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

[mardukm]

Dear SingleMomMonica,

I am happy for your spiritual life that you have decided to go back to the EOC, but there are four things I would ask you consider before making a final decision:

FIRST, Brother jimmy wrote:

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.

You agreed with him, and I respect that, but now let me ask you this:

How would you explain brother jimmy’s words in light of the principle of Apostolic Succession? If the choir of the Apostles had a visible leader and head, how is it that the successors to the choir of Apostles (today’s bishops) DON’T have a visible leader and head? Please ponder that question in prayer.

SECOND, Jesus himself stated that he would set ONE servant (singular) over his household (singular) to feed it. Here is what our Lord said:
“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?” (Matthew 24:45)

Does not Scripture identify this servant? “Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon Son of John…Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.’” (John 21:15-17).

Is not this servant the very one who St. John Chrysostom asserted was the leader and head of the Apostles?

But there is one more thing that Jesus said that you need to carefully ponder. When Jesus stated, “Who then is this faithful and wise servant whom his master has set over this household to give them their food at the proper time…” he added, “Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find him so doing” (Matthew 24:46)

SO OUR LORD HIMSELF ASSERTED THAT WHEN HE RETURNS, THERE WILL BE A SERVANT (singular) SET OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD (singular) WITH THE JOB OF FEEDING IT.

Given this, how can you agree with brother jimmy’s statement that St. John Chrysostom’s statement concerning St. Peter does not apply to the bishops of Rome?

THIRD, also please ponder why this same St. John Chrystostom wrote to the Pope of Rome:
“I suppose that even before receiving our letter your Piety has heard of the iniquity which has been perpetrated here. For the magnitude of our distress has left scarcely a single portion of the world uninformed of this grievous tragedy: for report carrying the tidings of what has happened to the very extremities of the earth, has everywhere caused great mourning and lamentation. But inasmuch as we ought not to mourn, but to restore order, and to see by what means this most grievous storm of the Church may be stayed, we have deemed it necessary to persuade my lords, the most honoured and pious bishops Demetrius, Pansophius, Pappus and Eugenius to leave their own churches, and venture on this great sea voyage, and set out on a long journey from home, and hasten to your Charity, and, after informing you clearly of everything, to take measures for redressing the evils as speedily as possible. And with them we have sent the most honoured and beloved of our Deacons, Paulus and Cyriacus, but we also ourselves, in the form of a letter, will briefly instruct your Charity concerning the things which have come to pass.”
Letter of St. John Chrysostom to Pope Innocent

You understand, of course, that modern EO’xy claims that the Pope of Rome has no business in the rest of the Churches outside of his own diocese. But here we have St. John Chrysostom appealing to the Pope to “redress the evils that has happened to the very extremities of the earth.” Why does St. John Chrysostom assume that the Pope of Rome has the authority to act in and for the WHOLE Church?

FOURTH, also please ponder with prayer that the idea of papal primacy is often exaggerated by many in the Latin Church. And it is these exaggerations that many non-Catholics are rejecting. The true understanding of papal primacy is actually very patristic and orthodox. If you want to discuss what papal primacy actually is according to the teaching of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2, please let me know. There are many threads here where the exaggerations of both EO and Catholic polemicists have been exposed and refuted, but perhaps you have not read them. I would love the opportunity to discuss them with you.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[josie_L]

Dear SingleMomMonica,

I am happy for your spiritual life that you have decided to go back to the EOC, but there are four things I would ask you consider before making a final decision:

FIRST, Brother jimmy wrote:

You agreed with him, and I respect that, but now let me ask you this:

How would you explain brother jimmy’s words in light of the principle of Apostolic Succession? If the choir of the Apostles had a visible leader and head, how is it that the successors to the choir of Apostles (today’s bishops) DON’T have a visible leader and head? Please ponder that question in prayer.

SECOND, Jesus himself stated that he would set ONE servant (singular) over his household (singular) to feed it. Here is what our Lord said:
“Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?” (Matthew 24:45)

Does not Scripture identify this servant? “Jesus said to Simon Peter, ‘Simon Son of John…Feed my lambs…Tend my sheep…Feed my sheep.’” (John 21:15-17).

Is not this servant the very one who St. John Chrysostom asserted was the leader and head of the Apostles?

But there is one more thing that Jesus said that you need to carefully ponder. When Jesus stated, “Who then is this faithful and wise servant whom his master has set over this household to give them their food at the proper time…” he added, “Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find him so doing” (Matthew 24:46)

SO OUR LORD HIMSELF ASSERTED THAT WHEN HE RETURNS, THERE WILL BE A SERVANT (singular) SET OVER HIS HOUSEHOLD (singular) WITH THE JOB OF FEEDING IT.

Given this, how can you agree with brother jimmy’s statement that St. John Chrysostom’s statement concerning St. Peter does not apply to the bishops of Rome?

THIRD, also please ponder why this same St. John Chrystostom wrote to the Pope of Rome:
“I suppose that even before receiving our letter your Piety has heard of the iniquity which has been perpetrated here. For the magnitude of our distress has left scarcely a single portion of the world uninformed of this grievous tragedy: for report carrying the tidings of what has happened to the very extremities of the earth, has everywhere caused great mourning and lamentation. But inasmuch as we ought not to mourn, but to restore order, and to see by what means this most grievous storm of the Church may be stayed, we have deemed it necessary to persuade my lords, the most honoured and pious bishops Demetrius, Pansophius, Pappus and Eugenius to leave their own churches, and venture on this great sea voyage, and set out on a long journey from home, and hasten to your Charity, and, after informing you clearly of everything, to take measures for redressing the evils as speedily as possible. And with them we have sent the most honoured and beloved of our Deacons, Paulus and Cyriacus, but we also ourselves, in the form of a letter, will briefly instruct your Charity concerning the things which have come to pass.”
Letter of St. John Chrysostom to Pope Innocent

You understand, of course, that modern EO’xy claims that the Pope of Rome has no business in the rest of the Churches outside of his own diocese. But here we have St. John Chrysostom appealing to the Pope to “redress the evils that has happened to the very extremities of the earth.” Why does St. John Chrysostom assume that the Pope of Rome has the authority to act in and for the WHOLE Church?

FOURTH, also please ponder with prayer that the idea of papal primacy is often exaggerated by many in the Latin Church. And it is these exaggerations that many non-Catholics are rejecting. The true understanding of papal primacy is actually very patristic and orthodox. If you want to discuss what papal primacy actually is according to the teaching of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2, please let me know. There are many threads here where the exaggerations of both EO and Catholic polemicists have been exposed and refuted, but perhaps you have not read them. I would love the opportunity to discuss them with you.

Blessings,
Marduk

Very well said. God bless.

 

[AdrianP]

Markum, you seem to forget that first it matters what you believe. You may want to look after documents saying that a bishop with bad beliefs or errors may lose the quality of even being a bishop.He may look like a Bishop, He may act as a Bishop but he may not be a Bishop like maybe in protestant Churches.

After having a right belief, in case it has not and I AM NOT THE ONE TO JUDGE THAT, Orthodox Church will welcome Pope as first between equals that is a form a primacy. Everybody will keep its own independence as money and organization as Early Church.

WHO WOULD WANT PEOPLE LIKE THAT NUN WORKING HARD, LIVING IN FOREST , SECLUSION , AND BEING PUNSIHED MAYBE FOR ERRORS IN BELIEFS AND AMYBE LIVING ORTHODOX CHURCH EXITING COMMUNION OF ORTHODOX CHURCHES? NNOOBBOODDYY. GOD KNOWS WHY GOD PUNISHED HER ACTUALLY. MAY GOD SAVE HER AND FORGIVE HER.

Do a test, take Holy Water from Catholic Church, Holy Water from Orthodox Church and try consume them after 3 months.Orthodox Church as Early Church does not need put salt in Holy Water.

I do think a Union cand be done after dogma of year 1000 accepted by both Churches.Maybe am wrong and don’t mind correcting me.

 

[josie_L]

We love the Catholic church.

In fact, the Catholic Faith subsists in Holy Orthodoxy.

We just do not, and can not, approve of western errors.

With a love like that who needs “enemies”.

 

[AdrianP]

Seems that way but I think all of us will be beneficient of a right belief and all of us will lose if we change or depart from right belief.

HAving disorder in Church and maybe wrong belief being deepened after VATICAN II, led to todays disorder in Europe.

Putting order in religion and right belief may bring order back into Europe.

You can go to Athos and see at Monastery the people that were being forced to celebrate a Holy liturgy with Catholics or you may search documents and see if the story described by Third Rome Prophecy stands true.

As you saw in the revelation of Saint John Kronstadt, there may be organizations with WRONG BELIEF looking like a Church, acting like a Church but not actually being a Church, maybe Protestant Churches.or next World Church .

 

[jimmy]

Given this, how can you agree with brother jimmy’s statement that St. John Chrysostom’s statement concerning St. Peter does not apply to the bishops of Rome?

THIRD, also please ponder why this same St. John Chrystostom wrote to the Pope of Rome:
“I suppose that even before receiving our letter your Piety has heard of the iniquity which has been perpetrated here. For the magnitude of our distress has left scarcely a single portion of the world uninformed of this grievous tragedy: for report carrying the tidings of what has happened to the very extremities of the earth, has everywhere caused great mourning and lamentation. But inasmuch as we ought not to mourn, but to restore order, and to see by what means this most grievous storm of the Church may be stayed, we have deemed it necessary to persuade my lords, the most honoured and pious bishops Demetrius, Pansophius, Pappus and Eugenius to leave their own churches, and venture on this great sea voyage, and set out on a long journey from home, and hasten to your Charity, and, after informing you clearly of everything, to take measures for redressing the evils as speedily as possible. And with them we have sent the most honoured and beloved of our Deacons, Paulus and Cyriacus, but we also ourselves, in the form of a letter, will briefly instruct your Charity concerning the things which have come to pass.”
Letter of St. John Chrysostom to Pope Innocent

You understand, of course, that modern EO’xy claims that the Pope of Rome has no business in the rest of the Churches outside of his own diocese. But here we have St. John Chrysostom appealing to the Pope to “redress the evils that has happened to the very extremities of the earth.” Why does St. John Chrysostom assume that the Pope of Rome has the authority to act in and for the WHOLE Church?

FOURTH, also please ponder with prayer that the idea of papal primacy is often exaggerated by many in the Latin Church. And it is these exaggerations that many non-Catholics are rejecting. The true understanding of papal primacy is actually very patristic and orthodox. If you want to discuss what papal primacy actually is according to the teaching of Vatican 1 and Vatican 2, please let me know. There are many threads here where the exaggerations of both EO and Catholic polemicists have been exposed and refuted, but perhaps you have not read them. I would love the opportunity to discuss them with you.

Blessings,
Marduk

This quote from St. John Chrysostom doesn’t say what you want it to say. No where in the text does he mention or even hint at an idea of universal jurisdiction. No where does he hint at the idea that the pope can make a decision for the whole Church. What it hints at is simply a hope that through the pope things will be resolved.

All scholarly research addresses the past as it was, not in light of the present. We cannot read the fathers of the fourth century as if they were papists who professed papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. It is anachronistic because these concepts were not present. The early Church was not structured around the concept of corporate unity as the modern Catholic Church is. Each individual Church was self-governing, and it was to the local bishop that the people were obedient (not the pope). Excommunication was not the same as it is today; it was simply to break communion. The patriarchs did have a great deal of authority in the fifth and sixth centuries but the question is what is the nature of this authority. Was it a juridical authority in which they had a divine right so to speak to force themselves on the other bishops of their patriarchate: or was it simply a matter of political influence over the local churches?

The papacy is a development and to say otherwise is to laugh in the face of all historical study. No historical theologian will say that it did not develop. This idea was rejected long ago and it has been accepted by the Catholic Church that there has been a development of the doctrines. That is emphasized by Cardinal Newman and every other modern theologian. Theologians of the 13th through16th centuries often tried to say that none of it developed but the fact is that it has. The emphasis is now placed on consistency. Is the developed papacy consistent with the early Church? Is the development warranted?

The authority of the pope as defined at the Vatican Councils has been discussed ad nauseum and I don’t feel like discussing it again. It gets a little old and exhausting. But, nevertheless, we disagree on the issue.

 

[AdrianP]

There may have been days when East may have felt and West saved Orthodoxy and days when West felt and East saved Orthodoxy. I call this friendship.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother jimmy,

This quote from St. John Chrysostom doesn’t say what you want it to say. No where in the text does he mention or even hint at an idea of universal jurisdiction. No where does he hint at the idea that the pope can make a decision for the whole Church. What it hints at is simply a hope that through the pope things will be resolved.

You oppose universal jurisdiction because you misunderstand what it means. You think that it means the Pope micomanages the Church on all levels, and that nothing can be done without the Pope or that he can disregard his fellow bishops whenever he feels like it. But the actual teaching is that it refers to the Pope’s care and solicitude for the Church, the Pope does not have the authority to treat his brother bishops that way, but must rather uphold and defend the local authority of his brother bishops, and the bishops have prerogatives in their dioceses that not even the Pope possesses. I suggest you read our Eastern canons thoroughly, instead of taking little snippets to justify your exaggerated misunderstanding of the papacy (though I admit the canons are not perfect).

All scholarly research addresses the past as it was, not in light of the present. We cannot read the fathers of the fourth century as if they were papists who professed papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. It is anachronistic because these concepts were not present. The early Church was not structured around the concept of corporate unity as the modern Catholic Church is. Each individual Church was self-governing, and it was to the local bishop that the people were obedient (not the pope). Excommunication was not the same as it is today; it was simply to break communion. The patriarchs did have a great deal of authority in the fifth and sixth centuries but the question is what is the nature of this authority. Was it a juridical authority in which they had a divine right so to speak to force themselves on the other bishops of their patriarchate: or was it simply a matter of political influence over the local churches?

I’m not reading into anything. I think it’s just that you have let certain extremist Latin Catholics misinform you of the true nature of the papacy.

The papacy is a development and to say otherwise is to laugh in the face of all historical study. No historical theologian will say that it did not develop. This idea was rejected long ago and it has been accepted by the Catholic Church that there has been a development of the doctrines. That is emphasized by Cardinal Newman and every other modern theologian. Theologians of the 13th through16th centuries often tried to say that none of it developed but the fact is that it has. The emphasis is now placed on consistency. Is the developed papacy consistent with the early Church? Is the development warranted?

Yes, the papacy is consistent with the early Church. And yes the development (i.e., the dogmatization of the ancient belief on the papal prerogatives) was warranted. The Truth of the dogmas established at Vatican 1 - RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE FATHERS AT THE VATICAN COUNCIL, NOT ACCORDING TO THE EXAGGERATIONS OF EO POLEMICISTS WHO DERIDE THE PAPACY, NOR THE EXAGGERATIONS OF CATHOLIC POLEMICISTS WHO MAKE THE PAPACY MORE THAN WHAT IT IS - are unassailable.

The authority of the pope as defined at the Vatican Councils has been discussed ad nauseum and I don’t feel like discussing it again. It gets a little old and exhausting. But, nevertheless, we disagree on the issue.

You have never responded to my explanations that mitigate your exaggerated understanding of the papacy. An Eastern Byzantine Catholic at the Byzcath forum once noted the ironic fact that BOTH Eastern Orthodox and Catholic polemicists are working off of the SAME EXAGGERATED CARICATURES of the Catholic teaching on the papacy - one to oppose it, the other to support it. Besides, brother, my offer for discussion was for sister Monica, not to you (though your (name removed by moderator)ut is always welcome).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

I have read and appreciate everything you have stated.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear sister Monica,

I quoted a letter from St. John Chrysostom to Pope Innocent earlier. I just wanted to give more excerpts from that Letter:

"[E]very place is suffering from the throes of calamity, and the subversion of the whole civilized world. Having been informed then of all these things, my lords, most honourable and devout, exhibit the courage and zeal which becomes you, so as to put a stop to this great assault of lawlessness which has been made upon the Churches. For if this custom were to prevail, and it became lawful for any persons who desired it to enter strange dioceses, so widely separated, and expel those whom one wished to remove, and do whatever they pleased according to their own arbitrary power, be assured that all things will go to ruin, and an implacable kind of war will overrun the whole world, all men attacking others, and being in turn attacked. Therefore to prevent such confusion overtaking the whole earth yield to our entreaties that you will signify by writing that these lawless transactions executed in our absence, and after hearing one side only, although we did not decline a trial, are invalid, as indeed they are by the very nature of the case, and that those who are convicted of having committed such iniquities must be subjected to the penalty of the ecclesiastical laws…Having considered therefore all these things, and having been clearly informed of all particulars by my lords, our most devout brethren the bishops, may you be induced to exert your zeal on our behalf; for in so doing you will confer a favour not upon ourselves alone but also upon the Church at large, and you will receive your reward from God who does all things for the peace of the Churches. Fare you well always, and pray for me, most honoured and holy master.

Here is an excerpt from another letter written by St. John to Pope Innocent:
“Our body it is true is settled in one place, but the pinion of love wings its way round every part of the world. Even so we also although we be separated by a journey of such great extent are near to your Piety, and in daily communion with you, beholding with the eyes of love the courage of your soul, the sterling nature of your disposition, your firmness and inflexibility, the great consolation, constant and abiding, which you bestow upon us. For in proportion as the billows mount higher, and concealed reefs increase, and the hurricanes are many does your vigilance wax stronger: and neither the great length of the journey between us, nor the large amount of time consumed, nor the difficulty in dealing with events has disposed you to become supine: but you continue to imitate the best class of pilots who are on the alert at those times most especially when they see the waves crested, the sea swelling, the water dashing vehemently, and the deepest darkness in day-time. Therefore also we feel great gratitude towards you, and we long to send you showers of letters, thus affording ourselves the greatest gratification…[W]e have now at last after a long time secured our most honoured and beloved John the presbyter, and Paul the deacon, and we send a letter through them, and continue to express our gratitude to you, that you have surpassed even affectionate parents in your good will and zeal concerning us. And indeed so far as your Piety is concerned all things would have been duly amended, and the accumulation of evils and offenses have been swept away, and the Churches would have enjoyed peace and a glassy calm, and all things would have floated along with a smooth stream, and the despised laws and violated decrees of the fathers would have been vindicated…For the contest now before you has to be fought on behalf of nearly the whole world, on behalf of Churches humbled to the ground, of people dispersed, of clergy assaulted, of bishops sent into exile, of ancestral laws violated. Wherefore we beseech your Diligence, once, twice, yea many times, in proportion as the storm increases, to manifest still greater zeal…[W]e are not a little encouraged and comforted by the constant and abiding nature of your disposition and confidence, and by revelling in your abundant and genuine love. This is our wall of defence, this is our security, this our calm haven, this our treasure of infinite blessings, this our gladness, and ground of much joy. And even if we should be carried off again to some spot more desolate than this, we shall carry this love away with us as no small consolation of our sufferings.”

Having read this, can you still agree with brother Jimmy that St. Chrysostom’s statements that St. Peter was the head and leader of the Apostles does not apply to the bishop of Rome?

BTW, I do not believe you ever responded to this quote from the “Golden-mouthed” given by brother Chestertonrules earlier:
“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.”
Chrysostom, on John, Homily 88

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[AdrianP]

MAy God bless you and may God show you the truth.

 

[oneharpdown]

Your case becomes problematic when you look at the fact that St. John Chrysostom was out of communion with Rome until he was elevated to the Patriarchate.

 

[oneharpdown]

I wanted to point out some errors I believe you are making, the first is that this does not describe the Orthodox understanding of how the Church operates because as I understand it all bishops are equal in power and authority (which confuses me because many recognize St. Peter as holding primacy of honor), therefore singling out St. James has being the one to make (try to understand that to make the final decision is to be the last to decide on the matter) the final decision is contrary to what the Orthodox believe. The second is that you assume he is given the final say because the council is covened in Jerusalem, well then, if that’s the case does every council in church history result in the local bishop of whence that council took place has having the final say in decision making? The answer is no. One prime example of this (and that of the authority of the see of Rome) is the council that took place on the issue of rebaptism which was covened by St. Cyprian and the Eastern bishops (can’t remember where exactly but it wasn’t in Rome) who unanimously decided that heretics needed to be rebaptized into the church. Pope St. Stephen who was not even at the council denied this ruling and/or understanding of baptism (he believed that as long as the baptism was said in the trinitarian form and with water it was valid) and as a result the bishops as well as St. Cyprian came to see the error of their ways and reconciled their views with that of the Pope’s.

St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen DISAGREED. Cyprian did not simply acquiesce to the Pope, nor did the Pope speak from a chair of infallibility on this matter. Pope St. Stephen appealed to tradition.

St. Augustine writes about this conflict and says that the matter would have been resolved if an ecumenical council had taken place. That is to say, the Council was above the Pope.

Regarding the primacy of honor- what’s not to understand? Power and authority are not implied by honor. The Queen of England has a place of honor, but not much governing authority, and certainly not a charism of infallibility.

 

[oneharpdown]

Dear brother jimmy,

You oppose universal jurisdiction because you misunderstand what it means. You think that it means the Pope micomanages the Church on all levels, and that nothing can be done without the Pope or that he can disregard his fellow bishops whenever he feels like it. But the actual teaching is that it refers to the Pope’s care and solicitude for the Church, the Pope does not have the authority to treat his brother bishops that way, but must rather uphold and defend the local authority of his brother bishops, and the bishops have prerogatives in their dioceses that not even the Pope possesses. I suggest you read our Eastern canons thoroughly, instead of taking little snippets to justify your exaggerated misunderstanding of the papacy (though I admit the canons are not perfect).

I’m not reading into anything. I think it’s just that you have let certain extremist Latin Catholics misinform you of the true nature of the papacy.

Yes, the papacy is consistent with the early Church. And yes the development (i.e., the dogmatization of the ancient belief on the papal prerogatives) was warranted. The Truth of the dogmas established at Vatican 1 - RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE FATHERS AT THE VATICAN COUNCIL, NOT ACCORDING TO THE EXAGGERATIONS OF EO POLEMICISTS WHO DERIDE THE PAPACY, NOR THE EXAGGERATIONS OF CATHOLIC POLEMICISTS WHO MAKE THE PAPACY MORE THAN WHAT IT IS - are unassailable.

You have never responded to my explanations that mitigate your exaggerated understanding of the papacy. An Eastern Byzantine Catholic at the Byzcath forum once noted the ironic fact that BOTH Eastern Orthodox and Catholic polemicists are working off of the SAME EXAGGERATED CARICATURES of the Catholic teaching on the papacy - one to oppose it, the other to support it. Besides, brother, my offer for discussion was for sister Monica, not to you (though your (name removed by moderator)ut is always welcome).

Blessings,
Marduk

Both of you are way off the mark. Firstly, Vatican I denies any possibility of development. Secondly, any notion of any charism whatsoever of universal jurisdiction and especially infallibility is totally foreign to a Christian ecclesiology, and completely alien to the way the early Church operated.

 

[oneharpdown]

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

ironically, Rome was the only Patriarchate with a collegial Episcopate

 

[Gofer]

Go back to your holes and stop trolling the faithful.

 

[CaptainPicard]

Isaiah 22 20-23
" On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah;
I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.
I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.
I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family"​

Matthew 16 18-19
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Why would Jesus reference Eliakim, the holder of the Davidic office of Prime Minister in Old Testament times when speaking to Peter, if He wasn’t planning on bestowing to him the same office and same authority?

As for why the Papacy isn’t seen in full view immediately, Cardinal Newman writes this, which I find insightful:
"It should be observed, moreover, that a similar promise was made by the patriarch Jacob to Judah: “Thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise: the sceptre shall not depart from Judah till Shiloh come;” yet this promise was not fulfilled for perhaps eight hundred years, during which long period we hear little or nothing of the tribe descended from him. In like manner, “On this rock I will build My Church,” “I give unto thee the Keys,” “Feed My sheep,” are not precepts merely, but prophecies and promises, promises to be accomplished by Him who made them, prophecies to be fulfilled according to the need, and to be interpreted by the event,—by the history, that is, of the fourth and fifth centuries, though they had a partial fulfilment even in the preceding period, and a still more noble development in the middle ages. "

 

[AdrianP]

I don’t want Christians money to be controlled by a non christian family, Rotschild. What is the writtings of Church Father entincing Church to put his money in non christian hands?

I don’t think this was understanding of Early Church.

More than that, I do think that in Orhodox Churches a Patriarch is less powerfull tan bishops. Like if a Bishop has a Bishphoric he can do whatever he wants. If a Patriarch has no Bishphoric, he can just convocate the meetings of Holy Synod.He cannot inbtervene in any Bishphoric.

 

[AdrianP]

This is from web:
"Early in the 19th century the Pope came to the Rothschilds to borrow money. The Rothschilds were very friendly with the Pope, causing one journalist to sarcasticly say “Rothschild has kissed the hand of the Pope…Order has at last been re-established.“39 The Rothschilds in fact over time were entrusted with the bulk of the Vatican’s wealth. The Jewish Ency., Vol. 2, p.497states, ,,It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Rothschilds that at the present time (1905) the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.” Researcher Eustice Mullins writes that the Rothschilds took over all the financial operations of the worldwide Catholic Church in 1823.(40) Today the large banking and financial business of the Catholic Church is an extensive system interlocked with the Rothschilds and the rest of the International Banking system. The great wealth of the Russian Czars was entrusted to the Rothschilds, $35 million with the Rothschild’s Bank of England, and $80 million in the Rothschild’s Paris bank.** The Rothschilds financed the Russian Revolution which confiscated vast portions of the Orthodox Church’s wealth**.”

 

[AdrianP]

Many people that don’t understand Orthodoxy cannot comprehend that true power of Orthodoxy is not in Russia or Greece, Oh no, is somewhere else.