the same thing

[Cavaradossi]

The context was Gregory trying to correct a faulty notion advanced about him as “universal bishop” because he’s sitting on the chair of Peter. He condemned the sense in which the term/ title is taken to mean that in the Church there is only one true bishop, with all others who claim the title merely acting as the true bishop’s delegates or deputies.

In the true sense, as opposed the faulty sense, Gregory believed the papacy to possess a universal jurisdiction and supremacy of authority, because it’s the chair of Peter, but he didn’t think, nor does the Catholic Church teach, that this means only the Bishop of Rome is truly a bishop endowed by Christ with the power to teach, sanctify, and govern in Christ’s name.

Re: your thoughts on, “see of Peter”

I think one can see alot by the ancient ranking of sees, in their order, as to how that term “see of Peter” was understood

1. • Rome (chair of Peter)
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   After Constantine moved to Byzantium early 4th century, the listing of sees went like this
   1. • Rome (chair of Peter)
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      I would think, one could ask, at least from an Eastern perspective
      • where is Constantinople’s defference to Peter with regards to Alexandria, or Antioch in this listing?
      • How could Constantinople so easily usurp 1st position ahead of those other Eastern sees if those sees were truly understood to be in the full sense of the word, sees of Peter?
      Would you agree, this list has the look of no special regard for previous sees of Peter, only the current one?
      
      Maybe you could address this next point. With regards the ranking of sees in the East today, it’s my understanding Moscow considers itself 1st, not-] Constantinople /-]Istanbul. Is that true or false?

1. 1. 
      The patriarch’s title is the Patriarch of Constantinople (among other titles), not Istanbul. Please use courtesy and refer to him as such. You have indeed been misinformed about Moscow, I am afraid. Moscow is listed sixth in the diptychs universally, even in its own listing.
      
      On Constantinople’s “usurpation” of rank. From the earliest of times, it was customary to follow what is called accommodation. For example, when Milan was made the capitol of a new political diocese in northern Italy in the very early fourth century, the Church followed suit, and northern Italy moved from being under the primatial jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome to being under the bishop of Milan. Milan retained its importance as a major see for most of the first millennium, until Rome’s growing authority eclipsed after the Gregorian reforms. Vestiges of Milan’s old authority include its own rite, the Ambrosian Rite, and its bishop’s old title of patriarch.
      
      When Constantinople was raised to being the New Rome of the East, it was only natural for the Church to follow suit. This in fact happened at the local council of Constantinople in 381 (which only later was elevated to the status of an ecumenical council), where Constantinople was raised to be above Alexandria and Antioch in terms of honor. This was not a usurpation, anymore than Milan’s new jurisdictional boundaries, taken directly from Rome was a usurpation.
      
      On pope Gregory, I don’t think you and I are thinking of the same writing. You seem to be referencing his conflict with John the Faster over the title of Ecumenical Patriarch. I am thinking of his epistle XL, which is unrelated to the ecumenical patriarch affair.

 

[Padraig1972]

A good reminder. Thank you, Padraig. Lord have mercy on me for my sinful pride, forgive and reprove me. I am sorry to anyone I have offended with my words.

Steve B: The point is not that Alexandria or Antioch are better than Rome, only that as Rome had a certain prestige associated with it as the capital of the empire, other Sees had other strengths which Rome did not have, so to place everything in relation to Rome unnaturally elevates the See beyond what the historical record shows us. Rome was honored, yes, and also the Roman bishop, but for the sake of her long held Orthodoxy, not for anything inherent in the See. And, as the example of the Roman bishop’s letter to Alexandria shows us, Rome likewise gave honor to bishops of the other Sees, not as subservients (as they were not), but as beloved fathers. That’s what “Pope” means, after all. It is not a synonym for “bishop of Rome” outside of the Western world, which, after all, had no other See within its traditional territory (so it makes sense that the Roman See would be elevated in that context, just as if you go to Armenia they will refer to Holy Etchmiadzin or elsewhere to other spiritual centers connected to their particular church).

You do not offend me. Think about this: i have denied myself for months, first now i realize what has been wrong and me being critical to orthodox christians before changing heart and becoming curious like a puppy.

Allow me to apologize to all orthodox. Things have changed…a lot…today i will attend divine liturgy for the first time. Scared? No. Curious? Yes. Looking forward to it? Oh yes, i do.

 

[steve_b]

A good reminder.

Thank you, Padraig. Lord have mercy on me for my sinful pride, forgive and reprove me. I am sorry to anyone I have offended with my words.

Steve B: The point is not that Alexandria or Antioch are better than Rome, only that as Rome had a certain prestige associated with it as the capital of the empire, other Sees had other strengths which Rome did not have, so to place everything in relation to Rome unnaturally elevates the See beyond what the historical record shows us.

This is a secular argument, not a theological one. If what you say is the reason for Rome being #1 , then by definition, Constantinople being the new center of the empire would immediately have been 1st ahead of Rome… Obviously that didn’t happen. So it was not a secular reason that Rome was #1
d:

Rome was honored, yes, and also the Roman bishop, but for the sake of her long held Orthodoxy, not for anything inherent in the See.

2 points

1. 
   *]Rome i.e. the Catholic Church, not the city, is [o]rthodox NOT [O]rthodox. .
   *]If you say there is nothing inherent, (I’m talking Church you’re apparantly talking city) then I can see why we’re apparantly talking past each other. Jesus said He will build His Church…and Peter is the Father’s choice to lead it. There better be plenty of evidence for that i.e. success of the Catholic Church to show for that promise, 2000 years later…true?
   d:
   

   And, as the example of the Roman bishop’s letter to Alexandria shows us, Rome likewise gave honor to bishops of the other Sees, not as subservients (as they were not), but as beloved fathers.

   Of course. You caught my point about Pope Gregory I (the Great), right?
   d:
   

   That’s what “Pope” means, after all. It is not a synonym for “bishop of Rome” outside of the Western world, which, after all, had no other See within its traditional territory (so it makes sense that the Roman See would be elevated in that context, just as if you go to Armenia they will refer to Holy Etchmiadzin or elsewhere to other spiritual centers connected to their particular church).

   Pope means papa. And actually, if that poll was taken around the world on that question is the pope bishop of Rome, I think you’d be surprised at the answer.

 

[steve_b]

The patriarch’s title is the Patriarch of Constantinople (among other titles), not Istanbul. Please use courtesy and refer to him as such.

I’m not trying to be difficult and with all due respect, the Catholic Church is in the city as well, and since 1990, I’m sure for purposes of peace with the government, The CC calls it by it’s legal name… Istanbul
catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/disla.html

For purposes of ecumenical spirit, I’ll try and use Constantinople with my Orthodox brethren
C:

You have indeed been misinformed about Moscow, I am afraid. Moscow is listed sixth in the diptychs universally, even in its own listing.

The only reason I asked, In eccumenical dialogue, Cardinal Kasper head of ecumenical dialogue for the Catholic Church in 2002, had the following to say about the Russian Church in general and the ecumenical patriarch in particular.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

Obviously Card Kasper came away from various dialogues with the Orthodox, Russians included, with this impression

[snip]

zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
C:

When Constantinople was raised to being the New Rome of the East, it was only natural for the Church to follow suit. This in fact happened at the local council of Constantinople in 381 (which only later was elevated to the status of an ecumenical council), where Constantinople was raised to be above Alexandria and Antioch in terms of honor. This was not a usurpation, anymore than Milan’s new jurisdictional boundaries, taken directly from Rome was a usurpation.

All those bishops of now Constantinople, made no pretense of founding their claims on anything but the fact that they were now bishops of the political capital. And that was the only reason they rose to the second place in Christendom. How can that be stable, that which establishes ecclesiastical rights on the basis of secular politics. It was a violation of the rights of the Apostolic sees of Alexandria and Antioch.
C:

On pope Gregory, I don’t think you and I are thinking of the same writing. You seem to be referencing his conflict with John the Faster over the title of Ecumenical Patriarch. I am thinking of his epistle XL, which is unrelated to the ecumenical patriarch affair.

could you clarify? whose epistle are you refering to? I looked at Gregories writings. He didn’t write epistles from what I could see…

 

[Nine_Two]

I’m not trying to be difficult and with all due respect, the Catholic Church is in the city as well, and since 1990, I’m sure for purposes of peace with the government, The CC calls it by it’s legal name… Istanbul
catholic-hierarchy.org/diocese/disla.html

For purposes of ecumenical spirit, I’ll try and use Constantinople with my Orthodox brethren

Rome is welcome to call their bishoprics what they like, and I must say I find it a pleasing step forward that they don’t use the same name as the established churches. But the name of the Orthodox bishopric in the city is “Constantinople”.

The only reason I asked, In eccumenical dialogue, Cardinal Kasper head of ecumenical dialogue for the Catholic Church in 2002, had the following to say about the Russian Church in general and the ecumenical patriarch in particular.

“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”

Obviously Card Kasper came away from various dialogues with the Orthodox, Russians included, with this impression

That phrase leaves me wondering if he even understands how the Orthodox Communion works. It sounds like he is saying Constantinople needs to bring all the Churches under it, and that Moscow is the biggest obstacle to this. I would certainly agree that Moscow would be the biggest obstacle, however the other 13 autocephalous Churches would similarly oppose such a move. I would hope the Patriarch of Constantinople would similarly oppose it.

 

[ConstantineTG]

If Peter established several sees why then is Rome reserved to be the “chair of peter?”

Because Rome is sanctified by the blood of Peter’s martyrdom

 

[dzheremi]

Because Rome is sanctified by the blood of Peter’s martyrdom

What do we make then of the See of Constantinople, founded by St. Andrew who was martyred in Patras (Greece)? Does this have an effect on the sanctity of the See? If not, why does this work for the See of Rome?

 

[ConstantineTG]

What do we make then of the See of Constantinople, founded by St. Andrew who was martyred in Patras (Greece)? Does this have an effect on the sanctity of the See? If not, why does this work for the See of Rome?

Well, Peter has primacy among the Apostles. His blood was spilled on the streets of Rome and his relics rest there. Not to demean anything about Andrew, but because it is seen that Peter has primacy plus his blood and relics are in Rome, then Rome gets the prestige of where the seat of his primacy is located.

 

[Sepp]

Same reason why the Pope of Alexandria is the judge of the universe. Those silly Romans (East and West), loved titles.

Now is he literally the judge of the universe? I don’t think so. If I am correct, that title was given to him because he was in charge of calculating the date of Easter according to the council of Nicaea. Is the Pope of Rome, then, literally the only see of Peter? Pope Gregory even wrote that the sees of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome share the one see of Peter. That title of the see of Peter and its meaning are a mystery to me.

However, we don’t see the Patriarch of Alexandria acting as a literal “judge of the universe,” and defending his actions on that basis during the first millenium. Whereas we do see Rome acting from the “chair of Peter” in a unique fashion, even while acknowledging that other sees have a connection to Peter as well. For example, Pope Leo believed that he had the authority to annul a decision of the Council of Chalcedon “by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter.”

 

[dzheremi]

So Peter’s blood is more valuable or holy than everyone else’s or something? I don’t get it. And we love Sts. Peter and Paul!

 

[rciadan]

Theosis does not make one infallible for several reasons. The knowledge bestowed by the Divine Light is beyond human words. It is inexpressible, so the saint must try his best to explain it within the limits of our language. This can be very difficult, but nonetheless, the fathers of the Church decided on terminology that best (but imperfectly) reflects God (natures, persons, processions, etc.). An individual may fail at describing a doctrine so that we may interpret it accurately. Secondly, there are various degrees of theosis. The fullness revealed to the Apostles at Pentecost is not given to everyone. Some receive shorter and less revealing experiences. Thirdly, not everything the fathers wrote was written from theosis. Many times, people do not receive theosis until late in life, so everything written before cannot entirely be described as “inspired” Finally, not all saints were Glorified (some received only Illumination).

Yes, look to the bishop for guidance, but only if he is teaching correctly. If not, he is, as the eight Ecumenical Council says, a “pseudo-bishop” and a “false teacher”. To supply the Church with holy and grace-filled bishops, it was later decided to take them entirely from the ranks of the monastics. This worked wonderfully for a time, but alas, even our monasteries have begun to neglect the importance of noetic prayer and theoria.

Please don’t take this wrong, but the above statement sounds very, well, Protestant…

 

[ConstantineTG]

So Peter’s blood is more valuable or holy than everyone else’s or something? I don’t get it. And we love Sts. Peter and Paul!

It’s not about his blood having more value. Because his blood is spilled in Rome, and that is where his relics are, therefore that is where his seat is.

 

[Nine_Two]

Please don’t take this wrong, but the above statement sounds very, well, Protestant…

Is this by virtue of the fact that it doesn’t sound Catholic?

Only those whom God has deemed worthy have seen the Uncreated Light. This is Orthodoxy.

 

[dzheremi]

There are only two perspectives in all of Christianity, Nine Two. Duh.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Please don’t take this wrong, but the above statement sounds very, well, Protestant…

I have never heard protestants talk about theosis, experiencing the Light and Wisdom of God, or the utter incomprehensibility of God. I have, however, read plenty of saints who talk about these things.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Please don’t take this wrong, but the above statement sounds very, well, Protestant…

St. Gregory Nazianzus and St. Symeon the New Theologian (both recognized as saints in your communion) discuss this in detail. St. Benedict saw all of creation through one beam of Light. It is hard to read the fathers without tripping over theosis. There is nothing Protestant about it. Patristic writings should not sound strange to us. They should be a foundation of faith.

 

[rciadan]

Is this by virtue of the fact that it doesn’t sound Catholic?

Only those whom God has deemed worthy have seen the Uncreated Light. This is Orthodoxy.

More in the sense that, if I decide it does not agree with what I think, then I label it as “unenlightened” and therefore uninspired. Also in the sense that, if someone I hold up as infallible is later proven wrong I can just say, “Oh, that is from when he was only partially enlightened, etc.”: like saying a person is **obviously saved and has absolute assurance of Heaven, except when he commits a triple murder and then all of a sudden he was not really saved the whole time…
I don’t mean that Protestants even know what theosis is.

Kind of like saying…
“This saint had theosis and therefore all he says is infallible, except when proven wrong about something: Then he did not actually have full theosis, *except *for those times when I quoted him…”

I find this a fundamentally Protestant way of debating, not theology: if proven wrong, just say your source was of course fallible, except for the times you cite him…

 

[Nine_Two]

More in the sense that, if I decide it does not agree with what I think, then I label it as “unenlightened” and therefore uninspired. Also in the sense that, if someone I hold up as infallible is later proven wrong I can just say, “Oh, that is from when he was only partially enlightened, etc.”: like saying a person is **obviously saved and has absolute assurance of Heaven, except when he commits a triple murder and then all of a sudden he was not really saved the whole time…
I don’t mean that Protestants even know what theosis is.

Kind of like saying…
“This saint had theosis and therefore all he says is infallible, except when proven wrong about something: Then he did not actually have full theosis, *except *for those times when I quoted him…”

I find this a fundamentally Protestant way of debating, not theology: if proven wrong, just say your source was of course fallible, except for the times you cite him…

I’ve heard plenty of Catholics debate the exact same way.

 

[ByzCathCantor]

Kind of like saying … "This saint had theosis …

I thought Theosis was more a process than a result (as one can never, however saintly, be completely like God), but appreciate what you were trying to say in a way.

 

[rciadan]

I’ve heard plenty of Catholics debate the exact same way.

And when they do, I tell them they are acting like Protestants…