• Please remember: Pray for Ukraine in the Prayer forum; Share news in the Christian News section; Discuss religious implications in FFA: Religious Topics; Discuss political implications in Politics (and if you don't have access, PM me) Thank you! + Fr. George, Forum Administrator

Popes Primacy before the Schism (quotes)

Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
349
Reaction score
0
Points
0
A long while back, someone started a thread on this subject, but the posts ended up getting way off topic, and most of the actual subject was not covered, despite the enormity of the thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12957.0.html

There are many quotes by church fathers that seem to point to the pope's claim of universal jurisdiction. For example:

".... begging the most blessed Pope of the Romans, the Apostolic See which has received universal and supreme authority and power of binding and loosing over all the Holy Churches of God in the whole world from the Incarnate Son of God Himself." The power to bind was granted to St. Peter and to St. Peter to "confirm thy brethren". -Maxiumus the Confessor

Mostly I want this thread to directly address quotes, because as much as we've debated papal supremacy (maybe only a million times on this forum), I haven't yet found a thread that is devoted to addressing quotes.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
antiderivative said:
A long while back, someone started a thread on this subject, but the posts ended up getting way off topic, and most of the actual subject was not covered, despite the enormity of the thread:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12957.0.html

There are many quotes by church fathers that seem to point to the pope's claim of universal jurisdiction. For example:

".... begging the most blessed Pope of the Romans, the Apostolic See which has received universal and supreme authority and power of binding and loosing over all the Holy Churches of God in the whole world from the Incarnate Son of God Himself." The power to bind was granted to St. Peter and to St. Peter to "confirm thy brethren". -Maxiumus the Confessor

Mostly I want this thread to directly address quotes, because as much as we've debated papal supremacy (maybe only a million times on this forum), I haven't yet found a thread that is devoted to addressing quotes.
Having danced this waltz before:

It would help if, besides the author, we have citation so we can see a quote in context.  Many a time that in and of itself solves problems and illumines mysteries.

Of course, the issue of authenticity should be solved (at least assessed) before going off on a tangent.  The Vatican hasn't shown a reluctance to produce forged quotes to back its position.

In particular, this "quote" of St. Maximus: does it address Honorius?  The supporters of the Vatican are quite fond of quoting St. Maximus in Honorius' defense. They are less than wiling to explain how the Fathers of the Sixth Council, knowing better than us St. Maximus' words on the matter, saw fit to anathematize Honorius as a heretic.
 

prodromas

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Jul 9, 2007
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Victoria, Australia
ialmisry said:
Of course, the issue of authenticity should be solved (at least assessed) before going off on a tangent.  The Vatican hasn't shown a reluctance to produce forged quotes to back its position.
Constantinople also used used forged quotes to back its position. Real argumentation will not just point out the mistakes of one side.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
Pope Saint Gregory wrote to Pope Euloghius of Alexandria and he is strong in his assertion that all three Bishops of Rome and Antioch and Alexandria are equally Petrine and of one authority with the same Petrine prerogatives... It's an astounding reversal for the unique claims of modern Rome!

If I may bring Pope Gregory's text onto the Forum...

Gregory of Rome to Eulogius of Alexandria:

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair.

"And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me.

"For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17.

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one . For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside,

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Irish Hermit said:
Pope Saint Gregory wrote to Pope Euloghius of Alexandria and he is strong in his assertion that all three Bishops of Rome and Antioch and Alexandria are equally Petrine and of one authority with the same Petrine prerogatives... It's an astounding reversal for the unique claims of modern Rome!

If I may bring Pope Gregory's text onto the Forum...

Gregory of Rome to Eulogius of Alexandria:

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair.

"And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me.

"For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17.

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one . For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside,

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
And if I may add a little context.  This letter (no. 63 I belive), was sent because St. Gregory was accusing Constantinople of being the "precursor of the Anti-Christ" by taking the title "Universal Bishop," i.e. Ecumenical Patriarch.  Actually he didn't take it: the emperor conferred it, as the chancellory had decided that "ekumenikos" also meant "imperial," so anything associated with the emperor of the capital (and Rome was no longer a city, let alone a capital) was "ecumenical."

prodromas said:
ialmisry said:
Of course, the issue of authenticity should be solved (at least assessed) before going off on a tangent.  The Vatican hasn't shown a reluctance to produce forged quotes to back its position.
Constantinople also used used forged quotes to back its position. Real argumentation will not just point out the mistakes of one side.
Such as?  I know that St. Photios is so accused, but I have never seen such accusation disentangles from attempts to hide the fact that Rome accepted Constantinople IV (879).
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,193
Reaction score
504
Points
113
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Irish Hermit said:
Pope Saint Gregory wrote to Pope Euloghius of Alexandria and he is strong in his assertion that all three Bishops of Rome and Antioch and Alexandria are equally Petrine and of one authority with the same Petrine prerogatives... It's an astounding reversal for the unique claims of modern Rome!

If I may bring Pope Gregory's text onto the Forum...
Thank you, Father, for the great reference!
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,193
Reaction score
504
Points
113
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
antiderivative said:
Thankyou for your responses
Antiderivative,

I've updated the tags at the bottom of the page, which will link you to two different kinds of threads:

1. The threads dealing with this subject, which often have a lot of source-material (for both sides) posted in them;
2. The joke threads that popped up after Forum Over-Exposure to the subject of Petrine Primacy.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Church in the East was actually larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

Now, if the whole Church acknowledged the Pope and his primacy, why is it that not one bishop nor one diocese in the East remained under the authority of the Pope? Why did not a single one of them remain loyal to Rome? What caused these Catholic bishops in the East, without exception, to throw off a papal obedience which they had acknowledged for a thousand years?


[attachment deleted by admin]
 
Joined
Apr 17, 2007
Messages
3,001
Reaction score
340
Points
83
Age
58
Location
USA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Patriarchate of Antioch
Another question is why was a forged document purporting to account for Papal supremacy allowed to circulate? Surely later on many believed in the authenticity of this forged document but it has contributed to much dissension throughout history. The document I am alluding to is called the Donation of Constantine & can be read about here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm Surely the problematic concept of Papal infallibility emerged from the problematic notion of supremacy. I mean no disrepect to the RCC & doubt most adherents even are aware of things like this.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,193
Reaction score
504
Points
113
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Irish Hermit said:
There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Church in the East was actually larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

Now, if the whole Church acknowledged the Pope and his primacy, why is it that not one bishop nor one diocese in the East remained under the authority of the Pope? Why did not a single one of them remain loyal to Rome? What caused these Catholic bishops in the East, without exception, to throw off a papal obedience which they had acknowledged for a thousand years?
Fr,

I love the graph.  What is the source for its information?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Irish Hermit said:
There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Church in the East was actually larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

Now, if the whole Church acknowledged the Pope and his primacy, why is it that not one bishop nor one diocese in the East remained under the authority of the Pope? Why did not a single one of them remain loyal to Rome? What caused these Catholic bishops in the East, without exception, to throw off a papal obedience which they had acknowledged for a thousand years?
Better yet, why is it that Rome had trouble enforcing it's will on the Celtic Church, until the English Pope Adrian sent the king of England to enforce it at the point of a sword (not all Crusades were in the East).

And in Spain, the Mozarabic Church too resisted the centralizing from Rome.  She only succumbed with the reconquista.

And where was Gallicanism?

And who coined the term Ultramontanism?  Not us in the East. It would be Ultramareanism if it was up to us.
 

Irish Hermit

Merarches
Joined
Oct 11, 2003
Messages
10,980
Reaction score
8
Points
0
Location
Middle Earth
cleveland said:
I love the graph.  What is the source for its information?
It was placed on Catholic Answers Forum by a Catholic man DVDJS.  I do not think he gave any attribution.  If anyone is writing on CAF they could make an enquiry?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Irish Hermit said:
cleveland said:
I love the graph.  What is the source for its information?
It was placed on Catholic Answers Forum by a Catholic man DVDJS.  I do not think he gave any attribution.  If anyone is writing on CAF they could make an enquiry?
...and have their name stuck from the Book of Life, banned from the Kingdom of Heaven?  LOL.
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,193
Reaction score
504
Points
113
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Irish Hermit said:
cleveland said:
I love the graph.  What is the source for its information?
It was placed on Catholic Answers Forum by a Catholic man DVDJS.  I do not think he gave any attribution.  If anyone is writing on CAF they could make an enquiry?
Thank you, Fr.  I'll see if I can find it elsewhere...
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,193
Reaction score
504
Points
113
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
cleveland said:
Thank you, Fr.  I'll see if I can find it elsewhere...
No luck so far... It's got to be out there somewhere, right?
 

Athanasios

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Diocese of Youngstown
Irish Hermit said:
There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Church in the East was actually larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

Now, if the whole Church acknowledged the Pope and his primacy, why is it that not one bishop nor one diocese in the East remained under the authority of the Pope? Why did not a single one of them remain loyal to Rome? What caused these Catholic bishops in the East, without exception, to throw off a papal obedience which they had acknowledged for a thousand years?
The Greek Orthodox in Antioch didn't want to cut off communion with Rome. According to one historical article from the Phoenician Encyclopedia:

After the Great Schism of 1054, the Patriarchate of Antioch was the only one of the strictly speaking Orthodox patriarchates that entered into communion with the See of Rome, a communion remaining until today. However, the entire patriarchate did not accept the union movement, and a sorrowful division took place within it; this division had painful consequences and these remain until now.

I read in another place (though I cannot recall exactly where) that the Emperor forced the allegiance of those in Antioch.

A similar (and reverse) question is why didn't those in the West (Bishops or laity) side with Constantinople and break off communion with Rome? I think the answers to both questions could be as much theological as political.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Athanasios said:
Irish Hermit said:
There is one thing which has never had an answer. At the time of the schism the Church in the East was actually larger than the Catholic Church in the West.

Now, if the whole Church acknowledged the Pope and his primacy, why is it that not one bishop nor one diocese in the East remained under the authority of the Pope? Why did not a single one of them remain loyal to Rome? What caused these Catholic bishops in the East, without exception, to throw off a papal obedience which they had acknowledged for a thousand years?
The Greek Orthodox in Antioch didn't want to cut off communion with Rome. According to one historical article from the Phoenician Encyclopedia:
A dead give away for a Maronite.

After the Great Schism of 1054, the Patriarchate of Antioch was the only one of the strictly speaking Orthodox patriarchates that entered into communion with the See of Rome, a communion remaining until today.


Another dead give away for a Maronite, the myth of "continous communion with Rome."

However, the entire patriarchate did not accept the union movement, and a sorrowful division took place within it; this division had painful consequences and these remain until now.
Actually the division got started when the Crusaders booted out the rightful patriarchate of Antioch and set up a Latin one instead in 1098: if Antioch was in communion, why the setting up of a duplicate patriarchate?

The Maronites had been out of communion with Rome since Rome dropped the Monothelite heresy in the 7th cent. and the Maronites kept it.  It is not until the 12th century that they submitted to Rome, and even then it didn't fully take until the 18th century.

The final break didn't come with the Orthodox in Antioch until 1724, when the new Patriarch of Antioch submitted to Rome, creating the Melkites.

The fact that at Vatican II the Vatican had 4 patriarchs of Antioch, not a one who could trace their orders from the Vatican back to 1054 belies the "continous communion" claim.

I read in another place (though I cannot recall exactly where
I'm it sure it had a Vatican impreatur and nihil obstat.

) that the Emperor forced the allegiance of those in Antioch.
The Emperor didn't have control of Antioch for much of the time we are talking about 1054-1724.

Who forced the Latin patriarch on the throne?  And who forced the filioque into the Creed at Rome in 1014?

A similar (and reverse) question is why didn't those in the West (Bishops or laity) side with Constantinople and break off communion with Rome?
Let's see: we have the Franks of France who stuck the filioque in at the Council of Frankfurt, despite Rome's protest, and the Saxons whose Henry II, having installed the pope at Rome, forced him to stick it there as well.  Their Norman cousins were busy suppressing the Orthodox in Southern Italy, and busy suppressing the Anglo-Saxons in England (many ended up in the East: Constantinople recruited for the Varengian guard a lot in London). The last Anglo-Saxon Archbishop of Cantebury had his own problems with Rome. Soon another Norman, as Pope Adrian, would send the King of England to exerminate the remnants of the Celtic Church, which had had connections back East.  Adrian had, previously to becoming master of the Vatican, finished organizing Scandinavia and had sent the Swedes on Crusade to stamp out the "pagan" Finns: Orthodoxy had already comet there, and it had more to do with fighting Orthodox Novgorod.  And who's more German than the Teutonic Knights, that "monastic" order sent to Crusade across the Baltic, where Orthodox just happened to be.  Down South, the Mozarabic Church in Spain had resisted centralization from Rome, and maintained links East: that ended with the Reconquista.  I'm not sure what happend in North Africa.

Mystery solved.

I think the answers to both questions could be as much theological as political.
Could be, but it doesn't hurt to have a sword to enforce your communion, except of course hurting those who resist it.
 

wynd

High Elder
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
605
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Location
Republic of Texas
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
ialmisry said:
Another dead give away for a Maronite, the myth of "continous communion with Rome."
This is a myth? Do you have more info? I've also heard this about the Italo-Albanian Catholic church and another Eastern church which I can't remember at this moment.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
wynd said:
ialmisry said:
Another dead give away for a Maronite, the myth of "continous communion with Rome."
This is a myth? Do you have more info? I've also heard this about the Italo-Albanian Catholic church and another Eastern church which I can't remember at this moment.
This was thoroughly debunked on another forum.  :police: ::) :police:

Some highlights:

There is a life of St. Maximos the Confessor in a Marnoite manuscript dated from the 7th cent. which begins "The story of the impious Maximus whose tongue was cut out for its blasphemy."  Since it doesn't date from the pontificate of Honorius, and posts the Sixth Council, stands to reason the writer wasn't on the same page as the rest of us.

William of Tyre, born and raised in Jerusalem of European stock, writes about the Maronites as heretics and of his eyewitness to the beginning of the union with Rome, in the 12th century.

Someone on the other forum  :police:  ::) :police: produced a Medieval Maronite liturgy book, where the "Orthodoxy" of the One Will is proclaimed in the ordination rituals.

There are a number of Muslims polemics against Christianity, some very good and detailed (most are not), which describe the Maronites as different from the Miaphysites and the Melkites, again mostly on the One Will.

"The Maronites in History" by Matti Moosa has a lot on this topic.

As to the Italo-Albanians, the original population was Greek Orthodox, which either moved or were forcibly or willingly Latinized (the beginning of the process was behind the events of 1054).  The Albanians (hello, they're not from Italy) didn't come until the Greeks were more or less extinct as a Church.  The Albanians brought their church from Albania, and benefited from canons concerning the Florence "union," which didn't benefit the Greeks any.  As the Vatican had no organized "Albanian rite" in Albania until 1939, only Latin rite, and these Albanians came from Albania in the 16th century, we know that they were Orthodox.

The Ukranians who have submitted to Rome also claim continous communion, which, since Constantinople appointed the archbishop of Kiev until 1448, (when the Rus refused to submit to the Vatican with Constantinople as the emperor insisted), such claims are also nonsense.
 

wynd

High Elder
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
605
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Location
Republic of Texas
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
ialmisry said:
This was thoroughly debunked on another forum.  :police: ::) :police:
Right, good luck getting that post back. Thanks for your info.
 

wynd

High Elder
Joined
Nov 11, 2007
Messages
605
Reaction score
2
Points
18
Location
Republic of Texas
Faith
Orthodox
Jurisdiction
OCA
ialmisry said:
The Ukranians who have submitted to Rome also claim continous communion, which, since Constantinople appointed the archbishop of Kiev until 1448, (when the Rus refused to submit to the Vatican with Constantinople as the emperor insisted), such claims are also nonsense.
I think the third church I've seem this claim for is the Syro-Malabar church. Never seen it for the Ukrainians before, but that doesn't mean someone won't try.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
wynd said:
ialmisry said:
The Ukranians who have submitted to Rome also claim continous communion, which, since Constantinople appointed the archbishop of Kiev until 1448, (when the Rus refused to submit to the Vatican with Constantinople as the emperor insisted), such claims are also nonsense.
I think the third church I've seem this claim for is the Syro-Malabar church. Never seen it for the Ukrainians before, but that doesn't mean someone won't try.
LOL.  The Vatican came with the Inquisition.  It's well documented.

Orthodoxy came back with a certain Mar Gregory (the Indians had not had bishops, they always got them from the Nestorian Catholicos.  Mar Gregory happened to be a bishop of the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch, and he brought most of them back).  There is continous evidence of Christians in India: the Vatican has no record of contact with them until the Portuguese showed up in Goa.  And again, the multiplicity of "rites" under the Vatican there now show that the Vatican was taking Churches they had no hand in creating.
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
wynd said:
ialmisry said:
The Ukranians who have submitted to Rome also claim continous communion, which, since Constantinople appointed the archbishop of Kiev until 1448, (when the Rus refused to submit to the Vatican with Constantinople as the emperor insisted), such claims are also nonsense.
I think the third church I've seem this claim for is the Syro-Malabar church. Never seen it for the Ukrainians before, but that doesn't mean someone won't try.
Oh yes!  On another forum the Ukrainian Greek Catholics were asked why they venerate some Orthodox saints that were canonized after the schism.  In fact some saints which fought against the U--- (word we can't post) like St Job. 

The reply that came back was from a Ukainian Greek Catholic priest who resides in Dublin that many of us know.  It is one of those relpies which shows how sometimes history is manipulated by them until it defies all logic and sensibility!  The esteemed Father replied that it is because the schism did not occur in 1054 but at the 'Council of Florence'.  And his claim was that until that time the Ukrainian Church remained 'in communion' with Rome!  If this were true then -

1)  It means that the 'Council of Florence' was not convened to try and end a schism because such a schism never officially existed!  But in fact it was this council that in fact created that very schism history tells us occurred in 1054!

2) It completely over looks the fact that the 'Church of Rus' was only 66 years old in 1054 and was still being breast fed by it's mother church (the Church of Constantinople).  Which means that from 988-until the 16th century (and especially in 1054) the 'Church of Rus' was administered to and mothered by Greek bishops sent from Constantinople and the EP!  So are we to believe that in 1054 when the schism between Rome & Constantinople occurred all the Greek bishops under the EP honored the directives of the EP but those sent to 'Rus'?

3)  Just how much influence do we think the Church in Rus had at age of 66 years?

Orthodoc

 

Deacon Lance

Protokentarchos
Joined
Oct 26, 2002
Messages
4,558
Reaction score
420
Points
83
Age
50
Location
Washington, PA
Faith
Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction
Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
I think you are misunderstanding the Catholic position.  I think it is generally acknowledged that 1054 was the beginning of schism but it is not a hard and final date as sometimes presented.  The Sack of Constantinople was much more damaging.  Communion was maintained or resumed with various Orthodox patriarchates, hence Orthodox attendance at the second Council of Lyon and the Council of Florence.  The Catholic position was that Orthodox saints who lived prior to the Orthodox rejection of the Council of Florence could be honored.  Today, Eastern Catholics honor what Orthodox saints they wish, although I wouldn't look for parishes to be named for them.
 

Orthodoc

Archon
Joined
Oct 3, 2002
Messages
2,526
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
82
Location
USA
Deacon Lance said:
I think you are misunderstanding the Catholic position.  I think it is generally acknowledged that 1054 was the beginning of schism but it is not a hard and final date as sometimes presented.   The Sack of Constantinople was much more damaging.  Communion was maintained or resumed with various Orthodox patriarchates, hence Orthodox attendance at the second Council of Lyon and the Council of Florence.  The Catholic position was that Orthodox saints who lived prior to the Orthodox rejection of the Council of Florence could be honored.  Today, Eastern Catholics honor what Orthodox saints they wish, although I wouldn't look for parishes to be named for them.
The problem with the answer given was that -

1)  It implied that communion remained with Rome by the united Ukrainian Orthodox Church after it was servered by the EP and while this church was still under the EP.  Can that be proven?  Why was the council of Florence convened?

2)  Also in the instance I posted the original question was posted about Krainian Greek Catholic veneration of saints after the schism.  Sts Job & Seraphim were given as examples.  If you check the dates you see  that even if the catalyst was the Council of Florence (1431) both saints mentioned were born and existed a century or two AFTER the council!  One in the 16th and the other in the 17th).

 

Athanasios

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Diocese of Youngstown
ialmisry said:
A dead give away for a Maronite.

Another dead give away for a Maronite, the myth of "continous communion with Rome."
The same from the Melkite's:

From http://www.stanndanbury.org/
The churches of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other in 1054, but the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch tried to promote good relations between both churches. Nevertheless, the political situation forced the Melkite Patriarch under the protection of Constantinople to break communion with Rome.

From http://www.melkite.org/
Between 960 and 1085 A.D. much of the imperial style of Constantinople became a part of the Melkite ritual. Despite the now close ties to Constantinople, the Melkite peoples never broke off relations with Rome and with the Pope.

From http://saintjacobsd.org/
The Melkite patriarchate fell within the orbit of the ecumenical patriarchate. It was the Byzantine patriarch who chose the resident patriarchs from the ranks of the clergy in the capital. John III (996-1021) gave up the autonomy of Antioch and accepted to be consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople instead of the Metropolites of the Patriarchate of Antioch. Peter III (1032-1056), born in Antioch but educated in Constantinople, defended the freedoms of his Apostolic See and refused to side with Michel Cerularius in his polemic with the See of Rome and the schism that followed it (1054). His courageous unionist position is well known. However, his successors lacked that courage, and relations between the Melkite Church and the Church of Rome became increasingly difficult.


This speaks of a third party who unwillingly got caught up in the issues between Rome and Constantinople. Without the political and ecclesiatical influence from Constantinople, Antioch may have likely maintain unfettered communion with Rome -- and quite possibly Constantinople also, indeed they may have been a great help in quickly resolving the schism (I guess we'll never know).

ialmisry said:
Actually the division got started when the Crusaders booted out the rightful patriarchate of Antioch and set up a Latin one instead in 1098: if Antioch was in communion, why the setting up of a duplicate patriarchate?
While there were most likely regrettable mistakes made, one of the primary purposes of the Latin Patriarchates was not to supplant the Eastern Patriarchs, but to provide for the spiritual needs of the Latin Crusaders and later pilgrims to the Holy Land.

One could ask, if the Eastern Orthodox are so incensed about the Latin Patriarchs in the Holy Land, how do they justify supplanting the Syriac Patriach in Antioch and the Coptic Pope in Alexandria with Orthodox Patriarchs after Chalcedon?


ialmisry said:
I'm it sure it had a Vatican impreatur and nihil obstat.
Really -- why! These little unnecessary insults don't help you at all.


ialmisry said:
The Emperor didn't have control of Antioch for much of the time we are talking about 1054-1724.

Who forced the Latin patriarch on the throne?  And who forced the filioque into the Creed at Rome in 1014?
The Byzantine Empire ebbed and flowed quite drastically during the period of ~900-1200A.D. They most definitely had control of Antioch in 1025 A.D. at the death of Basil II. I don't think they got kicked out until ~1070s with a new wave of attacks. (the where's and why's of the empire's disintegration are for another thread)


ialmisry said:
Let's see: we have the Franks of France who stuck the filioque in at the Council of Frankfurt, despite Rome's protest, and the Saxons whose Henry II, having installed the pope at Rome, forced him to stick it there as well.  Their Norman cousins were busy suppressing the Orthodox in Southern Italy, and busy suppressing the Anglo-Saxons in England (many ended up in the East: Constantinople recruited for the Varengian guard a lot in London). The last Anglo-Saxon Archbishop of Cantebury had his own problems with Rome. Soon another Norman, as Pope Adrian, would send the King of England to exerminate the remnants of the Celtic Church, which had had connections back East.  Adrian had, previously to becoming master of the Vatican, finished organizing Scandinavia and had sent the Swedes on Crusade to stamp out the "pagan" Finns: Orthodoxy had already comet there, and it had more to do with fighting Orthodox Novgorod.  And who's more German than the Teutonic Knights, that "monastic" order sent to Crusade across the Baltic, where Orthodox just happened to be.  Down South, the Mozarabic Church in Spain had resisted centralization from Rome, and maintained links East: that ended with the Reconquista.  I'm not sure what happend in North Africa.
Most of these are mis-represented/exaggerated...but that is for another thread. The question was not for any of these, but for the period of ~1054 and choosing between Rome and Constantinople.
 

Athanasios

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 19, 2007
Messages
1,800
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
Diocese of Youngstown
ialmisry said:
wynd said:
ialmisry said:
The Ukranians who have submitted to Rome also claim continous communion, which, since Constantinople appointed the archbishop of Kiev until 1448, (when the Rus refused to submit to the Vatican with Constantinople as the emperor insisted), such claims are also nonsense.
I think the third church I've seem this claim for is the Syro-Malabar church. Never seen it for the Ukrainians before, but that doesn't mean someone won't try.
LOL.  The Vatican came with the Inquisition.  It's well documented.

Orthodoxy came back with a certain Mar Gregory (the Indians had not had bishops, they always got them from the Nestorian Catholicos.  Mar Gregory happened to be a bishop of the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch, and he brought most of them back).  There is continous evidence of Christians in India: the Vatican has no record of contact with them until the Portuguese showed up in Goa.  And again, the multiplicity of "rites" under the Vatican there now show that the Vatican was taking Churches they had no hand in creating.
The Syro-Malabar Church was a daughter of the Assyrian Church of the East, not the Syriac Orthodox Church. When the Portugese came into contact with them, they quickly and willingly proclaimed their allegiance to the Church of Rome. This union was informal, however, until the 18th century (I think, I'd have to look up the date). Their was no cohersion or forced conversion. They didn't not have unfettered practical communion, but a spiritual union.
 

BrotherAidan

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Mar 4, 2004
Messages
1,568
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
pennsylvania
Irish Hermit said:
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one . For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside,

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
Peter also began his apostleship in Jerusalem, so using this argument there could be 4 petrine sees
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,193
Reaction score
504
Points
113
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
BrotherAidan said:
Irish Hermit said:
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one . For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside,

Source: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
Peter also began his apostleship in Jerusalem, so using this argument there could be 4 petrine sees
I still haven't seen anything convincing about why Rome should hold a higher authority than any of the other "Petrine Sees."  All their supporting documents point to Peter, which does not exclude Antioch or Alexandria.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Athanasios said:
ialmisry said:
wynd said:
ialmisry said:
The Ukranians who have submitted to Rome also claim continous communion, which, since Constantinople appointed the archbishop of Kiev until 1448, (when the Rus refused to submit to the Vatican with Constantinople as the emperor insisted), such claims are also nonsense.
I think the third church I've seem this claim for is the Syro-Malabar church. Never seen it for the Ukrainians before, but that doesn't mean someone won't try.
LOL.  The Vatican came with the Inquisition.  It's well documented.

Orthodoxy came back with a certain Mar Gregory (the Indians had not had bishops, they always got them from the Nestorian Catholicos.  Mar Gregory happened to be a bishop of the Syriac Patriarch of Antioch, and he brought most of them back).  There is continous evidence of Christians in India: the Vatican has no record of contact with them until the Portuguese showed up in Goa.  And again, the multiplicity of "rites" under the Vatican there now show that the Vatican was taking Churches they had no hand in creating.
The Syro-Malabar Church was a daughter of the Assyrian Church of the East, not the Syriac Orthodox Church. When the Portugese came into contact with them, they quickly and willingly
::)
proclaimed their allegiance to the Church of Rome. This union was informal, however, until the 18th century (I think, I'd have to look up the date). Their was no cohersion or forced conversion.
::)
They didn't not have unfettered practical communion, but a spiritual union.
Like how the Anglo-Catholics are members of the "Catholic Church?"
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
Athanasios said:
ialmisry said:
A dead give away for a Maronite.

Another dead give away for a Maronite, the myth of "continous communion with Rome."
The same from the Melkite's:

From http://www.stanndanbury.org/
The churches of Rome and Constantinople excommunicated each other in 1054, but the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch tried to promote good relations between both churches. Nevertheless, the political situation forced the Melkite Patriarch under the protection of Constantinople to break communion with Rome.

From http://www.melkite.org/
Between 960 and 1085 A.D. much of the imperial style of Constantinople became a part of the Melkite ritual. Despite the now close ties to Constantinople, the Melkite peoples never broke off relations with Rome and with the Pope.

From http://saintjacobsd.org/
The Melkite patriarchate fell within the orbit of the ecumenical patriarchate. It was the Byzantine patriarch who chose the resident patriarchs from the ranks of the clergy in the capital. John III (996-1021) gave up the autonomy of Antioch and accepted to be consecrated by the Patriarch of Constantinople instead of the Metropolites of the Patriarchate of Antioch. Peter III (1032-1056), born in Antioch but educated in Constantinople, defended the freedoms of his Apostolic See and refused to side with Michel Cerularius in his polemic with the See of Rome and the schism that followed it (1054). His courageous unionist position is well known. However, his successors lacked that courage, and relations between the Melkite Church and the Church of Rome became increasingly difficult.


This speaks of a third party who unwillingly got caught up in the issues between Rome and Constantinople. Without the political and ecclesiatical influence from Constantinople, Antioch may have likely maintain unfettered communion with Rome -- and quite possibly Constantinople also, indeed they may have been a great help in quickly resolving the schism (I guess we'll never know).
Uh, yes we do.  Antioch DID maintain "unfettered communion with Constantinople."  As soon as it became fettered to the Vatican, it was broken off.

ialmisry said:
Actually the division got started when the Crusaders booted out the rightful patriarchate of Antioch and set up a Latin one instead in 1098: if Antioch was in communion, why the setting up of a duplicate patriarchate?
While there were most likely regrettable mistakes made, one of the primary purposes of the Latin Patriarchates was not to supplant the Eastern Patriarchs, but to provide for the spiritual needs of the Latin Crusaders and later pilgrims to the Holy Land.
Yes, and all the Crusades were defensive moves.
::)
On the greatest Russian thread, I've quoted a work from the Northern Crusades (same Vatican calling them), in which the Russians are spoken as the great enemies of "Christianity."
Yeah, just the spiritual needs of the Latin Crusaders.
::)

One could ask, if the Eastern Orthodox are so incensed about the Latin Patriarchs in the Holy Land, how do they justify supplanting the Syriac Patriach in Antioch and the Coptic Pope in Alexandria with Orthodox Patriarchs after Chalcedon?
As far as I know, there was never a Syriac Patriarch in Antioch: Antioch was and remained a Greek city.  The countryside was Syriac.  And there were Syriacs who remained Chalcedonian, the origin of the term "Melkite."

And there were Greeks in Alexandria (how many Copts were Chalcedonian I can't say).

There were no ultramontanists nor Latins in Jerusalem, until the Crusaders slaughter Jew, Muslim and Christian on their way into the Holy City and put the ultramonist and Latin there.


 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
On another forum  :police: ::) :police: a thread trying to talk several out of converting to Orthodoxy has trotted out the quote trawl.  I once fully answered all of them, that of course was erased. :police:  I'll post the quotes now for consideration.  I will fully reponsd later.

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails." Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus, 1:47 (A.D. 378).

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion." Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

"Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished." Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

"Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments...For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken" Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418).

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

"The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome, the see of Peter, which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office, holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms." Prosper of Aquitaine, Song on the Enemies of Grace, 1 (A.D. 429).

"And since these heretics were trying to bring the Apostolic See round their view, African councils of holy bishops also did their best to persuade the holy Pope of the city (first the venerable Innocent, and afterwards his successor Zosimus) that this heresy was to be abhorred and condemned by Catholic faith. And these bishops so great a See successively branded them, and cut them off from the members of the Church, giving letters to the African Churches in the West, and to the Churches of the East, and declared that they were to be anathematised and avoided by all Catholics. The judgment pronounced upon them by the Catholic Church of God was heard and followed also by the most pious Emperor Ho they had wandered, and are yet returning, as the truth of the right faith becomes known against this detestable error." Possidius, Life of Augustine, 18 (A.D. 437).

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

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 also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...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 Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the 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 throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they [the Popes of Rome] who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).
 

ignatius

OC.Net Guru
Joined
Oct 11, 2006
Messages
1,694
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
USA
cleveland said:
I still haven't seen anything convincing about why Rome should hold a higher authority than any of the other "Petrine Sees."  All their supporting documents point to Peter, which does not exclude Antioch or Alexandria.
As I understand it... it is not the fact that St. Peter 'founded' the Holy See of Rome that made Rome unique... it is the fact that both St. Peter and St. Paul are still 'present' in Rome that makes the See of Rome unique. Within Rome remain many martyrs of the faith and both Great Saints still remain within her and their relics still have profound influence over those in Rome whom listen.

To argue which was first founded misses the point of the Early Church's recognition of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria as superior in honor to that of Jerusalem. If their measure of such honor was based on which was established first it is a certainty that Constantinople would never have been recognized above Jerusalem nor any other.

We must recognize that there was another measure at use within the Early Church and it was heavy with the blood of the martyrs and that of the slumbering saints beneath the See of Rome and other Sees.

BTW, this was pointed out in You are Peter by Clement
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
ignatius said:
cleveland said:
I still haven't seen anything convincing about why Rome should hold a higher authority than any of the other "Petrine Sees."  All their supporting documents point to Peter, which does not exclude Antioch or Alexandria.
As I understand it... it is not the fact that St. Peter 'founded' the Holy See of Rome that made Rome unique... it is the fact that both St. Peter and St. Paul are still 'present' in Rome that makes the See of Rome unique. Within Rome remain many martyrs of the faith and both Great Saints still remain within her and their relics still have profound influence over those in Rome whom listen.

To argue which was first founded misses the point of the Early Church's recognition of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria as superior in honor to that of Jerusalem. If their measure of such honor was based on which was established first it is a certainty that Constantinople would never have been recognized above Jerusalem nor any other.

We must recognize that there was another measure at use within the Early Church and it was heavy with the blood of the martyrs and that of the slumbering saints beneath the See of Rome and other Sees.

BTW, this was pointed out in You are Peter by Clement
Clement who?
 

Fr. George

Stratopedarches
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
Oct 5, 2004
Messages
22,193
Reaction score
504
Points
113
Age
41
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Faith
Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction
Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
ignatius said:
As I understand it... it is not the fact that St. Peter 'founded' the Holy See of Rome that made Rome unique... it is the fact that both St. Peter and St. Paul are still 'present' in Rome that makes the See of Rome unique. Within Rome remain many martyrs of the faith and both Great Saints still remain within her and their relics still have profound influence over those in Rome whom listen.
That is still a pretty weak argument - how many Saints still reside in Antioch, or in Jerusalem?  How many Saints who converted more people than Sts. Peter and Paul combined reside in Constantinople and the Slavic Lands?

ignatius said:
To argue which was first founded misses the point of the Early Church's recognition of Rome, Constantinople and Alexandria as superior in honor to that of Jerusalem. If their measure of such honor was based on which was established first it is a certainty that Constantinople would never have been recognized above Jerusalem nor any other.
It's not my argument about First Founded - I rather said that the only arguments put forth for Roman primacy/superiority are based on Peter, "the Rock," and the keys - arguments that can and should equally apply to the other sees founded by St. Peter.

ignatius said:
We must recognize that there was another measure at use within the Early Church and it was heavy with the blood of the martyrs and that of the slumbering saints beneath the See of Rome and other Sees.
We do indeed recognize such things.  Look, if an Apologist for Roman Primacy would just step forward and say "look - we were the capital when Christianity was formed, and one of the most populated cities, if not the most; because we were the capital all these Saints were martyred here; because we were the capital many were converted here; because we were the capital the faith spread greatly from here; because we were the capital we were honored above all other cities, and we should retain that honor within the Church," then they'd get more support and, more importantly, retain their credibility with the Orthodox.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
The trawl has caught some more:

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.' Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

"And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before." Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this." Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent.” Council of Sardica, Canon V (A.D. 343-344).

"Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons…For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347).

"For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defense concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all." Athanasius, Dionysius of Rome, 13 (A.D. 352).

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).

"No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines. And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their wiser moments, testified their disapproval." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], About Council at Arminum, Epistle 1 (A.D. 371).

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus, 1:47 (A.D. 378).

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion." Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

"To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs." Pope Sircius [regn. A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, Epistle 1 (A.D. 385).

"Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here...” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32:24 (c. A.D. 391).

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops, and especially by a true and just and Catholic Council, by preserving, as you have done, the example of ancient tradition, and by being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigour of our religion, no less now in consulting us than before in passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow the Apostle from the very episcopate and whole authority of this name is derived. Following in his footsteps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good.” Pope Innocent [regn A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, Epistle 29 (A.D. 417).

"Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments...For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken" Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418).

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

"The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome, the see of Peter, which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office, holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms." Prosper of Aquitaine, Song on the Enemies of Grace, 1 (A.D. 429).

"Joining to yourself, therefore, the sovereign of our See, and assuming our place with authority, you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour: that within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, he shall condemn his [Nestorius'] false teachings in a written confession." Pope Celestine [regn. A.D. 422-432], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 11 (A.D. 430).

"The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:--'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse." Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place...Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

"Peter in his successors has delivered what he received." Pope Sixtus III [regn. A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch, Epistle 6 (A.D. 433).

"For he [Pope Sixtus] wrote what was in accord with the holy synod [Council of Ephesus], and confirmed all of its acts, an is agreement with us." Cyril of Alexandria, To Acacius of Meletine, Epistle 40 (A.D. 434).

“Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine--and he was the first who held it --that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation--nothing but what has been handed down.’” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 6 (A.D. 434).

"And since these heretics were trying to bring the Apostolic See round their view, African councils of holy bishops also did their best to persuade the holy Pope of the city (first the venerable Innocent, and afterwards his successor Zosimus) that this heresy was to be abhorred and condemned by Catholic faith. And these bishops so great a See successively branded them, and cut them off from the members of the Church, giving letters to the African Churches in the West, and to the Churches of the East, and declared that they were to be anathematised and avoided by all Catholics. The judgment pronounced upon them by the Catholic Church of God was heard and followed also by the most pious Emperor Ho they had wandered, and are yet returning, as the truth of the right faith becomes known against this detestable error." Possidius, Life of Augustine, 18 (A.D. 437).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away." Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

"The great and holy and universal Synod...in the metropolis of Chalcedon...to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo...being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all...and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness..." Pope Leo the Great, Chalcdeon to Pope Leo, Epistle 98:1-2 (A.D. 451).

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

“For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual: and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter...The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461).

"The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..." Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius' Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).

"Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret's EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372).

"We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry....Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church....I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body....And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons." Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392).

"Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth." Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400).

"In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated ... by bishops ... as you have done, the example of ancient tradition ... For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived ... that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)...you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).

"It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches...Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).

"Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter...For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat...Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision." Pope Zosimus [regn. A.D. 417-418], To the Council of Carthage (c. A.D. 418).

"For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420).

"The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).

"None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgment of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus and bishops of Macedonia (c. A.D. 420).

"Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity." Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 1 (A.D. 430).

"The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?" Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).

"But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445).

"And so he too rejoices over your good feeling and welcomes your respect for the Lord’s own institution as shown towards the partners of His honour, commending the well ordered love of the whole Church, which ever finds Peter in Peter's See, and from affection for so great a shepherd grows not lukewarm even over so inferior a successor as myself." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 2 (A.D ante 461).

"'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and every tongue which confesses the Lord, accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endued by God that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461).

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_III


Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516)

Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.' (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)

Emperor Justinian (520-533)

Writing to the Pope, ...

Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches. (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).

Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all. (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).


Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649 A.D.)

He writes to Pope Theodore, ....

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. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)


St. Maximos the Confessor:

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? ... And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople:

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople:

[ Writing to Pope Leo III ]
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

[ Writing to Pope Paschal ]
Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. 43:23/44:23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

John Cassian, Monk (c. 430):

That great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the principle authority in faith and in priesthood. Tell us, therefore, we beg of you, Peter, prince of Apostles, tell us how the Churches must believe in God (Cassian, Contra Nestorium, III, 12, CSEL, vol. 17, p. 276).
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)

I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).

If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)


St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (c. 638)

Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope's) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul ... I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church. (Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461)

Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation ...the new heresy. (Sophronius, [quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, 893)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,997
Reaction score
209
Points
63
Location
Chicago
I recently came across this:

http://www.the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html

It address the issue of (mis)quotes by the Vatican, by giving the context of her proof texts.
 

Aristocles

Merarches
Joined
Apr 23, 2003
Messages
10,031
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Location
Pittsburgh
ialmisry said:
I recently came across this:

http://www.the-highway.com/Matt16.18_Webster.html

It address the issue of (mis)quotes by the Vatican, by giving the context of her proof texts.
Nice "find". Thanks.
 
Top