And I have already given good reasons for doubting the authenticity of St. Maximus’ letter to Peter. It does not exist in Greek and does not seem to have been widely known.
Cavaradossi,
I do plan on responding to your last response to me but I would like to clear this matter up. The citation I gave earlier of St. Maximos is from
entry on him and it is as follows:Catholic Encyclopedia’s
The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.
Immediately before this quote it says:
“After the Ecthesis had been withdrawn, and the Type, Typos, substituted by the Emperor Constans, St. Maximus was present at the great Lateran council held by St. Martin at his instance in 649. He wrote from Rome (where he stayed some years)…” (
Ibid.)
I don’t think this is the citation you are referring to when you say “St. Maximus’ letter to Peter”. That one may be found in the article because it says:
"Pyrrhus had declared that he was ready to satisfy Maximus as to his orthodoxy. The latter says he would have written to Peter before
‘]but I was afraid of being thought to transgress the holy laws if I were to do this without knowing the will of the most holy see of Apostolic men, who lead aright the whole plenitude of the Catholic Church, and rule it with order according to the divine law.’]"
And the article follows:
"The new Ecthesis is worse than the old heresies—Pyrrhus and his predecessor have accused Sophronius of error—they persuaded Heraclius to give his name to the Ecthesis:
‘]they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy… Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. 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 Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all 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 which are in the whole world — for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.’]"
Source: Chapman, John. “St. Maximus of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 29 Aug. 2013
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm.
(Note: I have entered the’] )
So a couple of things:
1.) The very first citation I gave above (which is the one I gave earlier in this thread), are you claiming that is St. Maximus’ letter to Peter? I don’t think it is.
2.) Regarding St. Maximus’ letter to Peter, I believe if you look back, you haven’t given me any reason(s) why you believe it is of doubtful authenticity (except for what you just said.) What is your source?
I won’t go into why I take issue with posts like “… Orthodox who glory in the wound created by their schism” except to say that I regard such talk to be senselessly anti-Orthodox. On the other hand, I must admit that I have probably at times been a bit too Orthodox-friendly … that’s not to say that I’m going to try to be “Orthodox-unfriendly” 
but maybe try to be more neutral in my attitude toward them, if that makes sense.