The Catholic/Orthodox Schism Much Older Than Believed?

[SyroMalankara]

The earliest view was Petrine centered, but not only with Rome - Peter was looked to at Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Rome held the 1st place, followed by Alexandria, and then Antioch. Many RCs tend to forget about Alexandria and Antioch in their Petrine claims.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

That’s true. Even Gregory the Great refers to the three Appstolic Sees as being of Peter’s authority.

 

[josie_L]

The earliest view was Petrine centered, but not only with Rome - Peter was looked to at Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Rome held the 1st place, followed by Alexandria, and then Antioch. Many RCs tend to forget about Alexandria and Antioch in their Petrine claims.

Yes, they were Petrine sees, but there was only one successor who reserved the right to be the successor to Peter in the truest sense of the word, and that was the bishop of Rome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Here_For_Donuts;13335819]That Irenaeus quote has been taken out of context by Catholics. The quote comes from his book Against Heresies. He was speaking against heresy, justifying the authority of the true churches based on their apostolic heritages.

I’ve actually read the entirety of Against Heresies.

The quote is not taken out of context, you misplaced it the quote of which I placed St. Irenaeus’s faith.

These fathers’ do not write with a secular mind that addresses a post-Constantinople mindset of the Chair of Peter, to which you appear to be reasoning from. For one a Patriarch in Constantinople does not exist yet.

St. Irenaeus addresses heretics who are misleading the flock. St. Irenaeus Knew of St. Polycarp of Smyrna. St. Polycarp is a hero of his. If your theory is correct Ireneaus should of named St. Polycarp’s apostolic succession directly to the apostle John or he could of recorded his own apostolic succession to Peter through Mark John, but He did not do that either.

Tertullian and others also battled heretics with the apostolic succession listing directly to the apostles with Popes included, in order to prove or disprove a Church’s authenticity.

Could you ask yourself the question, why does St. Irenaeus record the apostolic successors of St. Peter with a list of Popes addressed to his heretics?

Why would a great Saint, inform publicly to his heretical church’s that " the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome" is to be the Church, “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority”

St. Irenaeus is proving what the Latin Church has professed since the resurrection. His full communion with the Church of Rome constitutes the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.

Many more ECF’s would follow this apostolic Tradition. When unity is broken with the Chair of Peter, you have no church.

Orthodox are not broken with the Chair of Peter today, they remain in schism to Peter’s Chair.

Here is St. Francis to wit; there are too many other Church Father’s to quote here;

The supreme charge which St. Peter had . . . as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of the Master, but it is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of the hierarchy besides Our Lord, but rather in our Lord: as we call him the most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing . . .

Did you know St. Cyprian who battled with the Pope who refused to rebaptize Christians, because the Pope NEVER HAS THE POWER TO put asunder (NULLIFY A VALID SACRAMENT) what God has joined together, when the Pope resisted St. Cyprian that the lapsed were only need of repentance. Verbal battles with the Popes from Bishops trying to do their own thing does not equal they did not look to the Primacy of the Popes holding a supreme authority over the Apostolic faith and morals.

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord.** If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"**

No, Irenaeus was not arguing for the primacy of the bishop of Rome, he had no reason too, because no one doubted the Chair of Peter; but he expresses the importance and salvation of the heretics depended on their unity to the Chair of Peter.

Another thing to consider here; The Saints did not worship the Popes as some Orthodox would mislead one to believe Catholics teach. These early Church Father’s teach the importance of Peter’s Chair and remaining in unity to Peter. This unity which Jesus teaches proves the true Apostolic faith which Jesus builds His Church and founded upon Peter.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Yes, they were Petrine sees, but there was only one successor who reserved the right to be the successor to Peter in the truest sense of the word, and that was the bishop of Rome.

Says who? Rome itself doesn’t deny the right of Antioch or Alexandria to call itself successors to Peter. Even the Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch (all in communion with Rome) call themselves Peter after election to signify this. The Alexandria Patriarch is rightly titled Pope for the same reason. Whatever claim Rome has, and I agree it has Primacy, this isn’t a valid one.

 

[josie_L]

That’s true. Even Gregory the Great refers to the three Appstolic Sees as being of Peter’s authority.

No, not as being Peter’s authority, but they were considered Petrine sees (founded by Peter or by St. Mark who was his disciple).

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No, not as being Peter’s authority, but they were considered Petrine sees (founded by Peter or by St. Mark who was his disciple).

Bingo!!!

 

[SyroMalankara]

Bingo!!!

So you say, however within the Oriental Orthodox Antiochian or Alexandrian Patriarchate, these heads were considered Peter and - while there is synodality more so than Latin Catholics would recognize - there was a very strong Petrine head - more so than Eastern Orthodox would recognize.

 

[josie_L]

Says who? Rome itself doesn’t deny the right of Antioch or Alexandria to call itself successors to Peter. Even the Maronite Patriarchs of Antioch (all in communion with Rome) call themselves Peter after election to signify this. The Alexandria Patriarch is rightly titled Pope for the same reason. Whatever claim Rome has, and I agree it has Primacy, this isn’t a valid one.

Says the fathers and history, i.e., I am well aware that Antioch and Alexandria are Petrine sees (founded by Peter and/or his disciple St. Mark), but that doesn’t change the fact that historically, St. Peter ended his days while still bishop of Rome, and thus left his successor, an office/bishopric based in ROME, hence the bishop of Rome is not just a Petrine see, but it is where PETER can be found in the truest sense of the word.

p.s. Rome did not hold a primacy for any other reason than because Peter finally based himself and his office in Rome.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

No, not as being Peter’s authority, but they were considered Petrine sees (founded by Peter or by St. Mark who was his disciple).

It’s taught that St. Irenaeus apostolic succession leads back to Peter through Mark. Yet, why did not St. Irenaeus list his own apostolic succession or St. Polycarp of Smryna if they were all equal Peter’s, excuse the Punn.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Says the fathers and history, i.e., I am well aware that Antioch and Alexandria are Petrine sees (founded by Peter and/or his disciple St. Mark), but that doesn’t change the fact that historically, St. Peter ended his days while still bishop of Rome, and thus left his successor, an office/bishopric based in ROME, hence the bishop of Rome is not just a Petrine see, but it is where PETER can be found in the truest sense of the word.

p.s. Rome did not hold a primacy for any other reason than because Peter finally based himself and his office in Rome.

What does that mean “truest sense of the word”? Seems a dig at the other Petrine Sees for no good reason. If you want to make Rome’s case, do so, but don’t make unreasonable claims. I agree Rome is prime, but not for these odd tangents.

 

[SyroMalankara]

It’s taught that St. Irenaeus apostolic succession leads back to Peter through Mark. Yet, why did not St. Irenaeus list his own apostolic succession or St. Polycarp of Smryna if they were all equal Peter’s, excuse the Punn.

In which context? Cite the full text not a one-liner.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

So you say, however within the Oriental Orthodox Antiochian or Alexandrian Patriarchate, these heads were considered Peter and - while there is synodality more so than Latin Catholics would recognize - there was a very strong Petrine head - more so than Eastern Orthodox would recognize.

I’m not sure what your grasping at here but I can say this;

All of the Petrine see’s which Peter and through Mark anointed apostolic successors. These ALL have fallen into some form of heresy or fell in and out of heresy.

The only one which the gates of hell does not prevail against and never will, is the Bishop of Rome.

All other Petrine apostolic see’s do not withstand the test of time due to their heretic’s and heresies that have infected them. This does not discount that a true apostolic successor ultimately replaced the heretic bishop’s at one time or another.

 

[josie_L]

Here is a letter from St. Leo The Great to Dioscorus, bishop of Alexandria (letter IX):

For since the most blessed Peter received the headship of the Apostles from the LORD, and the church of Rome still abides by His institutions, it is wicked to believe that His holy disciple Mark, who was the first to govern the church of Alexandria(6), formed his decrees on a different line of tradition: seeing that without doubt both disciple and master drew but one Spirit from the same fount of grace, and the ordained could not hand on aught else than what he had received from his ordainer. We do not therefore allow it that we should differ in anything, since we confess ourselves to be of one body and faith, nor that the institutions of the teacher should seem different to those of the taught.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/676/st._leo_the_great_letters_1_59.html

Notice the wording and how St. Leo the Great states that although Alexandria was first governed by St. Mark, it is Rome which holds the headship, i.e., it is here where the OFFICE of Peter can be found, i.e. it is not simply a Petrine see.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

In which context? Cite the full text not a one-liner.

My context; The Op argued that St.Irenaeus holds to a post Constantinople view of the petrine office as all being Petrine and that is why he listed the popes of Rome against his contemporary heretics.

I disagreed. If, St. Irenaeus held to such a post Constantinople view of the Bishop’s of Rome. Then why did not , St. Irenaeus list his own apostolic succession to an apostle. And better yet, Irenaeus could of listed his hero St. Poly carp of Smryna who was a direct disciple of John the beloved of Jesus Christ?

Why did St. Irenaeus list Peter’s direct apostolic successor’s names (popes) from Rome against his contemporary heretics, and not list his own apostolic succession or St. Polycarps?

 

[josie_L]

What does that mean “truest sense of the word”? Seems a dig at the other Petrine Sees for no good reason. If you want to make Rome’s case, do so, but don’t make unreasonable claims. I agree Rome is prime, but not for these odd tangents.

It is not a dig, it is a matter of logic, history, scripture and tradition, i.e., there can only be one person/bishop to hold the primacy, and in the Bible that person was PETER, hence, it is illogical to think that after Peter died, there were three sees/bishops sharing the primacy/office of Peter. We also know that St. Peter left Antioch, and went to Rome, wherein he passed on his primacy to his successor in ROME. Furthermore, I do not deny that Antioch and/or Alexandria are Petrine sees, but this does not mean that Antioch and/or Antioch hold the office of Peter, i.e., they are his successor in the sense that he was once a bishop and/or founder of that see, but they did not in the end hold the primacy because his office was passed onto the bishop of Rome, the city in which was he was bishop when he died.

If you need further proof that Rome held the primacy because of Peter and the Petrine office which he bestowed on the bishops of Rome after his death, here it is:

LETTER LII: From Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus, to Leo. (See vol. iii. of this Series, p. 293.) To Leo, bishop of Rome. I. If Paul appealed to Peter how much more must ordinary folk have recourse to his successor. If Paul, the herald of the Truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, had recourse to the great Peter, in order to obtain a decision from him for those at Antioch who were disputing about living by the Law, much more do we small and humble folk run to the Apostolic See to get healing from you for the sores of the churches. For it is fitting that you should in all things have the pre-eminence, seeing that your See possesses many peculiar privileges. For other cities get a name for size or beauty or population, and some that are devoid of these advantages are compensated by certain spiritual gifts: but your city has the fullest abundance of good things from the Giver of all good. For she is of all cities the greatest and most famous, the mistress of the world and teeming with population. And besides this she has created an empire which is still predominant and has imposed her own name upon her subjects. But her chief decoration is her Faith, to which the Divine Apostle is a sure witness when he exclaims “your faith is proclaimed in all the world[1a];” and if immediately after receiving the seeds of the saving Gospel she bore such a weight of wondrous fruit, what words are sufficient to express the piety which is now found in her? She has, too, the tombs of our common fathers and teachers of the Truth, Peter and Paul[2], to illumine the souls of the faithful. And this blessed and divine pair arose indeed in the East, and shed its rays in all directions, but voluntarily underwent the sunset of life in the West, from whence now it illumines the whole world. These have rendered your See so glorious: this is the chief of all your goods.

crossroadsinitiative.com/library_article/676/st._leo_the_great_letters_1_59.html

 

[pablope]

This is a long post!

Do you think the beginning of the schism between the eastern and western churches regarding the role of the papacy began much earlier than 1054? It’s presumable that the differences didn’t appear overnight; both sides had differing views in the years leading up to 1054, and the immediately preceding generations held to these differing views as well.

I

The part I highlighted in bold suggests that he was aware that not all of Christendom believes Rome’s claims. Why else would he include such a peculiar statement? Was this statement a way of countering the eastern bishops’ beliefs as stated in Canon 3?

So…

Am I right or wrong in stating that the divide between east and west extends much further back than 1054? Are my three statements at the beginning of this post an accurate assessment?

I will just provide these excerpts…but do read more of the article:ewtn.com/library/THEOLOGY/chwordin3.htm#08

D. Three Simultaneous Canonical Regimes In The Church Of The Early Centuries

The third zone was the East. “It was a notably more elastic regime than that which Rome consented to in the West, or imposed on the ecclesiae suburbicariae. But why? It was enough for Rome that, orthodoxy being safe, communion was preserved. The East did not want the subjection which Rome had brought the West to accept, and Rome respected this repugnance. I believe that the East had an insufficient realization of the Roman primacy. The East did not see in it what Rome saw, and what the West saw along with Rome, that is to say a continuation of the primacy of St. Peter. The Bishop of Rome was something more than Peter’s successor in his cathedra, he was Peter perpetuated, he was invested with Peter’s responsibility and Peter’s power. The East had never understood this perpetuity. It was unknown to St. Basil, as also to St. Gregory of Nazianzen and St. Chrysostom. The authority of the Bishop of Rome was an authority of the first order, but we do not see that for the East it was an authority of divine right. What a pity that a point so fundamental had not been settled in full discussion and by an oecumenical council during the centuries in which the union still subsisted!”[1011]

Here Batiffol adds an important remark: “In the matter of her autonomy the East granted more to Rome in actual fact than she conceded in theory.”[1012] Six years later, when he once more took up the examination of the conditions under which the Roman primacy was exercised, he recalls that from the first it was felt in the East. “The Catholica of the second and third centuries reveals the characteristics of the essential and primitive Catholicism, and this Catholicism is more Roman than it was to be in the Constantinian period or in the century of Justinian.”[1013] But two things that happened at that period contributed to the slackening of the bonds attaching the East to Rome. First, the peace of Constantine “introduced a new and alien element into the life of the Catholica, namely the Christian prince. It was a protection, certainly, but also a tutelage; and it was the tutelage of a sovereignty that had no limit but its own discretion. . . Constantine did not favour the primacy of the Roman Church; the Emperor Constantius II, his son, at the time of Pope Liberius, favoured it still less. He maltreated it, he humiliated it, he would have gladly compromised it, had not Providence been on the watch. The Emperor Theodosius and the Council of Constantinople of 381 restored the Nicene faith in the East, but at this date the East re-established its own orthodoxy by its own means, and, as we may say, without asking anything from Rome. It needed the Council of Ephesus, and the Council of Chalcedon, to restore to the Roman Church that role in the East which was hers in causes concerning the faith; that is to say the rule that nothing was to be done without her, and that the Prince is not the arbiter of controversies.”[1014] Furthermore—and this is the second fact—the Churches, which had begun to group themselves spontaneously around their Metropolitans, arranged themselves in ecclesiastical provinces that coincided with the imperial provinces, and ended, by analogy with the great civil dioceses, by constituting the patriarchates. “In sum, from the fourth to the sixth centuries a Kirchenrecht was elaborated and established in the East, a work of the Councils and the Emperors, a Kirchenrecht which Eastern Catholicism was of course free to set up, and which the Popes did not reject, save as regards the pretensions of the See of Constantinople in so far as they challenged the primacy of the Roman Church.”[1015] However, two series of facts, already pointed out above, continued, even in the East, to witness to the exceptional authority of the Roman Church in deciding questions of faith and communion.

F. The Vatican Proclamation, Hastened By The Schism, An Illumination Of The Gospel

What a pity, wrote Batiffol, that a point so fundamental as that of the Roman primacy was not settled by an Oecumenical Council while the union still subsisted! The schism had to come into being before circumstances allowed the East to reach full awareness of the supreme visible principle maintaining the unity of the Catholica in this world, the principle by which the East had doubtless lived without penetrating it as deeply as might have been wished.

 

[josie_L]

Here is an elucidating response by Leo to Marcian, the emperor concerning canon 28:

LETTER CIV: (To Marcian Augustus, about the presumption of Anatolius, by the hand of Lucian the bishop and Basil the deacon.)

Leo, the bishop, to Marcian Augustus.

III. The City of Constantinople, royal though it be, can never be raised to Apostolic rank.

Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of God’s right hand, long enjoy your clemency’s rule. Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine: and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation. He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own. Let it be enough for Anatolius that by the aid of your piety and by my favour and approval he has obtained the bishopric of so great a city. Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See[3]; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others. For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of the Nicene Synod, cannot be overthrown by any unscrupulous act, nor disturbed by any innovation. And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ I am bound to display an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge entrusted to me, and it tends to my condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and drawn up under the guidance of God’s Spirit at the Synod of Nicaea for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which God forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common good of the Lord’s whole house.

I quoted this because the bishops who concocted canon 28 specifically stated that Rome held the primacy because it was the imperial city, as such, Constantinople should equal privileges, however, St. Leo states unequivocally that things secular are not to be confused with things divine, hence, Rome’s primacy is not due to its the imperial city, but because it is the rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation.

 

[Here_For_Donuts]

Here is an elucidating response by Leo to Marcian, the emperor concerning canon 28:

I quoted this because the bishops who concocted canon 28 specifically stated that Rome held the primacy because it was the imperial city, as such, Constantinople should equal privileges, however, St. Leo states unequivocally that things secular are not to be confused with things divine, hence, Rome’s primacy is not due to its the imperial city, but because it is the rock which the Lord has laid for a foundation.

This is more evidence that the entire church didn’t believe as Rome believed. If they did, they never would have conceived of Canon 28.

 

[SyroMalankara]

I’m not sure what your grasping at here but I can say this;

All of the Petrine see’s which Peter and through Mark anointed apostolic successors. These ALL have fallen into some form of heresy or fell in and out of heresy.

The other two non-Catholic Petrine Sees would say the same about Rome however.

The only one which the gates of hell does not prevail against and never will, is the Bishop of Rome.

Right, but this isn’t an argument only a Catholic talking point. By the way, the Biblical verse says “the gates of hell will not prevail against the Church” not the ‘bishop of Rome’.

All other Petrine apostolic see’s do not withstand the test of time due to their heretic’s and heresies that have infected them.

Again, this can be lobbed right back

This does not discount that a true apostolic successor ultimately replaced the heretic bishop’s at one time or another.

And?