Is Orthodoxy the true Church?

[Vico]

Hi all! I am reading this forum for a long time and tried to stay out of disscutions, but decided to say something. I do understand all of the Catholics who belive they are members of true original church. However, to belive its the only one is not true. Orthodox church is as old, holy and true original as Rhe Catholic is. They where one for 1054, when political issues caused the split between the Patriarchs of Rome vs 4 other Patchriarhs(Antioch, Alexsandria, Jerusalem, Constantinopolis), primary causes of the Schism were disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authority—Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (see also Pentarchy)—and over the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western patriarch in 1014. Orthodoxy is not denomination but just equaly old holy and apostolic as Catholic. As a result of the Muslim conquests of the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and all other strong Orthodox empires such as Bulgaria and Serbia. Rome, remained strong and spread Catholicism thrue colonies. Somebody said that Orthodox church is not one and that is wrong. Dogmaticly, they are united, and they are or equal in organisational structure. I understend thet some of you have no knowlage of this, but those do and overlook this for a reason to attract pure numbers of people to stay in Carholicism, think if that is in a spirit of Christianity.

It is quite long and complex history, beginning at least with the (dogmatic) letter from Pope Leo I, 447 A.D., letter 15, II. (1) The Priscillianists’ denial of the Trinity refuted: “as if He who begot were not one, He who was begotten, another, and He who proceeded from both, yet another”
newadvent.org/fathers/3604015.htm

There have been seven schisms, and all of them are technically resolved today, as of 1965. But after the fall of communism, doubts arose again, so in June 1992, The Vatican (Pro Russia commission) released a call for reconciliation with “General Principles and Practical Norms for Coordinating the Evangelizing Activity and Ecumenical Commitment of the Catholic Church in Russia and in the Other Countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS).”

1. 484 Pope Felix excommunicates Acacius and Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch for trying to appese Monophysites.

526 Pope John 1 receives profession of Orthodox faith from Justin I. Pope John I is praised as the successor of Peter.

1. 654 Emperor Constans II tries to impose the doctrine of Monothelitism,
   681 Council of constantinople III condemns Monothelitism.
2. 736 Pope Gregory II excommunicates the Icoclasts.
   787 Council of Nicaea II condemns Iconclasts.
3. The Photian Schism, 863-867 A.D. occurred and then in 882-886 A.D. a second schism associated with Photius * also occurred. 867 Photius challenges the authority of the Papacy, opposing filioque clause.

869 Photius is deposed by 6th Council of Constantinople.

• Photius is a Saint to the Eastern Orthodox, and Francis Dvornik has written a book on the Photian Schism, which refutes the idea that he died in excommunication with the Latin Church. I think you will find opposing opinions.

1. 1054 Cardinal Humbertus excommunicates Patriarch Celurarius and his communicates without Papal approval. Patriarch excommunicates Humbertus and his delegates.

1274 Pope John XXI affects reunion. East accepts filioque, unleavened bread, purgatory.

1. 1281 Schism Pope Martin IV excommunicates Emperor Michael VIII Palaeologos.
   1439 Emperor John VIII Palaeologos submits to Pope Eugene VI. East accepts filioque as “through the Son” and Lyons II doctrines. Ferrara-Florence Act of Union.
2. 1472 Greek bishops nullify the Ferrara-Florence Act of Union (from 1439) at a synod in Constantinople.

1965 Patriarch Atheneagorus of Constantinople and Pope Paul VI nullified the excommunications from 1472.

*Much of this information is from Mark Bonocore. You can see more history at the site: davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/index.htm
The nature of the issue is such that in each historical era you will find opposing statements from various authors. I wonder if there will ever be agreement on what actually occurred.

One of the usual Catholic resources:

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hi all! I am reading this forum for a long time and tried to stay out of disscutions, but decided to say something. I do understand all of the Catholics who belive they are members of true original church. However, to belive its the only one is not true. Orthodox church is as old, holy and true original as Rhe Catholic is. Orthodoxy is not denomination but just equaly old holy and apostolic as Catholic

Good points. Rest assured, the Roman Catholic Church agrees with you on this, Cinoeye. We recognize the Orthodox churches as true churches, and we acknowledge that they are Apostolic in origin.

Somebody said that Orthodox church is not one and that is wrong. Dogmaticly, they are united, and they are or equal in organisational structure.

Another great point. I don’t think it’s fair of some of my fellow Catholics to claim that the “Orthodox church is not one.” Just because the various Orthodox churches are autocephalous does not mean they are not united. Christian unity is not necessarily an administrative thing. Well said!

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brothers and sisters

Allow me to give some thoughts.

The authority and jurisdiction of the papacy is an important issue in the division between Orthodox and Catholics. I believe that the Orthodox have legitimate fears of papal interferance and power affecting the autonomy of their churches due to Rome’s belief in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy. However Pope Benedict XVI HAS opened the topic of decreasing the role of the papacy in Catholic - Orthodox discussions, as did Pope JPII, to allow the Orthodox to accept a first millenium model of episcopal unity and papal authority, to achieve once more at least episcopal unity.

Interestingly enough before the only two infallible statements that I know of in the last two centuries (Immaculate Conception in 1850s and Assumption of Maryu in 1850s) both Popes consulted the other Bishops who begged him to make it dogma and then he declared by his Apostolic authority that it was. Of course though, he finally declared them to be so on his own apostolic authority in both situations, which is the catch I suppose.

I wouldn’t be pessimistic. Yes there are problems and the role of the papacy is one of them but as you all know the Roman Church has always considered our pope, even in the first millenium, to be of greater stature than many in the the Eastern Churches believed.

In the third century Pope Saint Stephen and Saint Cyrprian - two Orthodox and Catholic saints - clashed over this. As you know, I’m sure, Pope Stephen held that converts who had been baptized by splinter groups did not need re-baptism, while Cyprian and certain bishops of the Roman province of Africa held rebaptism necessary for admission to the Eucharist. Stephen’s view eventually won broad acceptance.

The two clashed. Saint Stephen appealed to his role as Bishop of Rome, claiming that because he was Bishop of the “primary” Church, the church which all Christians regarded as the centre of episcopal unity and the church which cared for and cautioned other churches and acted as a final court of appeal in disputes because of its unique position of having the blood of the two greatest apostles, and furthermore claimed that he had a unique lineage from Peter - Cyrprian Himself had earlier declared the See of Rome to be the “See of Peter” in a unique sense from other otherwise equal sees.

Cyprian changed his earlier opinions and claimed: Yes, Rome was the “primus”, the centre of unity but the Pope did not have the right to interfere in the legitimate, autonomy of other churches and act like an infallible dictator. This took place during the pontificate of Stephen which is dated 254 - 257.

As the historian Eamon Duffy explains:

"…Cyrian had a very exalted view of the episcopal office, and emphasised the dignity of everty bishop in his own church. He accepted the special standing of the see of Rome, 'the Chair of Peter, the primordial [or “principal”] church, the very source of episcopal unity’. But Cyprian did not mean by this that other bishops were subordinate to the pope…Christ had founded the church on Peter but all the Apostles and all bishops shared fully in the one indivisible apostolic power…Behind Cyprian’s practice here was a stern doctrine which denied that any grace could flow to human beings outside the visible communion of the Catholic Church. Rome took the milder view, which would eventually become the accepted teaching…Stephen therefore ordered that returning schismatics should not be rebaptized, but simply admitted again to the Church by the laying on of hands. Cyprian, however, refused to accept the ruling…Though his letter does not survive, we know from Cyprian’s comment on it that Stephen had backed up his condemnation of the African churches with an appeal to [his unique authority from Peter]. During [the previous] Pope Cornelius’ lifetime, Cyprian had written a treatise on the Unity of the Catholic Church, in which he had bolstered his own authority as well as that of the Pope against the Novatianist schism, by stressing the unique role of the See of Peter (Rome) as the foundation of unity. He now rewrote the treatise, editing out these passages and denying that the Bishop of Rome had any special claim on Christ’s promise to Peter. It was indeed the foundation of the See of Rome - but it was also the charter for every other Bishop, all of whom shared in the power of the keys given to Peter. For Cyprian, therefore, it was folly for Pope Stephen to ‘brag so loudly about the seat of his episcopate and to insist that he holds his succession from Peter’. Significantly, however, even at the height of his confrontation with Stephen, Cyprian avoided open attacks on the authority of Rome…Rome remained for him a fundamental symbol of the unity of the episcopate, with whom an absolute breach was unthinkable…"

*- Eamon Duffy *

*(continued…) *

 

[Vouthon]

Cyprian’s later view of all bishops being “petrine” (deriving authority from the keys of Peter) became the default Eastern Orthodox position, whereas Pope Stephen’s view of the unique Petrine descent of the See of Rome became the Roman Catholic view. Thing is - there both saints in both churches.

Cyrprian was later martyred, Stephen died a natural death while his successor Pope Saint Sixtus II also died a martyr under the Romans. All three men are considered Catholic/Orthodox saints by our churches - and yet the difference between us is articulated at that very earlier stage. Consider this: Pope Saint Stephen and Saint Cyprian, representing (at least in Cyprian’s later life anyway) the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox position respectively, are both saints in both Churches.

But did it stop episcopal unity? No, the Church was united for nearly a 1,000 years after this dispute between Stephen and Cyrprian.

Surely you cannot deny that the First Millenium Popes who are saints in the Holy Orthodox Church regarded their position as being of greater authority than Orthodox Christians today believe, not to mention unique authority of and descent from Peter that Orthodox also don’t accept? And surely Roman Catholics realize that some saints and fathers such as Cyprian did not hold the pope to be of as high authority as we claim and as the Popes and other saints/fathers claimed back then?

In this respect, neither of our churches can really “up” the other. This debate goes to the very heart of our churches in the first millenium.

I think that Pope Benedict XVI has been definite on the issue that the Orthodox need not be expected to fully accept the Roman, Latin modern view of the papacy but could possibly re-establish some form of episcopal unity on the basis of how it was in the First Millenium.

Precisely how that could be done, is I concede difficult too know. But we must try.

Much love in Christ

 

[Cinoeye]

There is another important issue, at least in rhe Balkans where I am from, but some are probably universal problems and caracteristics for most of tha nations. Greeks, Serbs and Bulgarians see Orthodoxy as their own national identity. Changing religion always came with the sword. Catholicism was forced by Austro-hungarian occupatio and Nazi Croatia who killed hundreds of thousands of those who did not convert. Now blessed Alojzije Stepinac was archbishop of the puppet state.Stepinac had close associations with the Ustaše leaders during the Nazi occupation,had issued proclamations celebrating the NDH(Nazi independent state of Croatia), and welcomed the Ustaše leaders. Stepinac blesed persecution of Jews and policy towards the Serbs-1/3 to be killed,1/3 converted and 1/3 to be forced out of Croatia. Lot of those converted Serbs today are consider Croats today. Croats belive that you can not be Croat and Orthodox, and Serbs belive you can not be Serb and Carholic. In October 3, 1998, Pope John Paul II declared him a martyr and beatified him before 500,000 Croatians in Marija Bistrica near Zagreb. On the other hand, Ottomans also used force to convert Catholic Croats, but mostly Orthodox Serbs, Greeks and Bulgarians into Islam. Today we have bosniaks as as separate etnicity in Bosnia, Serbia and Montenegro, but in reality they are just converted Serbs. More comming up…

 

[dcointin]

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church a true Church? Yes.
Is the Oriental Orthodox Church a true Church? Yes.
Is the Catholic Church a true Church? Yes.

Each are authentic apostolic churches which have preserved the tradition as handed down to them, and in which the Holy Spirit works through the sacraments for the salvation of the world.

 

[Vouthon]

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church a true Church? Yes.
Is the Oriental Orthodox Church a true Church? Yes.
Is the Catholic Church a true Church? Yes.

Each are authentic apostolic churches which have preserved the tradition as handed down to them, and in which the Holy Spirit works through the sacraments for the salvation of the world.

Amen!

Excellently and coherently put! I couldn’t agree more.

 

[CopticChristian]

Is the Eastern Orthodox Church a true Church? Yes.
Is the Oriental Orthodox Church a true Church? Yes.
Is the Catholic Church a true Church? Yes.

Each are authentic apostolic churches which have preserved the tradition as handed down to them, and in which the Holy Spirit works through the sacraments for the salvation of the world.

It just dawned on me that the postings here have focused on the Orthodox as it regards the true Church. You are correct and I agree.

In consideration that the OP says “Is Orthodoxy the true Church”? Then the answer is yes.

Orthodox defined:

1. Adhering to the accepted or traditional and established faith, especially in religion.
2. Adhering to the Christian faith as expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds.
3. Orthodox
   a. Of or relating to any of the churches or rites of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
   b. Of or relating to Orthodox Judaism.

In the context of Church and the understanding of Orhtodoxy then as you state

Each are authentic apostolic churches which have preserved the tradition as handed down to them, and in which the Holy Spirit works through the sacraments for the salvation of the world.

Then since each calls themselves Catholic and each honors and respects that and since each has the preserved teachings as you state…the answer to the question should just be

YES.

 

[Art321]

Hi all! I am reading this forum for a long time and tried to stay out of disscutions, but decided to say something. I do understand all of the Catholics who belive they are members of true original church. However, to belive its the only one is not true. Orthodox church is as old, holy and true original as Rhe Catholic is. They where one for 1054, when political issues caused the split between the Patriarchs of Rome vs 4 other Patchriarhs(Antioch, Alexsandria, Jerusalem, Constantinopolis), primary causes of the Schism were disputes over conflicting claims of jurisdiction, in particular over papal authority—Pope Leo IX claimed he held authority over the four Eastern patriarchs (see also Pentarchy)—and over the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Nicene Creed by the Western patriarch in 1014. Orthodoxy is not denomination but just equaly old holy and apostolic as Catholic. As a result of the Muslim conquests of the territories of the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem and all other strong Orthodox empires such as Bulgaria and Serbia. Rome, remained strong and spread Catholicism thrue colonies. Somebody said that Orthodox church is not one and that is wrong. Dogmaticly, they are united, and they are or equal in organisational structure. I understend thet some of you have no knowlage of this, but those do and overlook this for a reason to attract pure numbers of people to stay in Carholicism, think if that is in a spirit of Christianity.

I wholeheartly agree that the the churchs that profess to be Eastern Orthodox are completely valid. In the Churches of Antioch, Alexsandria, Jerusalem, and all the others, one will find that Christ is most certainly there. In these churchs the Holy Faith handed down by the Apostles lies and no matter what anyone tells you, nothing will change this fact.

So be proud as I am when I say that this Churches are indeed holy and apostolic as the Latin Church. But because of the current schism that dates back several hundred years, unfortunately these holy churches are not in communion with the Bishop of Rome. And thus, the Catholic position is that while everything in these churches are most holy, they lack something fundemental as particular churches not in communion with Rome.

And Rome does teach that all those churches in communion with the Bishop of Rome comprise the Church that we profess in the Nicene Creed that is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic. But we can see from talks that hopfully in the near future, the holy churches will once again be in communion with us.

Another poster mentioned the papacy. I agree in order for these holy churches to come to Rome, the papacy will have to be reformed. From what I have read, the Pope will definitely allow these churches to keep their independence, litergies, etc. But the only thing that would happen is if a sitution would arise in which it threatened communion or anything else for the Church, then the Pope would step in to resolve the issue at hand. That’s about it.

 

[Nine_Two]

My dear brothers and sisters

While I respect where you are coming from, and can do nothing but laud your desire for unity, I must make two notes about what you said:

I believe that the Orthodox have legitimate fears of papal interferance and power affecting the autonomy of their churches due to Rome’s belief in the universal jurisdiction of the papacy.

Here it must be made clear, we believe the Orthodox Churches should be autocephalous (self-headed), and not simply autonomous (under their own laws). This may seem semantic, but it is an important distinction. There is no discussion about Orthodox Churches accepting the possibility of going under the Bishop of Rome. All MUST be equals.

However Pope Benedict XVI HAS opened the topic of decreasing the role of the papacy in Catholic - Orthodox discussions, as did Pope JPII, to allow the Orthodox to accept a first millenium model of episcopal unity and papal authority, to achieve once more at least episcopal unity.

The issue here is with the word “allow”. In no way, shape, or form, is anything being “allowed” of the Orthodox Churches.
They will do as they please. If there is unity, and if the Bishop of Rome has an issue with what the other Churches are doing, he has the option of removing them from his diptychs, other than that he has no say in what happens.

 

[Vouthon]

My dear brother/sister Nine

Thank you very much for your reply!

While I respect where you are coming from, and can do nothing but laud your desire for unity, I must make two notes about what you said:

Here it must be made clear, we believe the Orthodox Churches should be autocephalous (self-headed), and not simply autonomous (under their own laws). This may seem semantic, but it is an important distinction. There is no discussion about Orthodox Churches accepting the possibility of going under the Bishop of Rome. All MUST be equals.

I agree! In the event of a hypothetical re-establishment of episcopal unity between our Churches it would have to be clearly set in stone that the Orthodox Churches are completely self-headed and self-governing. Indeed, Christ is the only ‘Head’ of the Holy Catholic Church. All bishops, yes even His Holiness the Pope, share an equality by virtue of their shared apostolic office and the Pope must respect the legitimate and direct authority which other Bishops possess over the clergy and laity who are under their authority and jurisdiction. It would not be a case of the Orthodox coming ‘back under the Pope’ after a millenium of schism but rather the Bishop of Rome and the Orthodox Bishops freely re-establishing episcopal union between their churches on a fair and even platform

The issue here is with the word “allow”. In no way, shape, or form, is anything being “allowed” of the Orthodox Churches.
They will do as they please. If there is unity, and if the Bishop of Rome has an issue with what the other Churches are doing, he has the option of removing them from his diptychs, other than that he has no say in what happens.

Perhaps my choice of word ie “allow” is a result of my Roman understanding, however I do not believe that the Orthodox Churches are ‘under Rome’. They are independent, as you say autocephalous churches that are free to engage, as they please, with other churches in the communion. Rome would be once more the centre of episcopal unity, the Protos [first] among equals. But this does not give it any right to interfere in the independent life, liturgy, management or day-to-day functioning etc. of other churches

Much love in Christ

 

[Art321]

My dear brother/sister Nine

Thank you very much for your reply!

Much love in Christ

Great response Vouthon! Indeed!

Although I must note that if the Eastern Orthodox Churches were to once again join our communion, the Bishop of Rome would step in a dire sitution that would threaten the harmony of the Church.

I think you already said that, but I just wanted to point that out.

 

[Vouthon]

Great response Vouthon! Indeed!

Although I must note that if the Eastern Orthodox Churches were to once again join our communion, the Bishop of Rome would step in a dire sitution that would threaten the harmony of the Church.

I think you already said that, but I just wanted to point that out.

We are in complete agreeance

Pope Saint Stephen did this in the third century with the re-baptism of the lapse, and Saint Cyprian didn’t exactly welcome his stepping in to the dispute and was greatly angered by his intervention etc. but eventually his teaching won through with broad acceptance by his brother bishops, and Cyprian still held the See of Rome to be the ‘primordial Church’ and the ‘centre of episcopal unity’ and indeed thabks to Stephen’s timely intervention peace ensued thereafter.

 

[Vouthon]

Great response Vouthon! Indeed!

Although I must note that if the Eastern Orthodox Churches were to once again join our communion, the Bishop of Rome would step in a dire sitution that would threaten the harmony of the Church.

I think you already said that, but I just wanted to point that out.

We are in complete agreeance

Pope Saint Stephen did this in the third century with the re-baptism of the lapse, and Saint Cyprian didn’t exactly welcome his stepping in to the dispute and was greatly angered by his intervention etc. but eventually his teaching won through with broad acceptance by his brother bishops, and Cyprian still held the See of Rome to be the ‘primordial Church’ and the ‘centre of episcopal unity’ and indeed thanks to Stephen’s timely intervention peace ensued thereafter. This did not mean though that Cyprian was ‘under’ the Pope nor that they were not equal in dignity in their shared office. That is a very rare situation though.

This arbitration would only occur if there was a threat to unity in the communion ie the threat of schism.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

This did not mean though that Cyprian was ‘under’ the Pope nor that they were not equal in dignity in their shared office. .

Cyprian-

Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian,** which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair,** was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253])

                          --------------

Does every Bishop hold the office of Peter??
Is every episcopate the ‘place of Peter’??
Does every episcopate have the ‘dignity of the sacredotal chair’ of Peter??

 

[Nine_Two]

Cyprian-

Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian,** which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair,** was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church" (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253])

                          --------------

Does every Bishop hold the office of Peter??
Is every episcopate the ‘place of Peter’??
Does every episcopate have the ‘dignity of the sacredotal chair’ of Peter??

I’m sorry, I just looked up the letters of St. Cyprian. I checked both his 55th and 52nd epistle (I can’t figure out why else 52 would be in brackets) and I can’t find that reference in either. I was checking on New Advent’s website, and if a pro-Catholic excerpt is anywhere, it is bound to be there.

Could you double check where that quote is found in his Letters.

Thanks.

 

[Vico]

I’m sorry, I just looked up the letters of St. Cyprian. I checked both his 55th and 52nd epistle (I can’t figure out why else 52 would be in brackets) and I can’t find that reference in either. I was checking on New Advent’s website, and if a pro-Catholic excerpt is anywhere, it is bound to be there.

Could you double check where that quote is found in his Letters.

Thanks.

It is in 51, item 8:
Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church. Whoever he may be, although greatly boasting about himself, and claiming very much for himself, he is profane, he is an alien, he is without. And as after the first there cannot be a second, whosoever is made after one who ought to be alone, is not second to him, but is in fact none at all.
newadvent.org/fathers/050651.htm

 

[Nine_Two]

It is in 51, item 8:
Moreover, Cornelius was made bishop by the judgment of God and of His Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the suffrage of the people who were then present, and by the assembly of ancient priests and good men, when no one had been made so before him, when the place of Fabian, that is, when the place of Peter and the degree of the sacerdotal throne was vacant; which being occupied by the will of God, and established by the consent of all of us, whosoever now wishes to become a bishop, must needs be made from without; and he cannot have the ordination of the Church who does not hold the unity of the Church. Whoever he may be, although greatly boasting about himself, and claiming very much for himself, he is profane, he is an alien, he is without. And as after the first there cannot be a second, whosoever is made after one who ought to be alone, is not second to him, but is in fact none at all.
newadvent.org/fathers/050651.htm

Curious that all those websites cite it as 55 or 52 (unless that means something else…).

I would suggest that Cyprian, when referring to “Church” means the Roman Church specifically, as he basically restates the accepted rules at the time for electing a Metropolitan/Patriarch, and Carthage was at the time part of the Roman Episcopate.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

From posts here i read Cyprian believes all bishops are equal and sucessors of Peter

but Cyprian called Rome the ‘Place of Peter’ in the quote…

and the other poster said Rome is equal in dignity with all other churches

Cyprian says Rome-the Place of Peter
has ‘Dignity as the sacerdotal chair’

so are all churches the place of Peter or only Rome? and do all churches have the ‘Dignity of being the sacerdotal chair’ or just Rome?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Here it must be made clear, we believe the Orthodox Churches should be autocephalous (self-headed), and not simply autonomous (under their own laws). This may seem semantic, but it is an important distinction.

Yes, it is. I agree.