Eastern Catholic and Orthodoxy

[Christy74]

You seem to have a lot of hostility, and I think that a shame. To deny Latin Rite Catholics as being orthodox (small o) Catholics, is false. No one ‘knows’ the Orthodox Church well enough to make comments or attempt apologetics? Or is it the fact that they DO KNOW about it, and decided to go with the Catholic Church (and the Papacy) despite it? The Catholic apologists that you mentioned (“mockingly”–to borrow your term–calling them Protestants) are making an effort to bring unity to the Body of Christ, afterall. Dave Armstrong and James Akin are both intelligent enough to debate those (like yourself) who are clearly anti-Rome. Whether or not you like it, is beside the point.

Most ‘orthodox’ Eastern Rite Catholics understand that **full communion **with the Church of Christ is acceptance and obedience to the Roman See (the Papacy).

raeshomepage.bravehost.com/easternandwestern.html

Hi Byzgirl,

I encourage you to read: The Truth - What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church by Clark Carlton

This may be a way to help round out your knowledge. It could perhaps help you see that your arguments don’t really stick in the Eastern Catholic Forum and perhaps you can develop new ones which do. I realize you are on fire for the Roman Catholic Church and that is great, but I’d like to see you become more affective.

Worst case senario, you read the book and it rounds out your education a little.

I give this as a completely positive suggestion and hope it is taken that way.

Your Catholic Sister in Christ,
Christy

 

[ematouk]

I could argue with every point that you’ve countered, but do not currently have the time (this week I’m taking my children to our Byzantine Church’s VBS every day). So, I’ll make this short and sweet…

It doesn’t matter what the Orthodox can accept or not (or Protestantism). Peter was given the keys, and him alone. His authority was given, by Christ, to shepherd the Church throughout time, until His Return. The Seat of Peter, like the Chair of Moses’ authority, is not to be challenged (being derived by God Himself). It’s intention is not for the sole ‘power’ of a particular individual, but bestowed upon the heir of Peter. This singular ‘authority’ is Christ’s, and necessary, in the Church he instituted with men, to keep the flock (the New Israel/The Church) together as one. It is the promise of the Holy Spirit that has kept that intact. The Church is built upon the Rock (Peter).

Slava Isusu Christu!

If the seat of Moses was infallible then we should of followed the Pharisees in their heretical rejection of Jesus.

Also:

“If the popes have always been infallible in any meaningful sense of the word — if their official pronouncements as heads of the church on matters of faith and morals have always been unerring and so irreformable — then all kinds of dubious consequences ensue. Most obviously, twentieth century popes would be bound by a whole array of past papal decrees reflecting the responses of the Roman church to the religious and moral problems of former ages. As Acton put it, “The responsibility for the acts of the buried and repented past would come back at once and for ever.” To defend religious liberty would be “insane” and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right “not only the universal church but the whole world.” Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.” (Brian Tierney “Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages”; page 2)

Brian Tierney is also a Catholic - and a Latin one as well.

Byzgirl, If you read any of the modern Orthodox apologists, and even a large plathora of Roman Catholic historians, you will notice they all agree that it was not until about the 500s that popes began claiming they ruled by “divine-rite” (reactionary to the increasing powers of Constantinople after the move of the Capital to “New Rome”), while the Eastern Christians never had this understanding - not even today.

Even if you do not accept Canon 28 of Chalcedon, then you must admit it shows the Eastern understanding in those days is that Rome only held primacy because it was the head of the empire. That is why I can not accept universal jurisdiction as a “Catholic” doctrine.

“Catholic” means “from the whole”, but the doctrine that the pope has universal jurisdiction and is infallible has ALWAYS been denied in the East. It is not “from the whole” it is only from Rome. Even if it was believed in the West for as long as the church can remember, it was still always denied in the East. It fails the litmus test of “Catholic doctrine” by St Vincent of Lerins which says for a doctrine to be truly “Catholic” it must of been believed “everywhere, always and by all (general consensus)”. I will have to say I’m sorry, but the papal claims - whether they be developments, evolutions or whatever - fails this test. That is the main reason I chose the Orthodox Church, and the reason I am still Orthodox today - the Truth.

God bless.

 

[JJR1453]

If the seat of Moses was infallible then we should of followed the Pharisees in their heretical rejection of Jesus.

Also:

“If the popes have always been infallible in any meaningful sense of the word — if their official pronouncements as heads of the church on matters of faith and morals have always been unerring and so irreformable — then all kinds of dubious consequences ensue. Most obviously, twentieth century popes would be bound by a whole array of past papal decrees reflecting the responses of the Roman church to the religious and moral problems of former ages. As Acton put it, “The responsibility for the acts of the buried and repented past would come back at once and for ever.” To defend religious liberty would be “insane” and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right “not only the universal church but the whole world.” Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.” (Brian Tierney “Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages”; page 2)

Brian Tierney is also a Catholic - and a Latin one as well.

Byzgirl, If you read any of the modern Orthodox apologists, and even a large plathora of Roman Catholic historians, you will notice they all agree that it was not until about the 500s that popes began claiming they ruled by “divine-rite” (reactionary to the increasing powers of Constantinople after the move of the Capital to “New Rome”), while the Eastern Christians never had this understanding - not even today.

Even if you do not accept Canon 28 of Chalcedon, then you must admit it shows the Eastern understanding in those days is that Rome only held primacy because it was the head of the empire. That is why I can not accept universal jurisdiction as a “Catholic” doctrine.

“Catholic” means “from the whole”, but the doctrine that the pope has universal jurisdiction and is infallible has ALWAYS been denied in the East. It is not “from the whole” it is only from Rome. Even if it was believed in the West for as long as the church can remember, it was still always denied in the East. It fails the litmus test of “Catholic doctrine” by St Vincent of Lerins which says for a doctrine to be truly “Catholic” it must of been believed “everywhere, always and by all (general consensus)”. I will have to say I’m sorry, but the papal claims - whether they be developments, evolutions or whatever - fails this test. That is the main reason I chose the Orthodox Church, and the reason I am still Orthodox today - the Truth.

God bless.

Hello ematouk!

Thank you for your words, I shall respond very shortly as your post interests me much. But, for the moment, I am at work. But I will reply shortly. However, much of what you have to say does not match up with historical reality. Especially of the charge you assert of the Popes, at the earliest, only claiming ‘rule by divine right’ in the 6th Century. This, to any one of even moderate knowledge of church history, would seem outlandish. Nevertheless, I shall shortly provide examples.

Peace and God bless,

JJR

 

[JJR1453]

If the seat of Moses was infallible then we should of followed the Pharisees in their heretical rejection of Jesus.

Also:

“If the popes have always been infallible in any meaningful sense of the word — if their official pronouncements as heads of the church on matters of faith and morals have always been unerring and so irreformable — then all kinds of dubious consequences ensue. Most obviously, twentieth century popes would be bound by a whole array of past papal decrees reflecting the responses of the Roman church to the religious and moral problems of former ages. As Acton put it, “The responsibility for the acts of the buried and repented past would come back at once and for ever.” To defend religious liberty would be “insane” and to persecute heretics commendable. Judicial torture would be licit and the taking of interest on loans a mortal sin. The pope would rule by divine right “not only the universal church but the whole world.” Unbaptized babies would be punished in Hell for all eternity. Maybe the sun would still be going round the earth.” (Brian Tierney “Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages”; page 2)

Brian Tierney is also a Catholic - and a Latin one as well.

Byzgirl, If you read any of the modern Orthodox apologists, and even a large plathora of Roman Catholic historians, you will notice they all agree that it was not until about the 500s that popes began claiming they ruled by “divine-rite” (reactionary to the increasing powers of Constantinople after the move of the Capital to “New Rome”), while the Eastern Christians never had this understanding - not even today.

Even if you do not accept Canon 28 of Chalcedon, then you must admit it shows the Eastern understanding in those days is that Rome only held primacy because it was the head of the empire. That is why I can not accept universal jurisdiction as a “Catholic” doctrine.

“Catholic” means “from the whole”, but the doctrine that the pope has universal jurisdiction and is infallible has ALWAYS been denied in the East. It is not “from the whole” it is only from Rome. Even if it was believed in the West for as long as the church can remember, it was still always denied in the East. It fails the litmus test of “Catholic doctrine” by St Vincent of Lerins which says for a doctrine to be truly “Catholic” it must of been believed “everywhere, always and by all (general consensus)”. I will have to say I’m sorry, but the papal claims - whether they be developments, evolutions or whatever - fails this test. That is the main reason I chose the Orthodox Church, and the reason I am still Orthodox today - the Truth.

God bless.

First off Brian Tierney was certainly against Papal infallibility; he was also on the side of the minority, along with others such as Hans Kung. I dont really understand why you have quoted him? If it is because you wish to make note that there were some bishops that opposed infallibility, then this is well noted; and well, obvious.

You assert that the Bishops of Rome only in the 6th Century started to develop this “idea” of their authority being of divine origin. However, as early as the year 256 we see Pope St. Stephen asserting Matthew 16:18 to himself, when we read from Firmilian of Caesarea’s letter to St. Cyprian concerning St. Stephen’s judgement of the matter:

“And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority.” (Epistles of Cyprian, LXXVI)

Here Firmilian is writing to Cyprian about their contention that heretical baptism is invalid. Of course St. Stephen’s and Rome’s judgement of the matter held and was further asserted when the Council of Nicea in its 19th Canon adopted the Roman ruling. This letter of Firmilian’s is an obvious polemic and some historians have even questioned its authenticity because of the sharp language used therein. It should not be supposed that Firmilian himself does not view the Bishop of Rome as having that succesion, but only that he believes St. Stephen as: “introducing many other rocks”, that is, betraying the unity of the church. Of course, we know he wasn’t and the church subsequently adopted the Roman ruling.

I would, however, agree with you that Rome was well aware of the ambitious pretensions of Constantinople. As we here from Pope St. Damasus:

“Likewise it is decreed:…We have considered that it ought to be announced that…the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior…”(Decree of Damasus from the Roman council of 382 where he states the 73 canonical books that were to be accepted by the church)

This very well may have been stated in opposition to the 3rd canon of Constantinople I, which at the time was not ecumenical, and would not obtain such a title till Chalcedon.

As for the 28th canon of Chalcedon, we see that Constantinople ,and its ambitious bishop Anatolius, take far strides to put this canon into effect. However, not even a bishop of so high ambition would dare to believe he did not need the confirmation of the Pope. In the letter from the council of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo, that was most probably written by Anatolius himself:

*“In order to show that we have done nothing from favour or dislike towards anyone, **we have brought the whole contents of what we have done to thy knowledge, and have communicated it to thee for confirmation and assent.” *(Hefele quotes from Leo’s 98 Epistle)

On Feb 15th, 453 Emperor Marican writes a letter expessing that Leo should not delay his confimation for all that had been done at Chalcedon, blatantly showing the weight of the Bishop of Rome in regards to the confirmation of Ecumenical synods for the adherence of the church universal. Of course long before this Leo had written to Anatolius affirming the conucil, but Anatolius had kept it silent precisely because of the Pope’s speech that entailed the annulling of canon 28. Leo speaks of the matter thus:

“What therefore our most clement Emperor deemed needful I have willingly complied with, by sending letters to all the brethren who were present at the Synod of Chalcedon, in which to show that I approved of what was resolved upon by our holy brethren about the Rule of Faith; on their account to wit, who in order to cloke their own treachery, pretend to consider invalid or doubtful such conciliar ordinances as are not ratified by my assent: albeit, after the return of the brethren whom I had sent in my stead, I dispatched a letter to the bishop of Constantinople; so that, if he had been minded to publish it, abundant proof might have been furnished thereby how gladly I approved of what the synod had passed concerning the Faith. But, because it contained such an answer as would have run counter to his self-seeking, he preferred my acceptance of the brethren’s resolutions to remain unknown, lest at the same time my reply should become known on the absolute authority of the Nicene canons. Wherefore take heed, beloved, that you warn our most gracious prince by frequent reminders that he add his words to ours and order the letter of the Apostolic see to be sent round to the priests of each single province, that hereafter no enemy of the Truth may venture to excuse himself under cover of my silence.” (Leo Epistle 114)

Really, there are countless quotes from the Father’s that blatantly show their reverence for the Apostolic see and its bishop.

God bless,

JJR

 

[tdgesq]

This of course completely ignores the startling fact that it was not St.Peter who presided over the ancient Apostolic Council of Jerusalem, but St.James the Brother-of-the-Lord. It was he who issued the sentence and formula on behalf of the assembled Apostles, Hierarchs, and Clergy.

You have many difficulties to overcome here, specifically:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

12And all the assembly fell silent . . . .

That James pronounced judgment in accord with Peter after he spoke should not concern us. If you think it has significance, then it is a little bit difficult to explain why no Patriarch since (except for the Bishop of Rome) has somehow given the definitive pronouncement of the decision of an ecumenical council. Your theory proves more than the Orthodox are willing to accept.

Interestingly, what influence St.Peter had was charismatic, not as one “Lording it over” another - as our Lord says, it is the Heathens who seek this kind of thing, it’s not of the Gospel (even if sinful Christians so often do such things anyway.)

Then why accept primacy of honor?

The model presented by Christ for the Apostles, and in turn for their successors (the Bishops) is fraternal. Bishops are not as Presbyters to other Bishops, or a singular “super Bishop” of some kind. Even St.James’ is not presumptuous while presiding over that primitive Council - he writes in the name of those assembled, declaring “it is good to us and the Holy Spirit…”

There is no evidence that St. James alone wrote the letter:

22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23with the following letter:

It appears that it is you who are reading something into the Scriptures that is not there.

This notion of the Papacy you present simply isn’t the one that was accepted throughout Christendom - it was very provincial, and shows a very clear pattern of evolution…development to the point that the end product would be utterly unrecognizable to all of it’s early ancestors.

An easy thing to say, but an impossible thing to prove. Here is what your supposed advocate St. John Chrysostom has to say about the role of St. Peter:

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])

"This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation." (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48]) [bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm](http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm)

And finally:

“If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world.”

The Orthodox cannot accept this, or any of the other innovations distinctive of Catholicism, whether in liturgical matters or in matters of doctrine. This is the source of division between Rome and it’s followers and the Orthodox Church of Christ. Since the 11th century, unfortunately, the differences have multiplied, with Rome in all cases being the agent of change.

Right, just all of the other “innovations” that occurred during the first seven ecumenical councils. Pentarchy anyone? No such thing existed in the primitive Church. If everything that you’ve said is true, then there should be no such thing as primacy of honor in any form. Perhaps there is room yet for the notion that the successor of St. Peter has a specific Petrine ministry to carry out.

 

[Mickey]

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last. There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
St John Chrysostom

 

[deco9393]

Dear John, I left a message on the forum “Ask an Apologist” this morning. No one has answered yet. My question is very similar to your question. I am drawn to the Orthodox Church because of their reverent liturgy. I am a Catholic, and my husband said we should visit an Eastern Catholic church. I want to know the real story behind the split between East and West. The Western Catholics changed the creed. The Eastern Catholics felt that the Pope was becoming more than the “First among Equals”. The Orthodox seem to have the ancient liturgy that you hear about through the early Church Fathers, so who really split from whom? It seems that our Catholic Church has left the ancient roots of our liturgical service. I like the incense and the bells. I like the chants and the icons. Many of our “modern” parishes look more like Protestant churches. What I learned about the Eastern Catholic churches, is that they were the Eastern Churches who sided with the Pope and the Orthodox did not. I really want to know the truth about this “split” We have so much in common that I can’t believe we are not united. Thanks for listening to me. Dianna

 

[ematouk]

JJR1453:

First off Brian Tierney was certainly against Papal infallibility; he was also on the side of the minority, along with others such as Hans Kung. I dont really understand why you have quoted him? If it is because you wish to make note that there were some bishops that opposed infallibility, then this is well noted; and well, obvious.

Brian Tierney is not a bishop. He is a Roman Catholic historian. He was not on the side of the minority at all - he wasnt even present at the council! How did he write a book published in 1972 if he was present at a council which had its conclusion on papal infallibility in 1870?

Im showing the current trend of Roman Catholic historians to be in dichotemy with Roman Catholic theologians. Hans Kung brilliantly showed how infallibile pronouncements have reduced the weighting of regular pronouncements. Pope John XXIII made no infallible pronouncements but radically revolutionised the church more then any other pope.If a pope defines something without making it infallible, can he really be trusted? Should I trust a pope who is not even so sure of himself? Popes had far more power and could do far more to preserve the church when they were not infallible.

JJR1453:

You assert that the Bishops of Rome only in the 6th Century started to develop this “idea” of their authority being of divine origin. However, as early as the year 256 we see Pope St. Stephen asserting Matthew 16:18 to himself, when we read from Firmilian of Caesarea’s letter to St. Cyprian concerning St. Stephen’s judgement of the matter:

Sorry I had no intention of stating the Pope did not rule by “divine origin” for all bishops rule by divine origin - all bishops are chosen by God whether they be good or bad.

But what I meant was that the Pope did not claim to rule by divine rite. Do not all bishops have succession from Peter? That is all bishops who hold to the faith of Peter are successors of Peter.

I’m just curious if you have ever read the letter you quote (newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm ) and if you didnt just copy it off an apologetics website? The passage you quote is in fact from Epistle 74:17, not Epistle 76. While I am not questioning the document’s authenticity (I am no scholar or historian), Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno explains in depth the error of associating this passage with papal perogatives. I will not quote at large what can easily be accessed - but it is the general consensus amongst Roman Catholic historians that this passage says nothing about the papacy (See Robert Eno “The Rise of the Papacy” pp.57-60).

JJR1453:

This very well may have been stated in opposition to the 3rd canon of Constantinople I, which at the time was not ecumenical, and would not obtain such a title till Chalcedon.

I’m sorry to say but it in fact was. In the East it was regarded as the 2nd Ecumenical council, while the West had no knowledge of its existance until Chalcedon. In fact, the bishop of Rome was not even invited because he was currently in schism with Antioch - and the bishop of Antioch presided with love over the council since at that time he had the next highest see in rank.

In regards to Leo’s 98th Epistle, for the sake of the unity of the church, the patriarch urged Rome to accept the canon, this does not mean Rome has power over all to accept the canons. This is why he says in the same letter “We therefore beg you to honour our JUDGMENT by your own decrees.” If the confirmation of the Bishop of Rome had been necessary, would the decree of Chalcedon have been a judgment, a promulgated decision before that confirmation?

Canon 28 was even accepted in some parts in the West, despite the Popes rejection, (see St. Avitus, metropolitan Bishop of Vienne–to John, Bishop of Constantinople) as one example amongst hundreds. Regardless of the Pope’s ambitions, Rome eventually accepted this reality at the 4th Lateran Council and future councils that Constantinople was 2nd in rank after Rome. (see Canon 5 of the 4th lateran council in 1215 - summery is at newadvent.org/cathen/09018a.htm )

tdgesq:

Then why accept primacy of honor?

For the same reason man has a primacy of honour and servitude over a woman. He has a primacy of honour because he was created first. Peter has a primacy of honour because he was first to recieve the power of the sacraments. But nobody doubts that they are equal.

If you believe man is elevated above women, this would indicate the theology which is causing women to rebel and create their own priesthood in America.

tdgesq:

An easy thing to say, but an impossible thing to prove. Here is what your supposed advocate St. John Chrysostom has to say about the role of St. Peter:

St John Chrysostom was a member of the patriarchate of Antioch while he was writing all these words. Rome and Antioch were in schism at the time (you can research that schism yourself). If John Chrysostom really believed in the necessity to be in union with Rome, then why wasn’t he himself in union with Rome? (ie before he was captured and almost forcibly made Patriarch of Constantinople - which brought him back in union with Rome).

St John Crysostom is speaking exaltedly about the apostle Peter, but he does not associate this with a personal succession of Peter to the Pope of Rome. Also what he relates to peter in all circumstances, he relates the same language to other apostles.

In regards to your quote, St John Chrysostom also said of St Paul:

“Angels often receive the mission of guarding the nations, but none of them ever governed the people confided to him as Paul governed the whole universe. . . .The Hebrew people were confided to Michael the Archangel, and to Paul were committed the earth, the sea, the inhabitants of all the universe–even the desert.” (Panegyric upon St. Paul. 2nd Homily)

May God bless you both, but I have heard some of these arguments before. I know you feel zeal for the Catholic faith and that is great, but I am just not there. I can not side with the papacy when I know in my heart that it is false. God bless.

 

[Christy74]

Dear John, I left a message on the forum “Ask an Apologist” this morning. No one has answered yet. My question is very similar to your question. I am drawn to the Orthodox Church because of their reverent liturgy. I am a Catholic, and my husband said we should visit an Eastern Catholic church. I want to know the real story behind the split between East and West. The Western Catholics changed the creed. The Eastern Catholics felt that the Pope was becoming more than the “First among Equals”. The Orthodox seem to have the ancient liturgy that you hear about through the early Church Fathers, so who really split from whom? It seems that our Catholic Church has left the ancient roots of our liturgical service. I like the incense and the bells. I like the chants and the icons. Many of our “modern” parishes look more like Protestant churches. What I learned about the Eastern Catholic churches, is that they were the Eastern Churches who sided with the Pope and the Orthodox did not. I really want to know the truth about this “split” We have so much in common that I can’t believe we are not united. Thanks for listening to me. Dianna

Dianna, I would recommend a book to you called: “The Lives of the Pillars of Orthodoxy” by the Holy Apostles Convent in Colorado - Dormition Skete Icons. It is Vol. 5 of a 7 Volume Series which were recommended to me years ago by an Eastern Catholic Priest. Another Favorite of mine in that Series is: “The Life of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos”. The website is: holyapostlesconvent.org/HacWebStore/product_info.php?products_id=29&osCsid=4a680d0ef5e9df8001288835b7887b5e

Best Wishes,
Christy

 

[deco9393]

Thank you Christy! I am going to order both books you suggested. I have also emailed an Orthodox priest and an Eastern Catholic priest. I am eager to hear from them both. Are you an Eastern Catholic? Thanks again.

God bless you,
Dianna

 

[JJR1453]

Brian Tierney is not a bishop. He is a Roman Catholic historian. He was not on the side of the minority at all - he wasnt even present at the council! How did he write a book published in 1972 if he was present at a council which had its conclusion on papal infallibility in 1870?

Im showing the current trend of Roman Catholic historians to be in dichotemy with Roman Catholic theologians. Hans Kung brilliantly showed how infallibile pronouncements have reduced the weighting of regular pronouncements. Pope John XXIII made no infallible pronouncements but radically revolutionised the church more then any other pope.If a pope defines something without making it infallible, can he really be trusted? Should I trust a pope who is not even so sure of himself? Popes had far more power and could do far more to preserve the church when they were not infallible.

Sorry I had no intention of stating the Pope did not rule by “divine origin” for all bishops rule by divine origin - all bishops are chosen by God whether they be good or bad.

But what I meant was that the Pope did not claim to rule by divine rite. Do not all bishops have succession from Peter? That is all bishops who hold to the faith of Peter are successors of Peter.

I’m just curious if you have ever read the letter you quote (newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm ) and if you didnt just copy it off an apologetics website? The passage you quote is in fact from Epistle 74:17, not Epistle 76. While I am not questioning the document’s authenticity (I am no scholar or historian), Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno explains in depth the error of associating this passage with papal perogatives. I will not quote at large what can easily be accessed - but it is the general consensus amongst Roman Catholic historians that this passage says nothing about the papacy (See Robert Eno “The Rise of the Papacy” pp.57-60).

I’m sorry to say but it in fact was. In the East it was regarded as the 2nd Ecumenical council, while the West had no knowledge of its existance until Chalcedon. In fact, the bishop of Rome was not even invited because he was currently in schism with Antioch - and the bishop of Antioch presided with love over the council since at that time he had the next highest see in rank.

In regards to Leo’s 98th Epistle, for the sake of the unity of the church, the patriarch urged Rome to accept the canon, this does not mean Rome has power over all to accept the canons. This is why he says in the same letter “We therefore beg you to honour our JUDGMENT by your own decrees.” If the confirmation of the Bishop of Rome had been necessary, would the decree of Chalcedon have been a judgment, a promulgated decision before that confirmation?

Canon 28 was even accepted in some parts in the West, despite the Popes rejection, (see St. Avitus, metropolitan Bishop of Vienne–to John, Bishop of Constantinople) as one example amongst hundreds. Regardless of the Pope’s ambitions, Rome eventually accepted this reality at the 4th Lateran Council and future councils that Constantinople was 2nd in rank after Rome. (see Canon 5 of the 4th lateran council in 1215 - summery is at newadvent.org/cathen/09018a.htm )

Hello ematouk!

Greeting in Christ Brother!

You may have misunderstood the context in which I have spoke. Brian Tierney entered into the the discussion surrounding Hans Kung in 1972 and wished to ‘disprove’ papal infallibility. They were united to the anti-infallibilists(minority) of the time of the council in their overall rejection of the doctrine in question. Make sense? Also I know he is not a bishop; however, per your last post I assumed you were ignorant to the fact that there were some Catholics that were opposed to the doctrine. And so comes the point of my initial responding post: Brian Tierney, as well as Hans Kung, is against papal infallibility. And??? What would be the point? The Church decided against the weaker arguements of the minority, and those who would try and ressurect such arguements. Tierney wishes to not only assert that papal infallibility is a relatively late phenomenon; but even has heterdox origins. Once again, and??

First off, let me say- mea culpa! Slip of the hand, I should have rendered the letter as LXXIV, instead I wrote LXXVI. I guess it would have been easier just to write out 74 eh? And yes I am familiar with the letter, also with whole affair of re-baptism. Also, I am familiar with Cyprian’s view of all bishops being Peter’s successors, and I feel you may have a rather Orthodox way of viewing this as well. I would encourage you to open a new thread on the subject, for which I will certainly reply. And no, I did not quote it from an Apologetic site. I try to stay away from such, largely, polemics.
I am sorry but could you quote from the specific refutations that Mr. Eno holds? As I had wrote in my previous post, it would be too bold an assumption to conclude that Firmilian himself rejects Stephen as having succesion directly from Peter in his see; rather, he uses such tones because he believes Stephen to be in error; rather “introducing new rocks”, subsequently, contradicting the specific passage. Of course we know Stephen was the one who was on the side of orthodoxy; Firmilian and Cyprian were those who were in error. Allow me to quote from Klaus Schatz’s Papal Primacy, which is, to a large extent, a purely historical treatment:

In the course of this controversy Stephen must have claimed to be the successor of Peter in the sense of Matthew 16:18. This is the first known instance in which Matthew 16:18 was applied to the bishop of Rome. We learn of it in a letter from Firmilian of Caesarea(in Asia Minor) to Cyprian. Most accounts of the incident make it seem that this claim was rejected as unjustified and presumptouos, but such an assertion calls for some correction and attention to the precise context. Firmilian’s letter is a sustained polemic against Stephen and his arguements in favor of the validity of heratics’ baptism." (Papal Primacy: From its Origins to the Present, Klaus Schatz)

As regards Constantinople I, let me first start off by quoting Theodoret:

“Upon this Gratian departed for Italy and despatched Theodosius to the countries committed to his charge. No sooner had Theodosius assumed the imperial dignity than before everything else he gave heed to the harmony of the churches, and ordered the bishops of his own realm to repair with haste to Constantinople. That division of the empire was now the only region infected with the Arian plague, for the west had escaped the taint.” (Theodoret, Eccles. Hist. Bk. V Ch. VI)

And here we see the reason for the summoning of the council. The East was in a very poor state, as far as Nicene orthodoxy goes. Even to the point where Gregory Nazianzene could not find an orthodox church in all of Constantinople; so he, in turn, converted his cousins(?) house to a house of worship for the few orthodox. You are correct Meletius presided, at first, because the Alexandrians were late in their arrival. However, St. Meletius has nothing to do with the summoning of the council. Actually Gregory Nazianzene pushed vehemently for an end to the ‘Meletian schism’ but the Eastners, especially the young one’s, did not desire conforming to the Westerners. Nevertheless, the council in 381 was not seen as Ecumenial in the East, as you have posited. Evidence being, the 3rd Ecumenical council makes no note of that of Constantinople, although it speaks divinely of Nicea. Moreover, Ephesus II(Robber Synod) speaks highly of both Nicea and Ephesus; but again, makes no note of Constantinople. Also, in Ephesus II(Robber Synod) it was, the always orthodox, and the one who opposed the synod, Eusebius of Dorylaeum that explicitly denies any speech in regards to Constantinople. Reason being, it was not held as universalis.

I fail to see your point when you quote from Leo’s 98th Epistle.

“*We therefore beg you to honour our judgement by your own decrees.” *

What do you think they mean by “honour our judgement”? Moreover, how does he go about honouring their judgement?.."by his decrees".

Leo himself, through legates, presided. This was confessed by many an Easterner. Also, how do you reconcile the whole content of the letter with your lively and colorful interpretation of one specific sentence? Which you would hope insinuates something that may weigh to your arguement. How do you reconcile Marcian’s request for Leo to approve of the council?

Rome did eventually formally concede to the 28th canon as you have stated. However, you fail to mention that it was conceded at a time when a Latin Patriarch was set up at Constantinople. But even more than this, Rome pretty much accepted Constantinople de facto as second behind the Apostolic see for a couple reasons. Firstly, it would behoove you to more fully understand the Byzantine Empire; and more importantly, its Emperor. Also, the Saracen incursion of the 6th Century diminished Alexandria and Antioch drastically. So the two major See’s left that held to Nicene orthodoxy were only Rome and Constantinople.

I thank you brother, for commending me on my zeal for truth. So, in turn, If I am to use the service of recipication, I shall commend you on your zealous faith! However, we find ourselves on opposite sides of the spectrum. I pray one say both our churches may be one; but until that glorious day, I shall hold to what I believe is truth.

In Christ

Peace and God bless brother,

JJR

 

[Gofer]

In this piece by Steve Ray, Chrysostom ranks the Apostles (PDF)

html version

 

[Gofer]

The key phrase is “chief authority among the brethren”, which Chrysostom bestows upon (suprise, surprise) Peter. No one else is the “chief authority among the brethren.” Sharing titles and honorifics does not connote equality, if studied in context. Again, no one else is the “chief authority among the brethren.”

 

[Aramis]

Peter is commissioned specially to “Feed My Sheep” by Christ separate from the Keys being given to the other Apostles. (Jn 21)

Peter is special amongst the Apostles, having been commissioned first as one of the holders of the keys, and then, later, as the shepherd.

 

[Gofer]

Chrysostom also gives Peter “universal” jurisdiction:

" Peter, … the Fisherman of the universe."
“Peter, … that one set over the entire universe…” (more)

 

[byzgirl]

Hi Byzgirl,

I encourage you to read: The Truth - What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church by Clark Carlton

This may be a way to help round out your knowledge. It could perhaps help you see that your arguments don’t really stick in the Eastern Catholic Forum and perhaps you can develop new ones which do. I realize you are on fire for the Roman Catholic Church and that is great, but I’d like to see you become more affective.

Worst case senario, you read the book and it rounds out your education a little.

I give this as a completely positive suggestion and hope it is taken that way.

Your Catholic Sister in Christ,
Christy

Christy, I was raised a Latin Rite (Roman Rite) Catholic, but am a practicing Byzantine (Rite) Catholic for many years now. My brother is a Byzantine Rite priest.

I’m not, and nor shall I ever be, an Orthodox (capital O) Christian (of the Orthodox Church).

As an an Eastern CATHOLIC, of the (capital C) Catholic Church, I am in total, happy obedience to the Papacy. No matter what I could read from modern Orthodox authors, I could never, with what I already know, deny Peter’s supremacy, as the *intended leader of the Church. *

This is something that no amount of contrary information, no matter the argument (and I’ve heard many), nor how educated, can convince me otherwise. There is only one truth to the matter, and I firmly believe that the Seat of Peter was established, by Christ, as the source of unity for the Church throughout time.

Those outside of that authority, are in schism (like our Orthodox brethren) or in degrees of heresy…but the point is to pray and strive for that unity, which is only possible with Peter as the Shepherd of the one Flock.

 

[byzgirl]

Byzgirl:

You come across as quite über-papist and highly latinized. The combination is highly like the few Montanists of VII from the Eastern Churches.

The Montanists specifically are the party that felt infallibility had been TOO WEAKLY defined. They wanted a stronger Papacy.

Me, I almost went OCA-RO, but that appointment in Jn21 kept me from leaving the CC. I see the Petrine Ministry as fundamental to the Church. I doubt we agree on the role of the Pope.

You are towards one end of the spectrum; I’m towards the other, based upon your posts.

Heck, my RO friends can’t understand why I’m NOT RO…

So, anyone who claims that the Papacy is the seat of unity, for Christians, is somehow, automatically viewed as ‘exaggerating the role’?..

Every Catholic, on the planet, believes the importance of the role of Peter’s Seat (the Papacy). What, exactly, have I exaggerated? The fact that I believe that he is the intended leader of the Church???

How is this exaggeration and over-shooting anything?

I have never overstated anything, in regards to the Pope. I believe that his office holds the divinely inspired gift of infallibility, which doesn’t exceed the office’s role (when teaching ex cathedra, and in regards to faith and morals)–which is Catholic belief. I have never claimed, for the Pope, anything MORE than what the Church teaches.

If I state that I am obedient to the Pope, as holding the Seat of Peter as the supreme leader of the Church, I seem to have been unjustly ‘labeled’ as something ‘beyond’ that scope (uber-papist (?), ultramontanist, highly-Latinized (?), etc. etc.).

This is NOT exaggerated Catholic belief! This is what Catholics are called to believe, as Catholics. Simple.

It’s not I who am overstating, but you are are rejecting the Pope’s supremacy, as the leader of Christ’s Church. He has been passed down the keys, and, apparently, you deny that fact.

 

[byzgirl]

First off Brian Tierney was certainly against Papal infallibility; he was also on the side of the minority, along with others such as Hans Kung. I dont really understand why you have quoted him? If it is because you wish to make note that there were some bishops that opposed infallibility, then this is well noted; and well, obvious.

You assert that the Bishops of Rome only in the 6th Century started to develop this “idea” of their authority being of divine origin. However, as early as the year 256 we see Pope St. Stephen asserting Matthew 16:18 to himself, when we read from Firmilian of Caesarea’s letter to St. Cyprian concerning St. Stephen’s judgement of the matter:

"And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority." (Epistles of Cyprian, LXXVI)

Here Firmilian is writing to Cyprian about their contention that heretical baptism is invalid. Of course St. Stephen’s and Rome’s judgement of the matter held and was further asserted when the Council of Nicea in its 19th Canon adopted the Roman ruling. This letter of Firmilian’s is an obvious polemic and some historians have even questioned its authenticity because of the sharp language used therein. It should not be supposed that Firmilian himself does not view the Bishop of Rome as having that succesion, but only that he believes St. Stephen as: “introducing many other rocks”, that is, betraying the unity of the church. Of course, we know he wasn’t and the church subsequently adopted the Roman ruling.

I would, however, agree with you that Rome was well aware of the ambitious pretensions of Constantinople. As we here from Pope St. Damasus:

“Likewise it is decreed:…We have considered that it ought to be announced that…the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior…”(Decree of Damasus from the Roman council of 382 where he states the 73 canonical books that were to be accepted by the church)

This very well may have been stated in opposition to the 3rd canon of Constantinople I, which at the time was not ecumenical, and would not obtain such a title till Chalcedon.

As for the 28th canon of Chalcedon, we see that Constantinople ,and its ambitious bishop Anatolius, take far strides to put this canon into effect. However, not even a bishop of so high ambition would dare to believe he did not need the confirmation of the Pope. In the letter from the council of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo, that was most probably written by Anatolius himself:

*“In order to show that we have done nothing from favour or dislike towards anyone, **we have brought the whole contents of what we have done to thy knowledge, and have communicated it to thee for confirmation and assent.” ***(Hefele quotes from Leo’s 98 Epistle)

On Feb 15th, 453 Emperor Marican writes a letter expessing that Leo should not delay his confimation for all that had been done at Chalcedon, blatantly showing the weight of the Bishop of Rome in regards to the confirmation of Ecumenical synods for the adherence of the church universal. Of course long before this Leo had written to Anatolius affirming the conucil, but Anatolius had kept it silent precisely because of the Pope’s speech that entailed the annulling of canon 28. Leo speaks of the matter thus:

"What therefore our most clement Emperor deemed needful I have willingly complied with, by sending letters to all the brethren who were present at the Synod of Chalcedon, in which to show that I approved of what was resolved upon by our holy brethren about the Rule of Faith; on their account to wit, who in order to cloke their own treachery, pretend to consider invalid or doubtful such conciliar ordinances as are not ratified by my assent: albeit, after the return of the brethren whom I had sent in my stead, I dispatched a letter to the bishop of Constantinople; so that, if he had been minded to publish it, abundant proof might have been furnished thereby how gladly I approved of what the synod had passed concerning the Faith. But, because it contained such an answer as would have run counter to his self-seeking, he preferred my acceptance of the brethren’s resolutions to remain unknown, lest at the same time my reply should become known on the absolute authority of the Nicene canons. Wherefore take heed, beloved, that you warn our most gracious prince by frequent reminders that he add his words to ours and order the letter of the Apostolic see to be sent round to the priests of each single province, that hereafter no enemy of the Truth may venture to excuse himself under cover of my silence." (Leo Epistle 114)

Really, there are countless quotes from the Father’s that blatantly show their reverence for the Apostolic see and its bishop.

God bless,

JJR

Good post! I never saw that quote, from Saint Cyprian before, but it sure does make a good addition to your nicely-done response!

 

[Isa_Almisry]

In 382 A.D., a Council of Rome in the pontificate of Pope Damasus wrote as follows:

“…Though all the Catholic churches diffused throughout the world are but one Bridal Chamber of Christ, yet the holy Roman Church has been set before the rest by no conciliar decrees, but has obtained the Primacy by the voice of Our Lord and Savior in the Gospel: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this Rock…shall be loosed in heaven.’ …The first See of the Apostle Peter is therefore the Roman Church, ‘not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing.’ But the second See was consecrated in Alexandria, in the name of blessed Peter, by his disciple Mark the evangelist… And the third See of the most blessed Peter is at Antioch…”

A Council of Rome. How convenent.

You note that it speaks of three Sees of St. Peter, not one. Pope Gregory also speaks of this, among others. What is not explained, however, is how Alexandria, founded indirectly by St. Peter, jumps ahead of Antioch, where the “believers were first called Christians,” founded earlier by St. Peter himself.

Another note: this Isaiah “prophecy” about the keys is rather popular now, but it doesn’t even predate the English Reformation, which a look at the Douay Rheims comments on the section shows. Amazing how something that supposedly was in the mind in the Apostles on Matthew 16 gets forgotten for 16+ centuries.

Also, note the date of your Council: at the time SS. Meletius of Antioch, Gregory Nazianzus (of Constantinople), all out of communion with Rome, were busy holding the Second Ecumenical Council which wrote up the Creed we all say. All, that is, until the West decided to edit it.

 

[byzgirl]

You have many difficulties to overcome here, specifically:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

12And all the assembly fell silent . . . .

That James pronounced judgment in accord with Peter after he spoke should not concern us. If you think it has significance, then it is a little bit difficult to explain why no Patriarch since (except for the Bishop of Rome) has somehow given the definitive pronouncement of the decision of an ecumenical council. Your theory proves more than the Orthodox are willing to accept.

Then why accept primacy of honor?

There is no evidence that St. James alone wrote the letter:

22Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men from among them and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leading men among the brothers, 23with the following letter:

It appears that it is you who are reading something into the Scriptures that is not there.

An easy thing to say, but an impossible thing to prove. Here is what your supposed advocate St. John Chrysostom has to say about the role of St. Peter:

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])

"Peter the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race form the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than of boldness." (Hom de decem mille talentis, 3, vol III, 20[4])

"The first of the apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of the disciples." (Ad eos qui scandalizati sunt, 17, vol III, 517[504])

"The foundation of the Church, the vehement lover of Christ, at once unlearned in speech, and the vanquisher of orators, the man without education who closed the mouth of philosophers, who destroyed the philosophy of the Greeks as though it were a spider's web, he who ran throughout the world, he who cast his net into the sea, and fished the whole world." (In illud, Vidi dominum, 3, vol VI, 123[124])

"Peter, the base, the pillar...." (Hom Quod frequenta conueniendum sit, 5, vol XII, 466[328])

"This holy coryphaeus of the blessed choir, the lover of Christ, the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, he who received the spiritual revelation." (In Acta Apost VI, I [chap 2, verse 22] vol IX, 56[48]) [bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm](http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm)

And finally:

“If anyone should say ‘Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?’ I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that See but of the world.”

Right, just all of the other “innovations” that occurred during the first seven ecumenical councils. Pentarchy anyone? No such thing existed in the primitive Church. If everything that you’ve said is true, then there should be no such thing as primacy of honor in any form. Perhaps there is room yet for the notion that the successor of St. Peter has a specific Petrine ministry to carry out.

great post!!!