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

[Radical]

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!

It seems that there was a tendency among the ECFs to inflate claims…I note some (in your list) tried to support their understanding from the NT, but what they claimed far exceeds what is contained in the NT…and, IMHO, in some instances actually contradicts what is stated in scripture. Take this passage from Mark 10 (also found in Matt 20) with emphasis added by me:
Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. “Teacher,” they said, “we want you to do for us whatever we ask.” “What do you want me to do for you?” he asked. They replied, “Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory.” “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said. “Can you drink the cup I drink or be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?” “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will drink the cup I drink and be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared.” When the ten heard about this, they became indignant with James and John. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and** their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.** Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
This passage doesn’t jive with the ECF claims that you listed… such as the first two from your list (repeated here with emphais added):
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)

If Christ had appointed Peter first of the apostles or had set Peter above the apostles then Christ’s response should have reflected that appointment (or soon to be made appointment)…instead Christ spoke about “whoever wants to be first”. If Peter had been appointed “first” then:

a) James and John shouldn’t have asked the question in the first place, knowing that Peter had already been set above them;

b) Christ’s response should have indicated that an appointment had already been made (or that Peter, being the foundation of the Church, would be given the top spot) and that, in taking that role, Peter (and not just whoever wants it) would have to become the servant of them all; and

c) the indignation of the 10 should have been with regard to James and John trying to undo an appointment that Christ had already made.

Further, if Peter was going to exercise any authority over the other 11, then Christ shouldn’t have said (WRT the exercise of authority over others), “Not so with you”…

I think that it is also important to note that this passage gets mention in two gospels…in other words, it receives more attention/is stressed more than a passage (such as…“you are Peter, and on this rock…”) that gets mentioned in but one gospel.

This was really a question direct at our eastern brothers and sisters who don’t agree with those early eastern church Patriarchs, …:

I take it that you are looking for a response from someone who isn’t at all comfortable with dismissing certain of the claims of ECFs as being inflated and misguided.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

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.

Then why the plural “sees”?

 

[joe370]

Then why the plural “sees”?

These are quotes from eastern Bishops belonging to the one CC, prior to the east - west schism, in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, respectively. For example, Sergius was a bishop of Cyprus, another eastern See, at the end of the 4th century, who wrote to Pope Theodore (yet another See in the west) - in AD 649 regarding the apostolic See, in Rome:

“Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same (Peter) furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be (or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith. He (Peter) heard from the same God, ‘feed my lambs’; to him He entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.”

“O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed.”

What was your answer to the question in post #1? Were those eastern bishops wrong?

 

[joe370]

Hey Rad…

…Jesus called them together and said, “You know that those who are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and** their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you.** Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all. For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” [/indent] This passage doesn’t jive with the ECF claims that you listed… such as the first two from your list (repeated here with emphais added):

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, like Jesus, was indeed a servant, ruler and leader of Jesus’ universal church in Jesus’ stead, aka the ruler over the whole world. I see no contradiction in terms.

If Christ had appointed Peter first of the apostles or had set Peter above the apostles then Christ’s response should have reflected that appointment (or soon to be made appointment)…instead Christ spoke about “whoever wants to be first”. If Peter had been appointed “first” then:

a) James and John shouldn’t have asked the question in the first place, knowing that Peter had already been set above them;

b) Christ’s response should have indicated that an appointment had already been made (or that Peter, being the foundation of the Church, would be given the top spot) and that, in taking that role, Peter (and not just whoever wants it) would have to become the servant of them all; and

c) the indignation of the 10 should have been with regard to James and John trying to undo an appointment that Christ had already made.

The context is Jesus’ Kingdom in Heaven, not Jesus’ earthly kingdom (His church) - on earth:

“What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left** in your kingdom.”** 22 “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. 23 Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup**, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. **These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.”

Further, if Peter was going to exercise any authority over the other 11, then Christ shouldn’t have said (WRT the exercise of authority over others), “Not so with you”…

I think that it is also important to note that this passage gets mention in two gospels…in other words, it receives more attention/is stressed more than a passage (such as…“you are Peter, and on this rock…”) that gets mentioned in but one gospel.
I take it that you are looking for a response from someone who isn’t at all comfortable with dismissing certain of the claims of ECFs as being inflated and misguided.

I think we have cleared that up now.

I am merely looking for a response, be it positive or negative.

It seems that most protestants claim that the 4th century men like Saint Epiphanius and Saint John Chrysostom, were misguided, but never them.

It’s true that the apostles were not to be like the rulers of the Gentiles and high officials “who lord it over them” - when exercising their authority, but they and their successors, were to be ruling servants, (just as Jesus ruled and served) - with authority: “Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority…”

“All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nation… teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Jesus saying the following does not clash with the leaders of authority of a church, regardless of denomination, just as long as those leaders are servants just like their Master: “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

​

 

[Rightlydivide]

americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/rebut1.htm

In this debate, the Orthodox poster claims many of the quotes are bogus or cannot be confirmed.

 

[mardukm]

americancatholictruthsociety.com/articles/deb_papacy/chris/rebut1.htm

In this debate, the Orthodox poster claims many of the quotes are bogus or cannot be confirmed.

I read through most of the link. Thank you for it, btw.

The problem with the Orthodox poster’s claim is that his patirstic quotes completely miss the point. The issue is not about honor and dignity. The issue is about the role and responsibilities that head bishops have in the Church. One can quote a hundred Fathers on the equality of honor and dignity of the Apostles, or the equality and honor of bishops, but that does not refute the fact that St. Peter had a unique role and responsibility among the Apostles that none of the other Apostles possessed, nor that head bishops had a greater role and responsibility (aka, a greater “jurisdiction”) that other bishops did not possess.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Rightlydivide]

Joe has started, I believe I could be wrong, a few threads on this issue. None of them appear to go far. It requires a knowledge of patristic writings and theology probably most people, certainly I do not, posess. This link appears to be the debate done well. Whether you agree with the opposite side or not. It is pretty comprehensive.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Its historic fact the Bishop of Rome is the “proto” as defined at Nicaea. The only place this is debated is by uninformed individuals.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Its historic fact the Bishop of Rome is the “proto” as defined at Nicaea. The only place this is debated is by uninformed individuals.

It is also an historical fact that the “protos” didn’t behave then as he does now. Even the most cursory reading of basic Church history bears that out. Roman Catholics are very fond of their quote mills. The thing is, talk is cheap. Look at the way the Church behaved for the first thousand years and you get a very different picture of the role of the papacy.

 

[Dave_Noonan]

These are quotes from eastern Bishops belonging to the one CC, prior to the east - west schism, in Jerusalem, Constantinople, Alexandria, respectively. For example, Sergius was a bishop of Cyprus, another eastern See, at the end of the 4th century, who wrote to Pope Theodore (yet another See in the west) - in AD 649 regarding the apostolic See, in Rome:

“Holy men are therefore called the temple of God, because the Holy Spirit dwells in them; as that Chief of the Apostles testifies, he that was found to be blessed by the Lord, because the Father had revealed unto him. To him then did the Father reveal His true Son; and the same (Peter) furthermore reveals the Holy Spirit. This was befitting in the First of the Apostles, that firm Rock upon which the Church of God is built, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. The gates of hell are heretics and heresiarchs. For in every way was the faith confirmed in him who received the keys of heaven; who looses on earth and binds in heaven. For in him are found all subtle questions of faith. He was aided by the Father so as to be (or lay) the Foundation of the security (firmness) of the faith. He (Peter) heard from the same God, ‘feed my lambs’; to him He entrusted the flock; he leads the way admirably in the power of his own Master.”

“O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed.”

What was your answer to the question in post #1? Were those eastern bishops wrong?

OK, then I think calling them Byzantine Sees might be clearer. When I read “Eastern Sees” I think of the Churches of the East.

Yes, of course I think they were wrong. I don’t think anything in Scripture would support Peter or his successors being named temporal rulers of the whole world—it’s a pretty outrageous claim. But of course this claim was in play (and controversial) from well before the Reformation almost up until the present. Some prelates at Trent apparently wished to elevate the temporal power of the Pope to the level of dogma, but this never happened; and as I recall, Pope Paul VI referred to the loss of the Pope’s temporal power as “providential”.

 

[joe370]

Hey Dave…

OK, then I think calling them Byzantine Sees might be clearer. When I read “Eastern Sees” I think of the Churches of the East.

OK…

Yes, of course I think they were wrong. I don’t think anything in Scripture would support Peter or his successors being named temporal rulers of the whole world—it’s a pretty outrageous claim.

Thanks for your answer. Of course we covered this already, and I (and the CC) - agree that it would be silly for the CC to claim that Peter or his successors were named temporal rulers of the whole world! Very silly indeed. Satan is the temporal ruler of this world; Peter and his successors, of Jesus’ church, were/are ecclesiastical leaders of Jesus’ universal church (an enclave of sorts) - which expands throughout the entire world.

But of course this claim was in play (and controversial) from well before the Reformation almost up until the present. Some prelates at Trent apparently wished to elevate the temporal power of the Pope to the level of dogma, but this never happened; and as I recall, Pope Paul VI referred to the loss of the Pope’s temporal power as “providential”.

And I agree with Pope Paul VI. Those eastern Patriarchs are making no such temporal claims either. They are referring to Jesus’ universal church, throughout the entire world, which is Satan’s kingdom, a topic we have already covered, but if want to believe that those Eastern bishops were referring to the temporal power of the secular world, outside Jesus’ universal church, that’s cool, but I will have to disagree.

Again, thanks for the feedback…

 

[joe370]

It is also an historical fact that the “protos” didn’t behave then as he does now. Even the most cursory reading of basic Church history bears that out. Roman Catholics are very fond of their quote mills. The thing is, talk is cheap. Look at the way the Church behaved for the first thousand years and you get a very different picture of the role of the papacy.

Regarding basic Church history and what it bears: your answer to post #1 is, upon reading said quotes?

 

[joe370]

I would hope he would think they were bogus. I’ll give it a read.

 

[joe370]

That became crystal clear to me long ago, as a former non-Catholic…

I read through most of the link. Thank you for it, btw.

The problem with the Orthodox poster’s claim is that his patirstic quotes completely miss the point. The issue is not about honor and dignity. The issue is about the role and responsibilities that head bishops have in the Church. One can quote a hundred Fathers on the equality of honor and dignity of the Apostles, or the equality and honor of bishops, but that does not refute the fact that St. Peter had a unique role and responsibility among the Apostles that none of the other Apostles possessed, nor that head bishops had a greater role and responsibility (aka, a greater “jurisdiction”) that other bishops did not possess.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Josephdaniel,

It is also an historical fact that the “protos” didn’t behave then as he does now. Even the most cursory reading of basic Church history bears that out. Roman Catholics are very fond of their quote mills. The thing is, talk is cheap. Look at the way the Church behaved for the first thousand years and you get a very different picture of the role of the papacy.

I certainly agree with you on the point that many Latin Catholics fail to look at the collegial reality of the Church in the first millenium.

However, I would disagree with your opinion that the “protos did not behave then as he does now.” I haven’t seen an example of a unilateral act by the Pope in my lifetime, or at any time in the history of the Latin Catholic Church (though both Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates like to pretend there are - the Absolutist Petrine camp using the “fact” to support the papacy; the Low Petrine camp using the “fact” to demean the papacy).

The only recent example I can think of that Absolutist Petrine (and Low Petrine) advocates pretend was an example of the Pope unilaterally imposing something on the Church was the issue of articifial contraception. The rationale of Absolutist Petrine advocates is that since the Pope overrode the recommendations of his special commission on the matter, then that must mean that the Pope has absolute authority in the Church! What a joke! The fact is, not only was the special commission merely a handful of bishops and theologians and certainly did not represent the entire Church, but when the issue of artificial contraception was put before the bishops of the Second Vatican Council for vote, the overwhelming majority voted against its permission in the Catholic Church (over 2000 bishops!). Does that sound like a “unilateral” imposition by the Pope?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[guanophore]

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?

If Chrysostom were alive today, you can be sure he would have more than enough to say about the corruption in the Western Church.

He would not tolerate the departure from the faith, either.

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?

They believe that all Catholics need to return to Holy Orthodoxy.

Besides, the Eastern model for church leadership is conciliar and consensual in nature. It is also focused on localities. If Latin Christians were to return to Holy Orthodoxy, they would be shepherded by local priests, and if there were enough of them, a bishop would be provided, and eventually the See of Peter might be filled from among those shepherds. The present mindset is not to support the straying of the Latins, but to admonish them to renounce their heresies, and return to the fold.

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)

Bishops are not appointed to shepherd heretics. They are appointed to shepherd the flock of the faithful. When Catholics decide to cease dwelling in a state of separation, they will be provided with appropriate ministers.

 

[jdarc]

If Chrysostom were alive today, you can be sure he would have more than enough to say about the corruption in the Western Church.

He would not tolerate the departure from the faith, either.

They believe that all Catholics need to return to Holy Orthodoxy.

Besides, the Eastern model for church leadership is conciliar and consensual in nature. It is also focused on localities. If Latin Christians were to return to Holy Orthodoxy, they would be shepherded by local priests, and if there were enough of them, a bishop would be provided, and eventually the See of Peter might be filled from among those shepherds. The present mindset is not to support the straying of the Latins, but to admonish them to renounce their heresies, and return to the fold.

The increasing divisions in the Anglican communion over the ordination of women and the consecration of practicing homosexuals as bishops has come to a head. According to numerous reports, the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a group which represents 400,000 Anglicans in 40 countries worldwide, has sent a letter to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, requesting “full, corporate, and sacramental union” with the Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

The increasing divisions in the Anglican communion over the ordination of women and the consecration of practicing homosexuals as bishops has come to a head. According to numerous reports, the Traditional Anglican Communion (TAC), a group which represents 400,000 Anglicans in 40 countries worldwide, has sent a letter to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, requesting “full, corporate, and sacramental union” with the Catholic Church.

This event, and others like it such as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification will begin to heal the splits that have emanated from ecclesial corruption in the Western Church. In my study of Orthodoxy, I have read many who make the point that the Western Church must first deal with Protestantism before unity can be re-established between East and West.

 

[Madaglan]

I read through most of the link. Thank you for it, btw.

The problem with the Orthodox poster’s claim is that his patirstic quotes completely miss the point. The issue is not about honor and dignity. The issue is about the role and responsibilities that head bishops have in the Church. One can quote a hundred Fathers on the equality of honor and dignity of the Apostles, or the equality and honor of bishops, but that does not refute the fact that St. Peter had a unique role and responsibility among the Apostles that none of the other Apostles possessed, nor that head bishops had a greater role and responsibility (aka, a greater “jurisdiction”) that other bishops did not possess.

Blessings,
Marduk

Of course he had a unique role and responsibility: he was Apostle to the Jews. St. Paul also had a unique role and responsibility: Apostle to the Gentiles.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course he had a unique role and responsibility: he was Apostle to the Jews. St. Paul also had a unique role and responsibility: Apostle to the Gentiles.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

I thought that James was the Bishop of Jerusalem.

Also, Paul wrote in his teachings that, there was neither Gentile nor Jew…