Now, Hesychios this a lot different than what you said, how come? Anyways, I wanted to add one tidbit if you please about “universal primacy”:
In all of my discussions here I have never denied a first millenium primacy of the church at Rome. We know it to have been a once sterling example of Christian church, even before Saint Peter arrived!
In fact, in a city like Rome it was very easy to tell what was Orthodox teaching and what was not. Rome was the Big Apple of the day. The city had residents from all over the empire, and one could learn about what was being taught elsewhere simply by walking the streets of Rome. That most of these people came into the city believing closely similar things was clear evidence of what constituted the inherited Faith.
If you wanted to pick apart my own posts you could probably find something you could claim supports your idea of “universal primacy” but in fact nothing I have written supports the Papacy you know and love.
That these respected authors (both priests) touched upon the subject is not an issue for me, we already know this and the criticism is justified. Orthodox need to view history in a realistic light and acknowledge what things were about in the past. Both men put their own reputations on the line, in print, to help keep Orthodox understanding of the situation balanced, a credit to them. However these quotes are taken out of the context of their larger works, and I encourage you and everyone else who reads this board to read their works in full, instead of just taking a dip into the quote mine.
You will note that nowhere among their writings will you find an endorsement of Papal Supremacy, and although Roman Catholics like to treat ‘primacy’ and ‘supremacy’ as synonyms they are definitely not, they are different concepts. Nowhere is there an endorsement of Papal Universal jurisdiction, and these gentlemen spent their entire lives as Orthodox priests, a significant point.
So arguing as defense of Papal primacy, or “priority” will not support the modern Papacy. For Orthodox, the overall primacy (an important function) has
passed on to another patriarchate where it is exercised today. Orthodox know that those who exercise primacy (whether in a parish, diocese, synod or higher) must be worthy of it.
So, as I have already stated… primacy doth not supremacy make.
On the other point, Rome’s involvement in the Ecumenical Councils was weak. It did not provide a leadership role in the proceedings of most councils, and in cases where Rome did not agree entirely with the Conciliar decrees, their objections had no effect in the east. In the first millennium therefore, bishops of Rome did not have the veto power over councils it has in the western church today. The bishops of Rome and their legates, like the bishops and legates of all other bishops, had only one vote each.
Rome was not a source of Orthodoxy as much as it was a receiver and keeper of Orthodoxy, that it’s faith remained constant for so long at the beginning is noteworthy, that it has been inconstant for so long since is also worth reflecting upon.
or is this an attempt to be manipulative? 