How can the Orthodox deny the Authority of Peter and his successors in Rome?

[St Antony]

In light of Matthew 16:18?

 

[127.0.0.1]

Easy... we just interpret it differently.
jk


Okay, okay.

18 And I tell you that you are Peter,[a] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[b] will not overcome it.

So, he's Peter, got that. And on Peter is built the Church... mmmk, so what is the Church? is the Church....whoever rules from Rome?, Doesn't say that here. So, really no mention is made here of Peter's successors, or even of Rome. Thusly, I would say this verse confirms that Peter is the rock of the Faith and... it says nothing about those who come after Peter.

Otherwise... Peter's successor could be a total heretic and we've have no way of excommunicating him because the Church would be by definition whatever Peter & his successors says it is... As opposed to the Church being an actual thing which exists outside of Peter & his successors.

 

[ArmyMatt]

because the plurality of Church Fathers said that it was his confession of faith and not him.

none of them put the kind of authority that modern Rome has on the Pope.

Popes have been corrected by councils and have been heretics.

Antioch was founded by St Peter and never made any special elevation for that fact, and St Peter actually functioned as a bishop in Antioch unlike in Rome.

that quote says nothing about those whom St Peter would ordain, and makes no claim to any city.

 

[Lukaris]

Until 1054, this was not universally understood then the Orthodox Church was excommunicated for not accepting this. A falsified document like the Donation of Constantine: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Donation of Constantine was used to try to justify this (regrettably many sincere Catholic authorities innocently cited it as genuine).

 

[St Antony]

Doesn't the Orthodox Church claim authority for its Patriarch based on the fact that he is the Bishop of Constantinople, the New Rome (Nova Roma) established by Constantine in 330 AD? Essentially, Rome's status as the primary See legitimized Constantinople's position because Constantine declared it the New Rome. If Rome's status as the See of St. Peter (and St. Paul) does not establish it's primacy, then doesn't that destroy any claim of Constantinople's Patriarch over the other Orthodox Churches and also the older Sees of Antioch and Jerusalem, since Constantine couldn't transfer what didn't exist?

 

[ArmyMatt]

Constantinople has no headship over the other jurisdictions. all bishops are equal successors to the Apostles. certain Sees have a primacy of honor due to the historicity and importance of the See, but that does not mean jurisdictional headship in the new Roman sense.

 

[Resha Caner]

Constantinople has no headship over the other jurisdictions. all bishops are equal successors to the Apostles. certain Sees have a primacy of honor due to the historicity and importance of the See, but that does not mean jurisdictional headship in the new Roman sense.

Understood. The Patriarch shouldn't attempt to hold jurisdictional headship. But haven't a few Patriarchs throughout history attempted to grab power in a manner similar to the Pope?

 

[buzuxi02]

Doesn't the Orthodox Church claim authority for its Patriarch based on the fact that he is the Bishop of Constantinople, the New Rome (Nova Roma) established by Constantine in 330 AD? Essentially, Rome's status as the primary See legitimized Constantinople's position because Constantine declared it the New Rome. If Rome's status as the See of St. Peter (and St. Paul) does not establish it's primacy, then doesn't that destroy any claim of Constantinople's Patriarch over the other Orthodox Churches and also the older Sees of Antioch and Jerusalem, since Constantine couldn't transfer what didn't exist?

No, Constantinople's position destroys the claims of Rome. If you actually read the canons Rome was placed in the first place because it was the capital of the empire- No other reason. So when the Senate relocated from Rome to Constantinople it became the new capital, hence new rome. It was then approprately elevated to the second place, holding all things equal to it, but ranking second only in seniority. It has nothing to do with Jesus, His Mother or the apostles. Why do you think Alexandria held the second place and not Antioch? Because Alexandria was the second most prestigious city, it was the intellectual center of the empire, Antioch being inferior ranked as the third most important urban center, not because apostles visited one city more than the other.

In other words the Church claims authority for the Patriarch because the canons bestowed authority upon him, the very same canons that bestowed authority and priveleges to Rome and Alecandria, Antioch and finally to Jerusalem.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Understood. The Patriarch shouldn't attempt to hold jurisdictional headship. But haven't a few Patriarchs throughout history attempted to grab power in a manner similar to the Pope?

yeah, but never to his extent, and the Church as a whole was always there to correct them. there is only One Supreme Pontiff, and His Throne is at the Father's Right Hand, not in Rome.

 

[Resha Caner]

yeah, but never to his extent, and the Church as a whole was always there to correct them. there is only One Supreme Pontiff, and His Throne is at the Father's Right Hand, not in Rome.

The Church was there to correct the bishop of Rome as well. Why do you think the result was different?

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Church was there to correct the bishop of Rome as well. Why do you think the result was different?

Rome did not want to listen like she did in earlier centuries.

 

[Resha Caner]

Rome did not want to listen like she did in earlier centuries.

That seems a bit simplistic. Don't get me wrong, as a Lutheran I fully believe Rome needed to be curtailed - reformed. And I do think the Orthodox Church took a different path. But I think the explanation may be rooted in more of the historical details.

For example, as a Lutheran I also have a two kingdoms view. In the east there remained a secular authority committed (at least somewhat) to the Church, which possibly provided the balance that was missing in the west. With the fall of the Roman Empire, I believe it has been posited that the RCC stepped into the power vacuum - a dangerous thing to do even if it seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

if you look back when the Pope tried to excommunicate a certain sect (I forget the name) who celebrated Easter at a different time, it was the Church, voiced by St Irenaeus of Lyons, who told him he was overstepping his bounds. Pope Vigillus was excommunicated by a council and repented, Pope Honorius was anathematized for heresy. yeah, it is more complex, but the bottom line is that the Church always corrected bishop power grabs

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

In light of Matthew 16:18?

Here in St Justin's subforum is a "Saint Peter Primacy" thread were you can find that there are far more quotes from the fathers of the church pointing to unity to Rome's Bishop than any quote (which I have been unable to receive from EO) pointing against the unity with the bishop of Rome.

 

[buzuxi02]

With the fall of the Roman Empire, I believe it has been posited that the RCC stepped into the power vacuum - a dangerous thing to do even if it seemed like a good idea at the time.

Well there is some truth to that. The changes of the papacy took place when the byzantine popes were replaced with the frankish ones. Now back to the power vacuum thing. While it was a dangerous thing because of the arrogance. I still think it more dangerous relinquishing that power to the enlighteners in the 19th century.

I see it as an abrogation to lead. What has the west achieved by the church relinquishing authority to the secular? Humanism, 2 world wars, consumerism, loss of community.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Here in St Justin's subforum is a "Saint Peter Primacy" thread were you can find that there are far more quotes from the fathers of the church pointing to unity to Rome's Bishop than any quote (which I have been unable to receive from EO) pointing against the unity with the bishop of Rome.

actually, what you will see is flowery language about certain Popes, headship attributed to the Pope, and certain people who just assume that headship means back then, what Rome believes about herself today. no one denies the headship of Rome prior to the schism. what we disagree on are what that means and whether or not Rome still has it.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

actually, what you will see is flowery language about certain Popes, headship attributed to the Pope, and certain people who just assume that headship means back then, what Rome believes about herself today. no one denies the headship of Rome prior to the schism. what we disagree on are what that means and whether or not Rome still has it.

That is not accurate with the quotes I brought there, You can read that Saint Ignatious of Antioch refers to the Church of Rome wich presides over Charity, he is not pointing any particular pope, and you can read Saint Cyprian refering to the See of Peter which is among the Romans, again he is not pointing a particular pope.

You can also read that Saint Athanasius of Alexandria refers to at least two popes, Julius and succesors of him as defenders of the orthodoxy of the faith against greek arrians, particularly bishops of Antioch and Constantinople.

 

[isshinwhat]

Regarding St. Cyprian, it is a mistake to read his writing out of context and believe him to be speaking of Rome in particular, as even the Catholic Encyclopedia states:

This celebrated pamphlet was read by its author to the council which met in April, that he might get the support of the bishops against the schism started by Felicissimus and Novatus, who had a large following. The unity with which St. Cyprian deals is not so much the unity of the whole Church, the necessity of which he rather postulates, as the unity to be kept in each diocese by union with the bishop; the unity of the whole Church is maintained by the close union of the bishops who are "glued to one another", hence whosoever is not with his bishop is cut off from the unity of the Church and cannot be united to Christ; the type of the bishop is St. Peter, the first bishop. Protestant controversialists have attributed to St. Cyprian the absurd argument that Christ said to Peter what He really meant for all, in order to give a type or picture of unity. What St. Cyprian really says is simply this, that Christ, using the metaphor of an edifice, founds His Church on a single foundation which shall manifest and ensure its unity. And as Peter is the foundation, binding the whole Church together, so in each diocese is the bishop. With this one argument Cyprian claims to cut at the root of all heresies and schisms. It has been a mistake to find any reference to Rome in this passage (Treatise on Unity 4).

 

[ArmyMatt]

You can read that Saint Ignatious of Antioch refers to the Church of Rome wich presides over Charity, he is not pointing any particular pope, and you can read Saint Cyprian refering to the See of Peter which is among the Romans, again he is not pointing a particular pope.

and St Cyprian was called the antichrist by St Stephen, Pope of Rome and the Church sided with St Cyprian OVER the Pope in reference to how St Cyprian was receiving schismatics. St Irenaeus of Lyons corrected the Pope (Vincent I think) on the "Calendar for Easter" issue. in both cases, the Church sided with Western Bishops OVER the Pope.

You can also read that Saint Athanasius of Alexandria refers to at least two popes, Julius and succesors of him as defenders of the orthodoxy of the faith against greek arrians, particularly bishops of Antioch and Constantinople.

I have no doubt, there were many correct believing Popes back in the day, and so they should be followed because they were correct. since the Pope has fallen away, we do not just follow him because he is Pope if he holds heretical errors.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]Emperor Justinian (520-533)[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]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). [/FONT]​

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]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? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter and Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. 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)

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 pursuade 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, accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme 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). [/FONT]​

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715)[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]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.) [/FONT]​

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]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 usuage, 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[/FONT]​