The Eastern Schism - Causes and Characters

[guanophore]

It is unfortunate the the Russian Orthodox Church refuses to participate in discussions prior to the elimination of the eastern Catholic sui iuris churches.

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[rcwitness]

So what constitutes the “Common Unity” in the Whole, Universal Church?

From way, way back to the first great conflict in the Church after the time of the Apostles, the phrase “Common Unity” was used to describe the authority which the Bishop of Rome was able to excecute.

So when there are two (such as East and West) legitimate Traditions who come into conflicts over “traditions”, then why doesnt the practice of Roman Primacy find its place?

All these “less important” disputes from both sides gradually over time should have either:

1.) Been resolved by a council

Or

2.) Been given preference to the decision of the Chief Bishop.

Its sad when we cannot come up with a solid answer as to the reason why this great schism happened. But it did happen. And now that it did happen, what does it mean? Who really has the position of “Common Unity”???

Does Rome’s final decision to seperate from the East mean they went off the rails, or have they legitimately suspended the East from complete Communion in the Universal Church?

My guess is there will be a reunion at the 1000 yr anniversary of the split, and its outcome will either be peace, or further division.

 

[guanophore]

So what constitutes the “Common Unity” in the Whole, Universal Church?

From way, way back to the first great conflict in the Church after the time of the Apostles, the phrase “Common Unity” was used to describe the authority which the Bishop of Rome was able to excecute.

So when there are two (such as East and West) legitimate Traditions who come into conflicts over “traditions”, then why doesnt the practice of Roman Primacy find its place?

All these “less important” disputes from both sides gradually over time should have either:

1.) Been resolved by a council

Or

2.) Been given preference to the decision of the Chief Bishop.

Its sad when we cannot come up with a solid answer as to the reason why this great schism happened. But it did happen. And now that it did happen, what does it mean? Who really has the position of “Common Unity”???

Naturally, both sides believe they do.

Does Rome’s final decision to seperate from the East mean they went off the rails, or have they legitimately suspended the East from complete Communion in the Universal Church?

I am not aware of any such “final decision”. Are you referring to a document?

The Church in union with the successor of Peter recognizes that the EO have valid ordinations, apostolic succesion, and sacraments.

They are also welcome to commune with us.

The EO do not welcome Catholics to communion.

My guess is there will be a reunion at the 1000 yr anniversary of the split, and its outcome will either be peace, or further division.

May God grant that it will not be that long!

 

[Seraphim73]

Now I’m confused. The Catholic Church cut itself off from itself by establishing the Latin Patriarchate? Or was this established by some group other than Rome? I’ve missed the connection, I think.

As has already been said there is not one single point in history that can be pointed to as the beginning of the schism. The sack of Constantinople is often pointed to as the point which the schism was solidified because it caused great enmity between the Greeks and Latins. So much so that hundreds of years later the Greeks would say better under the Turkish turban, than under the Latin tiara. Which is to say at least under the Turks, even though oppressed, Orthodoxy itself was not suppressed, whereas at the time the Latins were viewed as trying to pry people away from the flock. The installation of a Latin patriarch epitomized that. And because of historical events like the Union of Brest and Uzhhorod and other proselytizing tactics in very recent history many still see Catholicism as a threat and an enemy. Some people judge the Orthodox very harshly for this but honestly most of us simply don’t understand. To be persecuted by Muslims and Communist and then having to suffer the so called “unia” (I’m using the term in a historical context, not to be provocative. Please forgive me), where union was sometimes forced on the populace and sometimes brought about by other dishonest means.

Because of this Catholicism is still seen by some as a dangerous adversary trying to subvert the faith. Many see the promises made at Brest and Uzhhorod and how they have been trampled on. Many hear stories of Pope Pius putting his foot on the head of Patriarch Gregory. They see how eastern priests were denied their traditions and even the right to celebrate the liturgy here in the US. The treatment here in the States has even led a number of Eastern Catholic groups to abandon Rome completely in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All of this poor treatment is very recent history in the grand scheme of things.

I and many appreciate the effort on the part of Pope St John Paul to apologize for the wrongs done. And for any wrongs the Orthodox have done we should apologize as well. Of course no Catholic needs to apologize to me for anything. None of them have done anything to me. But for people in the old countries, who have a much longer history than us, I think the apologies were appropriate. And I think most Orthodox have forgiven but you can’t expect them to forget, especially when the historical memories of Catholic threats to Orthodoxy are still so fresh.

 

[spina1953]

As has already been said there is not one single point in history that can be pointed to as the beginning of the schism. The sack of Constantinople is often pointed to as the point which the schism was solidified because it caused great enmity between the Greeks and Latins. So much so that hundreds of years later the Greeks would say better under the Turkish turban, than under the Latin tiara. Which is to say at least under the Turks, even though oppressed, Orthodoxy itself was not suppressed, whereas at the time the Latins were viewed as trying to pry people away from the flock. The installation of a Latin patriarch epitomized that. And because of historical events like the Union of Brest and Uzhhorod and other proselytizing tactics in very recent history many still see Catholicism as a threat and an enemy. Some people judge the Orthodox very harshly for this but honestly most of us simply don’t understand. To be persecuted by Muslims and Communist and then having to suffer the so called “unia” (I’m using the term in a historical context, not to be provocative. Please forgive me), where union was sometimes forced on the populace and sometimes brought about by other dishonest means.

Because of this Catholicism is still seen by some as a dangerous adversary trying to subvert the faith. Many see the promises made at Brest and Uzhhorod and how they have been trampled on. Many hear stories of Pope Pius putting his foot on the head of Patriarch Gregory. They see how eastern priests were denied their traditions and even the right to celebrate the liturgy here in the US. The treatment here in the States has even led a number of Eastern Catholic groups to abandon Rome completely in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All of this poor treatment is very recent history in the grand scheme of things.

I and many appreciate the effort on the part of Pope St John Paul to apologize for the wrongs done. And for any wrongs the Orthodox have done we should apologize as well. Of course no Catholic needs to apologize to me for anything. None of them have done anything to me. But for people in the old countries, who have a much longer history than us, I think the apologies were appropriate. And I think most Orthodox have forgiven but you can’t expect them to forget, especially when the historical memories of Catholic threats to Orthodoxy are still so fresh.

Hi Seaphim: Agreed. But we need to move on and try to find unity between us so that we may be one again.

 

[Seraphim73]

Hi Seaphim: Agreed. But we need to move on and try to find unity between us so that we may be one again.

That can’t happen unless somebody changes who they are.

 

[rcwitness]

I am not aware of any such “final decision”. Are you referring to a document?

You are correct. I would only mean the decision to excommunicate Michael Caerularius, whom had a very pivotol role in the schism. From there the Eastern patriarchs considered themselves with him.

The Church in union with the successor of Peter recognizes that the EO have valid ordinations, apostolic succesion, and sacraments.

They are also welcome to commune with us.

The EO do not welcome Catholics to communion.

This is interesting. I did not know that EO do not welcome Catholics to Communion.

 

[spina1953]

That can’t happen unless somebody changes who they are.

Hi Seraphim: maybe both sides need to change?

 

[Seraphim73]

Hi Seraphim: maybe both sides need to change?

Maybe. I don’t expect that will ever happen though.

 

[josie_L]

As has already been said there is not one single point in history that can be pointed to as the beginning of the schism. The sack of Constantinople is often pointed to as the point which the schism was solidified because it caused great enmity between the Greeks and Latins. So much so that hundreds of years later the Greeks would say better under the Turkish turban, than under the Latin tiara. Which is to say at least under the Turks, even though oppressed, Orthodoxy itself was not suppressed, whereas at the time the Latins were viewed as trying to pry people away from the flock. The installation of a Latin patriarch epitomized that. And because of historical events like the Union of Brest and Uzhhorod and other proselytizing tactics in very recent history many still see Catholicism as a threat and an enemy. Some people judge the Orthodox very harshly for this but honestly most of us simply don’t understand. To be persecuted by Muslims and Communist and then having to suffer the so called “unia” (I’m using the term in a historical context, not to be provocative. Please forgive me), where union was sometimes forced on the populace and sometimes brought about by other dishonest means.

Because of this Catholicism is still seen by some as a dangerous adversary trying to subvert the faith. Many see the promises made at Brest and Uzhhorod and how they have been trampled on. Many hear stories of Pope Pius putting his foot on the head of Patriarch Gregory. They see how eastern priests were denied their traditions and even the right to celebrate the liturgy here in the US. The treatment here in the States has even led a number of Eastern Catholic groups to abandon Rome completely in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. All of this poor treatment is very recent history in the grand scheme of things.

I and many appreciate the effort on the part of Pope St John Paul to apologize for the wrongs done. And for any wrongs the Orthodox have done we should apologize as well. Of course no Catholic needs to apologize to me for anything. None of them have done anything to me. But for people in the old countries, who have a much longer history than us, I think the apologies were appropriate. And I think most Orthodox have forgiven but you can’t expect them to forget, especially when the historical memories of Catholic threats to Orthodoxy are still so fresh.

Please realize that the historical memories of Orthodox threats to Catholicism are also fresh, i.e., Orthodoxy has committed its own fair share of suppressive/oppressive acts towards Catholics, and yet has not necessarily come to grips with that past, in fact, I would say that the Orthodox who cannot forget (even though they have forgiven us), should be reminded of this fact.

 

[Vico]

What on earth are you talking about?

Well, I was wrong, because the Russian Orthodox are participating now. However, In November 2011 Russian Orthodox Metropolitan Hilarion (of Volokolamsk) reminded that discussion of the issue of the* unia *was a precondition for return of the Russian Orthodox Church to the dialogues.

 

[Seraphim73]

Please realize that the historical memories of Orthodox threats to Catholicism are also fresh, i.e., Orthodoxy has committed its own fair share of suppressive/oppressive acts towards Catholics, and yet has not necessarily come to grips with that past, in fact, I would say that the Orthodox who cannot forget (even though they have forgiven us), should be reminded of this fact.

You don’t have to remind me of it. But the fact remains the Catholics who did suffer at the hands of Orthodox are, for the most part, a very small minority of Eastern Catholics. And I know for a fact they still have historical memories of it. But the overwhelming number of Catholics are Latin Catholics from lands and from peoples that have never experienced anything like the systematic oppression the Orthodox from traditionally Orthodox lands have. I say that not to diminish the suffering of those Eastern Catholics but to make the point that the historical feeling of being threatened simply isn’t going to be widespread among Catholics.

Lets be honest, the Roman Catholic Church and most of its members historically, over the past thousand years, have experienced relative freedom and a lot of power institutionally. The Orthodox on the other hand suffered under Muslim domination until the 19th century, and the large majority of Orthodox believers were under Communist oppression until just over 20 years ago. Countless martyrs and confessors suffered unspeakably to transmit the Orthodox faith to us today. All of us are mindful of that but for the peoples who suffered it is something deeper. It’s in their fiber as a people. It’s quite easy for us living in the US, in unprecedented freedom and prosperity, to sit upon our horses and tell others they should let things go. I don’t think we’re in any position to do that.

 

[spina1953]

Maybe. I don’t expect that will ever happen though.

Hi Seraphim: Never say never. One day it will a united Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Very biased. If you would like a more balanced assessment of what happened listen to these podcasts. I imagine you’ll be surprised. In fact I would strongly encourage you to listen. I’ve posted podcasts on here many times on many subjects and no one ever listens to them. Maybe yall are afraid your ears will melt off if you listen to an Orthodox priest.

Either way Fr Tom was the dean of St Vladimir’s Seminary. He is an amazing teacher and an exceedingly sweet man. There is nothing at all in any of his talks that could even begin to be considered polemical or anti-Catholic in anyway. I promise your head won’t explode and you won’t get angry if you listen to these.

The Tumultuous 9th Century - Part 3 - Photius the Great

Well, I’ve just listened to this podcast. The speaker, Fr. Tom(?) is very engaging and certainly enjoys his subject material.

I chose to listen to the talk with the New Advent article on Photius open on my computer before me, and while there is much material presented by the article that does not make it into the podcast (and vice-versa), I was able to synchronize the two to some degree by following the dates and names as the material unfolded in chronological order.

I’m going to grant that the Catholic presentation may have its biases, but I couldn’t help but observe that the podcast was a whitewashing of history with respect to Photius. In fact, my challenge to you would be to do as I did…listen to the talk again with the article I posted open before you. Fr. Tom simply fails to mention many of the unsavory points of Photius’ character or events of his life that may not suite his purposes in recording this hagiographical podcast.

For example, the article states:

The emperor was Michael III (842-67), son of the Theodora who had finally restored the holy images. When he succeeded his father Theophilus (829-842) he was only three years old; he grew to be the wretched boy known in Byzantine history as Michael the Drunkard (ho methystes). Theodora, at first regent, retired in 856, and her brother Bardas succeeded, with the title of Cæsar. Bardas lived in incest with his daughter-in-law Eudocia, wherefore the Patriarch Ignatius (846-57) refused him Holy Communion on the Epiphany of 857. Ignatius was deposed and banished (Nov. 23, 857), and the more pliant Photius was intruded into his place. He was hurried through Holy Orders in six days; on Christmas Day, 857, Gregory Asbestas of Syracuse, himself excommunicate for insubordination by Ignatius, ordained Photius patriarch. By this act Photius committed three offences against canon law: he was ordained bishop without having kept the interstices, by an excommunicate consecrator, and to an already occupied see. To receive ordination from an excommunicate person made him too excommunicate ipso facto.

Fr. Tom skips over this. Did New Advent lie? Make this up? Repeat false accusations? Personally, I can’t say, but I suspect that a Catholic historian might have had a few things to say about some of this, at the very least.

Finally, for the sake of argument, let’s assume that Photius really was a holy man, a saint, as was asserted. Okay, then why was he deposed from his patriarchate not once but twice? And even if Photius was wronged on both occasions, doesn’t this speak volumes about the political intrigue swirling about the city of Constantinople at this time?

No offense, but this doesn’t really make me feel any better about the validity of claims for the greatest See of the East.

Bishops - Part 35: The Pivotal 11th Century

Bishops - Part 36: The Pivotal 11th Century - Part 2

I’m not sure I’ll listen to these. I simply don’t have sufficient knowledge of the material to judge whether they are objectively accurate or not.

+++

Finally, I was stunned to hear Fr. Tom explain that Photius argued that the Early Church Fathers cannot be viewed as being completely accurate in everything that they wrote. He, Fr, Tom, calls this “Patristic Fundamentalism”, and ironically, Photius was making the case that yes, some of the Fathers may have argued for the filioque, but really, they should not be judged for not having seen more clearly.

Photius said that like the sons of Noah, we should walk backwards with a clock to cover over the mistakes of those fathers.

Are you kidding me???

Catholics have been saying this ADAMANTLY with regard to those passages from the ECF’s that you believe prove Peter was not the rock, etc.

Well, now I know that a saint of the East, Photius, warned against treating the Fathers as infallible sources of theology. They had their blind spots, and thus, doctrines developed long after their day are not automatically invalid simply because the Fathers were silent or disagreed.

 

[guanophore]

The sack of Constantinople is often pointed to as the point which the schism was solidified because it caused great enmity between the Greeks and Latins. So much so that hundreds of years later the Greeks would say better under the Turkish turban, than under the Latin tiara. Which is to say at least under the Turks, even though oppressed, Orthodoxy itself was not suppressed,

That is a pretty sad state of affairs. I have always thought the tolerance of Orthdoxy under Muslim rule was an act of God to preserve the Church.

whereas at the time the Latins were viewed as trying to pry people away from the flock. The installation of a Latin patriarch epitomized that. And because of historical events like the Union of Brest and Uzhhorod and other proselytizing tactics in very recent history many still see Catholicism as a threat and an enemy.

I have read the documents around these two incidents and I am failing to see the “prostelytizing”. It seems that much of what was needed by the East was preserved, a fact about which I am greatly appreciative through the nearby Ruthenian Church. When I attend there, I feel as if I have stepped back in history 1000 years.

Maybe you can clarify what you mean by “proselytizing”? It does seem clear that the Orthodox were politically, economically and spiritually oppressed under both the secular and Roman Catholic leadership. The agreements were a way to survive.

To be persecuted by Muslims and Communist and then having to suffer the so called “unia” (I’m using the term in a historical context, not to be provocative. Please forgive me), where union was sometimes forced on the populace and sometimes brought about by other dishonest means.

I would enjoy reading more about this. Can you point me to some sources?

And I think most Orthodox have forgiven but you can't expect them to forget, especially when the historical memories of Catholic threats to Orthodoxy are still so fresh.

May God heal us, one and all.

 

[guanophore]

You don’t have to remind me of it. But the fact remains the Catholics who did suffer at the hands of Orthodox are, for the most part, a very small minority of Eastern Catholics. And I know for a fact they still have historical memories of it. But the overwhelming number of Catholics are Latin Catholics from lands and from peoples that have never experienced anything like the systematic oppression the Orthodox from traditionally Orthodox lands have. I say that not to diminish the suffering of those Eastern Catholics but to make the point that the historical feeling of being threatened simply isn’t going to be widespread among Catholics.

You make a good point Seraphim. Catholics in the US were persecuted early when the Country was established, but nothing like the persecution we see in the Arab countries today, or like it was prior to the Edict of Milan. We quibble now about the form of bread to be consecrated, and the filoque, but I imagine if we were all under such persecutions, such things would quickly fade.

I also fear that, since the Church is nourished by the blood of martyrs, if we are not ready, willing, and able to reconcile our differences, we may all pay the price of our disunity as the Church around the world is overcome by Militant anti-Christians and Neo Paganists. Here there is a rise of Satanism, stealing of the consecrated host for the Black Mass, which is just as devastating as Christians trampling the Bread of Life underfoot.

Lets be honest, the Roman Catholic Church and most of its members historically, over the past thousand years, have experienced relative freedom and a lot of power institutionally. The Orthodox on the other hand suffered under Muslim domination until the 19th century, and the large majority of Orthodox believers were under Communist oppression until just over 20 years ago. Countless martyrs and confessors suffered unspeakably to transmit the Orthodox faith to us today. All of us are mindful of that but for the peoples who suffered it is something deeper.

Yes, and this is part of our spiritual inheritance I believe the Holy Father meant when he said that the Church needs to breathe with “both lungs”. If Orthodoxy were not protected by the Holy Spirit, it would have been crushed long ago. The fact of this survival should be proof enough that the HS has not let the gates of hell prevail.

It’s in their fiber as a people. It’s quite easy for us living in the US, in unprecedented freedom and prosperity, to sit upon our horses and tell others they should let things go. I don’t think we’re in any position to do that.

You are right, and people don’t have a sufficient appreciation of historical trauma. Perhaps you and our other Eastern brethren here on CAF can help in some small way with bringing about this important cultural awareness. Let us pray that all ears will be open to the prayer of healing and unity.

 

[Seraphim73]

Finally, I was stunned to hear Fr. Tom explain that Photius argued that the Early Church Fathers cannot be viewed as being completely accurate in everything that they wrote. He, Fr, Tom, calls this “Patristic Fundamentalism”, and ironically, Photius was making the case that yes, some of the Fathers may have argued for the filioque, but really, they should not be judged for not having seen more clearly.

Photius said that like the sons of Abraham, we should walk backwards with a clock to cover over the mistakes of those fathers.

Are you kidding me???

Catholics have been saying this ADAMANTLY with regard to those passages from the ECF’s that you believe prove Peter was not the rock, etc.

Well, now I know that a saint of the East, Photius, warned against treating the Fathers as infallible sources of theology. They had their blind spots, and thus, doctrines developed long after their day are not automatically invalid be virtue of the silence of the Patristics.

I appreciate you listening to the podcast. St Photius was deposed for the same reasons St John Chrysostom and St Maximus were exiled. People are people.

You are stunned find out the fathers were not infallible? No human is infallible. Many fathers corrected each other. We are not patristic fundamentalist. You have to look at patristics, councils, liturgy, practice, antiquity and consistency. The point that St Photius and Fr Tom are making is that you have to be careful when reading the fathers. For example the ontological procession of the Holy Spirit was not really disputed until later. That is shown from the Creed itself. So to quote fathers who were not trying to be precise to support for example the filioque is not accurate. The issue was not in question. You could say the exact same thing about the papacy. You can’t quote fathers whose only experience was a thoroughly orthodox Rome to support much later claims of universal episcopal authority and infallibility. They couldn’t possibly be supporting that because the concepts were completely non-existent.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You make a good point Seraphim. Catholics in the US were persecuted early when the Country was established, but nothing like the persecution we see in the Arab countries today, or like it was prior to the Edict of Milan. We quibble now about the form of bread to be consecrated, and the filoque, but I imagine if we were all under such persecutions, such things would quickly fade.

I also fear that, since the Church is nourished by the blood of martyrs, if we are not ready, willing, and able to reconcile our differences, we may all pay the price of our disunity as the Church around the world is overcome by Militant anti-Christians and Neo Paganists. Here there is a rise of Satanism, stealing of the consecrated host for the Black Mass, which is just as devastating as Christians trampling the Bread of Life underfoot.

:sad_yes:

 

[Seraphim73]

You make a good point Seraphim. Catholics in the US were persecuted early when the Country was established, but nothing like the persecution we see in the Arab countries today, or like it was prior to the Edict of Milan. We quibble now about the form of bread to be consecrated, and the filoque, but I imagine if we were all under such persecutions, such things would quickly fade.

I also fear that, since the Church is nourished by the blood of martyrs, if we are not ready, willing, and able to reconcile our differences, we may all pay the price of our disunity as the Church around the world is overcome by Militant anti-Christians and Neo Paganists. Here there is a rise of Satanism, stealing of the consecrated host for the Black Mass, which is just as devastating as Christians trampling the Bread of Life underfoot.

Yes, and this is part of our spiritual inheritance I believe the Holy Father meant when he said that the Church needs to breathe with “both lungs”. If Orthodoxy were not protected by the Holy Spirit, it would have been crushed long ago. The fact of this survival should be proof enough that the HS has not let the gates of hell prevail.

You are right, and people don’t have a sufficient appreciation of historical trauma. Perhaps you and our other Eastern brethren here on CAF can help in some small way with bringing about this important cultural awareness. Let us pray that all ears will be open to the prayer of healing and unity.

Don’t misunderstand me. I don’t say these things to elevate the Orthodox. Catholics when persecuted have been just as steadfast as the Orthodox. I’m just trying to point out some of the historical realities that shape our worlds. I personally don’t feel threatened by the Catholic Church at all. I don’t think there is anything duplicitous or dishonest in any way about the Catholic Church institutionally or by its clergy or people. If I had been born in Russia I might feel different.

Think of it another way. Look at US/Russian relations right now. Americans have a historic mistrust of Russia. Even when there was no real conflict in relations that mistrust still existed. The same can be said about French feelings towards Germany or Chinese/Japanese relations or Israeli/Palestinian relations. And in the case of the US and Russia that mistrust is a result of a relatively short history comparably. The point again is we shouldn’t be too hard on people, especially in things we have zero experience in.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I appreciate you listening to the podcast. St Photius was deposed for the same reasons St John Chrysostom and St Maximus were exiled. People are people.

You are stunned find out the fathers were not infallible? No human is infallible.

Well, the pope is, but seriously, to hear EO talk, you’d think that we must hang on every word they uttered. In fact, when I was arguing for the office of the Royal Steward, YOU challenged me to provide a patristic reference. Well, here it is:

Ephraim

1. Accordingly, the Son came to the servant; not that the Son might be presented by the servant, but that by the Son the servant might present to His Lord Priesthood and Prophecy, to be laid up with Him. For prophecy and priesthood, which were given through Moses, were handed down, both of them, and reached to Simeon. For he was a pure vessel, who sanctified himself that he might be like Moses, capable for both of them. There are small vessels which are capable for great gifts. There are gifts for which one is capable, by reason of their grace; yet many are not capable for them, by reason of their greatness. Thus, then, Simeon presented our Lord, and in Him offered both these things; so that that which was given to Moses in the wilderness, was received from Simeon in the Temple. But seeing that our Lord is the vessel wherein all fullness dwells, when Simeon was offering Him before God, he poured over Him (as a drink-offering) those two (gifts), priesthood from His hands and prophecy from His lips. Priesthood continued on the hands of Simeon, because of his purifications; and prophecy dwelt in operation upon his lips, because of revelations. When then these two powers saw Him who was Lord of both, they two united together and poured themselves into the vessel that was capable of both; that could contain priesthood and kingdom and prophecy. That Infant then, who was wrapped in swaddling clothes, because of His graciousness, clothed Himself in priesthood and prophecy because of His Majesty. For Simeon clothed Him in these, and gave Him to her who had wrapped Him in swaddling clothes. For when he gave Him to His mother, he gave along with Him the priesthood; and when he prophesied to her concerning Him, This (child) is set for the fall and rising again, [Luke 2:34] he gave prophecy also with Him.
2. Then Mary received her firstborn and went forth. He was outwardly wrapped in swaddling clothes, but secretly He was clothed with prophecy and priesthood. Whatsoever then was handed down from Moses, was received from Simeon, but continued and was possessed by the Lord of both. So then the steward [Isaiah 22:22], first, and the treasurer lastly, handed over the keys of priesthood and prophecy to Him who has authority over the treasurer of them both. Therefore, His Father gave Him the spirit not by measure, [John 3:34] because all measures of the spirit are under his hand. And that our Lord might show that He received the keys from the former stewards [Isaiah 22:22], He said to Simeon: To you I will give the keys of the doors. [Matthew 16:19] But how should He have given them to another, had He not received them from another? So, then, the keys which He had received from Simeon the priest, them He gave to another Simeon the Apostle; that even though the People had not hearkened to the former Simeon, the Gentiles might hearken to the latter Simeon. (Ephraim, Homily on Our Lord. Translated by A. Edward Johnston. From Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 13. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1898.) Revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight.)

The very fact that you demanded a patristic source (dismissing my argument out of hand without one) simply proves my point; Orthodox won’t consider anything that can’t be found in the Fathers, and IMO, this is “Patristic Fundamentalism” or “ossification” as Soloviev called it. Open your Bible. Look to see what God has to say to you. The Word of God is living and active, so maybe you’ll see something the Fathers missed. :yup:

Many fathers corrected each other. We are not patristic fundamentalist. You have to look at patristics, councils, liturgy, practice, antiquity and consistency. The point that St Photius and Fr Tom are making is that you have to be careful when reading the fathers. For example the ontological procession of the Holy Spirit was not really disputed until later. That is shown from the Creed itself. So to quote fathers who were not trying to be precise to support for example the filioque is not accurate. The issue was not in question. You could say the exact same thing about the papacy. You can’t quote fathers whose only experience was a thoroughly orthodox Rome to support much later claims of universal episcopal authority and infallibility. They couldn’t possibly be supporting that because they concepts were completely non-existent.

Okay, I will go along with you here with qualifications that I don’t have time to type since I’m headed to mass, but I’m going to remember this the next time one of your co-religionists tries to deny that Peter is the rock or that he has universal jurisdiction, etc.

I’ve said it before, I’m saying it now, and I’m sure I’ll say it again in the future:

The Catholic Church listens carefully to all of her sons, and then chooses infallibly from among their [sometimes] competing points of view - even among the voices of the Fathers of the Church who do not always agree.

It is this ability to invariably get it right that separates the West from the East in so many ways.