For Orthodox Christians here...re: St. John Chrysostom's support of the Papacy

[josephdaniel29]

I do not believe that is what St John is saying. Yes, the Orthodox Church teaches that all apostles are equal and that the Orthodox bishop of Rome had the primacy of honor due to Roma as the capital of Christianity. I am sorry, but I cannot read anything else into this quote. It does not say that the bishop of Rome has supreme universal jurisdiction over all other Churches. And it certainly says nothing about a doctrine of infallibility.

Here is something else that St John says about the apostle St John:

St John Chrysosotom
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.

Here is St John calling St Paul, “the teacher of the world”.

St John** Chrysostom**
The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere.

And here is St John talking about St James as having the chief rule:

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, Homily XXXIII on Acts xv.

I think it’s also important to remember St John spent the bulk of his clerical career not in communion with the See of Rome. He was ordained by St Meletius the Patriarch of Antioch during a period of time where there was a break in communion between Antioch and Rome. A quick aside, this is the same Meletius who went on to preside at the Second Ecumenical Council, and when he presided at the council he was still not in communion with Rome! It’s hard to believe that if the early Church had the view of the papacy modern Roman Catholics ascribe to it, that a bishop not in communion with the Pope would be allowed to preside at an Ecumenical Council. Wouldn’t you agree?

St John did not come into communion with Rome until he ascended to the See of Constantinople. If St John truly held the view of the papacy modern Catholics say he did do you think he would have accepted ordination from a bishop not in communion with the Pope? Even further would he have spent so many years as part of a See not in communion with Rome?

To me it makes no sense.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[josephdaniel29]

Who is St. John of Chrysostom?

The Archbishop of Constantinople who edited the Divine Liturgy we celebrate every Sunday.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Reading Acts 15 - who was it that said, “Therefore, I have reached the decision…” in verse 19 - it was St. James, not St. Peter.

The decision maker is the one with the Authority.

Similarly, in my job, I tell my boss, the owner of this business, the situation and give my recommendation for resolution, but my boss, not me, is the one who makes the decision. Sure, he bases his decision on what I tell him, but it is his decision because only he has the authority.

It was Peter who received the message from God.

James was bishop of Jerusalem and he simply reiterated Peter’s message.(God’s message)

 

[AdrianP]

In Acts we see Saint Peter as Leader of Jerusalem Church not of Church of Rome.

 

[Wesley7]

Neat thread.

I can actually find support for the Papacy from my own patristic(s) source.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Joseph,

I think it’s also important to remember St John spent the bulk of his clerical career not in communion with the See of Rome.

That’s not very important because it is mostly false (see below). I don’t blame you, though. CA itself gives a rather jaundiced report of the facts, IMO. I actually wrote a letter to the admins of this website several months ago to question them on their facts, but they have never responded to me.

He was ordained by St Meletius the Patriarch of Antioch during a period of time where there was a break in communion between Antioch and Rome. A quick aside, this is the same Meletius who went on to preside at the Second Ecumenical Council, and when he presided at the council he was still not in communion with Rome! It’s hard to believe that if the early Church had the view of the papacy modern Roman Catholics ascribe to it, that a bishop not in communion with the Pope would be allowed to preside at an Ecumenical Council. Wouldn’t you agree?

Though the Paulinists were separated from the Meletians since 362 (?), Rome herself did not accept Paulinus until 373 through the efforts of St. Evagrius, who won over St. Jerome, who then won over Pope St. Damasus. Rome and the Meletian Party could not have been separated before that time because in 371, Meletius was still sending legates to Rome to negotiate on the issue of Paulinus. By 377, the Meletian party - through their priests Dorotheus and Sanctissimus - was sending questions of doctrine to Rome for clarification. Rome’s positive response to the questions was advertised by St. Basil immediately as a sign that the Meletian party and Rome were reconciled. Rome attempted to mitigate a just solution between the parties at the 382 Council of Constantinople, wherein the fathers of the 381 Council submitted their acts to Rome for approval. So Rome was actually only separated from the Meletian Party at most 4 years, perhaps even less, assuming that communion was already known to exist for the Meletians to send doctrinal questions to Rome. It is simply not true that St. Meletius was separated from Rome when he presided over the 381 Council of Constantinople.

St John did not come into communion with Rome until he ascended to the See of Constantinople.

What proof do you have for this claim?

If St John truly held the view of the papacy modern Catholics say he did do you think he would have accepted ordination from a bishop not in communion with the Pope?

But, as shown above, St. Meletius was not out of communion with Rome in 381 A.D.

Even further would he have spent so many years as part of a See not in communion with Rome?

Again, the Meletian party and Rome were separated at most 4 years, and St. John Chrysostom was ordained at a time when the Meletian party was IN COMMUNION with the bishop of Rome.

To me it makes no sense.

Only if you accept the false history.

You can read everything I have stated in St. Basil’s letters. I think you can access them through CCEL. That’s how I myself came to this conclusion that this supposed history (that claims Rome was separated from the Meletian party just because the Meletian party was separated from the Paulinist party) is a misinterpretation of the documentary evidence.

Read the sources, brother. I think I have exhorted you to do this 2 or 3 times before regarding other issues.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

BTW, everyone, the positive response by Pope St. Damasus to the doctrinal questions from the Meletian party in 377 formed, in large part, the basis for the doctrinal decisions of what eventually came to be known as the Second Ecumenical Council of Constantinople.

IT IS UTTERLY AND COMPLETELY LUDICROUS FOR NON-CATHOLIC POLEMICISTS TO CLAIM THAT THE BISHOP OF ROME DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE 381 COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Monica,

IAt each reading, I always naturally come to the side of the Orthodox on that chapter in Acts as it is clear that St. James was “in charge” even though St. Peter is one of the people who spoke.

My point of view is between the traditional Orthodox and traditional Catholic point of view.

I too believe that St. James was the leader of the Jerusalem Council. I believe St. James was rightfully the leader of the Jerusalem Council because the Jerusalem Council was a LOCAL council, and St. James was the head of the Jerusalem Church.

Of course, I also believe, as St. John Chrysostom asserts, that St. Peter’s provenance was the whole world, not just Jerusalem.

Blessings,
Your Orthodox brother in Christ in communion with Rome,
Marduk

 

[Milliardo]

I miss the Divine Liturgy of the Orthodox Church and I miss the practice of full Orthodox Spirituality. Please prove this quote of St. John’s wrong so I can come home. I don’t want people to list their emotions or personal opinions, but actual hard facts which disprove it.

These were all said before the Schism, of course. At that time the Church was still one, and very few at his time saw the bishop of Rome as otherwise. However, after the break between East and West, each went his own way. Rome, from the Orthodox standpoint, added innovation after innovation on itself, thus distancing herself further from the ancient Faith it claimed to have.The Rome of today would hardly be recognizable to the saint now.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Milliardo,

These were all said before the Schism, of course. At that time the Church was still one, and very few at his time saw the bishop of Rome as otherwise. However, after the break between East and West, each went his own way. Rome, from the Orthodox standpoint, added innovation after innovation on itself, thus distancing herself further from the ancient Faith it claimed to have.The Rome of today would hardly be recognizable to the saint now.

St. John Chrysostom appealed to the bishop of Rome to fix the problems infecting the whole Church at the time.

Today, EO claim that the bishop of Rome has no business outside of his own immediate diocese.

The truth is that St. John Chrysostom would not recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church for the Church of his day.

Blessings

 

[Mickey]

The truth is that St. John Chrysostom would not recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church for the Church of his day.

The real truth is that St John would not even remotely recognize the RC Church as it looks today.

 

[Mickey]

Why would I be disparaging Saint Paul when all I’m asking is if he too had a visible see known as the chair of Paul? And the point I’m trying to make is this, if St. John spoke of St. Paul as a teacher of the world, what does this infer except that he thought St. Paul was a teacher of the world, i.e., this would have more significance if for example through apostolic succession this would mean some sort of primacy and/or belief that whoever held his see would be the (primary) teacher of the world, right? But this is not what Saint John is alluding to therefore why is it important to quote St. John on this when we are speaking of the primacy of St. Peter (as understood in Scripture and Tradition) and his successors?

St Paul is often refered to as “The Apostle”. All apostles are “teachers of the world”. St Peter had no exclusive rights on teaching–he would be the first to tell you this. All bishops are successors of St Peter. All bishops are successors of all the apostles.

 

[josie_L]

St Paul is often refered to as “The Apostle”. All apostles are “teachers of the world”. St Peter had no exclusive rights on teaching–he would be the first to tell you this. All bishops are successors of St Peter. All bishops are successors of all the apostles.

Yes, all bishops are successors to the apostles I would never deny this, but not all bishops are successors of St. Peter, we know this because Mickey the early Church fathers always spoke of the bishop of Rome as sitting in the chair of Peter. The bishop of Rome therefore is the legitimate successor to St. Peter. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

The real truth is that St John would not even remotely recognize the RC Church as it looks today.

But we have development of doctrine whereas you don’t (that’s the impression I get anyways) so we have legitimate reasons for having expanded or rather delineated our doctrines (I am not saying we have invented doctrine). Furthermore, isn’t that how the Church functioned in the first millenia, i.e., it developed and refined it’s doctrines (mostly due to heresy or other unforeseen events)?

 

[Mickey]

Yes, all bishops are successors to the apostles, I would never deny this, but not all bishops are successors of St. Peter, we know this because Mickey the early Church fathers always spoke of the bishop of Rome as sitting in the chair of Peter. The bishop of Rome therefore is the legitimate successor to St. Peter. God bless.

The patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee, pp. 173-174).

Blessed Augustine, one of the “Doctors” of the Roman Church, considered Peter and Paul equal. He puts these words in Paul’s mouth: “I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry” (Ibid., p. 187). Blessed Augustine, also referred to Peter’s primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the Church. “He had not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons” (Ibid., p. 176).

The second concern that Orthodox have with the Latin premise is with the claim that an exclusive transference of power occurred from the Apostle Peter to the Bishop of Rome, and from the Church in Jerusalem to the Church in Rome. The Orthodox would first point out that all bishops are successors of all the apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, does not therefore have exclusive rights to Peter. Second, since Peter died before the Apostle John, this would mean, according to the Papal doctrine, that the Beloved Apostle would have been under the universal rule of the Bishop of Rome (at that time), thus reversing the intended order of rank.

Third, Peter ordained several bishops in Rome. (Irenaeus and Eusebius write that he ordained Linus, and Tertullian states that he ordained Clement.) How could they be his successor while he was still alive?
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm

 

[Mickey]

But we have development of doctrine whereas you don’t (that’s the impression I get anyways) so we have legitimate reasons for having expanded or rather delineated our doctrines (I am not saying we have invented doctrine).

I am sorry Josie, but I see the Roman Catholic post schism concept of “development of doctrine” as nothing less than innovation.

 

[josie_L]

The patristic witness is that no Father of the Church has seen, in the primacy of Peter, any title of jurisdiction or absolute authority in Church government. The Latin Church Father, St. Ambrose, for instance, taught that Peter and Paul were equal: “It was proper that Paul should go to see Peter. Why? was Peter superior to him and to the other Apostles? No, but because, of all the Apostles, he was the first to be entrusted by the Lord with the care of the churches. Had he need to be taught, or to receive a commission from Peter? No, but that Peter might know that Paul had received the power which had also been given to himself.” (The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee).

Blessed Augustine, one of the “Doctors” of the Roman Church, considered Peter and Paul equal. He puts these words in Paul’s mouth: “I am in nothing inferior to Peter; for we were ordained by the same God for the same ministry” (Ibid., p. 187). Blessed Augustine, also referred to Peter’s primacy, but he does not understand this to mean power over the Church. “He had not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons” (Ibid., p. 176).

The second concern that Orthodox have with the Latin premise is with the claim that an exclusive transference of power occurred from the Apostle Peter to the Bishop of Rome, and from the Church in Jerusalem to the Church in Rome. The Orthodox would first point out that all bishops are successors of all the apostles, and that the Bishop of Rome, the Pope, does not therefore have exclusive rights to Peter. Second, since Peter died before the Apostle John, this would mean, according to the Papal doctrine, that the Beloved Apostle would have been under the universal rule of the Bishop of Rome (at that time), thus reversing the intended order of rank.

Third, Peter ordained several bishops in Rome. (Irenaeus and Eusebius write that he ordained Linus, and Tertullian states that he ordained Clement.) How could they be his successor while he was still alive?

  Firstly, I spoke only of the chair of Peter which according the church fathers belongs to that bishop who sits in Rome.  Here's just a few examples:

Council of Ephesus

"Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Augustine

“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Jerome

“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
Secondly, tradition, scripture and history should work in tandem, that is, they should not conflict with one another, as such, do you deny that St. Peter had a primacy as per scripture, tradition, and history, and that this primacy amongst the apostles led to more than a title of honour? And having this primacy amongst the apostles, would it not be so for his successors as well (they too would be lead shepherd)? Moreover, if you look to scripture we see a variant, a difference in authority that was given to St. Peter and St. Peter alone (this is not to say that the other apostles were mere window dressing they too have their role but it is delineated as being somewhat different to St. Peter's). This distinguishing factor is no innovation as even in the old testament one finds a parallel between the ecclesial structure of the Catholic Church with that of the Davidic kingdom. There is one prime (primacy) minister which holds the keys (the keys denote an office and an authority superior to that of the other ministers) and therefore guards the kingdom in the King's absence, the other ministers (of which there were eleven) are important as well but they do not have the keys for which the prime minister alone has received from the King.

 

[josie_L]

I am sorry Josie, but I see the Roman Catholic post schism concept of “development of doctrine” as nothing less than innovation.

But why, Mickey, isn’t it obvious from the centuries preceding the schism that doctrines were developed and refined (this is not to say that the deposit of faith was lacking but rather that the truth would be more concise)? Don’t you see for example the development and refinement of the doctrine of the trinity?

 

[jimmy]

Here it is:

“**Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that One set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” **Chrysostom, In illud, hoc Scitote, n. 4, p. 282. I read this in the book called Jesus, Peter & the Keys A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy by Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren & Rev. Mr. David Hess

…

Of course there is more than 1 quote of St. John Chrysostom’s that supports the Papacy, so I suppose, if it is possible for someone to prove this one wrong, then I will need to list the others.

There is no logical connection between the quote you posted and the papacy. Just because St. John Chrysostom speaks of Peter in an honorific way doesn’t mean the same words would be applied to the pope.

 

[jimmy]

Yes, all bishops are successors to the apostles I would never deny this, but not all bishops are successors of St. Peter, we know this because Mickey the early Church fathers always spoke of the bishop of Rome as sitting in the chair of Peter. The bishop of Rome therefore is the legitimate successor to St. Peter. God bless.

Be careful not to read into the fathers you modern conceptions of the Church. The only fathers who claimed that the pope was the successor of Peter were the bishops of Rome themselves. For someone to say that “Peter has spoken” if they agree with something the pope says is hardly a pronunciation that the pope is successor to Peter. Peter was representative of the whole Church according to the Fathers (Augustine makes this association clearly). When an error was condemned it was as if Peter was speaking as in Matt.16, ‘you are the Christ, the Son of the living God’. And the fact that these debates were essentially Christological in nature makes the reference back to Peter even more pertinent. Peter proclaimed the true nature of Christ in Matt.16. It is that which the councils affirmed, and it was that which Leo affirmed in his Tome supporting Flavian. So when they say that Peter has spoken they are referring back to the proclamation of faith (‘you are the Christ the Son of the living God’) by Peter in Matt.16, not to the keys of the kingdom which the pope supposedly holds.