churches have had similar points. For a period of a couple months, within the last decade, several monasteries on Mt. Athos rejected commemorating the EP.

IIRC, the Serbian Orthodox Church is in communion with some but not all of the EO Communion.

This does not evidence the unity which the EO Communion claims, and which you tout.

 

[Diak]

The primacy of Peter is evident before the Crucifixion.

I am sorry I wasn’t aware that ad hominem attacks were appropriate on this forum? If you have a problem with the views of St. John Chrysostom on this issue, then you won’t find much sympathy from St. Augustine who (in his retractions) admitted that it could be either Peter’s confession of faith as the rock or Peter himself as the rock. I agree that there is something about Peter’s person that makes his successors in Rome hold primacy, but this doesn’t exclude that Peter’s confession is not also the rock of the faith. Nor does this mean that Antioch and Alexandria are not equally Petrine Sees as well (this is the view of St. Gregory the Great, Pope of Rome btw) nor does it exclude the position that all Bishops are in some way successors of Peter. This forum is meant to be a place of friendly discussion where members can learn from each other and if you want to come in here and use the Church’s Dogmas as stick which to beat our Orthodox brothers and sisters over the head with, then perhaps you are on the wrong forum.

Oh and just some food for thought for you
“Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine of primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium.” -Cardinal Ratzinger

Thanks once again to Formosus for historical accuracy and a very well-reasoned response. It is evident that both the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church did not consider an absolute “supreme primacy” to be present in the person of St. Peter, before or after the Crucifixion.

However, as some one said earlier, the ethnic/juridictional division is only superficial. All the Orthodox jurisdictions are in communion together precisely because they all share the same faith.

Go to Ukraine sometime (same ethnicity, three separate Orthodox jurisdictions). Two of the Orthodox churches have been declared “without grace” by Moscow. If they shared the same faith, how could they be “without grace”? Ask a Greek Old Calendarist if he considers his faith the same as the Greek Archdiocese of Athens, or a Russian Old Believer if his is the same as the post-Nikonian Moscow Patriarchate.

There are still two Romanian and Bulgarian hierarchies in the US, each having one with the OCA and another with the national Church who have no direct ecclesiastical relationships. Within those either currently or fomerly from the Moscow Patriarchate, there are three jurisdictions (OCA, ROCOR, and Moscow Patriarchal parishes). In our local communities, even after the “reunion” the only persons in the two Serbian parishes (one Patriarchal and one New Gracanica) who speak to each other are the priests. It is far, far deeper than “superficial”.

 

[spn82756]

Thanks once again to Formosus for historical accuracy and a well-reasoned response. It is evident that both the Apostles and the Fathers of the early Church did not consider an absolute “supreme primacy” to be present in the person of St. Peter, before or after the Crucifixion.

Gosh…we’ve been going over this so for soooo many posts. Can we try something like purgatory. I’m very interested in the Orthodox position…and I mean that sincerely.

 

[Diak]

Gosh…we’ve been going over this so for soooo many posts. Can we try something like purgatory. I’m very interested in the Orthodox position…and I mean that sincerely.

Maybe you haven’t followed this thread completely - as it has been proposed by myself and others and assented to by several Orthodox, the main issue in reunification is ecclesiological rather than ideological or theological, and primacy is a central part of that ecclesiological millieu. Purgatory is a red herring of theologumena compared to the main issue, which has to be dealt with at some point.

 

[Mickey]

So do you, but, protestant-like, you twist it to deny what it says.

LOL! You can keep hurling your “protestant-like” adjectives. But that does not make your twisting of the interpretation any more true.

I’m sure you know the reason the Council of Trent defined papal infallibility

Gotta love those ultramontanes!

he was looked to as the leader of the Church…

Christ is the head. All apostles are created equal. The great apostle St Peter was often the mouthpiece for the others.

When John Paul II came to Los Angeles in, I believe, 1984, I was privileged to attend the welcoming ceremony at the Cathedral. The Archbishop of Los Angeles presided. That’s nothing but protocol…

LOL! That is a silly analogy.

As Scripture shows, St. Peter was an exceedingly kind and modest man.

Amen.

He would NEVER claim such powers. They were given to him by the Lord.

Not exclusively. All the apostles were given the authority to bind and loose.

 

[Mickey]

Apparently you’re not familiar with the practices of the holy Catholic Church.

Actually, I’m quite familiar.

An annulment is not “an ecclesiastical divorce”— it’s a declaration that a marriage was never valid to begin with.

Yes. Tis’ a pity. The RCC is saying that the marriage never existed. The RCC is retroactively retracting the sacrament of Holy Matrimony. I see it as a legalistic forum for declaring an ecclesiastical divorce. Corbin.

Next time you should be certain you know what you’re speaking of before you attempt to zing one-liners.

It was not meant as a “zinger”.

 

[Mickey]

The Catholic Church has 22 Rites, Latin and Eastern, but they still maintain the same faith and creeds,

As Palamas says, we are all united by our common holy, catholic and apostolic faith. We can commune in any canonical Orthodox Church.

When I was RC, I remember that the Irish would only attend the Irish Catholic Church, the Italian would only attend the local Roman Catholic Church, the Polish would never go anywhere but the Polish Church, the Ukrainians would never attened a Ruthenian Church etc., etc., etc.