The Eastern Sees, prior to the east - west schism: were they wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

joe370

Guest
Regarding the supremacy and primacy of Peter as per the Eastern Sees, prior to the east west schism, in the following quotes:

Were they wrong?

“He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world… that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future.” Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

“Peter, set above the Apostles.” Saint Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (306-311)(Peter of Alexandria, Canon. ix, Galland, iv. p. 98)

“Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.” Saint Macarius of Egypt (371) (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

"(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

"And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles,** and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. **On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world." Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

"Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches." Emperor Justinian (520-533), writing to the Pope (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

"They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter."
-Saint Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424) (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736).

“Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Supreme Pastor, the salvation of all.” Emperor Justinian (520-533) (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

“I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds.”
-Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450) (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.”
-Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450) (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

"Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, ‘I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,’ but only to Peter."
-Eulogius of Alexandria (581) (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

"…For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world."
-Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Continued…
 
Continued…

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency.** For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles.”**
Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

“Since to great Peter, Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Pope Leo III (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

“Hear,** O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built**. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter…” -Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Pope Paschal (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter …and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Emperor Michael (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie.** Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”**
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

“In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church.** We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, **you the God-chosen city of refuge.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) (Letter of St. Theodore and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly **be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; **but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)
 
What are you getting at? Eastern Catholics believe in the infallibility of the papacy in matters of faith and morals just like any Roman Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox believe he is the first among equal; decisions are made by concensus by the Bishops together with the Seat of Peter. But the Pope cannot act alone in changing doctrine.

Before the divide around 1075 there was one Church, so how can the Church be wrong. The Orthodox sees the Latin Church as straying away from the true faith. They point to the fruits of the tree, that is, all the schisms of Luther, Calvin and all the 100,000 of little christian churches came out of the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox maintain there is one orthodox church in communion from Christ to the present day.
 
I thought there might be a mix up…I was referring ONLY to the Eastern Orthodox Church NOT in communion with the CC. Was there somewhere I could have gone to direct the question specifically to the EOC of Constantinople??? If so, I will go there and ask the question!!!

**In no way **is this question directed at the Eastern CC’s who embrace the infallibility of the papacy in matters of faith and morals!!!
What are you getting at? Eastern Catholics believe in the infallibility of the papacy in matters of faith and morals just like any Roman Catholic…
 
Dear sister Camille,
What are you getting at? Eastern Catholics believe in the infallibility of the papacy in matters of faith and morals just like any Roman Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox believe he is the first among equal; decisions are made by concensus by the Bishops together with the Seat of Peter. But the Pope cannot act alone in changing doctrine.
I agree with what you say here, except for the clause highlighted above. Even if the Pope was not alone, even if the rest of the Church wanted it, NO ONE has the ability to change doctrine. In fact, it states that specifically in the Decree on Infallibility:

The Holy Spirit was promised to the successors of St. Peter not that they might make known new doctrine by his revelation, but rather, that with his assistance they might religiously guard and faihtfully explain the revelation or deposit of Faith that was handed down through the Apostles.

I’m pretty sure you did mean what your statement says on its face, but it’s liable to be misinterpreted.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
I thought there might be a mix up…I was referring ONLY to the Eastern Orthodox Church NOT in communion with the CC. Was there somewhere I could have gone to direct the question specifically to the EOC of Constantinople??? If so, I will go there and ask the question!!!

**In no way **is this question directed at the Eastern CC’s who embrace the infallibility of the papacy in matters of faith and morals!!!
That would be the “Non-Catholic Forum.” I’ll shoot off a PM to the mod so she can move it.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Protestant Christians or Eastern Orthodox Christians, regarding the supremacy and primacy of Peter, as per the following Eastern Patriarchs speaking prior to the great east -west schism - were they wrong?

“He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world… that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future.” Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).

“Peter, set above the Apostles.” Saint Peter, Bishop of Alexandria (306-311)(Peter of Alexandria, Canon. ix, Galland, iv. p. 98)

“Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.” Saint Macarius of Egypt (371) (Macarius, Hom. xxvi. n. 23, p. 101)

"(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)

“And why, then, passing by the others, does He converse with Peter on these things? (John 21:15). He was the chosen one of the Apostles, and the mouth of the disciples, and the leader of the choir. On this account, Paul also went up on a time to see him rather than the others (Galatians 1:18). And withal, to show him that he must thenceforward have confidence, as the denial was done away with, He puts into his hands the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (Chrysostom, In Joan. Hom. 1xxxviii. n. 1, tom. viii)

“Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches.” Emperor Justinian (520-533), writing to the Pope (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

“They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter.”
-Saint Cyril of Alexandria (c. 424) (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736).

“Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Supreme Pastor, the salvation of all.” Emperor Justinian (520-533) (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).

“I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds.”
-Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450) (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

“If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives.”
-Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450) (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

“Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, ‘I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,’ but only to Peter.”
-Eulogius of Alexandria (581) (Eulogius, Lib. ii. Cont. Novatian. ap. Photium, Biblioth, cod. 280)

“…For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.”
-Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Continued…
 
Continued…

“Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles.”
Saint Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828) (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

“Since to great Peter, Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Pope Leo III (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

“Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ’s sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter…” -Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Pope Paschal (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

“Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter …and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), writing to Emperor Michael (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826), (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

“In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) (Letter of St. Theodore and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

“Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.”
-Saint Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)
 
Protestant Christians or Eastern Orthodox Christians, regarding the supremacy and primacy of Peter, as per the following Eastern Patriarchs speaking prior to the great east -west schism - were they wrong?
in some instances, yes. Should we look at them one at a time?
“He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world… that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future.” Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).
“ruler over the whole world”…is flat out wrong…Christ stated that his kingdom was not of this world…Peter was indeed a leader among the apostles…sometimes he was first to state the truth and sometimes he was the first to state an error…Joe, if you wanted to argue that Peter was made the ruler of the whole world, what passage would you base that appointment upon?..or do you simply agree that it was an over-the-top claim?
 
in some instances, yes. Should we look at them one at a time?

“ruler over the whole world”…is flat out wrong…Christ stated that his kingdom was not of this world…Peter was indeed a leader among the apostles…sometimes he was first to state the truth and sometimes he was the first to state an error…Joe, if you wanted to argue that Peter was made the ruler of the whole world, what passage would you base that appointment upon?..or do you simply agree that it was an over-the-top claim?
Yup, Peter and his successors were/are rulers of the entire secular world…LOL…😃 You are reading to much into it. Many of the quotes cited in post #1 and 2 use the word “world” when referring to the whole universal church. The doctrine of papal primacy according to those Eastern Patriarchs, upholds the divine authority of the chair of Peter, and the successors of Peter to feed, rule, and guide Jesus’ universal Church, within the world, which of course, as per scripture, is Satan’s Kingdom!

Pope Boniface VIII, as per those eastern Patriarchs,

"But this authority, although it is given to man and is exercised by man - is not human, but rather divine, and has been given by the divine Word to Peter himself and to his successors in him, whom the Lord acknowledged an established rock, when he said to Peter himself: Whatsoever you shall bind etc. [Matt. 16:19]. Therefore, whosoever resists this power so ordained by God, resists the order of God [cf. Rom. 13:2] …

Scripture seems to indicate that Jesus is a King, and scripture tells us that Jesus founded His church, the House of the Living God, and ephemeral Kingdom here on earth, at least until the great harvest, at which point Jesus’ kingdom will be eternally consummated:

"Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field. He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels. “As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Whoever has ears, let them hear.

This was really a question direct at our eastern brothers and sisters who don’t agree with those early eastern church Patriarchs, but thanks for the feedback brother…👍
 
Regarding the supremacy and primacy of Peter as per the Eastern Sees, prior to the east west schism, in the following quotes:

Were they wrong?
As we have discussed before, you’re conflating the Eastern Churches (by using the term “Eastern Sees”) and the Byzantine Church. They are not equivalents.
 
As we have discussed before, you’re conflating the Eastern Churches (by using the term “Eastern Sees”) and the Byzantine Church. They are not equivalents.
No, I am not conflating…This is a question primarily directed at the Christians belonging to the Eastern Orthodox church (The Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople) - not in communion with Rome. 👍
 
Regarding the supremacy and primacy of Peter as per the Eastern Sees, prior to the east west schism, in the following quotes:

Were they wrong?

“He passed over his fall, and appointed him first of the Apostles; wherefore He said: ‘Simon, Simon,’ etc. (in Ps. cxxix. 2). God allowed him to fall, because He meant to make him ruler over the whole world… that, remembering his own fall, he might forgive those who should slip in the future.” Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (Chrys, Hom. quod frequenter conveniendum sit 5, cf. Hom 73 in Joan 5).



"(Peter), the foundation of the Church, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the Apostles, the vehement lover of Christ …he who ran throughout the whole world, who fished the whole world; this holy Coryphaeus of the blessed choir; the ardent disciple, who was entrusted with the keys of heaven, who received the spiritual revelation. Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world. Saint John Chrysostom, Patriarch of Constantinople (c. 387), Father and Doctor of the Church (De Eleemos, iii. 4; Hom. de decem mille tal. 3)



"…For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world."
-Saint Maximus the Confessor (c. 650) (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).
With quotes like these, I wonder what if St. John Chrysostom was alive today, and if he called the Pope ruler over the whole world, would he be condemned as a heretic by our EO brethren, perhaps even anathematized? Also, what if St. Maximus the Confessor was alive today, and said that the Pope had supreme dominion and authority over all the holy churches of God? Would the EO faithful accept that, or would they all rise up in arms and run him out of his office and possibly worse, like they did to their Patriarchs and Metropolitans who accepted the Union of Florence in 1439, and like they did to their Bishop St. Josaphat Kuncevyc who accepted the Union of Brest in 1596?

Another thing that I still don’t understand, is what exactly modern Eastern Orthodoxy’s opinion is about the necessity (or lack of necessity) of Papacy. When I first met the Russian EO folks and started to learn about their beliefs, they told me that they believe the Pope of Rome has fallen into heresy. So, does this mean the EO today believe that the Papacy is a legitimate and necessary office, and if so, why didn’t they attempt to elect an “orthodox” (as in non-heretical) Pope in place of the Bishop of Rome who has fallen into heresy? After all, the very saints whom they revere, such as St. John Chrysostom, are on record saying things that indicate that they regarded the Papacy as a legitimate and important office. So, if the holder of that office has fallen into heresy, why are the EO content, and why have they been content for 1000 years now, to leave that office unoccupied, to leave that seat of Peter vacant? I mean, the Apostles didn’t leave the seat of Judas Iskariot vacant, they did elect Matthias in his place. If the seat of one of the Apostles couldn’t possibly stay vacant, why would our EO brethren leave the seat of Peter’s successor vacant, whom St. John Chrysostom calls ruler over the whole world? Should the seat of the “ruler over the whole world” stay vacant indefinitely, in our EO brethren’s opinion, just because one of these rulers has fallen into heresy? No need to replace him with a faithful orthodox Pope?
 
I mean, why don’t our EO brethren call a pan-Orthodox council and elect a new Pope whom they would regard as the legitimate successor of Peter, now that the Bishop of Rome has fallen into heresy and teaches heresies like the filioque? (heresies from an EO standpoint)
 
I mean, why don’t our EO brethren call a pan-Orthodox council and elect a new Pope whom they would regard as the legitimate successor of Peter, now that the Bishop of Rome has fallen into heresy and teaches heresies like the filioque? (heresies from an EO standpoint)
Wouldn’t they need a council first condemning all the heresies?
 
Dear brother Joseph,

The Orthodox, ecclesiastically speaking, come in two camps - the Low Petrine view and the High Petrine view (while Catholics also have two camps - the High Petrine view and the Absolutist Petrine view).

EO in the Low Petrine camp would be the ones most likely to consider the statements of St. John Chrysostom and St. Maximos as heretical. The ones in the High Petrine camp would not disagree with the principles of St. Chyrysostom and St. Maximos, but they believe that the bishop of Rome today is in heresy.

As to why they haven’t elected a new bishop of Rome, I’d like for you to consider the opposite perspective - why do you think that Catholics have not elected a new Patriarch for Constantinole? The example of the Latin Patriarchs during the middle Ages is not a valid example because those Patriarchs were only for the Latin-Rite Christians (i.e., were not territorial Patriarchs) and were installed only after the Eastern Patriarchs had left or were driven out of their Sees (these Latin Patriarchs were not installed by the Pope, but by the local Latin secular powers, which - if the Pope had not eventually confirmed them out of obligation - would naturally be regarded as canonically invalid).

The fact that EO haven’t elected a new bishop of Rome seems to me to demonstrate even now a sign of respect towards the Catholic Church. I don’t think it is right for Catholics to use this fact as a polemic against the EO.

Blessings,
Marduk
With quotes like these, I wonder what if St. John Chrysostom was alive today, and if he called the Pope ruler over the whole world, would he be condemned as a heretic by our EO brethren, perhaps even anathematized? Also, what if St. Maximus the Confessor was alive today, and said that the Pope had supreme dominion and authority over all the holy churches of God? Would the EO faithful accept that, or would they all rise up in arms and run him out of his office and possibly worse, like they did to their Patriarchs and Metropolitans who accepted the Union of Florence in 1439, and like they did to their Bishop St. Josaphat Kuncevyc who accepted the Union of Brest in 1596?

Another thing that I still don’t understand, is what exactly modern Eastern Orthodoxy’s opinion is about the necessity (or lack of necessity) of Papacy. When I first met the Russian EO folks and started to learn about their beliefs, they told me that they believe the Pope of Rome has fallen into heresy. So, does this mean the EO today believe that the Papacy is a legitimate and necessary office, and if so, why didn’t they attempt to elect an “orthodox” (as in non-heretical) Pope in place of the Bishop of Rome who has fallen into heresy? After all, the very saints whom they revere, such as St. John Chrysostom, are on record saying things that indicate that they regarded the Papacy as a legitimate and important office. So, if the holder of that office has fallen into heresy, why are the EO content, and why have they been content for 1000 years now, to leave that office unoccupied, to leave that seat of Peter vacant? I mean, the Apostles didn’t leave the seat of Judas Iskariot vacant, they did elect Matthias in his place. If the seat of one of the Apostles couldn’t possibly stay vacant, why would our EO brethren leave the seat of Peter’s successor vacant, whom St. John Chrysostom calls ruler over the whole world? Should the seat of the “ruler over the whole world” stay vacant indefinitely, in our EO brethren’s opinion, just because one of these rulers has fallen into heresy? No need to replace him with a faithful orthodox Pope?
 
Wouldn’t they need a council first condemning all the heresies?
That’s a very valid point, brother Jam0701416. I think there are enough Orthodox (both lay and clerical) who do not consider the Catholic teachings as heretical so that it would be impossible for an EO pan-Orthodox Council to make dogmatic determination on the matter.

Though there are a lot of EO who see distinctive Catholic teachings as heresy, there are also a lot of EO who simply view Catholic teachings as local Church doctrines that shouldn’t be forced on the East.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
That’s a very valid point, brother Jam0701416. I think there are enough Orthodox (both lay and clerical) who do not consider the Catholic teachings as heretical so that it would be impossible for an EO pan-Orthodox Council to make dogmatic determination on the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top