www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ut unum sint

When the Holy Father became Pope in 1978 he made the statement that he would consider his Papacy a failure if he did not manage to reunite the Catholic and Orthodox churches. At the moment the Holy Father is fighting for his life. I'm quite certain the only reason his body doesnt give up on him is out of his slavic stubborness. Without a doubt, I believe only his tenacity keeps him going, his firm and unbending belief that there is more for him to do in Peter's See.

But he's running out of time...

There's only so far willpower can carry the body when its in the state His Holiness' is in, and no-one woud deny that. So I am making this appeal in the name of our beloved Pope for a sober and serious discussion in answer to the Pope's request that we address the issue of Papal primacy in light of East-West Ecumenical concerns.

After this post I will also post a series of quotations taken from the Patristic period. I do not wish for these to be seen as some kind of apologetic device with which to "beat" the Orthodox with etc. But I would invite, in light of our present circumstances, all members of this board to look at them without bias and see how they can be applied in accordance with this vision, which comes from His Holiness' encyclical letter 'Ut Unum Sint' after which is the title of this thread:

St Ignatius of Antioch

"Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

"You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1).

St Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"A question of no small importance arose at that time [A.D. 190]. For the parishes of all Asia [Minor], as from an older tradition held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Savior�s Passover. . . . But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world . . . as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast [of Lent] on no other day than on that of the resurrection of the Savior [Sunday]. Synods and assemblies of bishops were held on this account, and all, with one consent, through mutual correspondence drew up an ecclesiastical decree that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be celebrated on no other but the Lord�s day and that we should observe the close of the paschal fast on this day only. . . . Thereupon [Pope] Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the community the parishes of all Asia [Minor], with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox. And he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops, and they besought him to consider the things of peace and of neighborly unity and love. . . . [Irenaeus] fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom" (Church History 5:23:1�24:11).

"Thus then did Irenaeus entreat and negotiate [with Pope Victor] on behalf of the peace of the churches�[Irenaeus being] a man well-named, for he was a peacemaker both in name and character. And he corresponded by letter not only with Victor, but also with very many and various rulers of churches" (ibid., 24:18).

Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20�35).

Council of Sardica

"[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

"[I]f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).

St Jerome

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, �He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!� . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: �We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you, the holy members, by our holy voices, you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessedness is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle. And since now [we], after having been tempest-tossed and much vexed, [have] arrived, we ask that you order that there be laid before us what things were done in this holy synod before our arrival; in order that according to the opinion of our blessed pope and of this present holy assembly, we likewise may ratify their determination�" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

Pope St Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See�out of reverence for it, I mean�has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom" (Letters 10:2�3 [A.D. 445]).

"As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter" (ibid., 110).

"If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

Council of Chalcedon

"Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, �We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of 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!�" (ibid., session 2).

Emperor Justinian I

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).

Stephen, Bishop of Dora in Palestine

And for this cause, sometimes we ask for water to our head and to our eyes a fountain of tears, sometimes the wings of a dove, according to holy David, that we might fly away and announce these things to the Chair (the Chair of Peter at Rome) which rules and presides over all, I mean to yours, the head and highest, for the healing of the whole wound. For this it has been accustomed to do from old and from the beginning with power by its canonical or apostolic authority, because the truly great Peter, head of the Apostles, was clearly thought worthy not only to be trusted with the keys of heaven, alone apart from the rest, to open it worthily to believers, or to close it justly to those who disbelieve the Gospel of grace, but because he was also commissioned to feed the sheep of the whole Catholic Church; for 'Peter,' saith He, 'lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep.' And again, because he had in a manner peculiar and special, a faith in the Lord stronger than all and unchangeable, to be converted and to confirm his fellows and spiritual brethren when tossed about, as having been adorned by God Himself incarnate for us with power and sacerdotal authority .....And Sophronius of blessed memory, who was Patriarch of the holy city of Christ our God, and under whom I was bishop, conferring not with flesh and blood, but caring only for the things of Christ with respect to your Holiness, hastened to send my nothingness without delay about this matter alone to this Apostolic see, where are the foundations of holy doctrine.

St. Maximus 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? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & 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).

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

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. xliii. 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)

Writing to Emperor Michael, ...

Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highests of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Surpreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter. (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See. (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

-------------------------------------------------

I have posted these in chronological order for review from the most ancient tradition to the least ancient--I would not dare say anyone had less antiquity. I have not posted these to be inflamatory or rude or accuse anybody of anything. I have posted them so that we can discuss in light of, perhaps the evidence most pertinent to the Popes after and not Peter himself, what should be the nature of the Primacy etc.

Dear Myles,

The Orthodox have no problem with the Petrine Primacy as such.

They have a problem (as do many EC's) with the Primacy as a jurisdictional issue whereby the Vatican gets its political hands involved in our business, limits our rights and ability to operate as Churches in our own territory for the sake of its "ostpolitik" and the like.

The question I put to you is - would all those Fathers you've quoted, if they were alive today, submit themselves to the Roman See as it has developed its jurisdictional primacy over the centuries?

Hmmm?

Alex

The only reason the Eastern Church's cannot carry out their own apostolate is because Rome is afraid that the charge of 'Uniatism' and trying to set up rival Eastern Church's to lure Orthodox believers will be thrown at them. Its deeply saddening to me personally that the Eastern Catholics cannot evangelise. But if Rome permitted this, would that not simply cause outrage amongst many Orthodox? If the next Pan-Orthodox synod sends a letter saying its fine for Eastern Catholics to evangelise wherever they are (mainly in Orthodox lands) then I should think the Vatican would agree to this proposal.

My answer is, of course they would. The jurdistictional powers that you refer to have always been in place. As the sources testify disputed episcopal appointments, points of doctrine and so on and so forth could always be referred to Rome. There is no precedent in the Patristic period that said people could not appeal to Rome. Indeed, it was the ancient custom. I dont see what your comment is getting at.

John Paul II's encyclical highlighted how in the past the Papal chair has been abused by people who did not understand the theological purpose of having a seat of Unity. However, now that we are developing our ecclessiology and trying to codify exactly what that means we are developing a more sober outlook and John Paul II's approach characterises that. For instance, to my knowledge, the Balamand document says that the Eastern Catholic Churches will be reunited to their Mother Churches after reunuion. This is an act of relinquishing power over these particular churches. Would not the Fathers cited approve of this measure?

I would not disagree with you, nor would I disagree with His Holiness, that at times Pope's have been ultra vires. I did not begin this thread to argue the Orthodox into submission as I told the board already. I began the thread to explore John Paul II's hopes of putting together a coherent ecclessiology of how the Petrine powers fit into the Church at large.

If you wish to advance the discussion ( not debate) please provide instances of jurdistictional powers developed by Rome since the patristic period that cannot be sustained against the witness of the Fathers.

Dear Myles,

As for your first point, how is bringing Russians into the Latin Catholic Church LESS of an offense to the Orthodox than having Russian Byzantine Catholics with their own bishops?

And also, Russia has retaliated against the Vatican for establishing LATIN (not Byzantine) dioceses in Russia by having the government revoke visas of Latin priests, stopping ecumenical talks, threatening this or that.

If your argument is that Rome will keep the BC's on a short leash for fear of an Orthodox reaction - Friend, that reaction has occurred several times already and it has been aimed directly at Rome.

I've yet to EVER read of a similar reaction against the BC's.

Are you saying that the Fathers of the first millennium understood the role of the Pope of Rome in the SAME way as the papacy later developed in terms of jurisdictional primacy and infallibility?

If you are, then we will agree to disagree.

Alex

Well I conceede then and if this is the case I would encourage the Byzantine hierachy to complain to Rome and to complain heatedly too. After all St Irenaeus may've been a peacemaker as Eusebius recounts but he was a peacemaker in upbraiding Pope Victor. Not because Victor didnt have the authority to do what he did but because it was an abuse of that authority that broke with traditional approaches to the Easter question set by the precedents of previous Popes. Even St Peter needed St Paul to correct him at Antioch when he was in the wrong. So too should the Eastern Catholic Churches should appeal to their hierarchs to unite against this policy. Papal primacy has never meant nobody had the right to complain against decisions made by Rome that could be seen as wrong for the Church as a whole etc. Like in the two cases I just referenced. Peter's successors can only be restrained by their brother Bishops so let their brother Bishops indeed restrain them.

Yes I am. After all it seems that you are misunderstanding the nature of the primacy which is what I began this discussion about. Citing evidence of mistaken policies by Rome, of which her history is full of many does not change anything. The fact is if St Irenaeus were alive today and saw the Pope's were doing things in the East that was wrong, he would complain. The Bishops today have that same right, if they dont use it then it is they who are misinterpreting the Fathers. You seem to think that because the Bishops arent making enough noise over this that the fundamental ecclessiology has been altered. Thats not true at all. Its simply the Bishops who should be voicing their opinions at the moment are not speaking out as the Fathers taught they should if need be.

Most certainly the quotes above support the extraordinary exercise of infallibility. When Leo's Tome was written was there any point in its history where it was in error? Had the Council rejected the document as the Robber Council of Ephesus did, would that have made the Tome wrong? The Fathers' trusted in Rome to settle things in extraordinary circumstances. But only in extraordinary circumstances. Peter did not speak through Leo in every act of Leo's pontificate. Likewise he does not do so in every act of every Pope. Just in their extraordinary exercises of authority, which very rarely happen.

As for Jurdistiction over the Roman Church itself and diocese of the Roman Church, yes that too. The Roman Churches at Constantinople were under Rome's jurdistinction also, nai? What they would probably object to is the overextension of the Roman arm into traditionally Eastern territories and rightfully so. Once again you misunderstand Catholic ecclessiology as blindly obeying the Pope in all circumstances. It is not. But I am not an Eastern hierach so I cant take the role of St Paul or St Irenaeus and remind Peter and Victor of their responsibilities. Please try to keep in mind that a bad policy doesnt change the underlying theology. Its simply a bad policy.

Now then, let the discussion continue

Dear Myles,

I don't think there is any confusion on my part or on the part of the EC churches at all here.

Rome's insistence that it has universal jurisdiction over all Eastern Churches is what led to the schism, among other things, and is prolonging uneasiness within the EC ranks.

Rome has seen that jurisdiction very "matter-of-factly" and I would suggest that you live in the shoes of the EC Churches, if you can, before passing judgement summarily.

We do understand what papal jurisdiction is all about.

I've seen it at work in my own eparchy during the consecration of our new bishop.

That was a tragicomedy with people shaking their heads all around.

There was our Patriarch talking about how his synod chose the bishop and then there was that papal nuncio (why we needed him there is beyond telling) going on and on about how HE and HE ALONE chose and appointed our bishop FOR us.

This isn't about complaining, Myles. We can and have complained to Rome until we're blue in the face.

This is about something quite fundamental about the Vatican's attitude which is NOT in keeping with the Patristic tradition at all.

You are entitled to your interpretation of it. But there are others which would disagree with it.

Why should we have to fight Rome on every inch of self-government we claim as being our right - and that Rome pontificates should be our right?

Is that "communion in love?" That is a pain in the cludius maximus!

(Forgive me, is my Latin correct here?)

Alex

Hey doc I told you I wanted a discussion not a debate. I am not arguing in favour of any postion I am trying to develop an ecclessiology that will ensure the responsible use of the Roman primacy rather than its abuse. I fundamentally agree that Rome's treatment of the Eastern Church's is not in the patristic spirit. Hence, when I responded to your question over jurdistiction I say 'over the Roman Church'. Thanks to the ressourcement we in the West are starting to remember that the Church begins at the altar but there are still elements of the hardened ultramontanism that grew up in reaction to the enlightenment and the abandonment of Catholicism by the Western monarchs in the 18th century. I am confident it will dissapear, I am hoping indeed to fudge it out and continue the work of the great 20th century Catholic ecclesiologists in order to further East-West relations. But I need help. Thats why I began this thread. No point in trying to develop an ecclessiology about West and East without talking to the East. History has showed us that just doesnt work.

PS) As per usual I was joking when I said you werent old Peter Mogila. You know me, always looking to land cheap hits, lol

Interesting article: http://praiseofglory.com/dvornik.htm

From: The Church Fathers� Interpretation of the Rock of Matthew 16:18

By William Webster

Chrysostom makes some very exalted statements about Peter:

Peter, that chief of the apostles, first in the Church, the friend of Christ who did not receive revelation from man but from the Father, as the Lord bore witness to him saying: �Blessed are you, Simon Bar�Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven�: this same Peter (when I say �Peter,� I name an unbreakable rock, an immovable ridge, a great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first obeying), this same Peter, I say, did not perpetrate a minor misdeed but a very great one. He denied the Lord. I say this, not accusing a just man, but offering to you the opportunity of repentance... (De Eleemos III.4, M.P.G., Vol. 49, Col. 298)

Peter, the coryphaeus of the choir of apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the foundation of the faith, the base of the confession, the fisherman of the world, who brought back our race from the depth of error to heaven, he who is everywhere fervent and full of boldness, or rather of love than boldness (Hom. de decem mille talentis 3, PG III, 20. Cited by Dom Chapman, Studies in the Early Papacy (London: Sheed & Ward, 1928), p. 74.).

There is one passage in which Chrysostom states that Peter received authority over the Church:

For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, Saint Chrysostom, Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2, pp. 331-332).

*************************************************

Whatever the role of the Pope as Bishop of Rome and successor to St. Peter, pastoral experience alone has shown many of us, that there IS a very real need for a Universal Shepherd for Christ's Church...and to what other See are we going to look for this...except the place where St. Peter and St. Paul shed their blood for Christ? Where are we to look? To a See that is under Turkish domination? To a See that is in the midst of Moslem rule and domination...where Christians are not even completely free to practice their faith? I think not. Who has spoken and rightly divided the Word of His truth best in modern times? Who has spoken out clearly about all the modern social issues and reflected the continuity of the ancient Churches both East and West? Who even now speaks to the modern world and translates the Gospel into modern life without fear of Communists or Socialists or governments and without bowing and being afraid of persons and systems ruling nations? Think you can handle the answer???

In His great mercy,
+Fr. Gregory

Bless, Father Gregory,

I can if you can!

Viva Il Papa!

Alex

Dear Fr. Gregory:

A post like yours above could earn you the label "ultramontanist Roman Catholic masquerading as an Orthodox Priestmonk" in other fora.

But am I so touched by your support for the value of the Papacy, all the more in these troubled times of the 3rd millenium.

We are fast approaching the 10th anniversary on May 25th of Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter "Ut Unum Sint" in which he expressed the Catholic Church's irrevocable commitment to ecumenism, without an equal, or comparable, commitment from Orthodoxy, as a whole.

Even the Pope's invitation to the Orthodox for a "working definition" of the role of the Pope in a "theoretical" re-united Church seems falling on deaf ears, excepting "unofficial response" from some (not that many) Orthodox jurisdictions. His Holiness volunteered a starting point: the venerable role of the Pope as "Servant of the Servants of God!"

Hopefully, the colloquia recently held in Rome for this purpose, where noted Orthodox theologians participated, will usher in a new era of ecumenical dialogue!

Amado

Dear Amado,

All together now, VIVA IL PAPA!

Why don't you sing along with us?

Alex

Dear Alex:

I would if I had a "concordant" voice!

Not even worthy of William Hung's "She Bangs!"

Amado

For the Pope who authored Orientale Lumen, Ut Unum Sint and Slavorum Apostoli, I'll say "Viva Il Papa!" How about "Mnohaja Lita"?

Now it would be nice if he could get some of those dicasteries in line with our thinking...