ORTHODOX-VATICAN - Bartholomew: With Francis, we invite all Christians to celebrate the first synod of Nicaea in 2025 [AN]

[Tomdstone]

When you have more time to chat please show the patistric writing on “First among equals”. I’m sure you have the writings from antiquity to confirm this ideal?

Here are some quotes from writings indicating the equality among bishops:

St. John Chrysostom:
“Behold,” he says, “how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. . . .” Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

St. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.

“We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth. If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a Bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood. The power that riches give, and the low estate to which poverty reduces, render a Bishop neither greater nor less.”

 

[josie_L]

Here are some quotes from writings indicating the equality among bishops:

St. John Chrysostom:
“Behold,” he says, “how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. . . .” Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

St. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.

“We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth. If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a Bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood. The power that riches give, and the low estate to which poverty reduces, render a Bishop neither greater nor less.”

No, Peter does not decide anything by his own HUMAN authority and/or power. And St. Hieron is saying that all bishops are equal in dignity and priesthood.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Here are some quotes from writings indicating the equality among bishops:

St. John Chrysostom:
“Behold,” he says, “how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. . . .” Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

St. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.

“We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth. If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a Bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood. The power that riches give, and the low estate to which poverty reduces, render a Bishop neither greater nor less.”

Let us assume that St.Heiron means exactly what you claim he does. In which case, Congratulations! You, in that case, have shown both positions to have existed from antiquity, because he rejects it it and thereby shows that others accepted it. Now, about those ecumenical councils…

P.S. St. John Chrysostom’s quote doesn’t mean that St,Peter couldn’t have decided it by his own authority, and we know from other places that St.Chrysostom believes that he did have the authority. (See homily 88 on the Gospel of John)

 

[Wandile]

Here are some quotes from writings indicating the equality among bishops:

St. John Chrysostom:
“Behold,” he says, “how Peter does all things by common consent, and decides nothing by his own authority and power. . . .” Upon the Acts of the Apostles, 8d hom.

St. Hieron. Epist. 146 ad Ev.

“We must not believe that the city of Rome is a different church from that of the whole world. Gaul, Britain, Africa, Persia, the East, India, all the barbarous nations, adore Jesus Christ, and observe one and the same rule of truth. If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city. Wherever there is a Bishop, be he at Rome or at Eugubium, at Constantinople or at Rhegium, at Alexandria or at Tanis, he has the same authority, the same merit, because he has the same priesthood. The power that riches give, and the low estate to which poverty reduces, render a Bishop neither greater nor less.”

The issue of this letter 146 is the essential equality between bishops in nature of their office.

But, is he really saying that every bishop has the very same authority ?

Let’s see the translation of the relevant sentence in New Advent:

Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one.

Where is "same authority " ?

Another rendition: he is of the same worth, and also of the same priesthood (ejusdem est meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii).

St.Hieron is saying that all bishops share the same “sacerdotium”, not that their authorities ( or their jurisdictions ) are the same.

The translation you provided is quite poor and advantageous upon disapproving the papacy. The others don’t touch on authority and rightly so. The original words don’t mention,authority. The issue is equality of the priesthood in nature. That is; a bishop is a bishop. Not equality in authority.

 

[Seraphignatius]

The issue of this letter 146 is the essential distinction between presbyters ( “men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced”) and deacons.

But, is he really saying that every bishop has the very same authority ?

Let’s see the translation of the relevant sentence in New Advent:

Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one.

Where is "same authority " ?

Another rendition: he is of the same worth, and also of the same priesthood (ejusdem est meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii).

St.Hieron is saying that all bishops share the same “sacerdotium”, not that their authorities ( or their jurisdictions ) are the same.

The translation you provided is quite poor and advantageous upon disapproving the papacy. The others don’t touch on authority and rightly so. The original words don’t mention,authority. The issue is equality of the priesthood in nature. That is a bishop is a bishop. Not equality in authority.

Even so it is a catch 22 as I pointed out already; if it means what Tomdstone says then the idea of papal supremacy was clearly popularly held in the second century.

 

[Tomdstone]

Now, about those ecumenical councils…

Specifically, which ecumenical councils and what decision exactly.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

The issue of this letter 146 is the essential equality between bishops in nature of their office.

But, is he really saying that every bishop has the very same authority ?

Let’s see the translation of the relevant sentence in New Advent:

Wherever there is a bishop, whether it be at Rome or at Engubium, whether it be at Constantinople or at Rhegium, whether it be at Alexandria or at Zoan, his dignity is one and his priesthood is one.

Where is "same authority " ?

Another rendition: he is of the same worth, and also of the same priesthood (ejusdem est meriti, ejusdem est et sacerdotii).

St.Hieron is saying that all bishops share the same “sacerdotium”, not that their authorities ( or their jurisdictions ) are the same.

The translation you provided is quite poor and advantageous upon disapproving the papacy. The others don’t touch on authority and rightly so. The original words don’t mention,authority. The issue is equality of the priesthood in nature. That is; a bishop is a bishop. Not equality in authority.

You forgot about this sentence: “If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city.” Clearly the context of the passage is church authority, not merely “sacerdotium”.

 

[Wandile]

[SIGN]i[/SIGN]

You forgot about this sentence: “If one is looking for authority, the world is greater than one city.” Clearly the context of the passage is church authority, not merely “sacerdotium”.

First this letter of,St.Hieron is actually form St.Jerome’s epistle 146

First let us consider this passage by Jerome, in a letter to Pope Damasus ( 15):

1. Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord, woven from the top throughout, John 19:23 since the foxes are destroying the vineyard of Christ, Song of Songs 2:15 and since among the broken cisterns that hold no water it is hard to discover the sealed fountain and the garden inclosed, Song of Songs 4:12 I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. The wide space of sea and land that lies between us cannot deter me from searching for the pearl of great price. …
   My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built!

If we accept that your reading Is correct and Jerome had changed his mind growing older. Nevertheless we should ask** when and where Jerome, in his huge work, witnesses to and explains such a fundamental - if happened - U-turn in his ecclesiological vision**?

( BTW The issue of this letter 146 is the essential distinction between presbyters ( “men through whose prayers the body and blood of Christ are produced”) and deacons. In the development of his exposition, Jerome complains about certain customs of deacons in Rome: we can note that nothing is said because of them against the bishop of Rome. )

If, anyway, he did have so radically changed his view as to teach that every single bishop has exactly the same authority, and no distinction among them is possible or legitimate, then that would prove too much for out orthodox brothers. Why then patriarchs ?

For it is known that a patriarch has more authority than a diocesan bishop

The whole point is that Jerome is saying,that all bishops posses authority. There is not one authority in the world hence he said :

It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside.

All bishops are bishops in the truest sense of the word
that’s why he goes on to say :

Neither the command of wealth nor the lowliness of poverty makes him more a bishop or less a bishop. All alike are successors of the apostles.

Such is taught at Vatican I

 

[Wandile]

How do Orthodox respond to these?

Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:
Church History 2:8:

Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.

And goes on in Church History 2:17:

On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome

West: Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis (June 4) says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim–each for himself–separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The same saintly African bishop adds in the next chapter::

“Damasus [was succeeded by] Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom ‘the whole world,’ through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Chair, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!”

East: Bl. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says in 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.

Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:

Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic… we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.

Monk St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man … but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.

 

[Wandile]

: Abbot St. Theodore of Studion (November 11) says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:

Let him [Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.

The same holy abbot says in Letter II:86 to Byzantine Emperor Michael I Rangabe [PG 99:1332A]:
“If there is anything in the patriarch’s reply about which your Highness feels doubt or disbelief … you may ask the Elder Rome for clarification, as has been the past practice from the beginning, according to the inherited tradition.”

He further says in Letter II:63 to Naucratius [PG 99:1281AB]:

I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.

Pope St. Innocent I of Rome (March 12) says in 417 [Letter 30:2 to the Council of Mileves in PL 20:590AB]:

It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office, that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches…Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office.

Pope St. Zosimus of Rome (December 26) says in 417 [Letter 12:1 to the Council of Carthage in PL 20:676AB]:

Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter… For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat… Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time…and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision.

Pope St. Boniface I of Rome (September 4) says in 422 [Letter 13 to Bishop Rufus of Thessalonica in PL 20:776A],

For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See."

Bishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor of Homilies; July 30) says in 449 [Letter 25:2 to the Priest Eutyches in PL 54:742D-743A]:

We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome

Metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus says in 649, in a letter read in Session 2 of the Council of the Lateran [Letter to Pope Theodore I of Rome in Mansi X:914]:

“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.”

 

[josie_L]

Even so it is a catch 22 as I pointed out already; if it means what Tomdstone says then the idea of papal supremacy was clearly popularly held in the second century.

Interesting!!

 

[Tomdstone]

How do Orthodox respond to these?

The Orthodox teach that the Pope of Rome was the first among equals or held the primacy of honor.

 

[MichaelinMD]

The Orthodox teach that the Pope of Rome was the first among equals or held the primacy of honor.

This is like deja vu all over again.

 

[Wandile]

The Orthodox teach that the Pope of Rome was the first among equals or held the primacy of honor.

The quotes from the fathers presented including some of the eastern ones clearly show it was more than a mere primacy of honor or first among equals

 

[Tomdstone]

The quotes from the fathers presented including some of the eastern ones clearly show it was more than a mere primacy of honor or first among equals

The question of what is clear and what is not clear is up for debate. Rome insists that the Pope has universal jurisdiction and that the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error “When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” The Orthodox do not accept that and they do not see the quotes you have given to say that. They do agree that before 1054, the Pope held the position of primacy of honor and first among equals in a united Church.

 

[phil19034]

The question of what is clear and what is not clear is up for debate. Rome insists that the Pope has universal jurisdiction and that the Pope is preserved from the possibility of error “When, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.” The Orthodox do not accept that and they do not see the quotes you have given to say that. They do agree that before 1054, the Pope held the position of primacy of honor and first among equals in a united Church.

Hello Tomdstone,

Lets assume that the Orthodox position on the Bishop of Rome is correct for a moment…

1. Do you agree that the Church is infallible?
2. Do you agree that the Bishop of Rome, as “first among equals” must ratify a Council in order for it to take affect? Just like all the councils we both adhear to from before 1054?
3. Assume there is a tie in a future Council, would you agree that the Bishop of Rome has the power to “cast the tie breaking vote”?

I look forward to your replies.

God Bless.

 

[Tomdstone]

Hello Tomdstone,

Lets assume that the Orthodox position on the Bishop of Rome is correct for a moment…

1. Do you agree that the Church is infallible?
2. Do you agree that the Bishop of Rome, as “first among equals” must ratify a Council in order for it to take affect? Just like all the councils we both adhear to from before 1054?
3. Assume there is a tie in a future Council, would you agree that the Bishop of Rome has the power to “cast the tie breaking vote”?

I look forward to your replies.

God Bless.

Please see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#The_Council_of_Jerusalem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy
journal.orthodoxtheologicalschool.org/Whitacre_Infallibility.html
stjohndc.org/Russian/orthhtrdx/OrthhtrdxE/e_P10.htm

 

[Seraphim73]

How do Orthodox respond to these?

Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:
Church History 2:8:

Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.

And goes on in Church History 2:17:

On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome

West: Bishop St. Optatus of Milevis (June 4) says in 367 [On the Schism of the Donatists 2:2 in PL 11:946A-947A]:

You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Chair [Cathedra], on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles (for which reason he was called Cephas), that, in this one Chair, unity should be preserved by all, lest the other Apostles might claim–each for himself–separate Chairs, so that he who should set up a second Chair against the unique Chair would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Chair, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.

The same saintly African bishop adds in the next chapter::

“Damasus [was succeeded by] Siricius, who today is our colleague, with whom ‘the whole world,’ through the intercourse of letters of peace, agrees with us in one bond of communion. Now do you show the origin of your Chair, you who wish to claim the Holy Church for yourselves!”

East: Bl. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says in 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.

Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:

Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic… we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.

Monk St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man … but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.

Alright guy this isn’t a contest to see who has the biggest quote sheet. No one is going to read through a list like this and try to figure out context on two pages worth of individual quotes. This is a common tactic among some web-Catholics. The only thing it proves is that you know how to use google and the copy and paste function in windows.

 

[josie_L]

Alright guy this isn’t a contest to see who has the biggest quote sheet. No one is going to read through a list like this and try to figure out context on two pages worth of individual quotes. This is a common tactic among some web-Catholics. The only thing it proves is that you know how to use google and the copy and paste function in windows.

It comes in handy when web-Orthodox keep claiming the pope is a first among equals.

 

[josie_L]

Please see:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy#The_Council_of_Jerusalem
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_opposition_to_papal_supremacy
journal.orthodoxtheologicalschool.org/Whitacre_Infallibility.html
stjohndc.org/Russian/orthhtrdx/OrthhtrdxE/e_P10.htm

You are neither Catholic nor Orthodox, so I’m trying very hard to understand you’re motivation.