Orthodox Article on Differences between "East" and "West"

[Paul_theApostle]

The Fundamental Difference Between the “East” and “West”

EDITOR’S NOTE: What follows is a heavily excerpted and slightly edited transcript of three lectures given by the great Orthodox scholar John S. Romanides in 1981 at Holy Cross Seminary in the Patriarch Athenagoras Memorial Lecture series.

This article deals with the fundamental difference between Orthodoxy and Western Christianity, mainly Roman Catholicism. Readers will be surprised to learn that the division between “East” and “West” was actually more of a political division, caused by the ambitions of the Franks and other Germanic tribes, than a “Theological” question.

Professor John Romanides of the University of Thessalonike challenges the common views regarding the causes for the Schism of the Church in the “Roman world,” and offers his own provocative interpretation of the historical background of this tragedy in the history of the Christian Church.

Far from seeing basic differences in the “Roman world,” which led to alienation between the East and West, Romanides argues for the existence of “national, cultural and even linguistic unity between East (Byzantine) and West Romans”; that is, until the intrusion and takeover of the West Romans (the Roman Catholics) by the Franks (German tribes).

For the rest of the article go to-

greekorthodoxchurch.org/romanorthodox.html

thanks

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Wow, that’s a long article from a one sided view. The question still remains, what man can put assunder what God has joined together? In defense of the author’s article may only articulate or bring to light, the prophecy Jesus made to Peter (see Matthew 16:14-19), that “the gates of hell will come against you “Peter” but the will never prevail” promised Jesus when he began building his Church upon Peter succeeded in the unbroken line of Popes to today. To pull a historical incident to disqualify what God has made does not justify man to seperate what God has joined together in himself.

One can make the same example from recent historical events from a non scholary report, for example;

Communism came in existance from 1922-1991 in order to remove God from humanity at all costs. Here are a few historical proof quotes from the Eastern political peoples socialists republic against the Church Jesus built upon Peter in his Catholic Church;

Karl Marx 1818-1883

“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion”.

“The emancipation of the Jews in its last significance is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

Friedrich Engels 1820-1895

“Our evolutionary conception of the universe allows no place at all for a Creator.”

Valdimir Lenin 1870- 1924
“ I hate God as I do my personal enemies.”

“Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism.”

“Outside of Socialism there is no salvation of mankind from wars, hunger, and the further destruction of millions and millions of human beings.”

“Of course, we say that we do not believe in God. We know perfectly well that the clergy, the landlords, and the bourgeoisie all claimed to speak in the name of god, in order to protect their own interests as exploiters.”

“We must engage in a most decisive battle against reactionary clergy and suppress their resistance with such cruelty that they will remember it for decades to come.”

The Cheka (soviet secret police)
“… communism and religion are mutually exclusive… no machinery can destroy religion except that of the (Cheka). In its plans to demoralize the church the Cheka has recently focused its attention of the rank and file of the priesthood. Only through them, by long, intensive, and painstaking work, shall we succeed in destroying and dismantling the church completely.”

Joseph Stalin 1879-1953
“The Pope! How many divisions has he got?”

“The Communist party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

“Kill the eunuch priests and you kill this Christ.”

Nikita Khrushchev 1894-1971
“Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.”

“If anyone believes that our smiles involve abandonment of the teaching of Marx, Engels, and Lenin he deceives himself poorly. Those who wait for that must wait until a shrimp learns to whistle.”

Infamous quotes; Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

“The greatest recent event—is that “God is dead”, that the belief in the Christian God has ceased to be believable…”

“… there are gods, but no God.”

“I should sooner believe in the man on the moon than in the woman clothed with the sun.”

“morality and religion belong altogether to the psychology of error…”

“The man who has renounced war has renounced a grand life.”

“One day my name will be associated with something catastrophic- a crisis such as there has never been on earth, the most profound collision of conscience… I am not man, I am dynamite.”

Now if your assumption to your Eastern scholar holds true? Am I, a Roman Catholic, from the above historical facts I posted, are to assume that all Orthodox Church’s in schism (with the authority Jesus established in Peter and the Popes) who come from these Eastern political beastly anti-christ societies, are using the Orthodox Catholic Church’s by infiltrating the Catholic priesthood as a wolf in sheep’s clothing inorder to protest what God has ordained on earth through Peter’s successors in the Popes so that; in time by protesting against the Popes, may lead God’s people astray?

History is history and we cannot change what God has joined together in his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Just another perspective from one side using your same analogy only to a closer living history that still exists today. Communism has only been dealt a deadly blow, this beast is sure to come again? be it through the “Orthodox” church in schism with the Popes, or will it be from the scientific world?

In other words one can manipulate history to ones own view?

Peace be with you

Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and Give to God what is God’s

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Gabriel,

I’m a bit puzzled and confused by your post, respectfully. I’m not sure what comparison or conclusion you’re trying to draw by listing a flurry of quotations by ardent communists (scary quotes by the way! our government would do well to read them and look where we’re headed with this regime!) as to what that has to do with the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism? Explain please…

Wow, that’s a long article from a one sided view. The question still remains, what man can put assunder what God has joined together? In defense of the author’s article may only articulate or bring to light, the prophecy Jesus made to Peter (see Matthew 16:14-19), that “the gates of hell will come against you “Peter” but the will never prevail” promised Jesus when he began building his Church upon Peter succeeded in the unbroken line of Popes to today. To pull a historical incident to disqualify what God has made does not justify man to seperate what God has joined together in himself.

One can make the same example from recent historical events from a non scholary report, for example;

Communism came in existance from 1922-1991 in order to remove God from humanity at all costs. Here are a few historical proof quotes from the Eastern political peoples socialists republic against the Church Jesus built upon Peter in his Catholic Church;

Karl Marx 1818-1883

“The first requisite for the happiness of the people is the abolition of religion”.

“The emancipation of the Jews in its last significance is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.”

Friedrich Engels 1820-1895

“Our evolutionary conception of the universe allows no place at all for a Creator.”

Valdimir Lenin 1870- 1924
“ I hate God as I do my personal enemies.”

“Atheism is a natural and inseparable part of Marxism.”

“Outside of Socialism there is no salvation of mankind from wars, hunger, and the further destruction of millions and millions of human beings.”

“Of course, we say that we do not believe in God. We know perfectly well that the clergy, the landlords, and the bourgeoisie all claimed to speak in the name of god, in order to protect their own interests as exploiters.”

“We must engage in a most decisive battle against reactionary clergy and suppress their resistance with such cruelty that they will remember it for decades to come.”

The Cheka (soviet secret police)
“… communism and religion are mutually exclusive… no machinery can destroy religion except that of the (Cheka). In its plans to demoralize the church the Cheka has recently focused its attention of the rank and file of the priesthood. Only through them, by long, intensive, and painstaking work, shall we succeed in destroying and dismantling the church completely.”

Joseph Stalin 1879-1953
“The Pope! How many divisions has he got?”

“The Communist party cannot be neutral toward religion. It stands for science, and all religion is opposed to science.”

“Kill the eunuch priests and you kill this Christ.”

Nikita Khrushchev 1894-1971
“Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you.”

“If anyone believes that our smiles involve abandonment of the teaching of Marx, Engels, and Lenin he deceives himself poorly. Those who wait for that must wait until a shrimp learns to whistle.”

Infamous quotes; Friedrich Nietzsche 1844-1900
“God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.”

“The greatest recent event—is that “God is dead”, that the belief in the Christian God has ceased to be believable…”

“… there are gods, but no God.”

“I should sooner believe in the man on the moon than in the woman clothed with the sun.”

“morality and religion belong altogether to the psychology of error…”

“The man who has renounced war has renounced a grand life.”

“One day my name will be associated with something catastrophic- a crisis such as there has never been on earth, the most profound collision of conscience… I am not man, I am dynamite.”

Now if your assumption to your Eastern scholar holds true? Am I, a Roman Catholic, from the above historical facts I posted, are to assume that all Orthodox Church’s in schism (with the authority Jesus established in Peter and the Popes) who come from these Eastern political beastly anti-christ societies, are using the Orthodox Catholic Church’s by infiltrating the Catholic priesthood as a wolf in sheep’s clothing inorder to protest what God has ordained on earth through Peter’s successors in the Popes so that; in time by protesting against the Popes, may lead God’s people astray?

History is history and we cannot change what God has joined together in his One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Just another perspective from one side using your same analogy only to a closer living history that still exists today.

In other words one can manipulate history to ones own view?

Peace be with you

Give to Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and Give to God what is God’s

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi Gabriel,

I’m a bit puzzled and confused by your post, respectfully. I’m not sure what comparison or conclusion you’re trying to draw by listing a flurry of quotations by ardent communists (scary quotes by the way! our government would do well to read them and look where we’re headed with this regime!) as to what that has to do with the differences between Orthodoxy and Catholicism? Explain please…

Sure; The OP has applied an article that places Political emphasis in the Church of Jesus Christ making the “allusion” and confusion to the Popes God given authority to a secular one.

I simply reversed this analysis from an Eastern society political view, which promises to remove God and attack the Pope and Catholic priesthood. Because most of these Orthodox church’s reside from these political antichrist societies; is it fair that I use the same analysis to the Eastern Catholic Church’s especially those recent Orthodox Church’s in schism with the Popes?

My commentary only points that man cannot put assunder what God has joined together, and when reading history from a far, one should give to Ceasar (secular political powers) what belongs to Ceasar and what belongs to God is God’s.

Does this help? or is more clarification needed?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Thanks, Gabe, I see your point. My personal opinion is that it is outrageous to think the The Rock on which Christ built His Church, Peter, is the one to fall into error, erroneous and sinful pride, false teachings, and the one to lure billions of people into a lie. It’s hard to imagine that God would put the Holy Father isolated from the East thanks to the barbarian invasion of the Empire, then allow the Pope to go rogue and become a crazed self-absorbed tyrant that creates his own unilateral folly. Going from all I’ve read of the early church, the vast amount of quotes from saints and great fathers of the faith pointing toward the “Rome has spoken” infallible-style speech, I just can’t fathom the Church splintering and the Roman Church being a lost sheep, a lost tribe so to speak. And all the accomplishments, mission, holiness, and beauty that Rome has brought is in a state of defect, error, etc.? Not buying it. That’s why I can’t swallow Orthodoxy. Rome was able to convert its invaders and enemies…we can’t make the same claim in other parts.

Sure; The OP has applied an article that places Political emphasis in the Church of Jesus Christ making the “allusion” and confusion to the Popes God given authority to a secular one.

I simply reversed this analysis from an Eastern society political view, which promises to remove God and attack the Pope and Catholic priesthood. Because most of these Orthodox church’s reside from these political antichrist societies; is it fair that I use the same analysis to the Eastern Catholic Church’s especially those recent Orthodox Church’s in schism with the Popes?

My commentary only points that man cannot put assunder what God has joined together, and when reading history from a far, one should give to Ceasar (secular political powers) what belongs to Ceasar and what belongs to God is God’s.

Does this help? or is more clarification needed?

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Thanks, Gabe, I see your point. My personal opinion is that it is outrageous to think the The Rock on which Christ built His Church, Peter, is the one to fall into error, erroneous and sinful pride, false teachings, and the one to lure billions of people into a lie. It’s hard to imagine that God would put the Holy Father isolated from the East thanks to the barbarian invasion of the Empire, then allow the Pope to go rogue and become a crazed self-absorbed tyrant that creates his own unilateral folly. Going from all I’ve read of the early church, the vast amount of quotes from saints and great fathers of the faith pointing toward the “Rome has spoken” infallible-style speech, I just can’t fathom the Church splintering and the Roman Church being a lost sheep, a lost tribe so to speak. And all the accomplishments, mission, holiness, and beauty that Rome has brought is in a state of defect, error, etc.? Not buying it. That’s why I can’t swallow Orthodoxy. Rome was able to convert its invaders and enemies…we can’t make the same claim in other parts.

The Orthodox believe in an Eighth Ecumenical coucil in the 800s attended also by the Fathers of Rome which along with St Photius condemned the Filioque as an addition to the original Creed and as a Doctrinal/theological Heresy.

Today in the Mass at Roman Churches the Filioque is recited in the Creed.

The Orthodox are not going to go against the decisions and beliefs of the Ecumenical councils no matter how Holy any Pope may be or what the Roman Church may acclomplish in the world or what anyone believes about the Apostle Peter.

The Filioque arose as an issue at the Eighth Council and was put away with.

The article reads that the Franks adopted and believed in the Theology of the Filioque and was later inserted into the Creed at Rome.
As the Orthodox officially condemned it ,they will cease from having Spiritual Communion with Rome being cautious of their own souls ,not to fall into Spiritual error and practice ,belief and recite False/anti Orthodox or Heretical Beliefs in their life of Worshipping and Loving the true God.

If i personally dont accept the filioque of course thats my business,Orthodox are told that if a heretic refuses to listen once or twice then they are to be left alone in their own fallacy.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Thanks, Gabe, I see your point. My personal opinion is that it is outrageous to think the The Rock on which Christ built His Church, Peter, is the one to fall into error, erroneous and sinful pride, false teachings, and the one to lure billions of people into a lie. It’s hard to imagine that God would put the Holy Father isolated from the East thanks to the barbarian invasion of the Empire, then allow the Pope to go rogue and become a crazed self-absorbed tyrant that creates his own unilateral folly. Going from all I’ve read of the early church, the vast amount of quotes from saints and great fathers of the faith pointing toward the “Rome has spoken” infallible-style speech, I just can’t fathom the Church splintering and the Roman Church being a lost sheep, a lost tribe so to speak. And all the accomplishments, mission, holiness, and beauty that Rome has brought is in a state of defect, error, etc.? Not buying it. That’s why I can’t swallow Orthodoxy. Rome was able to convert its invaders and enemies…we can’t make the same claim in other parts.

Ditto For me the common denominator is that Jesus said it (“I will build my church upon you” Peter), it is written, and so it is on earth as it is in heaven, that the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ. No matter how man in times past,present and future times come against this “Rock” it will never change or move.

As far as the “filioque” equation is concerned? scripture reveals the filioque teaching which refutes heretics and heresies. The Orthodox in schism rebell against the authority of the Pope defining and defending this biblical apostolic revelation against heresies, not necessarily the “Filioque” apostolic faith defined. The Orthodox in schism to Peter’s authority excercised, objects to Peter’s successors in the Popes to excercise his God given authority to bind and loose on earth as Jesus our head bind and loose in heaven. This is the true argument not the “filioque”.

To our OP as Pope JPII states “do not be afraid” come to Christ and he will lead you to life giving waters, where God “will” forgive all your sins. Any one who teaches “fear” comes from the evil one. Jesus taught Peter and his Church “do not be afraid”, God loves you.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

Ditto For me the common denominator is that Jesus said it (“I will build my church upon you” Peter), it is written, and so it is on earth as it is in heaven, that the Catholic Church is the body of Jesus Christ. No matter how man in times past,present and future times come against this “Rock” it will never change or move.

As far as the “filioque” equation is concerned? scripture reveals the filioque teaching which refutes heretics and heresies. The Orthodox in schism rebell against the authority of the Pope defining and defending this biblical apostolic revelation against heresies, not necessarily the “Filioque” apostolic faith defined. The Orthodox in schism to Peter’s authority excercised, objects to Peter’s successors in the Popes to excercise his God given authority to bind and loose on earth as Jesus our head bind and loose in heaven. This is the true argument not the “filioque”.

Peter also ordained the Bishop of Antioch ,does that mean the Bishop of antioch also cant Bind and Loose sins?whats the difference spiritually between a Bishop of Rome and an Antioch Bishop in that regard.

The fathers of Rome were present at the 8th Ecunmenical Council which everyone must adhere to ,and they condemned the filioque,

They condemned it Theologically.

The Church of Rome also accepts the Orthodox Churches as a valid path to salvation and accepts their Priesthood and Sacraments which also pertain to salvation.

So not being in Union with Rome doesnt interfere with their Salvation.

The Apostle Peter can also be present in the Spiritual Lives of Orthodox Christians.

As Rome accepts the Sacraments of Orthodox Churches,that means that Orthodox Confession is also accepted.What happens when a person Confesses his sins to a Priest?The priest absolves the person.So we can say any Valid Sacrament of Confession and its Priest has the authority and Power to ‘Bind’ and ‘Loose’,as the Priest would ‘Loose’ the sins of the penitant.

Which we could see that the also the Apostles who created the Bishops of any Orthodox Church Jurisdiction wouldve also had the Power to Bind and Loose sins as their sucessor Priests and Bishops have.

 

[mark_a]

The Orthodox are not going to go against the decisions and beliefs of the Ecumenical councils no matter how Holy any Pope may be or what the Roman Church may acclomplish in the world or what anyone believes about the Apostle Peter.

And that’ll have to do for Orthodox and Catholics for now.

And here’s another great article for those exploring the Orthodox view of Catholicism.
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9504fea1.asp

 

[Nine_Two]

Do we really need these polemics?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Actually the Orthodox never viewed Peter as the Bishop of Antioch despite his founding of that church. Orthodox recognized Peter as Bishop of Rome. Even the highly-anti papal websites and Youtube videos will say as much.

Peter also ordained the Bishop of Antioch ,does that mean the Bishop of antioch also cant Bind and Loose sins?whats the difference spiritually between a Bishop of Rome and an Antioch Bishop in that regard.

.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi marc, are you a Catholic thinking of converting to Orthodoxy? You post websites from their point of view so I’m just wondering what your purpose is? Thanks

And that’ll have to do for Orthodox and Catholics for now.

And here’s another great article for those exploring the Orthodox view of Catholicism.
catholic.com/thisrock/1995/9504fea1.asp

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Peter also ordained the Bishop of Antioch ,does that mean the Bishop of antioch also cant Bind and Loose sins?whats the difference spiritually between a Bishop of Rome and an Antioch Bishop in that regard.

The difference is that Peter’s successor from Rome is recorded in scripture and there after followed the Apostolic Tradition in unbroken succession. The second point I would like to make is that the Eastern Orthodox Church ursurped all its apostolic authority to the patriarch in Constantinople (removing any and all succession of Peter’s (authoritative) Chair to speak of from the bishop of Antioch) when their pagan Roman Emperor (saint) Constantine moved his capital from Rome, (leaving “Rome” solely to the Pope), to Constantinople where the Eastern Church ruled under the authority of their saint emperor Constantine and their apostolic successor in their Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.

The Early Church Fathers who lived since the Apostolic age and thereafter, attested to the Popes authority from Peter not the Antioch Bishop. In fact the first list of Peter’s successors (naming the first 12 popes) was recorded in the early second century. The Bishop of Antioch is not listed.

Peter was an Apostle who ordained Bishops. As far as spiritual differences between the Bishop of Rome and the Bishop of Antioch? there is no difference. The difference lays in the authority of who sits as Peter’s apostolic successor. The scriptures and Apostolic Tradition both follow the Peter and the Popes, not the Bishop of Antioch.

The fathers of Rome were present at the 8th Ecunmenical Council which everyone must adhere to ,and they condemned the filioque,

What needs to be clarified here in addressing these issues deals with those Orthodoxy in communion with the Pope or those Orthodox Church’s not in communion with the Pope, this is a very delicate case because these Orthodox in schism are not in communion with each other making this a complicated subject to generalize, unless we are specific to which Orthodox rite or community we are addressing. I would love to comment but my comment would only draw strong criticism if one summarizes all of the above as one Orthodox Church.

Speaking from the Western Church, we do not have this complicated division among our communities because we all adhere to One apostolic Catholic authority Jesus gave us in Peter’s successors in the Popes.

Peace be with you

 

[Milliardo]

Actually the Orthodox never viewed Peter as the Bishop of Antioch despite his founding of that church. Orthodox recognized Peter as Bishop of Rome.

Wrong; we view Peter as the bishop of Antioch. After all, there is the Patriarchate of Antioch, and has Peter as its founding bishop. Where did you get this strange notion, anyway?

My personal opinion is that it is outrageous to think the The Rock on which Christ built His Church, Peter, is the one to fall into error, erroneous and sinful pride, false teachings, and the one to lure billions of people into a lie.

That doesn’t necessarily mean Peter as Rock wouldn’t fall into error; after all, he did deny our Lord three times. And that after he was called as Rock! The bishops of Rome are human, and are prone to errors. Rome had added innovation upon innovation, and now it is trying to bring itself back on course.

The difference is that Peter’s successor from Rome is recorded in scripture and there after followed the Apostolic Tradition in unbroken succession.

Yet it is much clearer that Peter went to Antioch than he did Rome. The Orthodox Church does not, of course, deny that Peter went to Rome. What is astounding is the claim here that the Antiochian bishops don’t seem to have Apostolic Succession–a strange notion.

The Western Catholic Church recognizes the Eastern Orthodox Catholic church’s in communion with the Pope having valid holy orders, valid sacraments, valid “beautiful” liturgies and apostolic succession to the orginal apostles.

The Catholic Church actually recognizes the Orthodox Church’s Sacraments as valid as well.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Wrong; we view Peter as the bishop of Antioch. After all, there is the Patriarchate of Antioch, and has Peter as its founding bishop. Where did you get this strange notion, anyway?

I can’t speak for gurney here, but I believe gurney is referring to the original Orthodox Apostolic Catholic Church who wrote and gave testimony to Peter’s successors in the Popes not the Bishop from Antioch. This new notion that the bishop of Antioch is Peter’s successor is of late debate. The confusion is that the bishop of Antioch was ordained a Bishop when Peter was in Antioch giving the Patriarch his apostolic succession as a successor to the apostles, this was common place.

The Early church Fathers and ancient Catholic communities record the Bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor and recognized as the one Jesus building his church upon. In fact the first 3 Popes are found in the New Testament. I would be interested in seeing proof where an ancient secular or religious source recognized the Bishop or Patriarch of Antioch as Peter’s successor. This does not mean the Antioch Bishop does not have apostolic succession in any way.

What is amazing is that some Orthodox try and make the case that the Patriarch of Antioch is the successor of Peter, while other Orthodoxy try and make the case that Jesus never built his Church upon Peter. I take it your from the former school of thought?

That doesn’t necessarily mean Peter as Rock wouldn’t fall into error; after all, he did deny our Lord three times. And that after he was called as Rock! The bishops of Rome are human, and are prone to errors. Rome had added innovation upon innovation, and now it is trying to bring itself back on course.

For clarification here; Roman Catholics are to refrain from recieving the sacraments from those Orthodox Church’s in schism with the Popes, unless certain circumstances apply. This is a fine line here to draw considering the different Orthodox Church’s.

Peace be with you

 

[Milliardo]

I can’t speak for gurney here, but I believe gurney is referring to the original Orthodox Apostolic Catholic Church who wrote and gave testimony to Peter’s successors in the Popes not the Bishop from Antioch. This new notion that the bishop of Antioch is Peter’s successor is of late debate.

That would again be strange, since if that is the case, what is the appeal of St. Ignatius of Antioch as bishop then, if he had no Apostolic Succession? Or St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrnaea? Does this strange notion then mean that all the other bishops, save the bishop of Rome, have no Apostolic Succession? Strange, very strange notion…

I would be interested in seeing proof where an ancient secular or religious source recognized the Bishop or Patriarch of Antioch as Peter’s successor.

This is from a Melkite website; note that it is Eastern Catholic, not Orthodox. Here is the link: mliles.com/melkite/patriarch.shtml and I quote the part:

According to tradition, the Patriarch (Batriyark) is the successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter. Tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter in 45 AD.
The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter was appointed by Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ to be His representative on earth. Then, the Patriarch is the representative of Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ on earth.

When the Popes defended the Apostolic faith against heretics and heresies these past 2000 years, it does not equate to your understanding of “innovations” here;

This is a nice sentiment, but it still does not change the fact that Rome has added one innovation after another. Has “universal jurisdiction”, for one, done anything to actually combat heresy? It actually helped in multiplying it to a unimaginable number with the various Protestant denominations, all of which came from the Catholic Church.

I don’t know of any Roman Catholic that denies that the Bishop of Antioch has apostolic succession.

With respect to gurney above, I think he has already done so…

For clarification here; Roman Catholics are to refrain from recieving the sacraments from those Orthodox Church’s in schism with the Popes, unless certain circumstances apply.

Actually, no Orthodox priest would even confer any of the Sacraments (other than those who desire baptism and chrismation) to a Catholic. So you may not receive communion from an Orthodox priest, even under extraordinary circumstances (which Rome has stated it is okay to do, if circumstances require it); the Orthodox priest will refuse communion to non-Orthodox, and that includes Catholics.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

That would again be strange, since if that is the case, what is the appeal of St. Ignatius of Antioch as bishop then, if he had no Apostolic Succession? Or St. Polycarp, bishop of Smyrnaea? Does this strange notion then mean that all the other bishops, save the bishop of Rome, have no Apostolic Succession? Strange, very strange notion…

No one said Peter could not validate a Bishop. The Pope and other apostolic successors in the Bishops ordain other Bishops, does that make them the Pope or the same Bishop from whence the new Bishop was ordained from? Peter from Rome before his martyrdom placed Linus his Apostolic successor to continue on his authoritative ministry from Rome where Peter and Paul bones still remain today, not in Antioch. Let us understand what is Apostolic succession and Apostolic successor. Here are he historical record of Peter’s successor’s from Rome; First and Second Centuries
St. Peter (42 - 67) St. Linus (67 - 79) o St. Anacletus (79 - 92)
St. Clement I (92 - 101)
St. Evaristus (101 - 105)
St. Alexander I (105 - 115)
St. Sixtus I (115 - 125)
St. Telesphorus (125 - 136)
St. Hyginis (136 - 140)
St. Pius I (140 - 155)
St. Anicetus (155 - 166)
St. Soter (166 - 175)
St. Eleutherius (175 - 189)
St. Victor I (189 - 199)
St. Zephyrinus (199 - 217)

This is from a Melkite website; note that it is Eastern Catholic, not Orthodox.

Thank you for making that distinction between Eastern and the later to come Orthodox church.

According to tradition, the Patriarch (Batriyark) is the successor of The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter

. Tradition maintains that the See of Antioch was founded by The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter in 45 AD.
The Holy, Glorious and Illustrious Prince of the Apostles Peter was appointed by Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ to be His representative on earth. Then, the Patriarch is the representative of Holy God the Son within the Holy Trinity / Our Lord, God and Savior, Jesus Christ on earth.

Iam sorry I should of been more clearer here, I was asking for a secular source or a Jewish source from this apostolic period recognizing your Antioch Bishop as Peter’s successor? When the Jews and Pagan Rome sought out to destroy Christianity did they seek out the Bishop of Antioch or the Bishop of Rome? History records every secular seeking power always sought out the Roman Pope Peter’s successor to kill off Christianity not the Bishop of Antioch.

Does your Tradition maintain an unbroken successor from Peter to today? as does the Roman Catholic Church and according to Jesus promise to never leave Peter and his Church. You will find that your Antioch successor disappears when the Patriarch from Constantinople comes on the scene. We have no more Antioch successor from Peter only a Bishop ordained when Peter was present in Antioch.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here are some undisputed records from antiquity, that confirm the Bishop of Rome in the Popes succeeded from Peter.

2 Tim 4:21 Do your best to come before winter. Eubu’lus sends greetings to you, as do Pudens and** Linus **and Claudia and all the brethren.

IrenaeusChapter III.—A refutation of the heretics, from the fact that, in the various Churches, a perpetual succession of bishops was kept up.

1.It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times….that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, **and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; **as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops…3. **The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were **many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles.”

St. Cyprian
**In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to “the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter” (Epistle 51:8; cf. 75:3). **

Here is the list St. Cyprian is giving testimony too below;
Third and Fourth Century Popes from Peter
St. Callistus I (217 - 222)
St. Urban I (222 - 230)
St. Pontian (230 - 235)
St. Anterius (235 - 236)
**St. Fabian (236 - 250)
St. Cornelius (251 - 253) **
St. Lucius I (253 - 254)
**St. Stephen I (254 - 257) ** see Firmilian’s recorded historical quote below
St. Sixtus II (257 - 258)
St. Dionysius (259 - 268)
St. Felix I (269 - 274)

Firmilian of Caesarea
**Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Epistle 75:17). **He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor.

Tertullian
In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus’s claim that Peter’s power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop.

Hippolytus
About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the “Liberian Catalogue” — “Clement of Rome”, 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops.

“Adversus Marcionem”
We have moreover a poem, “Adversus Marcionem”, written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus “the chair on which he himself had sat” (P.L., II 1077).

This is a nice sentiment, but it still does not change the fact that Rome has added one innovation after another. Has “universal jurisdiction”, for one, done anything to actually combat heresy? It actually helped in multiplying it to a unimaginable number with the various Protestant denominations, all of which came from the Catholic Church.

Many Eastern heretics and heresies that came from the Eastern Church were defeated by the Popes and Magisterium of the Catholic Church since the first century. Any one who “protests” or tries to change the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church (Universal) Church will always find themselves either excommunicated by the power given Peter from Jesus Christ or in schism as you find yourself trying to Protest a Rock that will not move.

History from antiquity here is unaminous that the Roman Popes possess unbroken apostolic succession from Peter as his successor to today from both secular sources and religious sources from antiquity. Just look up Papacy in the secular Brittianica encyclopedia records Peter’s unbroken line of successors in the Popes. The sources to place here will out number your biased historical views.

Peace be with you

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

**Oh Milliardo, you’ll find I’m just chuck-full of strange notions . Acts 11:19-30 says otherwise as far as the founding of this church is concerned. The late John Meyendorff edited an outstanding book called “The Primacy of Peter,” which as a learned Orthodox I’m sure you’ve read. The whole premise of the book is that Peter was indeed as the Orthodox claim, the coryphaeus, first among equals, but not what we Roman Catholics claim him to be. It’s a very well written book. And Meyendorff, Schmemann, Veselin Kesich, Nicholas Koulamzine, etc. all agree that Peter was not the founder of Antioch and he spent little time there at all.

The birth of the Church of Antioch, which was founded by fugitives from the persectution of Jerusalem, is another important event at the end of this period pg. 19

As for Antioch, the church there was certainly not of Peter’s foundation…Peter must have really been at Antioch or Paul would not have emphatically said so [Galatians 2:11-2:14] but Acts never refers to Peter having been at Antioch so it must have been a passing visit…Everything leads us to think that Peter’s ministry was peripatetic. His work did not install him as any head of any given local church. pg. 23

And yet there is a wealth of literature saying Peter was the founder and first bishop of Antioch. Go figure. Ignatius of Antioch was supposedly the third bishop there after Peter and Evodius. Eusebius claims Peter founded the church as well. Who do we believe? Pope Damasus I claims Peter dwelled there before Rome. Peter supposedly ordained Ignatius. But you’re correct, I stand corrected as far as what the Orthodox believe as Peter being the first bishop of Antioch. I have read this right and left when I did more research on the topic. I just have read various opinions and it seems like there is no Biblical record of it and some of the scholars I have read feel he played little role there at all. So it makes me wonder? Like you said, I’m full of strange notions **

Wrong; we view Peter as the bishop of Antioch. After all, there is the Patriarchate of Antioch, and has Peter as its founding bishop. Where did you get this strange notion, anyway?

---

That doesn’t necessarily mean Peter as Rock wouldn’t fall into error; after all, he did deny our Lord three times. And that after he was called as Rock! The bishops of Rome are human, and are prone to errors. Rome had added innovation upon innovation, and now it is trying to bring itself back on course.
But didn’t the three denials take place before Pentecost? Was Peter’s role as the first pope fully realized before the coming of the Holy Spirit upon he and the others? Had Christ given him the commission to feed his sheep yet? Isn’t it bizarre, the notion that all the Church stayed true to the deposit of faith and yet the descendent of Peter turned his back on the truth, fell deeply into error and in fact teaches sinful heresies? The descendents of the other apostles are holy keeping to the truth while Peter’s successor is really a teller of lies? I don’t buy it. When Christ promises Peter that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail against His Church, what do you think he meant?
Yet it is much clearer that Peter went to Antioch than he did Rome. The Orthodox Church does not, of course, deny that Peter went to Rome. What is astounding is the claim here that the Antiochian bishops don’t seem to have Apostolic Succession–a strange notion.
Who said the Antiochian bishops didn’t have apostolic succession?

The Catholic Church actually recognizes the Orthodox Church’s Sacraments as valid as well.
I’m fully of aware of that fact but thanks for the reminder

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

For not speaking for me, you do it a lot in this post!

I can’t speak for gurney here, but I believe gurney is referring to the original Orthodox Apostolic Catholic Church who wrote and gave testimony to Peter’s successors in the Popes not the Bishop from Antioch. This new notion that the bishop of Antioch is Peter’s successor is of late debate.

This is a nice sentiment, but it still does not change the fact that Rome has added one innovation after another. Has “universal jurisdiction”, for one, done anything to actually combat heresy? It actually helped in multiplying it to a unimaginable number with the various Protestant denominations, all of which came from the Catholic Church.
Is it the fault of the Catholic Church that the Protestant rebels came upon error? If someone goes rogue in your Church does your bishop and institutions automatically get blamed? Universal Jurisdiction wasn’t meant to convey the idea that there would never be a heretical sect because of its existence? Gnostics were early heretics, Arians, etc. They all came from the Church when it was united. What does heresy have to do with this?

**Ole’ Gurney has NOT. I said that I questioned Peter as the founder of the see at Antioch. Does that automatically mean I reject they had ANY episcopacy there at all? I never implied that. **
With respect to gurney above, I think he has already done so…

Seeing as how I practicaly NEVER see Orthodox parishes anywhere and their numbers are so ultra tiny in California, my chances of needing emergency communion or unction from a Catholic parish are about a billion times better than ever needing to resort to having an Orthodox deal with me. As Seinfeld would say, “not that there’s anything wrong with that!” though!
Actually, no Orthodox priest would even confer any of the Sacraments (other than those who desire baptism and chrismation) to a Catholic. So you may not receive communion from an Orthodox priest, even under extraordinary circumstances (which Rome has stated it is okay to do, if circumstances require it); the Orthodox priest will refuse communion to non-Orthodox, and that includes Catholics.