How does an Orthodox Christian interpret these quotes about the Bishop of Rome?

[truthseeker32]

"We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome." Bishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor of Homilies; July 30) says in 449 [Letter 25:2 to the Priest Eutyches in PL 54:742D-743A]

Is he speaking solely to a priest under the jurisdiction of Rome that is obliged to obey his bishop?


"Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man ... but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

This one seems tough.

 

[ArmyMatt]

well, in both, neither say that Rome is the infallible head of the Church, and they were written before the schism. Rome, being the cultural head and a way from many of the early heresies, had a lot of appeals to Rome because Rome, in a lot of cases was correct in her theology, and we submit to those right believing bishops. and since Rome was the first among equals, he would have been the one to appeal especially if those were written to folks under Roman jurisdiction.

 

[truthseeker32]

well, in both, neither say that Rome is the infallible head of the Church, and they were written before the schism. Rome, being the cultural head and a way from many of the early heresies, had a lot of appeals to Rome because Rome, in a lot of cases was correct in her theology, and we submit to those right believing bishops. and since Rome was the first among equals, he would have been the one to appeal especially if those were written to folks under Roman jurisdiction.

It seems to me like St. Maximus is speaking to a lot more than just a primacy of honor, and dismissing it as such seems almost akin to the atheist who refuses to acknowledge the existence of God unless he is offered irrefutable proof. Is that what it would take for an Orthodox Christian to admit Rome is right (if they are right, of course) about papal supremacy? Irrefutable proof?

 

[ArmyMatt]

no, because the Church has always been conciliar (look at Acts), so you would have to see this all over the place. you would have to see this at the Councils (you don't). and, even then, you have to know who these guys are talking to and why. it's just as bad to sola scriptura a Church Father.

I would also point out that the Oriental Orthodox and the Syriac Church of the East both left the Church before the schism. so one would think that if the Roman claim about the Pope to be accurate, that they would have a similar organization, and they don't. their bishops, at least the OO, are organized like the EO.

 

[buzuxi02]

"Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man ... but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

This one seems tough.

Nope, not tough at all. This proves that no bishop is fallible. At the time St Maximos wrote this letter, the east was immersed in the monothelete controversy. The emperor pushing for a compromise that could reunite the Orthodox with the non-chalcedonians was championing the monothelete formula with support from many eastern bishops. The bishop of Rome just like St. Maximos opposed the monothelete heresy.


When St Maximos was confronted that pope Vitalian entered communion with the east and was going to concelebrate with the Patriarch of Constantinople, the saint changed his tune. In his final letter to his spiritual child Anastasius the saint responded to the ridicule he was subject to by his opponents:

"What church do you belong to? Constantinople? Rome? Antioch? Alexandria? Jerusalem? See all of them are united, together with the provinces subject to them"....The saint replied, "The God of all pronounced that the catholic church was the correct and saving confession of the faith in Him, when he called Peter blessed because of the terms in which he made a proper confession of Him....
"If even the whole universe should begin to commune with the Patriarch, I will not commune with him. For I know from the writings of the holy Apostle Paul that the Holy Spirit will give over to anathema even the angels, if they should begin to preach any other gospel, introducing anything new."


As you can see we are all Peter's if we hold onto the correct faith, as St Maximos says above. Ironically the 6th Ecumenical council held a few years later condemned Pope Honorius as a monothelete heretic. This council commanded that all the monothelete heretics be dropped from the diptychs. And only exalted St Sophronios of Jerusalem as the champion of Orthodoxy with the command that his name should be entered in every church's diptych as he was the sole patriarch to teach the correct faith on the two wills. Thus according to this council it was Jerusalem alone who did not waiver.

 

[Wesley1982]

"We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome." Bishop St. Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna (Doctor of Homilies; July 30) says in 449 [Letter 25:2 to the Priest Eutyches in PL 54:742D-743A]

Is he speaking solely to a priest under the jurisdiction of Rome that is obliged to obey his bishop?


"Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man ... but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See." St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

This one seems tough.

They should not impose extra-requirements for obedience when such and such is not realistic or doesn't exist. You need to be relieved from your duty and requirements for obedience, if save, already be a follower of Christ.

 

[RomanRite]

no, because the Church has always been conciliar (look at Acts), so you would have to see this all over the place. you would have to see this at the Councils (you don't). and, even then, you have to know who these guys are talking to and why. it's just as bad to sola scriptura a Church Father.

I would also point out that the Oriental Orthodox and the Syriac Church of the East both left the Church before the schism. so one would think that if the Roman claim about the Pope to be accurate, that they would have a similar organization, and they don't. their bishops, at least the OO, are organized like the EO.

The Copts have a Pope, but then again he may be just as equal as all the other Orthodox Bishops in the Oriental Church, correct?

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Copts have a Pope, but then again he may be just as equal as all the other Orthodox Bishops in the Oriental Church, correct?

yeah, that is just a title, like the EO Patriarch of Alexandria (I think) is called the Pope as well in his official title. but neither are viewed as infallible or having universal jurisdiction.

 

[RomanRite]

yeah, that is just a title, like the EO Patriarch of Alexandria (I think) is called the Pope as well in his official title. but neither are viewed as infallible or having universal jurisdiction.

That's interesting. The EO Bishops only have authority over their own Jurisdiction corect?

 

[ArmyMatt]

That's interesting. The EO Bishops only have authority over their own Jurisdiction corect?

yep

 

[27B6]

...

 

[Misha777]

First of all, neither quote rises to the level of Holy Tradition. You have to have a consensus of the Fathers for that. Second, the Church Fathers saw Christ's words about "upon this Rock" to refer to either Himself or to the confession of St. Peter, not St. Peter himself and certainly not as the first of a line of infallible bishops of Rome. The fact is that before the schism of Rome during the patriarchate of St. Photius, Rome enjoyed a good, though not perfect (see Pope Honorius) reputation regarding doctrinal orthodoxy. The quotes should be seen in this light.

 

[RKO]

The second quote is a toughie. The part where it says that one must be "in communion" with Rome doesn't leave much to be argued, in my opinion. (please know that I'm not here ARGUING this point as a Catholic. I'm trying to figure all this out, too.)
However, I suppose it could be said that since Orthodox believe Rome went into schism, at some point after that quote, the Bishop of Rome "went off the tracks," which allowed the Orthodox to be ok without being in communion with Rome. HArd to know, and another reason why this will probably always be debated and never resolved between the 2 Churches.

 

[truthseeker32]

First of all, neither quote rises to the level of Holy Tradition. You have to have a consensus of the Fathers for that. Second, the Church Fathers saw Christ's words about "upon this Rock" to refer to either Himself or to the confession of St. Peter, not St. Peter himself and certainly not as the first of a line of infallible bishops of Rome. The fact is that before the schism of Rome during the patriarchate of St. Photius, Rome enjoyed a good, though not perfect (see Pope Honorius) reputation regarding doctrinal orthodoxy. The quotes should be seen in this light.

To be more precise, some Church Fathers saw the rock as Peter's confession or Christ as the rock, but many also saw Peter, in some way, being the rock. This also harmonizes with the modern scholarly consensus. Given the way the verses are spoken it seems clear that Christ is calling peter a rock. Otherwise, why wouldn't Christ have said "I am a rock" or "your confession is a rock"?

 

[ArmyMatt]

To be more precise, some Church Fathers saw the rock as Peter's confession or Christ as the rock, but many also saw Peter, in some way, being the rock. This also harmonizes with the modern scholarly consensus. Given the way the verses are spoken it seems clear that Christ is calling peter a rock. Otherwise, why wouldn't Christ have said "I am a rock" or "your confession is a rock"?

yes, He called Peter the rock because he was the one who confessed it. the confession itself is nothing without the willing heart like Peter's heart is. so anyone willing who does confess, Christ says to them, you are the rock. Fr George Calciu said this to students living under atheist communism. the largest plurality of commentary on that quote supports the confession as the rock.

plus, if you look at the Revelation, the foundation stones of the New Jerusalem are the Apostles

 

[Joseph Hazen]

Isn't the St. Maximus one held to be a forgery? I think I'd read that somewhere once.

 

[truthseeker32]

Isn't the St. Maximus one held to be a forgery? I think I'd read that somewhere once.

Interesting. If you come across the source for that claim I would love to have it, Joseph.

 

[gzt]

I think Orthodox would definitely agree that, before the Schism, Rome was certainly special in some way and a bastion of orthodoxy. In certain disputes, it could be relied on. However, it was apparently not an infallible charism and they have fallen.

 

[ArmyMatt]

I think Orthodox would definitely agree that, before the Schism, Rome was certainly special in some way and a bastion of orthodoxy. In certain disputes, it could be relied on. However, it was apparently not an infallible charism and they have fallen.

yep, Rome was very solid against many heresies, and since it was the center of the Empire for so long, it had a lot of educated folk.

 

[truefiction1]

Rather than appealing to sayings and such, why not simply appeal to reality? In reality, no man can ever have supreme, unquestionable authority, nor infallibility attributed to him, because no man, nor even any group of men, is/are supremely authoritative or infallible, nor ever will be. Supreme authority and infallibility belong to God alone.

"Peter", the "rock" is a typology for all those who would follow in the kind of faith that he expressed. It is Peter's faith in Christ that is the substance that keeps the Church alive. This faith is alive in all true believers in Christ, so all true believers are Peter. Some Roman popes did not typify Peter's faith, and so these were obviously not "rocks", but rather ugly tares that had grown up from amidst the rocks, defacing or covering the beauty of the precious stones whose faith it was that has kept the Church alive despite all the nonsense.