What would be the Catholic rebuttal to the following Eastern Orthodox claims debunking Catholic infallibility?

[CatholicHere_Hi]

(I wasn’t sure if this goes in Apologetics or Eastern Catholicism)

I was reading a blog directed at Jimmy Akin’s article years ago about why he didn’t become EO

Here are some of the points the EO blogger made that I would like to hear a rebuttal of, because quite honestly, they are pretty sound arguments:

The Church teaches that Peter is the Icon of the Episcopate in that Christ gave Him this office before He gave the other Apostles this office. Thus, St. Augustine says, “He has not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.”

The Petrine office of the Pope was one among many considerations made by the Churches in granting him the position of Senior Hierach. Indeed, there were three other reasons, (1) Succession from the Apostle Paul, (2) The Authority of an Ecumenical Synod, and (3) Rome’s position as an Imperial City.

The Bishop of Rome is the historical successor of Peter and is granted a mediate primacy of “Senior Hierarch” because of this, but this Petrine primacy among the Churches is shared by the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch.

The teaching authority for the Orthodox Church is the witness of the deified Saints…The question of ecumenism, for example, has been discussed by many Saints of the Orthodox Church, and there is absolutely no disagreement among them that ecumenism is a heretical teaching.

The Holy Fathers of the Orthodox Church recognize that St. Peter is the Rock on which Christ built His Church, but they also recognize that the Petrine office is fully realized in every local bishopric, so that every Bishop is a successor to the Apostle Peter through his presidency at the Eucharistic Assembly.

Eucharistic Ecclesiology…Actually, the oneness of the Church means that all local Churches ascend to the One Temple presided over by Jesus Christ as High Priest…Anciently, the Meletian Schism led to a ceasing of communion between the Churches of Antioch and Rome. However, the Churches of Antioch and Rome continued to hold communion with the other Catholic Churches holding the Orthodox faith…What this shows is that even though two local Churches can be out of communion with each other, they can both continue to manifest the Church of Christ.

The EO blog: Responding to Jimmy Akin’s “Why I am not Eastern Orthodox” | † Pick it up!

Jimmy’s article: Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox – Jimmy Akin

 

[Genesis315]

The Bishop of Rome is the historical successor of Peter and is granted a mediate primacy of “Senior Hierarch” because of this, but this Petrine primacy among the Churches is shared by the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch.

It is true that Antioch and Alexandria were granted a certain pre-eminence based on Rome’s pre-eminence over the whole Church, but Rome was always considered first in authority among them. That’s why those patriarchates continually turned to Rome and submitted synodal acts to Rome for approval (see for example, the following letter of St. Gregory during such a time: Book VII, Letter 34 )

 

[Genesis315]

Anciently, the Meletian Schism led to a ceasing of communion between the Churches of Antioch and Rome. However, the Churches of Antioch and Rome continued to hold communion with the other Catholic Churches holding the Orthodox faith…What this shows is that even though two local Churches can be out of communion with each other, they can both continue to manifest the Church of Christ.

This doesn’t accurately portray the situation. To make a long story short (and I can go into pages of detail if necessary with excerpts from primary sources…) there was a split in the Church of Antioch, and Rome essentially took the wrong side (that of Paulinus) based on misinformation. St. Basil and others, knowing this to be the case, did not break communion with St. Meletius, and continued to petition Rome.

The fifth century Syrian bishop of Cyrus, the historian Theodoret, in Book 5 of his Ecclesiastical History, sums up this whole controversy and the importance of Pope St. Damasus, communion with him, and professing the faith he professed. This controversy eventually went to trial before an imperial officer in Antioch to effectuate peace, and the presbyter Flavianus testified that it was Meletius, and not Paulinus, that actually shared the faith with Damasus and that Paulinus had misrepresented himself to gain approval. Therefore, it was St. Meletius that was truly in communion with Damasus. The imperial decision for Meletius was based on this testimony. After this, Paulinus seceded, and Damasus treated Meletius as legitimate, due to the proof that Paulinus was misrepresenting his faith and that of Meletius.

In sum, the true Church was never actually out of communion with itself.

(This book of Theodoret’s history has lots of interesting things about the papacy of Damasus—like how the Council of Constantinople had sent him their decisions for the consent of his synod in Rome, his synodal letter, which strongly affirms the primacy, and other incidents of Eastern bishops traveling to Rome to settle disputes, etc.)

 

[CatholicHere_Hi]

Hi Genesis315, you seem to know alot about this topic. Do you have any insight on this argument?

The Petrine office of the Pope was one among many considerations made by the Churches in granting him the position of Senior Hierach. Indeed, there were three other reasons, (1) Succession from the Apostle Paul, (2) The Authority of an Ecumenical Synod, and (3) Rome’s position as an Imperial City.

 

[Genesis315]

Can this person document when exactly the Churches granted Rome this position? It’s presidency is already acknoledged at the times of St. Clement and St. Ignatius.

The authority of an ecumenical synod had nothing to do with Rome’s pre-eminence. The first one, Nicea I, treats it as an already existing fact. In fact, it only uses its authority to confirm Alexandria’s and Antioch’s places (See canon 6).

The Imperial city argument also doesn’t pass muster. Rome remained in its place of prominence long after the seat of the empire moved to Constantinople. The emperor tried to get Constantinople to have the status of the Petrine Sees, especially Rome, but was always opposed.

As early as the First Council of Constantinople, the emperor tried to get the bishop of his city to replace Alexandria as the Eastern primate. This was opposed by Pope St. Damasus, who reiterated the traditional ordering. This was tried again at Chalcedon, but again, the Roman Pope (St. Leo the Great) vetoed it. However, when Alexandria rejected the definitions of Chalcedon and separated from the Church (leaving only Rome and Antioch), Constantinople filled the void and the Greek Patriarchate of Alexandria was instituted and was essentially a vassal of Constantinople. Jerusalem was also separated from the jurisdiction of Antioch at Chalcedon and fell more under the influence of Constantinople, especially when the emperor later made it a patriarchate. The rise of Islam also significantly weakened Antioch to the point where it became significantly reliant on Constantinople. Constantinople’s rise was due to its imperial status, but Rome still remained the pre-eminent See in the Church despite it all.

As for St. Paul, there were many special things about Rome, in addition to its Petrine status. St. Paul, the many early martyrs, it’s strong early faith, etc.

Even the Bishop of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom, treated St. Paul as subordinate to Peter:

St.John Chrysostom:

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

 

[Jas31784]

I don’t know but I kind of agree with it.
It’s historically true the Bishop of Rome had the first place of honor.
It gets tricky though when one asks “what exactly does that mean?”