Was Maronite Church only Eastern Church always in communion with Rome/Pope?

[Thomas48]

Not exactly, The Chaldean Catholic Church and the Syro Malabars do not have an Orthodox counterpart either. The Assyrian Church of the East (which is their non-Catholic counterpart) is not apart of any Orthodox Communion.

 

[fmirenzi]

No. The Maronite Church and the Italo-Byzantine Church are the two eastern churches that always maintained communion with Rome.

 

[dochawk]

“maintain” is a bit strong for the Maronites, who were out of any kind of contact for centuries . . . but “never broke” is quite apt.

hawk

p.s. Now that I think of it, may never have broken with the east, either, due to the same lack of contact . . . (but I don’t know offhand)

 

[Wandile]

The Eastern Orthodox position is in fact the one that has changed. Rome has kept her position true to the ancient model.

The letter linked above between Pope St Hormisdas and the maronites clearly already shows his universal jurisdiction as they addressed him as “Patriarch of the whole world”. Which was not to say he is bishop of the whole world, clearly, but that he has authority everywhere as he is the highest ranking bishop of the church.

 

[dochawk]

The Eastern Orthodox position is in fact the one that has changed. Rome has kept her position true to the ancient model.

uhh, no. Just no.
among others, see writings of that obscure cardinal Ratzinger.

Noone disputes primacy, but Patriarchy does not and did not imply jurisdiction, which is a recent western innovation.

hawk

 

[Wandile]

Wandile:

The Eastern Orthodox position is in fact the one that has changed. Rome has kept her position true to the ancient model.

uhh, no. Just no.
among others, see writings of that obscure cardinal Ratzinger.

Noone disputes primacy, but Patriarchy does not and did not imply jurisdiction, which is a recent western innovation.

hawk

Umm no just no

Just look at the writings of those obscure saints of the first millennium of the eastern churches.

Denial of universal jurisdiction is an innovation.

Patriarch St. Flavian the Martyr of Constantinople in 449 [Epistle to Pope St. Leo I the Great of Rome in]:

“Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar.”

Patriarch St. John I Chrysostom the Great of Constantinople says [Homilies on the Gospel of St. John 88:1 in PG 59:478]:

“He says to him, “Feed My Sheep.” Why does He pass over the others and speak about these to him? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the other … He entrusts him with the primacy of the brethren; and as He does not bring forward the denial, or reproach him with the past, but says: “If you love Me, rule the brethren.” … And if anyone would say "How did James receive the chair of Jerusalem”, I would reply that He appointed Peter a teacher not of the chair, but of the world.”

Bl. Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus says in 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

“Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.”

Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:

“Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic… we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.”

Metropolitan Sergius of Cyprus says in 649 [Letter to Pope Theodore I of Rome in Mansi X:914]:

"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.”

 

[Wandile]

Abbot St. Theodore of Studion says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:

“Let him [Patriarch St. 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.”

Theodore Abu Qurrah:

“You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome”

During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia saying:

“How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?”

 

[Wandile]

“Patriarch” just meant “bishop” although it’s used for high ranking bishops. “Patriarch of the whole world” means bishop of the whole world. Obviously they don’t mean he was actually bishop of the whole world but were echoing, rather, his authority over the whole church…

The east denied the pope’s authority for the first time during the reign of Photius of Constantinople due to his controversy with St Ignatius of Constantinople. Ever since then there was a string anti western sentiment towards anything latin. That’s where the denial of papal authority originated.

The quotes above prove my point and that’s only scratching the surface. There are many more, nevermind the western fathers.

 

[dochawk]

One more time: ** NOONE ** disputes Roman primacy (well maybe the crazier of those on Mt. Athos, but . . .). Not an issue. Not disputed. Agreed by all.

Primacy an jurisdiction are separate issues.

hawk

 

[Wandile]

I know very well what is disputed. I’m not new to the whole Catholic EO debate hence the quotes I provided which show his jurisdiction even in the east was acknowledged by the patriarchs of Constantinople and other bishops of the east.

The primacy of honour is a myth invented by them post schism that’s why you won’t find one Father ever saying it. Those quotes I provided contain statements that they could never acknowledge today. Universal jurisdiction has always been true. I can provide pages of fathers and councils showing it like I just did. Universal jurisdiction does not mean the pope meddles daily in the affairs of other bishoprics. It just means that when the need arises he can intervene anywhere in order to protect the faith and he rightly and legitimately does so as he has authority there.

This is why in the first millennium the pope already had vicars in many places responsible for appointing bishops, It why’s St Gregory intervened in Constantinople and remarked :

“Who denies that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see”

One basic reading of Pope St Leo the Great’s writings will leave you with Vatican I papal supremacy. The truth is the east acknowledged it but later denied it when the pope intervened during the Photian schism and diposed Photius to restore St Ignatius… ever since then there was an anti-Roman and anti-western sentiment in the Byzantine east.