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

[Alonso_Castillo]

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:

West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage in 252 [Epistle 59:14 in PL ],

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.

 

[ArmyMatt]

West: Bishop St. Cyprian the Martyr of Carthage in 252 [Epistle 59:14 in PL ],

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.

you know when he had his later tiff with the Pope, he edited that letter, right? and I would also point out that does not change that the Pope at the time called him antichrist, and that the Church sided with St Cyprian over the Pope when the Pope tried to force Carthage to be more lenient toward the reception of schismatics.

 

[ArmyMatt]

[FONT=arial, helvetica, verdana, sans-serif]

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

[/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]​

funny you bring him up, since he also refused to say that one of the Trinity suffered on the Cross

[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]​

and these quotes and the other assume a RIGHTLY believing Pope. if you cannot show that the Orthodox belief that Rome fell away is true, these quotes would no longer apply to the Pope since he is outside the communion that they are talking about.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

1. First the larger can't break from the smaller, only the smaller may seperate from the larger, basic logic, nor can the head seperate itself from the body, the leader does not rebel, he leads. The EO left the Roman Catholic Church, if all these people and there are many more rightly belivied that the Pope was the head of the Church, and the Bishop of Rome held primacy then ergo by leaving they split from the mother church.

Second we all know the schism was mostly political not really a matter of faith and the orthodox returning to the mother church was blocked by the Ottoman Sultan, who in essence picked the Patriarch and controlled the Eastern Chruch (with the exception of the RO church) until the early 20th cent.

We also know that the Russian ODC will never reunite becuase Putin will not allow it.

THe OD church is more of a national and ethnic church while the Roman Catholic Church is the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ

 

[Erth]

In light of Matthew 16:18?

Your question is three questions:

1. How can the Orthodox deny St Peter's authority?
2. How can the Orthodox deny the Catholic Pope's authority?
3. How do you interpret Matthew 16:18?


Answers:

1. We don't. The denial of some later Bishops of Rome came after the schism, and it is not a question of a denial of St Peter's authority.
2. There is a bilateral schism. Before the schism there was no agreement on the idea that all Bishops receive their authority from the current Bishop of Rome. Only Catholics believe that to be the case. The Orthodox think that the Church of Rome changed her position, while the rest of the Church is intact in her position on how Bishops receive their mandate from God.
3. St Peter is the rock that God has built His Church on. Nothing is said about later Bishops of Rome.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Your question is three questions:

1. How can the Orthodox deny St Peter's authority?
2. How can the Orthodox deny the Catholic Pope's authority?
3. How do you interpret Matthew 16:18?


Answers:

1. We don't. The denial of some later Bishops of Rome came after the schism, and it is not a question of a denial of St Peter's authority.
2. There is a bilateral schism. Before the schism there was no agreement on the idea that all Bishops receive their authority from the current Bishop of Rome. Only Catholics believe that to be the case. The Orthodox think that the Church of Rome changed her position, while the rest of the Church is intact in her position on how Bishops receive their mandate from God.
3. St Peter is the rock that God has built His Church on. Nothing is said about later Bishops of Rome.

1)The Pope derives his authority from the primacy of Peter since the early years of the church the Bishop of Rome held primacy and was the leader of the Christian World.
2) No the Orthodox Changed her position for political and temporal reasons. Therefore they rebelled against the Church.
3) apostolic succession is a huge part of both of our churches

 

[Magnus Maximus]

sorry double post

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

1. First the larger can't break from the smaller, only the smaller may seperate from the larger, basic logic, nor can the head seperate itself from the body, the leader does not rebel, he leads. The EO left the Roman Catholic Church, if all these people and there are many more rightly belivied that the Pope was the head of the Church, and the Bishop of Rome held primacy then ergo by leaving they split from the mother church.

Second we all know the schism was mostly political not really a matter of faith and the orthodox returning to the mother church was blocked by the Ottoman Sultan, who in essence picked the Patriarch and controlled the Eastern Chruch (with the exception of the RO church) until the early 20th cent.

We also know that the Russian ODC will never reunite becuase Putin will not allow it.

THe OD church is more of a national and ethnic church while the Roman Catholic Church is the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ

even if Patriarch Bartholomew I wants reunion, he may be declared a Papis heretic, We have to take into account that the EO don't regard bishops as the authoritative voice of the church. So even if their bishops call them to communion with the catholic church, they simply would reject them all as they did with Palamas. Patriarchs Athenagoras, Demetrios and Bartholomew have been walking towars reunion with popes Paul VI, John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, and Pope Francis. some orthodox Bishops of the Patriarchates of Antioch, Alezandria, Jerusalem, Cyprus and Rumania have also met the Popes.

In fact I believe Patriarch Bartholomew have meet more times with the Popes than any of the First millenium patriarchs of Constantinople from the fundation of Constantinople to the schism of 1054.

I have read many many orthodox priests degrading him as a patriarch that is compromising orthodoxy.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

You've been reading too much Catholic apologetics from Catholic Answers and the apologetics machinery of EWTN and Catholic radio.

Read "The Primacy of Peter" by Father John Meyendorff. I double dare ya. Read it. I would defy you to refute his historical, biblical, and patristic points that flat out blow away the Catholic views of the papacy.

There are arguments that can be made against Orthodoxy's not being a part of Catholicism, but the arguments you make here are just plain BAD ones. There was a pentarchy. Five patriarchs united as One Church. They didn't rebel and break off, as you put it, from the Pope. The Pope's clan broke off from Holy Orthodoxy. And since then have descended into an abyss of sex scandal, corruption, theological messes that look NOTHING like the ancient church, and finally awfully disgraceful Protestant-like liturgical abuse to the point that the Catholic Mass looks practically nothing like the ancient Western rites.

The Pentarchy didn't break off. Rome did. We didn't march into your cathedrals and throw down excommunication bullas. That was the West. We didn't try to unilaterally alter the Creed after previously saying we wouldn't do so. We didn't Judaize our Eucharist and take the leaven out of it and go back steps in the wrong direction. We didn't allow Charlemagne and his goons to intimidate us into the filioque position. Carolinians didn't force our hands. The Pentarchy continued well after the papacy and the West broke off. They continued the ancient polity, ancient theology, ancient liturgy, and the correct Orthodox teachings that thrive today.

Meanwhile Catholicism fell into its errors living in a vacuum.

You are living in a world of soundbites. You get on Catholic websites, receive your marching orders from some out-of-context quotes, mix them with some arguments given you by Scott Hahn and Steven Ray and the apologetics powers that be, and you don't read the entire works from which these quotes came. That's a huge problem.

The Ancient Church didn't function with this "supreme pontiff" lording over the entire Church. It just didn't work that way. You need to understand a primacy of honor, the reality that primacy doesn't equate to exclusivity or supremacy or infallibility or universal dictatorship. Doesn't work that way. Christianity WAS AND IS messy! The Councils (none of which the popes attended btw!) were messy! There was fighting, arguing, serious theological disagreement, and eventually prayer, consensus, and rich theology given. There were plenty of times the Church either flat out ignored the teachings or platitudes of the popes and other times they all-out disagreed with them and went against them. St. John Chrysostom, our Father Among the Saints, spent most of his blessed life out of communion with the Pope.

The Church allowed appeals. When clergy felt they were wrongly-treated or misjudged by their synods, they were allowed to appeal that decision before other jurisdictions. If a bishop under the Patriarch of Antioch felt he was wrongly deposed or judged, he could go to the Patriarch of Constantinople or the Patriarch of Jerusalem or the Patriarch of Antioch or the Patriarch of Rome, on and on. Many appealed to Constantinople, many to Rome, many to the others. The Bishop of Rome held great esteem (as he should!). Not only was Peter martyred in Rome, but also Paul! It was the old capital of the Empire, and great wealth and power existed in that See. Rome was right on many things. The Popes DID regularly make the right calls and fall on the right side of history. Pope St. Gregory, Pope St. Leo the Great, there were great men in Rome. Clement, on and on....

Keep in mind how many times Rome has used forgeries and false texts to "prooftext" their anachronistic claims. The Florilogia comes to mind along with the "Donation of Constantine!"

We have to look at things holistically. Between the many times that popes were ignored, the times we see a pope actually encourage a heresy (Pope Honorius not only WROTE his private heretical teachings to Sergius, he also sent his deacon Gaius to the Synod of Cyprus to ADVOCATE for monothelitism according to St. Maximos!), and the way things played out in the "Photian Schism" along with many great saints like St. John Chrysostom who lived for most if not all of their lives outside of communion with Rome coupled with the reality that men like St. Cyprian were willing to take on the popes while remembering that the Schism originated NOT in the East but in the West, there is no argument hardly at all that holds water.

Rome left Holy Orthodoxy. The tree's fruits are quite evident in 2014. Watered-down happy-clappy modernist liturgy, scandal, bad theology (infallibility, indulgences, purgatory, pandering to Islam and seeing Islam as the first saved after Catholics, poor Mariology, legalistic mindsets) it all shows nothing in common with Orthodoxy.

The Schism wasn't political, it was theological. Still is. And you guys are still dead wrong.

THANKS BE TO GOD FOR ST. MARK OF EPHESUS!

1)The Pope derives his authority from the primacy of Peter since the early years of the church the Bishop of Rome held primacy and was the leader of the Christian World.
2) No the Orthodox Changed her position for political and temporal reasons. Therefore they rebelled against the Church.
3) apostolic succession is a huge part of both of our churches

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

He is a weak patriarch. Most Orthodox do feel that way. Thanks be to God we are a Church with many patriarchs and don't put our eggs in one basket! Reunion won't happen, thankfully, because the Ecumenical Patriarch is alone in his cozy warm fuzzies toward the West.

I have read many many orthodox priests degrading him as a patriarch that is compromising orthodoxy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

1. First the larger can't break from the smaller, only the smaller may seperate from the larger, basic logic, nor can the head seperate itself from the body, the leader does not rebel, he leads. The EO left the Roman Catholic Church, if all these people and there are many more rightly belivied that the Pope was the head of the Church, and the Bishop of Rome held primacy then ergo by leaving they split from the mother church.

actually it can. numbers is not what we are talking about, but who holds onto the correct faith. even if only one Orthodox parish maintains the faith, Orthodoxy is complete and full. a large dead hunk of tree can fall away and die from a smaller, alive part.

Second we all know the schism was mostly political not really a matter of faith and the orthodox returning to the mother church was blocked by the Ottoman Sultan, who in essence picked the Patriarch and controlled the Eastern Chruch (with the exception of the RO church) until the early 20th cent.

no

We also know that the Russian ODC will never reunite becuase Putin will not allow it.

no, it won't happen because Russia knows Rome is in heresy. they knew that long before, and will know that long after Putin.

THe OD church is more of a national and ethnic church while the Roman Catholic Church is the Universal Church of our Lord Jesus Christ

aside from being wrong, even if that were true, being ethnic has nothing to do with Truth

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Doesn't it crack you up how Catholic apologists are obsessed with Putin right now? LOL...somehow he is the de facto leader of the Russian Church....(eye roll)

actually it can. numbers is not what we are talking about, but who holds onto the correct faith. even if only one Orthodox parish maintains the faith, Orthodoxy is complete and full. a large dead hunk of tree can fall away and die from a smaller, alive part.



no



no, it won't happen because Russia knows Rome is in heresy. they knew that long before, and will know that long after Putin.



aside from being wrong, even if that were true, being ethnic has nothing to do with Truth

 

[Magnus Maximus]

Logic dictates if the church held that The Pope was greatest among equals and Petrine Primacy then by breaking with the Pope you rebelled against the authority of the Church.

and yes the ethnic component is a huge part of the Orthodox chirch, further for years the Ottomans picked you EP, so who knows who accurate your doctrine is after being under the sway of Islam for so long (except in Russia). Likley had you not been under the sway of the Ottomans we would have reunited already, just like all the times over the years we broke and came back together.

When the Ottoman Turksconquered Constantinople in 1453, the Patriarchate ceased to function. The Patriarchate was restored by the conquering Islamic Ottoman ruler, Sultan Mehmed II, who wished to establish his dynasty as the direct heirs of the Eastern Roman Emperors, and who adopted the imperial title Kayser-i-Rûm "Caesar of Rome", one of his subsidiary titles but a most significant one. He bestowed the office of Patriarch in 1454 to the illustrious Byzantine scholar-monk George Scholarius, who was well known for his opposition to union with the Latin West, who took the name of Gennadius II.

So you can see it was the Turks and the fact they picked the Orthodox Patriarch kept us apart for so many years. By the time the yoke of Ottoman rule was thrown off the split had been to long and too old.

Here is some more info:

After the fall of Constantinople, Gennadius was taken prisoner by the Turks. In administering his new conquest, 21-year old conquering Sultan Mehmed II wished to assure the loyalty of the Greek population and above all avoid them appealing to the West for liberation, potentially sparking a new round of Crusades. Mehmed therefore sought the most anti-Western cleric he could find as a figure of unity for the Greeks under Turkish rule – and Gennadius as leading anti-Union figure was a natural choice. On 1 June 1453, just three days after the fall of the city, the new Patriarch's procession passed through the streets where Mehmed received Gennadius graciously and himself invested him with the signs of his office – the crosier (dikanikion) and mantle. This ceremonial investiture would be repeated by all Sultans and Patriarchs thereafter.

 

[Magnus Maximus]

So in essence the Eastern Church Rebelled, fell under the sway of the Ottomans in which the Muslim Sultan formally invested the Patriarch and intentionally kept east and west apart.

So you traded the Primacy of Peter for the Primacy of the Sultan (except Russia)

Had we not split I really wonder if we could have musterd enough forces in the west to keep you free from Turkish rule. Generally the Turks were defeated when the fought western Armies on European Soil. I think our lack of unity lead to this, maybe that was our Punishment for violating Christs command that we be one.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Logic dictates if the church held that The Pope was greatest among equals and Petrine Primacy then by breaking with the Pope you rebelled against the authority of the Church.

that's the issue, because the Pope put himself above the other bishops CEASING TO BE GREATEST AMONG EQUALS. it is also ironic looking at that, because it was the Church who sided with St Cyprian of Carthage and not the Pope concerning the Carthaginian practice of baptizing those who fell away during persecution. it was the Church who sided with St Irenaeus of Lyons concerning the controversy of the Pope wanting to force those who celebrated Easter always on the 14th, and St Ireneaus said to leave them alone. it was the Church that excommunicated Pope Vigilius for a while. it was the Church that anathematized Honorius. it was the Church that stated in Canon 6 of Nicaea that Rome should keep her customs and let Africa fall under Alexandria, and the East under Antioch. it was the Church at the Second Council on Canon 2 that affirms that Egypt is under Alexandria, the East to manage the East ALONE, Asia to manage Asia ONLY, the Pontic bishops ONLY to Pontic matters, and Thracian bishops ONLY to Thracian affairs. it was also the Church, at Constantinople that allowed Melitus of Antioch to preside, chosen by the Emperor and not the Pope. it was Pope Hormisdas who refused to say that one of the Trinity suffered. it was the Church who ratified and acted on the Third Council before the Roman delegation (of three) got there. and at the 4th Council the Tome was not even used as the bulk of the definition, but rather the Formula of Reunion of 433. St Leo's Tome, was only used and exclaimed upon after it was read and looked at by a committee because they were worried that it sounded Nestorian.

and yes the ethnic component is a huge part of the Orthodox chirch, further for years the Ottomans picked you EP, so who knows who accurate your doctrine is after being under the sway of Islam for so long (except in Russia). Likley had you not been under the sway of the Ottomans we would have reunited already, just like all the times over the years we broke and came back together.

When the Ottoman Turksconquered Constantinople in 1453, the Patriarchate ceased to function. The Patriarchate was restored by the conquering Islamic Ottoman ruler, Sultan Mehmed II, who wished to establish his dynasty as the direct heirs of the Eastern Roman Emperors, and who adopted the imperial title Kayser-i-Rûm "Caesar of Rome", one of his subsidiary titles but a most significant one. He bestowed the office of Patriarch in 1454 to the illustrious Byzantine scholar-monk George Scholarius, who was well known for his opposition to union with the Latin West, who took the name of Gennadius II.

So you can see it was the Turks and the fact they picked the Orthodox Patriarch kept us apart for so many years. By the time the yoke of Ottoman rule was thrown off the split had been to long and too old.

Here is some more info:

After the fall of Constantinople, Gennadius was taken prisoner by the Turks. In administering his new conquest, 21-year old conquering Sultan Mehmed II wished to assure the loyalty of the Greek population and above all avoid them appealing to the West for liberation, potentially sparking a new round of Crusades. Mehmed therefore sought the most anti-Western cleric he could find as a figure of unity for the Greeks under Turkish rule – and Gennadius as leading anti-Union figure was a natural choice. On 1 June 1453, just three days after the fall of the city, the new Patriarch's procession passed through the streets where Mehmed received Gennadius graciously and himself invested him with the signs of his office – the crosier (dikanikion) and mantle. This ceremonial investiture would be repeated by all Sultans and Patriarchs thereafter.

this would only be a problem for us if our ecclesiology was like yours. since it does not matter how many Patriarchs are hand selected by whichever erroneous group was in power, since all our bishops are equal we have enough bishop martyrs who stood for the faith and kept it, even if Constantinople was wrong or a political stooge of the Turks.

and as far as the ethnic thing goes, that is merely a unique problem in the West due to mass migrations because of radical Islam and Communism. it will be solved, and the Church has yet to put ethnicity OVER theology. just ask our new sister Anastasia.

So in essence the Eastern Church Rebelled, fell under the sway of the Ottomans in which the Muslim Sultan formally invested the Patriarch and intentionally kept east and west apart.

actually, it was the Orthodox deacon who chased down Cardinal Humbert to try to heal the issue. and guys like St Mark of Ephesus come to mind as well.

So you traded the Primacy of Peter for the Primacy of the Sultan (except Russia)

completely incorrect and has nothing to do with theology. plus Antioch traces herself to Peter, so we traded nothing.

Had we not split I really wonder if we could have musterd enough forces in the west to keep you free from Turkish rule. Generally the Turks were defeated when the fought western Armies on European Soil. I think our lack of unity lead to this, maybe that was our Punishment for violating Christs command that we be one.

nice way to look at God's blessing in terms of worldly power......much like the Muslim Turks.

 

[ArmyMatt]

We have to take into account that the EO don't regard bishops as the authoritative voice of the church.

you're right, only Christ is. He works through the Church as a whole, and not just one or many of the clergy.

they simply would reject them all as they did with Palamas.

you mean St Mark of Ephesus. a council in Constantinople confirmed his teaching on hesychasm.

I have read many many orthodox priests degrading him as a patriarch that is compromising orthodoxy.

not in his meetings with them, but other stuff he does.

and to give credit where credit is due:

“Speaking years ago to our Roman Catholic brothers I pointed out the path regularly followed by the Roman Catholic Church by accepting more and new doctrines, and in its journey towards our Church, instead of converging towards union, it has departed and driven further apart one another” -EP Bartholemew

 

[JeremiahsBulldog]

In the early 1800s, after the tumultuous events of the revolution and the rise of Napoleon, the RC church of France came close to separating from Rome and forming a "Gallican" church, as England had earlier formed an "Anglican" church. This led to a prolonged struggle between two French Catholic factions: the "Gallican" theologians who supported a national French church, and the "Ultramontanes" who supported maintaining union with Rome under papal primacy.

Among the theologians caught up in the debate was Abbé (Fr) Réné-Francois Guettée. His research into the history of the Church of Rome, led him to abandon both RC factions and convert to Orthodoxy. He wrote several books about the history of the papacy. One, La Papauté schismatique, ou Rome dans ses rapports avec l'Eglise orientale (Orthodoxe) ("The Schismatic Papacy . . ." ), was translated into English as The Papacy: Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches. In that book are the answers you're looking for. It explains every biblical and patristic quote taken out of context by RC theologians.

There's a link to his bio here. There are two links to the complete text of The Papacy book near the bottom of the page.

There's a link to a page with more info about how EO respond to the RCC here. There's yet another link to the whole text of The Papacy near the bottom of that page.

BTW. the Ultramontanes "won" in 1870 when the council of Vatican I not only reiterated Papal Primacy, but also, for the first time, declared Papal Infallibility. But Guette, Baptized with the Orthodox name "Vladimir", continued to speak the truth about the papacy until his death in 1892.

 

[Peter the Roman]

FYI the church sided with Pope St Stephen over St Cyprian on the issue of baptism of heretics. St. Augustine further accounts with regards to his dispute with the Pope that St Cyprian"atoned for his sins through martydom"

 

[Dialogist]

In light of Matthew 16:18?

I scanned the previous responses to this question, but I did not see anyone point out that this Scripture was never understood by the early Church Fathers (to my knowledge) to mean that the Lord built His Church specifically on the person of St. Peter.

The Lord calls Simon Bar-Jonah by the Greek name Petros, which carries a masculine gender, whereas He refers to the rock upon which He will build His Church by a related but different word for "rock", which carries a feminine gender (petra). The word petra represents a rock foundation (i.e. "bedrock"), whereas the word petros signifies a piece of rock rather than a foundation.

(I can't help observing here that since Bar-Jonah means "son of Jonah" in Hebrew, Peter's full name could be approximately translated in English as "Rock Johnson")

To whit, as far as I know the consensus of the Church Fathers was that the rock-petra that the Lord spoke of referred to the truth of St. Peter's confession of faith and not St. Peter himself. We can see this, for example, in the writings of both St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine (both of whom are considered Saints and Doctors within the Roman Catholic Church). In his 54th Homily on the Gospel According to St. Matthew, John Chrysostom writes, "And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build My Church; that is, on the faith of his confession." Similarly, Augustine writes in his 10th Homily on the First Epistle of John,

And Peter answered and said, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. And this he heard from the Lord: Blessed are you, Simon Barjona; for flesh and blood has not revealed it unto you, but my Father which is in heaven. See what praises follow this faith. You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church. What means, Upon this rock I will build my Church? Upon this faith; upon this that has been said, You are the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Upon this rock, says He, I will build my Church.​

If anyone is aware of any Latin or Greek Church Father that maintained something other than what Sts. Augustine and John Chrysostom seem to have affirmed in the late 4th/early 5th century, I would be interested in learning about them.

Is the idea that the Lord built His Church upon the person of St. Peter (rather than on the faith confessed by St. Peter) Roman Catholic dogma or simply theologoumena (theological opinion) of certain individuals?