Need an Orthodox response to this deviation from Sacred Tradition...

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Also:

Why none of them referred to Matthew 16:18?

Why none of them omitted Matthew 16:16?

Talk about splitting hairs!

It is clear that early eastern fathers acknowledged and accepted the primacy of Peter and the papacy.

Here are many more, not that you in any way explained the previous quotes I provided:

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that ‘such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.’ (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope, …

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649 A.D.)

He writes to Pope Theodore, …

O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)

St. Maximos the Confessor:

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? … And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople:

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople:

Writing to Pope Leo III ]
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal ]
Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. 43:23/44:23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: ‘And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.’ Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

John Cassian, Monk (c. 430):

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).

 

[slavko]

Talk about splitting hairs!

It is clear that early eastern fathers acknowledged and accepted …

LOL

As soon as you demonstrate the reasoning for equation between “eastern fathers” and “Ecumenical Councils” the latter being asked by OP, I’ll continue banging heads against the wall with you.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

LOL

As soon as you demonstrate the reasoning for equation between “eastern fathers” and “Ecumenical Councils” the latter being asked by OP, I’ll continue banging heads against the wall with you.

Can you provide a quote from an ecumenical council which denies the papacy?

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Can you provide a quote from an ecumenical council which denies the papacy?

Still waiting.

 

[slavko]

Still waiting.

You will be waiting until you respond to my post 21.

 

[mardukm]

It sept in in 1870, when RC promulgated belief that was unheard before, so now you are shocked to discover Orthodox believe what we always believe (along with you for 'bout thousand years), that Matthew 16:16-18 refers both to Peter’s confession and Peter.

Yes, we are surprised because a long time ago when when the Eastern Catholic Forum was still the Eastern Christianity Forum, every EO apologist and polemicist that showed up there DENIED that Peter is the Rock of Matthew 16:18. You are perhaps only the second EO that has come on here to make the claim that that the EO believe Mt 16:18 refers to BOTH Peter and his confession. I’d like to challenge you to show us an official document from your Church that proves the EO generally hold to this belief.

For my part, I will offer you this:

“The holy Church has been built upon a rock, that is, upon Christ, and upon Peter or Cephas…Are not the hearts of the brethren strengthened in the faith of Peter which has not failed…?” Letter of admonition to Patriarch Michael Cerularius, 1053.

“This authority, moreover, although given to man and exercised by man, is not human, but divine, given by the divine lips to Peter and, as far as he and his successors were concerned, grounded upon Him whom Peter had confessed.” Unam Sanctam, 1302

It’s obvious the Catholic Church has maintained the Traditional and COMPLETE understanding of Mt 16:18. What you see in Vatican I is not anything new or revived, but is merely a reflection of the CONSTANT teaching of the Catholic Church.

Now, let me ask you again - please provide for us documentary magisterial proof from your Church POST-schism to demonstrate your statement above.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[slavko]

You are perhaps only the second EO that has come on here to make the claim that that the EO believe Mt 16:18 refers to BOTH Peter and his confession.

If you read the text of mine you quoted, you’ll see I never claimed that.

I’d like to challenge you to show us an official document from your Church that proves the EO generally hold to this belief.

See the above.

What you see in Vatican I is not anything new or revived, but is merely a reflection of the CONSTANT teaching of the Catholic Church.

I see.

What you believed as from Apostolic times needed to be formulated in 1870 and was heavily disputed by several prominent bishops/cardinals and caused schism.

You expect me to debate this?

Now, let me ask you again - please provide for us documentary magisterial proof from your Church POST-schism to demonstrate your statement above.

There is no magisterium in Orthodox Church, that’s yet another RC’s invention.

 

[mardukm]

If you read the text of mine you quoted, you’ll see I never claimed that.

Here’s what you said: “so now you are shocked to discover Orthodox believe what we always believe (along with you for 'bout thousand years), that Matthew 16:16-18 refers both to Peter’s confession and Peter.”
What purpose does it serve for you to deny it?

See the above.

As I stated, show us documentary proof from YOUR Church POST-schism that your Church has maintained this belief since every other EO who has come here (except you and one other) has explicitly DENIED that the “rock” refers to St. Peter.

What you believed as from Apostolic times needed to be formulated in 1870 and was heavily disputed by several prominent bishops/cardinals and caused schism.

You expect me to debate this?

We’re talking about the belief that the “rock” of Mt. 16:18 refers to BOTH Peter and his confession. There’s nothing to debate except your claim that the EO generally believe this.

There is no magisterium in Orthodox Church, that’s yet another RC’s invention.

“Magisterium” is defined as the divine teaching authority of/from God. Strange that you would deny that your Church has no divine authority to teach.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[slavko]

Here’s what you said: “so now you are shocked to discover Orthodox believe what we always believe (along with you for 'bout thousand years), that Matthew 16:16-18 refers both to Peter’s confession and Peter.”
What purpose does it serve for you to deny it?

As I stated, show us documentary proof from YOUR Church POST-schism …

PRE-schism wouldn’t be valid?

Remind me, when exactly have I agreed to fulfill every request about the claim I never asserted, in the fashion as defined by you, but non-existent in Orthodox Church?

 

[mardukm]

PRE-schism wouldn’t be valid?

No, because as even you admitted, we were all united and held to the same beliefs about the “rock.” But YOU claim that upon schism, the Catholic Church changed its believ and only recovered it at Vatican I. I gave you proof that your claim is false. Now you show us proof that, in the face of all the EO here who have denied that the “rock” refers to St. Peter, the EO have maintained the Tradition you claim that the “rock” refers to BOTH St. Peter and his confession.

Remind me, when exactly have I agreed to fulfill every request about the claim I never asserted, in the fashion as defined by you, but non-existent in Orthodox Church?

I said you claimed that the EO believed that the “rock” refers to BOTH St. Peter and his confession. You denied you claimed that. I quoted your very statement where you claim it. And you still deny it. Okay, let me ask you this: what is exactly is it are you claiming about the “rock” in Matthew 16?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Genesis315]

I just wanted to add that many of the statements made here are also acceptable expressions for Catholics. The rock is Peter and the rock is his profession of faith. He and his profession are connected.

Similarly, Peter can represent how any bishop should lead his flock. Of course, the very fact that Peter is looked on in this manner shows that he was the leader of the nascient flock of Christ. We simply believe that that ministry is not just present in particular Churches, but also in the universal Church. This is why some Orthodox theologians who profess an exclusively Eucharistic ecclesiology argue that to admit a universal ecclesiology, one must also admit a ministry at least comparable to the Roman papacy (e.g. Afanassief and Schmemann).

 

[slavko]

But YOU claim that upon schism, the Catholic Church changed its believ and only recovered it at Vatican I.

You are a funny guy, but we don’t share the same sense of humor.

 

[slavko]

I just wanted to add that many of the statements made here are also acceptable expressions for Catholics. The rock is Peter and the rock is his profession of faith. He and his profession are connected.

I really can’t see how could anyone oppose your words.

After all, we all read the same Bible, the same Matthew 16:16, and immediately afterwards Matthew 16:18.

 

[JackQ]

It sept in in 1870, when RC promulgated belief that was unheard before, so now you are shocked to discover Orthodox believe what we always believe (along with you for 'bout thousand years), that Matthew 16:16-18 refers both to Peter’s confession and Peter.

BTW direct successors of Peter chairs the cathedras in: Antioch, Alexandria (check the New Testament), MP & ROCOR (check the Patriarch Theophan of Antioch performing hirotonia’s in Kiev at the beginning of 17th century).

Peter symbolizes every bishop.

You are right in saying that Matthew 16:16-18 refers to both Peter and Peter’s confession. Church Fathers can be cited for both interpretations, and there is no reason why both can’t be correct. But that means that both interpretations are operative. The Orthodox and the Protestants exclude one interpretation in favor of the other.

On the other hand, your statement that all bishops occupy the Chair of Peter in the same way that the bishop of Rome does ignores too much of what the Fathers wrote. And the Vatican I teachings regarding the Pope weren’t new doctrines, they were just enunciated at an ecumenical council for the first time. Of course, by that time the Orthodox had already come to reject even minimal doctrines pertaining to Petrine primacy. The schism didn’t begin in 1870.

 

[JackQ]

You should read the book I referenced. It’s a really good book that goes to show that the Orthodox do not reject Petrine Primacy–they just don’t equate it with Petrine Supremacy.

That’s interesting, and it seems to be Timothy Ware’s opinion if I understand him correctly. I’ve had it explained to me before, but I still don’t quite get the distinction. I can’t get past the notion that the Orthodox would assign no more than a ceremonial role to the Pope, something like the Queen of England (or even less than that). And that doesn’t square with what I’ve read from pre-schism Church authorities.

 

[slavko]

You are right in saying that Matthew 16:16-18 refers to both Peter and Peter’s confession. Church Fathers can be cited for both interpretations, and there is no reason why both can’t be correct. But that means that both interpretations are operative. The Orthodox and the Protestants exclude one interpretation in favor of the other.

I haven’t encountered yet the interpretation that Peter was “the rock” while he renounced Christ before the rooster was heard for the third time.

On the other hand, your statement that all bishops occupy the Chair of Peter in the same way that the bishop of Rome does ignores too much of what the Fathers wrote.

For the sake of facts, I never claimed that. I said every bishop symbolizes the Peter in the sense every bishop feeds Christ’s sheep.

Also, I never denied the primacy of Rome. I responded to a call for an Orthodox response to a specific interpretation that based the primacy of Rome on the primacy of Peter solely on Matthew 16:18.

The reponse was:

a) Matthew 16:18 isn’t apt for interpretation. It is Matthew 16:16-18 that should be interpreted.

b) Successor of Peter isn’t Pope of Rome only. There are his successors in other sees, too.

c) Primacy of Rome isn’t based on Matthew 16:16-18. It is based on the decision of an Ecumenical Council (2nd canon of 6th council, that canonized Sardica), with the reasoning that she is a Royal City, simultaneously granting the same rights as second to Rome to the Patriarch of Constantinopolis.

If you check my previous posts, you’ll see it.

I hope I clarified all misunderstandings of my posts. Nota bene, I just answered the specific question of the OP. If you don’t like it, don’t ask for it.