Why didn’t the mutual lifting of the 1054 Great Schism excommunications automatically mean reunification?

[dzheremi]

Yes, absolutely I disagree. I am Orthodox. No one has universal authority but God.

On the matter of primacy, the Coptic Orthodox Church agrees, as do all Orthodox churches of all jurisdictions that I am aware of, that St. Peter holds a special place among the apostles (the Fraction prayer for the Apostles Fast and Feast in our church actually calls Peter and Paul “foremost among the apostles”, and there is a tradition in our iconography of pairing them together with reference to their missionary work). Once again, this does not mean anything for the Roman Pope. If anything, since we are Orthodox, and St. Peter also established the Church at Antioch, you will find strong Petrine claims connected to our See of Antioch and its Patriarch, Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas (I wouldn’t doubt if the same was also true to some degree for the Chalcedonians and their Patriarch of Antioch, HH John X Yazigi, but I don’t know for sure). Not to Rome. Rome is in no sense considered the Petrine See among the Orthodox, as we recognize that there is more than one (as ancient Roman bishops did, as well), and certainly the Roman Pope is in no way recognized as St. Peter’s exclusive successor. Those are all RC distinctives that we do not share, but separate from the question of whether or not we recognize Peter as foremost among the apostles. We do, we just don’t mean what you mean when you say it.

Fraction for the Apostles Fast and Feast prayed by Fr. Youssef Assad in Arabic, with English subtitles

 

[livingwordunity]

Yes, absolutely I disagree. I am Orthodox. No one has universal authority but God.

Unless God appoints someone and grants him universal authority to lead God’s people, kind of like how God did with Moses in the Old Testament. Moses is an example of how there was a precedent for God appointing one man to lead all of God’s people. Can you please elaborate on your interpretation of the verses? Here they are again:

Matthew 16:18-19

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.** I will give you the keys** of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

The “keys” of authority that Jesus gives to Peter is even acknowledged in Heaven.

Luke 22:32

but I [Jesus] have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

John 21:17

He [Jesus] said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep."

Are we not Jesus’ sheep? How else is Peter to accomplish this mission of feeding Christ’s sheep (us) when Peter was to die other than by having a successor to continue in his footsteps? It’s the same argument for apostolic succession but applied to Peter and his particular role.

 

[Nine_Two]

If those 15 were to disagree on a doctrinal issue how would they resolve it between each other?

The innovator (since we agree on all doctrine, a disagreement could only come through innovation) would be stricken from the dyptychs of the other Churches. Once they returned to Orthodoxy they would be welcomed back with open arms.

 

[Nine_Two]

“Pope” is a word that Catholics use to refer to the successor to Peter. The word “Bible” isn’t in the Bible either. So, getting back to Peter. Do you agree that Jesus is clearly giving universal authority and primacy to Peter in those verses?

Actually the word “bible” is in the bible (Any time your translation says “book”, you can bet the Greek says “βιβλια” or some variant thereof)

However I get your point, because that is exactly my point. Catholics interpret it in this way, but not everyone else does. So unless you understand and accept the semiotics of Catholicism it doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says.

 

[livingwordunity]

The innovator (since we agree on all doctrine, a disagreement could only come through innovation) would be stricken from the dyptychs of the other Churches. Once they returned to Orthodoxy they would be welcomed back with open arms.

Do all the EO agree on abortion?

 

[livingwordunity]

Actually the word “bible” is in the bible (Any time your translation says “book”, you can bet the Greek says “βιβλια” or some variant thereof)

However I get your point, because that is exactly my point. Catholics interpret it in this way, but not everyone else does. So unless you understand and accept the semiotics of Catholicism it doesn’t say what you’re claiming it says.

I don’t understand how heaven and earth can be interpreted to mean not universal. What do you think about how Protestants say that “this is my body” can be interpreted in all different ways?

 

[dzheremi]

I don’t agree that Peter has a particular role that is substantially different from that of the other apostles, who likewise preached the faith as he did, established churches as he did, served as bishops as he did, ordained bishops to carry on after their departures, etc. in their respective sees. We in the COC do not have an analogous “Markian Office” as you have the concept of the “Petrine Office” as it relates to your Pope, though of course the Pope of the Coptic Orthodox Church is said to sit on the chair of St. Mark or occupy the See of St. Mark, as plenty of our Papal hymns and even non-Papal ones affirm (like “Efrahi ya Mariam”/“Ounof emmo Maria”, a Marian hymn which ends “We ask You, O Son of God, to keep the life of our Patriarch, Abba Tawadros the high priest. Confirm him upon his throne”)

Of course I recognize that our Lord gave to St. Peter the keys, and with them the power to bind and loose, but this power was likewise given to all apostles (how else do you think churches that don’t have Petrine foundations still have confession?). The keys are symbolic of this power, not a power given to St. Peter alone, and certainly not to be connected to the Roman Pope exclusively in perpetuity throughout the universe. Peter is one of the twelve, and not imbued with power of himself that he could pass on through some lineage to Pope Francis. To St. Mark likewise was given the power to perform miracles (as in his healing of Inianos, the man who ordained as bishop who served in that role after the apostle’s martyrdom in AD 68), but this does not mean that HH Pope Tawadros II has that power. It is from God Himself.

We are all the Lord’s sheep and apostolic succession is real (though we would disagree with the RC conception of what it means, I bet), but it is the Petrine exclusivism that makes the RC interpretation of what this means so unconvincing. Should it apply to Peter alone, then it would mean that only Peter has this task…alright then, I guess every other Patriarch can pack it up, then. Obviously that’s ridiculous…even the Eastern Catholic churches have their own Patriarchs, not all of whom trace their lineage back to Peter. Peter is not, strictly speaking, necessary of apostolic succession, and if our Lord had said this to James or Jude or someone else, it wouldn’t be any less a command. The problem is that the RCC apparently sees some sort of supreme covenant in those words with Peter to the exclusion of others. The Orthodox Church does not.

If Peter had been the one to betray our Lord (which, after all, he did at one point) and remain unrepentant (which, thankfully, he didn’t), we would probably be processing around the Church backwards chanting “Baaaaaawlos, Baaaawlos – transgressor of the law!” Instead, we remember Judas as the betrayer. The point is, it wouldn’t change our faith or ecclesiology one bit.

To paraphrase our teacher St. Disocoros (completely out of context, but hey…), our concern is with the apostolic faith, not one man.

 

[dvdjs]

So you’ll use “politics” as an argument to demean your opponents but when it is your guy suddenly it is “too far back” (even when it is recorded quite clearly). How political of you.

Huh? I have not any such claim, and have not idea whom you mean by my “guy”. I had already mentioned earlier, that Catholics, Fr Taft as an expert in particular, tend very forthcoming about their misdeeds wrt the Orthodox in schism and unia. I haven’t denied it but agreed. I just look for a little reciprocity - not to demean anyone, just to being working toward a common history that tries to get beyond politics, polemics, and stereotypes, and accepts the whole truth. When someone suggests that the Orthodox objections to Florence were pure and that the Ottoman conquest had nothing to do with the schism, then its time for a reality check. As usual it has been a disappointment.

I would break off this conversation here, but I can’t find anything saying Patriarch Athanasius II was a part of the Catholic faction. That he retired to Mount Athos, and later relocated to Ukraine in contrast to openly pro-Roman Patriarchs who tended to go to Rome after being deposed is all that I can find. If you could show me something that unambiguously shows Athanasius II’s allegiance that would be most appreciated.

I have not made any claim about Athanasius II. What I said was that the EP joined in the solemn proclamation of union; I would have to re-check just who was the lawful Patriarch during the various phases of those troubled times.

 

[livingwordunity]

I don’t agree that Peter has a particular role that is substantially different from that of the other apostles, who likewise preached the faith as he did, established churches as he did, served as bishops as he did, ordained bishops to carry on after their departures, etc. in their respective sees.

But you are ignoring what Jesus said to Peter in the verses I provided. Jesus didn’t say those things to any of the other apostles.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t understand how …

And I don’t understand how you don’t see that your attitude does nothing but harm our relations with the Orthodox.

 

[livingwordunity]

And I don’t understand how you don’t see that your attitude does nothing but harm our relations with the Orthodox.

That’s really a stretch to blame the division between the East and West on me. The point is that we currently have bad relations or we would not be divided.

 

[dzheremi]

But you are ignoring what Jesus said to Peter in the verses I provided. Jesus didn’t say those things to any of the other apostles.

No, I’m not. I’m looking at them in a manner that is consistent with my church’s tradition. Peter is the greatest of the apostles, but what was not given any kind of special mission or office that differed from that of the other apostles. It’s just like when RCs make a big deal of “Thou art Peter” – there are several (patristic) ways to look at that, but the most obvious thing to do is look at the context and see where and when that statement was made and see the close connection between that and Peter’s confession given in the verse before it. This is, in fact, what many of the Fathers did, and this is our way of understanding that verse.

Not agreeing with RC apologetics is not ignoring Christ. We have our own traditions and we follow those, not yours. You’re never going to get anywhere with the Orthodox until you recognize that.

 

[Peter_J]

That’s really a stretch to blame the division between the East and West on me.

I hereby blame you for the division between the East and West. Expect your certificate of blame to arrive in 5 to 8 business days.

(But seriously, thanks for the above. I needed a laugh.)

 

[Nine_Two]

Do all the EO agree on abortion?

That isn’t doctrine, but yes.

 

[livingwordunity]

No, I’m not. I’m looking at them in a manner that is consistent with my church’s tradition. Peter is the greatest of the apostles, but what was not given any kind of special mission or office that differed from that of the other apostles. It’s just like when RCs make a big deal of “Thou art Peter” – there are several (patristic) ways to look at that, but the most obvious thing to do is look at the context and see where and when that statement was made and see the close connection between that and Peter’s confession given in the verse before it. This is, in fact, what many of the Fathers did, and this is our way of understanding that verse.

The evidence from the Early Church fathers is heavily on the Catholic side. I’ve already shown that in post #2. Show me where in the gospels Jesus gives the keys to someone other than Peter or where Jesus tells a different apostle to strengthen the others.

 

[Nine_Two]

Huh? I have not any such claim, and have not idea whom you mean by my “guy”. I had already mentioned earlier, that Catholics, Fr Taft as an expert in particular, tend very forthcoming about their misdeeds wrt the Orthodox in schism and unia. I haven’t denied it but agreed. I just look for a little reciprocity - not to demean anyone, just to being working toward a common history that tries to get beyond politics, polemics, and stereotypes, and accepts the whole truth. When someone suggests that the Orthodox objections to Florence were pure and that the Ottoman conquest had nothing to do with the schism, then its time for a reality check. As usual it has been a disappointment.

I’m sorry, you were denouncing others in the East as being motivated by politics, when I commented that the Emperor was as well in his choice of religion you suddenly claimed it was too far back to really know.
I know you like to drag us Orthodox through the mud and act like Catholics are all clean and pure in their motives but that isn’t going to work.

I have not made any claim about Athanasius II. What I said was that the EP joined in the solemn proclamation of union; I would have to re-check just who was the lawful Patriarch during the various phases of those troubled times.

The discussion was about the last Patriarch - the one when Constantinople fell. I mentioned his name several times and you didn’t bother to try to “clarify” that that isn’t really what you meant then. Even then simply “proclaiming union” doesn’t mean anything. The topic was whether the Turks stopped Union versus union being driven by the Emperor. A weak man “proclaiming union” doesn’t prove either of these contentions.

Anyway talking to you again has reminded me why I have you on ignore so I’m going to stop clicking your posts.

 

[Nine_Two]

The evidence of from the witness of the Early Church fathers is heavily on the Catholic side. I’ve already shown that in post #2. Show me where in the gospels that Jesus gives the keys to someone other than Peter.

I’m curious how you’re coming across the ECF writings on the topic? Are you reading them as a whole or are you finding quotes on Catholic apologetic websites?

edit: Nevermind. I see it is the latter. Sad but expected I suppose.

 

[livingwordunity]

I’m curious how you’re coming across the ECF writings on the topic? Are you reading them as a whole or are you finding quotes on Catholic apologetic websites?

edit: Nevermind. I see it is the latter. Sad but expected I suppose.

Ok, let’s assume for a minute for the sake of argument that I’m quoting out of context. If I can quote out of context an ECF to make them seem to say that Peter has primacy and supremacy then you should be able to do the same and find other quotes where the ECF’s deny this. So, can you? I would bet it would be a much harder task for an EO to try to do this.

 

[dzheremi]

The evidence of from the witness of the Early Church fathers is heavily on the Catholic side. I’ve already shown that in post #2.

No, you’ve shown that some quotes hand-picked by a Roman Catholic apologist for use in a Roman Catholic article are presented as evidence for uniquely Roman Catholic doctrines that were absent from the early church. Orthodox could do that too (and sometimes do), but that isn’t being faithful to the whole of Church history and faith, so I’d prefer not to get into a quote war with you.

Show me where in the gospels that Jesus gives the keys to someone other than Peter.

Why do I have to try disprove your own doctrine to you? That’s not even a goal of mine. Isn’t it enough for you that you believe it yourself? I could just as easily ask you to show me where in the Gospels it is written that Peter’s being given the keys means what you think it means, but I know better because I too have read the Fathers and I know that this is not our faith. You still don’t understand that I am not interested in Catholic-style apologetics.

It’s one thing for you to ask me what my Church believes and why; it’s another thing entirely for you to ask me to prove to you that your Church is wrong, as though that’s something I could even do or should be interested in doing. Obviously I already believe that your Church is wrong – that’s why I’m Catholic and not Orthodox. But if you think for a second that I’m going to waste my time and this website’s bandwith going through all of the fathers and early writers of the Church that comment on Matthew in order to say that all apostles are imbued with authority such as was given to Peter, you’ve got another thing coming. You can read, and you can find Origen’s commentary or the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on this matter, to name just two that are available via the thoroughly Catholic New Advent website. What you do with them is your business, but frankly I find it distasteful.

If you have any more questions about the faith, I’d be happy to answer them, but if you’re looking for an argument, please look elsewhere.

 

[livingwordunity]

No, you’ve shown that some quotes hand-picked by a Roman Catholic apologist for use in a Roman Catholic article are presented as evidence for uniquely Roman Catholic doctrines that were absent from the early church. Orthodox could do that too (and sometimes do), but that isn’t being faithful to the whole of Church history and faith, so I’d prefer not to get into a quote war with you.

Why do I have to try disprove your own doctrine to you? That’s not even a goal of mine. Isn’t it enough for you that you believe it yourself? I could just as easily ask you to show me where in the Gospels it is written that Peter’s being given the keys means what you think it means, but I know better because I too have read the Fathers and I know that this is not our faith. You still don’t understand that I am not interested in Catholic-style apologetics.

It’s one thing for you to ask me what my Church believes and why; it’s another thing entirely for you to ask me to prove to you that your Church is wrong, as though that’s something I could even do or should be interested in doing. Obviously I already believe that your Church is wrong – that’s why I’m Catholic and not Orthodox. But if you think for a second that I’m going to waste my time and this website’s bandwith going through all of the fathers and early writers of the Church that comment on Matthew in order to say that all apostles are imbued with authority such as was given to Peter, you’ve got another thing coming. You can read, and you can find Origen’s commentary or the homilies of St. John Chrysostom on this matter, to name just two that are available via the thoroughly Catholic New Advent website. What you do with them is your business, but frankly I find it distasteful.

If you have any more questions about the faith, I’d be happy to answer them, but if you’re looking for an argument, please look elsewhere.

You have written a lot to avoid my questions.