Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Ignatios]

The same way the “first among equals” operates in the Orthodox Church today. The Patriarch of Constantinople presides in love and can serve a representative for the Church. If he attends a synod, he is honored above all and functions as a leader. In the event that he attempts to force his decisions on the entire Church, he is rebuked (just as the saints rebuked the pope when/if he made a similar action).

Because Peter was the leader among the disciples. St. John Chrysostom says :

“And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band”

Being a leader does not imply ruling over. Aside from the fact that Rome is not the only Petrine See (Antioch is as well), St. Peter never exerts authority over the other apostles.

Your pontiff believes the papacy operated in such a way prior to the schism.

Hello brother Mark of Ephesus,(love your name) ,
I just wanted to add to the highlighted reply above, and say that St. John Chrysostom also used the same language when speaking about St. Paul and maybe a bit higher if I remember right. so it wasn’t only St. Peter that considered by many of the Holy Fathers as the leader of the band but also St. Paul as well. here is just a couple quote for thoughts:

“In his commentary on Galatians, St. Chrysostom deals with this passage in just the same way, but adds that in reality St. Paul " had no need of Peter nor of his voice, being equal in honour, iVcm/uo?.” Here, also, he explains (ibid., p. 379 [367]) that our Lord committed the Jews to Peter, and over the Gentiles He set Paul:—
“Christ, [like a wise king who has one general for the cavalry and another for the infantry], divided His army, the Jews to Peter, the Gentiles toPaul " (ibid., p. 379 [369]).”* GOD bless all †††
Glad to have you with us Dear brother Mark of Ephesus.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I’m just curious to get the Orthodox response to this:

“We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, that say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction WE MUST carry out…This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not believe.** PETER HAS SPOKEN THUS THROUGH LEO.**” - Council of Chalcedon, 451

Isn’t this pretty damning?

I apologize if the quote was already mentioned, but I wasn’t about to go through all those pages of discussion.

 

[Harpazo]

I’m just curious to get the Orthodox response to this:

“We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, that say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction WE MUST carry out…This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not believe.** PETER HAS SPOKEN THUS THROUGH LEO.**” - Council of Chalcedon, 451

Isn’t this pretty damning?

I apologize if the quote was already mentioned, but I wasn’t about to go through all those pages of discussion.

I have never seen that in the canons of the council, considering Pope St. Leo was not even present at the council and was thrusting his Tome onto the council (who rejected his proposal and then ratified it, btw). Ultimately, we’d have to see a source for this other than something so vague like “Council of Chalcedon, 451”

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[FabiusMaximus]

I have never seen that in the canons of the council, considering Pope St. Leo was not even present at the council and was thrusting his Tome onto the council (who rejected his proposal and then ratified it, btw). Ultimately, we’d have to see a source for this other than something so vague like “Council of Chalcedon, 451”

In Christ,
Andrew

Well I am investigating both Churches, at the moment. I purchased off Amazon.com the book The Fathers Know Best. Stupid me I didn’t realize it was a book directly of Catholic Answers, so ithe book is most probably biased (though I’m thoroughly enjoying it). However, it is filled with quotations from the Early Church Fathers. This was one of them. I clipped some parts of the larger quote in my comment, but I assure you I didn’t clip out anything that might have changed the meaning (at least from my perspective).

I don’t know if that’s suitable for you, but I’m just trying to be honest on where I got that quote from. It was apparently said by Bishop Paschasinus, in reference to the Tome of Leo.

But I don’t understand why they’d say that if they rejected his letter. Could you explain more clearly?

 

[Rawb]

I’m just curious to get the Orthodox response to this:

“We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, that say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction WE MUST carry out…This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not believe.** PETER HAS SPOKEN THUS THROUGH LEO.**” - Council of Chalcedon, 451

Isn’t this pretty damning?

I apologize if the quote was already mentioned, but I wasn’t about to go through all those pages of discussion.

From a brief looking over the council:

This wasn’t a canon, but it’s part of something that was said at the council…in part. The legates from Rome at the council (His Holiness didn’t attend, but sent a few men in his stead). The Pope of Rome told his representatives to not permit Dioscorus to even sit at the council because Dioscorus had held a council which taught heresy. Dioscorus was still given his seat despite the legates protestations, despite the desires of Rome. The representatives are the ones who are saying basically “Our pope said we must throw him out if he tries to sit in on the council. WE MUST follow this direction.” Well, of course *they *had to - he was their boss.That part wasn’t said by the whole council.

The part after the elipses was said by others at the council, but they also praise the fact that Pope Leo is teaching the same thing as Cyril. In fact, the whole quote, which in my mind reinforces the importance Holy Orthodoxy places on all teaching in accord with each other rather than the importance Roman Catholicism places on being in accord with the Pope, is such:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

They don’t stop at the fact that Leo taught something - they report that Leo teaches in accord with what they all believe, with what the Apostles taught, with what Cyril taught. They condemn Dioscorus for keeping these things hidden during a heretical council he had called.

 

[Cavaradossi]

They don’t stop at the fact that Leo taught something - they report that Leo teaches in accord with what they all believe, with what the Apostles taught, with what Cyril taught. They condemn Dioscorus for keeping these things hidden during a heretical council he had called.

I agree. As a matter of fact, had Pope Leo I submitted a heterdox tome that taught something radically different from what Cyril taught, I doubt that the bishops present at the council would have been so enthusiastic about the tome. In truth, the tome actually caused great discomfort amongst the Alexandrian bishops (and I’ve run into several Oriental Orthodox who believe very firmly that it is a Nestorian confession of faith). The very fact that they are praising the tome for agreeing with Cyril should say something—they praise the tome because it agrees with Orthodox belief, not because it is an authoritative document.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

“It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]
. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!”

philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

And yet claiming to be universal bishop is exactly what the pope does. The writer of that article is attempting to make a distinction that is not present. St. Gregory believed that such a title would undermine the status of all other bishops, which ironically, is exactly what the post-schism Latin system did. Dictatus papae :

1. That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2. That** the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal**.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
4. That, in a council, his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5. That the pope may depose the absent.
6. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That this is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19. That he himself may be judged by no one.
20. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

How is this form of “universal bishop” any different than the kind St. Gregory feared? Verily, the Latin church is not a congregation of bishops, but rather one mega-diocese, with a single bishop who rules through his auxiliaries. They have no power outside of his approval. This is exactly what Pope St. Gregory warned against.

“As regards the Church of Constantinople,” he said once more [ix:26], “WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it.”

If this passage means what you are interpreting it to mean, can you point to an historical example where St. Gregory acted on his supposed “jurisdiction” over Constantinople? He certainly uses powerful language to describe the primacy, but I know of no case where he enforces your inferred understanding (he always speaks to other bishops as equals in his many epistles).

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Well I am investigating both Churches, at the moment. I purchased off Amazon.com the book The Fathers Know Best. Stupid me I didn’t realize it was a book directly of Catholic Answers, so ithe book is most probably biased (though I’m thoroughly enjoying it). However, it is filled with quotations from the Early Church Fathers.

I would recommend reading the fathers themselves in context. Avoid apologetic materials because they often involve out-of-context quoting. Examine the evidence for yourself and believe what the fathers taught. If you thoroughly learn patristics (and believe what is taught) you will never fall into heresy. If you are looking for a good reading recommendation, I would suggest Church History by Eusebius and everything by St. John Chrysostom.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

.

The part after the elipses was said by others at the council, but they also praise the fact that Pope Leo is teaching the same thing as Cyril. In fact, the whole quote, which in my mind reinforces the importance Holy Orthodoxy places on all teaching in accord with each other rather than the importance Roman Catholicism places on being in accord with the Pope, is such:

They don’t stop at the fact that Leo taught something - they report that Leo teaches in accord with what they all believe, with what the Apostles taught, with what Cyril taught. They condemn Dioscorus for keeping these things hidden during a heretical council he had called.

I don’t think an emphasis on accord negates the Roman Catholic vision of the pope. I think it’s rather obvious that in any future union, the pope would inevitably scale down his power. That being said, ‘Peter has spoken thus through Leo’ to me sounds like a rather convincing confirmation of what Catholicism says about the papacy being in succession to Peter, and that is holds authority (how much authority, I shall decline to say, for I’m not knowledgeable, I’m merely saying what it says from my eyes).

I would recommend reading the fathers themselves in context. Avoid apologetic materials because they often involve out-of-context quoting. Examine the evidence for yourself and believe what the fathers taught. If you thoroughly learn patristics (and believe what is taught) you will never fall into heresy. If you are looking for a good reading recommendation, I would suggest Church History by Eusebius and everything by St. John Chrysostom.

Yeah, I would assume apologetic materials have issues, but then again I didn’t know that the book was a Catholic apologetics guide to the ECFs. But it’s still good reading. Very organized and structured, too.

Anyway, thanks for the recommendations, I’ll look into them.

 

[Hesychios]

IThat being said, ‘Peter has spoken thus through Leo’ to me sounds like a rather convincing confirmation of what Catholicism says about the papacy being in succession to Peter,
.

St Peter was one of the Patron Saints of Rome, thus the acclamation.

This was not a statement that Saint Peter was using the bishop in Rome as a divine oracle, but rather a recognition (and compliment) that the western Christians were agreeing with Saint Peter’s faith, which they knew full well. They were happy with the Tome because it agreed with a position they had already staked out. The Oriental Orthodox were thus also unhappy with the Tome because it disagreed with the position they had already staked out! Both parties already had positions and there was nothing new in the Tome.

A second point is that this has nothing to do with jurisdiction and administration, but with theology. The fathers of the Council read and examined the document before they judged it Orthodox, this is not the same as waiting for some word from on high to tell them what to think or believe, they were judging the thoughts of the bishop of Rome.

It is interesting (and ironic) to see that today, with the modern Christological agreements, modern Christian scholars (and the Papacy as well) are thinking that the schism was a mistake due to misunderstandings on both sides, and the Tome assumes even less importance as a result.

 

[jam070406]

And yet claiming to be universal bishop is exactly what the pope does. The writer of that article is attempting to make a distinction that is not present. St. Gregory believed that such a title would undermine the status of all other bishops, which ironically, is exactly what the post-schism Latin system did. Dictatus papae :

1. That the Roman church was founded by God alone.
2. That** the Roman pontiff alone can with right be called universal**.
3. That he alone can depose or reinstate bishops.
4. That, in a council, his legate, even if a lower grade, is above all bishops, and can pass sentence of deposition against them.
5. That the pope may depose the absent.
6. That, among other things, we ought not to remain in the same house with those excommunicated by him.
7. That for him alone is it lawful, according to the needs of the time, to make new laws, to assemble together new congregations, to make an abbey of a canonry; and, on the other hand, to divide a rich bishopric and unite the poor ones.
8. That he alone may use the imperial insignia.
9. That of the pope alone all princes shall kiss the feet.
10. That his name alone shall be spoken in the churches.
11. That this is the only name in the world.
12. That it may be permitted to him to depose emperors.
13. That he may be permitted to transfer bishops if need be.
14. That he has power to ordain a clerk of any church he may wish.
15. That he who is ordained by him may preside over another church, but may not hold a subordinate position; and that such a one may not receive a higher grade from any bishop.
16. That no synod shall be called a general one without his order.
17. That no chapter and no book shall be considered canonical without his authority.
18. That a sentence passed by him may be retracted by no one; and that he himself, alone of all, may retract it.
19. That he himself may be judged by no one.
20. That no one shall dare to condemn one who appeals to the apostolic chair.
21. That to the latter should be referred the more important cases of every church.
22. That the Roman church has never erred; nor will it err to all eternity, the Scripture bearing witness.
23. That the Roman pontiff, if he have been canonically ordained, is undoubtedly made a saint by the merits of St. Peter; St. Ennodius, bishop of Pavia, bearing witness, and many holy fathers agreeing with him. As is contained in the decrees of St. Symmachus the pope.
24. That, by his command and consent, it may be lawful for subordinates to bring accusations.
25. That he may depose and reinstate bishops without assembling a synod.
26. That he who is not at peace with the Roman church shall not be considered catholic.
27. That he may absolve subjects from their fealty to wicked men.

How is this form of “universal bishop” any different than the kind St. Gregory feared? Verily, the Latin church is not a congregation of bishops, but rather one mega-diocese, with a single bishop who rules through his auxiliaries. They have no power outside of his approval. This is exactly what Pope St. Gregory warned against.

If this passage means what you are interpreting it to mean, can you point to an historical example where St. Gregory acted on his supposed “jurisdiction” over Constantinople? He certainly uses powerful language to describe the primacy, but I know of no case where he enforces your inferred understanding (he always speaks to other bishops as equals in his many epistles).

Dictatus Papae is not official Church teaching or an official document . It’s not certain who or when it was written. And…it’s just plain over the top and ridiculous.

It is clear from Catholic Teaching that the Pope is a servant with the role of strengthening his fellow Bishops. It’s clearly written in the documents of Vatican I and II.

 

[jam070406]

St Peter was one of the Patron Saints of Rome, thus the acclamation.

This was not a statement that Saint Peter was using the bishop in Rome as a divine oracle, but rather a recognition (and compliment) that the western Christians were agreeing with Saint Peter’s faith, which they knew full well. They were happy with the Tome because it agreed with a position they had already staked out. The Oriental Orthodox were thus also unhappy with the Tome because it disagreed with the position they had already staked out! Both parties already had positions and there was nothing new in the Tome.

A second point is that this has nothing to do with jurisdiction and administration, but with theology. The fathers of the Council read and examined the document before they judged it Orthodox, this is not the same as waiting for some word from on high to tell them what to think or believe, they were judging the thoughts of the bishop of Rome.

It is interesting (and ironic) to see that today, with the modern Christological agreements, modern Christian scholars (and the Papacy as well) are thinking that the schism was a mistake due to misunderstandings on both sides, and the Tome assumes even less importance as a result.

Yes, they were happy because their view was in line with Rome, because it was known as the pillar of orthodoxy . Not the other way around.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Here’s the simple FACT which cannot be IGNORED or explained away. Jesus Christ through Divine Intervention spoke directly to PETER. He did not mention another name in this Scripure verse. Not one, while we can revert to other passages there is no getting away from Matthew 16 period. We can talk about St Paul all day long and thats a wash in the end. As he refers to Rome in his letter to Carthage. The only Apostle named through Divine Providence is PETER. Denial and rationalization doesn’t change the facts. The just distort them and allow the lie to live another day.

We all know the arguments they are as old as dirt. We say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, You say we do not know about the procession from the Son.

We say the Holy Mother of God was Immaculate from the moment of Her Conception; you say that we do not know. But that She is now All-Holy and Immaculate. We say the Bishop of Rome has monarchical authority over ALL OTHER BISHOPS. You say that the occupant of Peters throne is the "first among equals, but that is a collegial relationship between Bishops.

Orthodox interpretations are compromise’s and they existed for a thousand years due to “politics” not theology. And there are some GREAT references in the EO which establish this such as St John Chrysostoms liturgy which is still celebrated in the EO.

“Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.”

“Lord, our God, whose power is beyond compare”

“By the intercessions of the Theotokos, Savior, save us” How about we allow Our Lady to interceed in Russia as She will ultimately do hopefully without 3/4 of the world destroyed.

“For Yours is the dominion, the kingdom, the power, and the glory of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages.”

“Only begotten Son and Word of God, although immortal You humbled Yourself for our salvation, taking flesh from the holy Theotokos and ever virgin Mary and, without change, becoming man. Christ, our God, You were crucified but conquered death by death. You are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit - save us.”

“by the intercessions of the holy Theotokos and of all the saints who have pleased You throughout the ages.”

Oh yes I see such a stark contrst here??? Must be a totally diiffernr religion

Unlike the West where even KINGS and Empires are subject to the authority of the Vicar of Christ, in the East the church has been subjected to Monarchs, Kingdoms, Communism, Atheism, the Imperial Family and Islam and I probly missed a few. The West “refused” to be subjected to this situation…plain and simple.

The very lack of the external religious authority rendered Russia vulnerable to the anti-christian Bolshevik revolution. And of course history shows Byzantine emperors repeatedly sided with proponents of heresy and persecuted those who stood for Orthodoxy. After that See fell [Constantinople] to the Turkish Muslims then of course we have a 3rd Rome??? Which for the last 100-years has been controlled by atheist-communism even in its elect.

The EO state it hasn’t needed a Ecumenical Council for ONE THOUSAND yeras. But the fact is the EO has constantly been under rule and couldn’t have accomplished this had they wanted to. With 20-years of Freedom which is still questionable in Russia. It now claims to be the One Holy Apostolic Church and in fact Rome is in schism. WOW that is simply AMAZING. What History books have you all been reading?

In a World which has turned its back on God His Christ, there is absolutly no exuse for the ONLY TWO true orthodox churchs in Christianity to remain seperated. While the world is rushing headlong into hell, we continue to fight over “contrived” doctrinal differences that have ZERO substance and only serve to justify political, administrative seperation…its a tragedy and I’m convinced its a diabolical disorientation.

The East states its the West which needs to convert to the one true Orthodox faith. Isn’t that a bit illogical since the Pope is CATHOLIC and in the West, and the Orthodox have no pope or continuity with Peter?

Admittedly we also need to convert and get back to business which is to regain the evangelical attitude we lost. The first step has to be to communion with the churchs though. Its impossible this could happen any other way.

I’m not even sure these are the issues in truth. The real issue is Russia is so worried about the Catholic Church spreading and consuming its country they have a moratorium on the faith. The largest religion world wide and its considered a minor religion by Russia. Clearly indicates just how much the social politcal agenda is still consuming a once completely Christian country. Theres no speration of church and state, the church is the state, thats the entire issue in the nutshell.

The Popes not even allowed in the country. If that doesn’t show you how far out of wack Russia is then your lost and need a map. The Patriarch was asked in May 2011 again about the consecration of Russia. He finds a prayer by the Pope…A PRAYER for Russia offensive. Thats a FACT. Last time he was asked he called it an INVASION by Catholics? Invasion of exactly what the lost country of the last century? 20- years and somehow you think this country is out of the woods.

The board is locked and someone is going to need to step up to break the deadlock before we lose any more countries do to the loss of Christianity. Look at the US and Russia?

 

[Hesychios]

Here’s the simple FACT which cannot be IGNORED or explained away. Jesus Christ through Divine Intervention spoke directly to PETER.

Yes, he was not speaking to a bishop of Rome.

… and the Orthodox have no pope or continuity with Peter?

No Pope, ever, not even in the early centuries.

We are the church of the Apostles.

Orthodox have continuity with Saint Peter for all time in the faith and with our Lord Jesus Christ beyond time in the sacred liturgies.

As Cardinal Ratzinger did once say:
" …in the Eastern Church, the form and content of the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity."

 

[GaryTaylor]

I know you guys LOVE the Saint so lets see what he states about the Primacy and Peter???"

St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter and Primacy.

“…If the primacy of St. Peter is so unimportant a fact – if it gave him no prerogatives, no duties, no successors – why on earth is it so extraordinarily prominent in Holy Writ?”

“I know no more emphatic testimony to the supreme jurisdiction of St. Peter in any writer, ancient or modern, than the view taken in this homily [of St. John Chrysostom] of the election of St. Matthias, for I know of no act of jurisdiction in the Church more tremendous than the appointment of an apostle.”

 

[Hesychios]

I know you guys LOVE the Saint so lets see what he states about the Primacy and Peter???"

I think you should know that Saint John spent most of his life not even in communion with Rome, and he never recognized a bishop anywhere that claimed universal jurisdiction.

It has been stated before, you conflate primacy and supremacy. The one does not support arguments for the other.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Yes, he was not speaking to a bishop of Rome.
No Pope, ever, not even in the early centuries.

We are the church of the Apostles.

Orthodox have continuity with Saint Peter for all time in the faith and with our Lord Jesus Christ beyond time in the sacred liturgies.

As Cardinal Ratzinger did once say:

Bishops in communion with the Pope {Magisterium} have the final say in this matter, “they are the successors of the Apostles” and have doctrinal authority.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Here’s the simple FACT which cannot be IGNORED or explained away. Jesus Christ through Divine Intervention spoke directly to PETER. He did not mention another name in this Scripure verse. Not one, while we can revert to other passages there is no getting away from Matthew 16 period. We can talk about St Paul all day long and thats a wash in the end. As he refers to Rome in his letter to Carthage. The only Apostle named through Divine Providence is PETER. Denial and rationalization doesn’t change the facts. The just distort them and allow the lie to live another day.

You wish it were that simple, but Matthew 16:18 is interpreted in different ways by the Church Fathers. Of course, the most embarrassing one is St. Augustine who interprets the rock to be Christ (there is even an entire thread on CAF dedicated to explaining away this inconvenient “patristic blunder”).

We all know the arguments they are as old as dirt. We say the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and Son, You say we do not know about the procession from the Son.

We say the Holy Mother of God was Immaculate from the moment of Her Conception; you say that we do not know. But that She is now All-Holy and Immaculate. We say the Bishop of Rome has monarchical authority over ALL OTHER BISHOPS. You say that the occupant of Peters throne is the "first among equals, but that is a collegial relationship between Bishops.

Orthodox interpretations are compromise’s and they existed for a thousand years due to “politics” not theology. And there are some GREAT references in the EO which establish this such as St John Chrysostoms liturgy which is still celebrated in the EO.

“Remembering our most holy, pure, blessed, and glorious Lady, the Theotokos and ever virgin Mary, with all the saints, let us commit ourselves and one another and our whole life to Christ our God.”

“Lord, our God, whose power is beyond compare”

“By the intercessions of the Theotokos, Savior, save us” How about we allow Our Lady to interceed in Russia as She will ultimately do hopefully without 3/4 of the world destroyed.

“For Yours is the dominion, the kingdom, the power, and the glory of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever and to the ages of ages.”

“Only begotten Son and Word of God, although immortal You humbled Yourself for our salvation, taking flesh from the holy Theotokos and ever virgin Mary and, without change, becoming man. Christ, our God, You were crucified but conquered death by death. You are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit - save us.”

“by the intercessions of the holy Theotokos and of all the saints who have pleased You throughout the ages.”

Oh yes I see such a stark contrst here??? Must be a totally diiffernr religion

What in the world does the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom have to do with politics. That’s just insulting.

Unlike the West where even KINGS and Empires are subject to the authority of the Vicar of Christ, in the East the church has been subjected to Monarchs, Kingdoms, Communism, Atheism, the Imperial Family and Islam and I probly missed a few. The West “refused” to be subjected to this situation…plain and simple.

LOL, one doesn’t simply “refuse” subjugation under Islamic rule, at least not if you want to keep your head. And let us not forget the long and shady history of the popes in the west, especially when they were propped up by secular powers or when we had situations where there were as many as three anti-popes running around at once.

The very lack of the external religious authority rendered Russia vulnerable to the anti-christian Bolshevik revolution. And of course history shows Byzantine emperors repeatedly sided with proponents of heresy and persecuted those who stood for Orthodoxy. After that See fell [Constantinople] to the Turkish Muslims then of course we have a 3rd Rome??? Which for the last 100-years has been controlled by atheist-communism even in its elect.

That’s like blaming the Pope for anti-clericalism in 18th Century France. Your argument is a complete non-sequitur.

 

[Cavaradossi]

The EO state it hasn’t needed a Ecumenical Council for ONE THOUSAND yeras. But the fact is the EO has constantly been under rule and couldn’t have accomplished this had they wanted to. With 20-years of Freedom which is still questionable in Russia. It now claims to be the One Holy Apostolic Church and in fact Rome is in schism. WOW that is simply AMAZING. What History books have you all been reading?

I guess we’d all better quit believing in Christianity, then. There’s no way those people at Nicaea could have represented the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Christianity had only been tolerated in the Roman Empire for less than two decades then. ISN’T THAT AMAZING?

In a World which has turned its back on God His Christ, there is absolutly no exuse for the ONLY TWO true orthodox churchs in Christianity to remain seperated. While the world is rushing headlong into hell, we continue to fight over “contrived” doctrinal differences that have ZERO substance and only serve to justify political, administrative seperation…its a tragedy and I’m convinced its a diabolical disorientation.

What you propose is a false union. Union will come only with a uniformity of essential faith, and the two sides are far from that point at this time.

The East states its the West which needs to convert to the one true Orthodox faith. Isn’t that a bit illogical since the Pope is CATHOLIC and in the West, and the Orthodox have no pope or continuity with Peter?

That argument only makes sense if you believe that the Pope is granted the divine right to rule from Peter, and that he alone is Peter’s successor.

Admittedly we also need to convert and get back to business which is to regain the evangelical attitude we lost. The first step has to be to communion with the churchs though. Its impossible this could happen any other way.

I’m not even sure these are the issues in truth. The real issue is Russia is so worried about the Catholic Church spreading and consuming its country they have a moratorium on the faith. The largest religion world wide and its considered a minor religion by Russia. Clearly indicates just how much the social politcal agenda is still consuming a once completely Christian country. Theres no speration of church and state, the church is the state, thats the entire issue in the nutshell.

Again with Russia. You seem to be obsessed with the Russians and with alleging that due to the lack of separation of Church and state, Orthodoxy must somehow have been corrupted. I’d hate to break it to you, but until the 5th Century, the Pope was not separate from the state either. Also, the coronation of Charlemagne was in fact an attempt to reproduce the lost union between Church and State (and it succeeded to some degree).

The Popes not even allowed in the country. If that doesn’t show you how far out of wack Russia is then your lost and need a map. The Patriarch was asked in May 2011 again about the consecration of Russia. He finds a prayer by the Pope…A PRAYER for Russia offensive. Thats a FACT. Last time he was asked he called it an INVASION by Catholics? Invasion of exactly what the lost country of the last century? 20- years and somehow you think this country is out of the woods.

Fine, I suppose we’ll consecrate the Vatican to the Holy Spirit who proceeds only from the Father. Does that sound amenable to you?

The board is locked and someone is going to need to step up to break the deadlock before we lose any more countries do to the loss of Christianity. Look at the US and Russia?

You are mistaken if your litany of insults against the Orthodox church will help break any sort of deadlock.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think you should know that Saint John spent most of his life not even in communion with Rome, and he never recognized a bishop anywhere that claimed universal jurisdiction.

It has been stated before, you conflate primacy and supremacy. The one does not support arguments for the other.

Seems to be you would referring to St John not me since I am quoting him. Maybe there’sa later quote where he changed his mind or said something contrary which superceeds this quote?