www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Scott Hahn, Thomas Howard, Peter E. Gillquist ,etc..

Dear JW,

How BLESSED your father-in-law was. I hope that this blessing, this apparition of our Lady, directly from God's Kingdom remained with him.

Our Lady has spoken to the faithful of both the East and the West...That is why I pray to her for unity, because SHE is the hope of our hearts for the estranged brethren of her Son's Body, to dwell in peace, love and harmony.

Most Holy Lady, Mother of our God, touch the hearts of the faithful who honor you and lead us to unity in your Son. Amen.

In HIS name,
Alice

Alice,

It did stay with him all his life. My cu�ado, who died 16 years before I met my wife (he was age 81), grew up on a small Portugese island off the coast of Morocco, 500 miles from Fatima. I was told that each time he saw a TV program that featured Maria, he not only watched intently, but often a tear came to his eye. (It used to be that in Colombia at that time, there was a lot more religious programming than there is now.)

May the Holy Theotokos keep you close to her Immaculate Heart always, Alice.

jw,

I agree. I hope no one will think (from what I've said earlier) that I consider Hahn worse than Carlton.

I also want to clarify that, while I�m not opposed to having a discussion about Carlton if you want one, that wasn�t my intention when I brought him up.

Peter,

To change my orginal post, I think Hahn was harsh on Orthodoxy when he wrote about it. I just didn't say so, as it is not my place to comment on Orthodoxy, being a Latin Catholic. Hahn's background was a church that thought ti could pull everything out of Scripture and allowed for development and innovation (?) if one wants to call it that.

Frank Scheaffer bothers me. Nobody can deny the sins committed by those in the name of the Church of Rome against the East - or the abuses that have occurred through the centuries, but, really - "Protestantism in Sacramental Garb"? Scheaffer didn't write it but I�ll bet he agrees with it.

We are all sinners. Nobody knows for sure who God listens to and we won't know until we get to heaven (I hope).

One more note on Hahn - several months ago, he was on Marcus Grodi's Monday night program "The Journey Home" discussing his swim across the Tiber. The very last call of the evening came from a gentleman from Northeast Pennsylvania who identified himself as a Byzantine Catholic. He asked Hahn's opinion of the East. Hahn said he was "blown away" at the beauty of the Divine Liturgy he attended in Toronto, Ohio (near FUS) and was looking to convert to the East, but "his wife drew the line".

Kinda like mine.

I'm basing my response on the text quoted above.

That quote does not strike me as "bashing Orthodoxy." That seems like a man explaining, matter-of-factly, why he chose not to further investigate Orthodoxy.

I share some of those reasons. There is a lot in Orthodoxy that I love and respect; and overall, I think it is a good branch of Christianity. But, it isn�t perfect. (No part of the Church is.) And personally, I don't like how the Orthodox are organized only up to the national level. Not only does that produce a mess of overlapping jurisdictions in a multi-ethnic society like America. It also means (in my opinion) a certain lack of effectiveness internationally; and it also means (in my opinion) a certain lack of independence from the state within a nation. My sense is that the governments of nations which are historically Orthodox tend to regard the Church hierarchy as a kind of department of the government (the department of religious affairs?), and that can lead to the government having too large of a role in governing the Church. As for myself, I like the Church to be united around the world, and effective, and independent from any government. To me, that "catholicity" is a very real expression of the Eucharist; and it is one of the main reasons I am a Catholic.

However, I disagree with some of Pr. Hahn�s remarks, too.

I disagree with Professor Hahn�s support of the filioque -- for reasons that have been abundantly discussed already.

I especially disagree with Pr. Hahn's remark that Orthodox theology is "stagnant." I have heard and read others make that remark, and I find it illuminating of what they think theology is. It seems that they think theology is philosophical understanding of God. In that sense, in my opinion, it seems true that Orthodoxy has been "stagnant" since roughly the seventh ecumenical council and the writings of the iconophiles. On the other hand, it seems that the Orthodox themselves do not understand theology as only (or mostly) philosophical understanding. Instead, the Orthodox and the Eastern Rites seem to understand "theology" as mystical experience of God. In that sense, Orthodoxy has not been "stagnant." On the contrary, Orthodoxy and all of the Eastern branches of the Church have been vibrant and dynamic: from the Desert Fathers, through St. John Climacus, through the iconophiles, through the hesychasts and St. Gregory Palamas, down to the Eastern Christian saints of this day -- and potentially all who attend Divine Liturgy piously.

Orthodox theology is mystical theology. It is, first, the unabashed, unapologetic, sober, and direct experience of God through Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. It is, second, the comments and remarks of the saints about how to do so. And, third, it is the work of people to do so: liturgically, sacramentally, and in the mundane moments of our lives. In short, Orthodox theology is theosis: as a fact and as a process and as a goal, and not as a nice idea to think about. And, frankly, that is why I am so interested in the Eastern Rites of the Church.

--John

Hahn is a professor and no more human than anyone else on this forum.

I am weary of him and his opinions, either way, will have no impact on my beliefs.

Well, I like him. I don't agree that he "bashed" Orthodoxy in any way. And he has had a positive impact on my beliefs.

So you may want to disregard my posts in the future.

Disregarding begins...... now! :p

Ukrainiancatholic, you probably have the best way of looking at it.

Personally, I used to keep Hahn on a pedestal. Then, when I read and reflected on his Orthodox critique, I experience a big let-down. I was even a bit scandalized, you might say, that someone so far above the rest of us (as I considered him at the time) could say such offensive things.

On the other hand, if it had been let's say Marcus Grodi who had said those things about Orthodoxy, I would have been equally disapproving of them but wouldn't really have been surprised by them.

Peter,
Jesus said some very very offensive things.
You have read them haven't you?
Stephanos I
(0ne who comforts the afflicted and afflicts the comfortable.)

I really appreciated John's (Harmon) remarks on the tired Latin accusation of stagnancy of Orthodox theology. If you don't mind, John, I copied your words and would like to keep them to quote in the future.

I would say in response to your respectful comments on why you prefer Catholicism to Orthodoxy that in many ways Catholicism can be viewed as very divided as well. It has a lot to do with our perception. I know of many Catholics who consider most Masses in this country as invalid because so many priests do not believe in the "real presence." There are those who won't be caught dead at a "Novus Ordo" Mass. There are many divisions of faith within Catholicism: Priests and theologians denying the divinity of Christ, issues over abortion, women demanding Ordination, etc.

Not only this, but a century or so ago, Catholics in this country were also very divided over ethnicity. In one small area there would be an Italian parish, a polish parish and an Irish parish. As Orthodox in this country become more American, our divisions will heal as well.

In many ways, the Orthodox with all of their jurisdictional squabbles are much more united in what really matters: faith. This has been my personal experience of over 10 years of being a Catholic and why these jurisdictional issues didn't stop me from becoming Orthodox. Again, it has a lot to do with our perception.

Dear Brethren,

On the question of converts, first of all allow me to say that I was a HUGE follower of Scott Hahn in my formitive years following my conversion to Latin Catholicism. I have numerous taped sets of his lectures. I've attended some of his conferences and even had the honor to meet him a couple of times. I still have a deep respect for him.

Secondly, I want to say that I think our sister Alice (who always seems much more prone to agree with our Latin brethren on this forum than with her own Orthodox) should consider a talk I heard by Scott Hahn on this very subject. In it Dr. Hahn stated that many converts to Catholicism initially become very bitter at their former Protestant roots. I remember this because -at the time- it was true of my own self and helped me to overcome it. So, please don't think this phenomenon is something unique to Orthodoxy. Actually many writers have written on the process converts go through and that bitterness is often one of the initial stages of growth we go through. The important thing is that we don't stay caught in the "bitterness" stage.

Thirdly, I want to comment on the reported "bashing" which goes on by many former Protestants to the ancient Churches. In reality, I am less surprised by the "bashing" than I am the flippant dismissiveness that many of these converts are guilty of. And this is how I see Dr. Hahn's words. There is no real depth there. Just like the comment I heard by the famous local convert to Catholicism, Al Kresta, the author of "Why Do Catholics Genuflect?" and one of the contributers to the first edition of "Surprised by Truth." When asked, he said the reason he didn't consider becoming Orthodox was that, he "didn't like baklava." "It was a very pragmatic decision at the time... Orthodoxy just seemed too ethnic." Such examples abound on both sides and in a way I'm flattered by them. Why? Because, to me, such superficial answers say something.

The decision between Protestantism and historic Orthodox and Catholic Chrisitanity is a relatively easy one. But the decision between Catholicism and Orthodoxy is a very difficult one. No wonder we hear so many accounts of those who move back and forth between the ancient Churches (as I myself am guilty of, having gone from being a Latin Catholic to an Armenian Catholic to an Armenian Orthodox). There are no easy answers. The reason there are no easy answers is because all of the ancient Churches are built solidly on the Tradition which was entrusted to them and have swerved very little from it. So, no wonder many give flippant, superficial answers (as Dr. Hahn did) why they preffered one part of the ancient apostolic catholic holy Church to another. There are no easy quick answers to such a question.

Of course this is a very differernt thing than those who spend lots of energy attacking and tearing down the other ancient Churches. This, I believe, results because that individual is very insecure in his decision and feels he must belittle and disqualify the other "contenders" to the true faith so that he can feel more secure in his decision.

This would explain why you seldom hear our Patriarchs speaking so vehemently about the other historic Churches. Most of them are secure in their faith and don't suffer from such silly insecurities.

Any way, these are just my insignificant observations.

Trusting in Christ's Light,
Wm. Ghazar Der Ghazarian
Looys Kreesdosee: www.geocities.com/derghazar [geocities.com]

"Doxa to Theo panton eneken" (Glory be to God for all things) The last words of St. John Chrysostom before he fell asleep in the Lord; the result of his exile to Armenia and continual forced marches untill his physical exhaustion and death: a glorious proto-martyr for the Armenian Church

Ok having read through what various people had to say I am going to toss in my drachma's. Initally I didnt think I would end up saying anything on this thread but it seems to have veered closer and closer to issues that my experiences have educated me about.

First of all I think the idea that Orthodoxy has stagnated in theological terms is completely errenous. How is it people get this idea? Forget about mystical Theology everything else has developed since the Patristic age too, not as much as Latin Theology has but perhaps only because the conditions were different. Historically Latin Theology always developed in periods of heresy. Scholasticism's consolidation around Aquinas, for instance, was in response to a Latin brand of Averroism and incorrect ideas creeping into Europe thanks to Classical Greek and Arab philosophy.

The Latin Church much like the Greek was (daresay is) essentially inward looking. Everyone else in Mediaeval Western Europe was the same religion and so there was no need to tie up loose ends. This need only arose because of Protestantism, Luther catechism and Calvin's institutes and the clear presentation of those belief systems demanded the Catholic Church declare her position and present them in like manner. This is the start of 'Roman legalism' as both anti-ecumenical Protestants and Orthodox like to call it.

However, in spite of this fact and the fact that Protestantism really wasnt a worry for the Church of the Orient these developments in Latin Christendom did not go unnoticed. The 17th extrordinary synod of Jerusalem held by the Orthodox church to consolidate its own teaching in light of the Tridentine decrees also built on the Patristic understanding. There, just as at Trent, it was agreed there are 7 sacraments and terminology appeared i.e. 'metamorphasis' the Greek equivalent to 'transubstantiation'. However, even before this Greek Theology had not remained stagnant. It was veering away from mystical Theology with Gregory Palamas, which gave mystical theology important christological implications and Peter Moghila and the other Greek scholastics also worked to iron out ideas left found in the Fathers.

Not trying to sound snobbishly Oxonian and using the term for denotation not connotation. Anybody who maintains Greek Theology hasnt changed since the Patristic period is simply ignorant regardless of whether they are Latin or Greek. Numerous times bitter Latins or reformist traditionalist Greeks have tried to root out these so called 'developments'. But many have been set in stone by things like the aforementioned extraorinary Synod of Jerusalem 300 something years ago and thus are here to stay.

In addition, given that I am a revert of 3 years to Roman Catholicism I will now address Ghazar's comments about how converts feel. I felt bitterness towards Protestantism when I first converted, but for vastly different reasons. I was baptised Catholic as a baby and had the Holy Communion ceremony but that was it. My family are not Catholic (only my Mum is) and certainly not deeply religious. So I had free rein and I took it. Playing football or going to Church on Sunday morning wasnt really a dilemma for me, ya know? But as some people have (flatteringly) commented I have a bright intellect and a deep love of History and Philosophy. I became disenchanted by Catholicism--partly because nobody seemed to give me a good reason to be Catholic and partly because I thought it was an authoritarian religion--and gradually strayed further from it into philosophical specualtions. First I was something like a unitarian, I entertained certain Protestant ideas to give my conscience cause to break 'free' from the Roman yolk. Then I left that denied Jesus' divinity and went sorta New Age. God was emanationist/pantheist. I was in God and he was in me, no need for salvation or a Church. Gnosis through transcendental meditation was the answer....

...long story short I discovered that was nonsense.

So I began to pray and believe more in a personal God but which God was still up in the air. However, again to cut the story short. Christianity's claims won out. I was stunned by the brightness of intellect of Aquinas and the coherency of the Christian system against its ancient Jewish roots--which is something Islam does not have. In Islam, and I mean no disrespect, there is no concept of Covenantal sacrifice or sealing and though they accept Jesus is a prophet it seemed illogical to me that Jesus' own followers would've claimed he was something else and died because of it. Eye witness testimony outweighed non-contemporary sources etc.etc.

However, then there was the big question: Orthodoxy or Catholicism. One of my uncle's is Oriental Orthodox as I have mentioned elsewhere on site and my studies of the Church Fathers' in response to Luther and Calvin's claim to 'Augustine' and 'the Fathers' made me aware of the history of the Church. Thus I knew about the two strains of apostolic Christianity. I remain enchanted until this day with Eastern Christianity (hence my membership of this forum). But what I discovered in the course of my study shocked me--made me eat my words too--the institution of the Papacy was created by Christ himself and in faith and morals it was infallible. I dont wish to offend anybody, believe me, and nothing I say or dont say will help or hinder ecumenical relations. But I have yet to find within Patristic history anything that makes me think that my conclusion was/is errant. I'm not going to give an apologetic unless someone wants me to, I'm just stating a fact.

That clinched it...

...so why did I feel bitter against Protestants (and Orthodox to a lesser extent). Well I felt bitter against them not because I hated them, but because I hated the wasted years of my life. I had spent 5 years in captivity in Babylon away from my Blessed Lord and I was dumbfounded that anybody would want to steal the sacraments, the Eucharist, from anybody. They are liberation, they are life, and the Protestant doctrine that watered them down was like...I couldnt stomach it. So many of my generation are hooked on drugs, slicing their wrists, joining gangs, drowning in materialism, all because the world cant offer them more. God can, God has and its like Protestantism was the empty smokescreen blocking them from it--the other religions and philosophies even more.

As an aside this made me really HATE 'liberal' Catholic priests who gave anti-magisterial answers to valid questions posed by genuine seekers. I began to understand the mentality of how someone could in good conscience burn someone at the stake. Its the fear, the fear that because of these people others will loose out. And not to sound like Yoda but fear can turn to anger and anger to hate. But then as John the beloved said perfect fear turns to perfect love.

To an extent I still feel this way, I am not bitter, but bitterly saddened that people cannot see the truth of the Lord who loves them and would give them the world if they came to Him. It doesnt make me mad anymore, just sad...

As for Orthodoxy. I didnt despise them cos they had Sacraments but I really couldnt understand the split and still I cant. It seems useless and I pray for it to end...

...every day

Myles,

I guess I'm going to ask you for an apologetic

"the institution of the Papacy was created by Christ himself and in faith and morals it was infallible."

I've looked at all the bible verses regarding this and remain unconvinced. Even from Catholic exegesists like Raymond Brown I'm not sure how one can get a Vatican I style Papacy from the New Testament. Even good Catholic historians like Eamon Duffy at Cambridge agree that for the first thousand years Papal strength was confined to the West and it was something the West wanted to impose on the East (i.e. there was no universal consensus).

Sorry if this is too far off topic, but I would like to hear your thoughts on the matter.

The gospel verses themselves (Mt 16:13-20) correspond directly with (Isa 22:15-25) in both cases the Son of David appoints a prime minister over his Kingdom, which explains why Peter assumes Jesus' role will be worldly. As for Raymond Brown his work is respected in scholarly circles but its not iron clad. No historical-critics work is. Most of their conclusions reflect their pre-philosophical commitments and their hermenutic methods i.e. if someone is unwilling to conclude Jesus was God and could do miracles, they will reduce miracle stories to well crafted stories. Elsewhere in the Bible nobody questions Peter's primacy. Not only is his name altered to Cephas, which symbolises he is the rock. But he appears first in virtually all lists of disciples and not only is he the mouth of the disciples but he is the driving force behind them i.e. reminding them of the need to replace Judas, preaching at Penetecost to the crowd, baptising the uncircumcised on his own initiative at Cornelius house etc.etc. There is no question that Peter is the first amongst Apostles from the breadth of the gospels (whether or not you believe this impression was God given is your prerogative. However, if you dont you have to try and explain where this came from?)

As for Peter's successors amongst the apostolic Christians (Catholic and Orthodox) it is unquestionable that they enjoyed some sort of precedence. However, as is well known, we disagree over what that means. However, I find relatively little evidence to the contrary to the idea that Peter's successors could bind and loose as he could. Since I am on an Eastern website I will simply reproduce the sources used in the thread 'Ut Unum Sint'--sources respected in the East, which cannot be accused of Roman/Latin bias. Keep in mind the rank and status of some of these people and just how far back in history these quotes go. All the way back to the turn of the first century with St Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop of the city where we were first called Christians etc. Please note the words and terms they use and decide for yourself whether these men thought the primacy of the Roman Church was purely honorfic and what they regarded as its authority in matters of faith and morals.

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)