Eastern Orthodoxy
In this article, I will examine the history (in a nutshell) of what was led to the split between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church, culminated in 1054AD with the "Great Western Schism." I will then delve into some of the chief areas of doctrinal disagreement between both sides. And finally, I will summarize the present day situation of jaded Catholics falling away from the Faith and converting over to Eastern Orthodoxy.
I have written a handful of articles in the past that directly pertain to this entire topic, and will do my best to incorporate those points as well into this one so as to have a more comprehensive overview of the situation. We will be delving into Scriptural exegesis concerning St. Peter in relation to the Apostles, as well as the testimony of the Church Fathers and early Ecumenical Councils.
When delving into the history behind the 11th century split, it is crucial to understand that this was not merely a divide generated over some theological disagreements. It was not as simple as differences of thought over doctrine. Rather, it was very much rooted in political arguments due to the power pull behind the source of authority. From one vantage point, it was seen that the Bishop of Rome was trying to assert himself as having more authority than was proper to him, and that he was letting power get to his head. From the other vantage point, it was seen that certain patriarchs and bishops were following a rebellious spirit of independence, seeking to possess an authority that was equivalent to Rome and not wanting to be humble in adhering to Rome's decisions.
This is why the foundational issue centers back to authority, every single time. While the Eastern Orthodox can argue that it had to do with disputes surrounding topics like the Filioque, for example, it really boils down to the issue of authority. In particular, the supremacy and preeminence of St. Peter over the other Apostles, and by connection, his successors in the Bishops of Rome over the other bishops and patriarchs of other areas.
Scripture
The first thing, then, that must be critically examined is the exegesis of Sacred Scripture, as well as the testimony of Sacred Tradition through the voice of the Fathers and the historic Councils. This will then lead us to an examination of the events surrounding the Schism of the 11th century.
While the Orthodox readily acknowledge St. Peter has a unique role as laid out in Scripture, they do not make the connection between St. Peter to his successors in that same regard. They also do not see his role as one of supremacy, but rather more in the realm of being merely a spokesman for the whole and still equal with the rest. We will examine key portions of Matthew 16, Matthew 18, Isaiah 22, and John 21 to show that Scripture lays out the template of the supremacy and preeminence of Peter's position, and how it the connects to his successors. As well, we will interject a portion of the Church Fathers to show their understanding on these passages.
We see more than just this for Peter when we look at Matthew 16:13-19: When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
When we break down the key features of this passage, we discover that this conversation between Jesus and Peter explicitly shows us the supremacy of Peter's role. First, we note that only Simon (soon to be renamed Peter) is given the direct revelation from God in this instance to know the true identity of Jesus. While he asks all the apostles who people say he is and who they personally think he is, only Simon speaks up on behalf of the Twelve, and Jesus sees this as being a sign from the Father himself. He remarks that Simon did not learn this from human sources or reasoning or even from careful exegesis of the prophetic Hebrew Scriptures. Rather, he was given this revelation directly from heaven, and exclaims it outwardly for the Twelve to hear. This is where we begin to see Peter in his role as the authoritative voice on behalf of the Twelve. From this point on, we see him gradually emerge as the chief of the Apostles. A key passage in this regard is Matthew 10:1–4, where Peter is listed first above the other Apostles, and Judas is listed last (a Scriptural theme also seen in Mark 3:16–19, Luke 6:14–16, and Acts 1:13). The Greek word for “first” used in the Matthew 10 list is protos, which literally is translated as “first in rank” or “first in office.”
The second major feature noticeable in the Matthew 16 citation is the name change from Simon to Peter. Whenever God changes a person’s name in Sacred Scripture, it always signifies a substantial change of mission and duty. A key example of this is found in Genesis 17, where Abram (which means “father”) has his name changed to Abraham (“father of a multitude”). Here we see Jesus changing Simon’s name to Peter, Petros in Greek, Kepha in Aramaic. Both terms mean “Rock.” Peter is being named the Rock of the New Covenant Church. From this point on, biblical authors will frequently address him as Cephas, which is the Greek transliteration of Kepha, recognizing his new title and status in the the Church. Just as Abraham received a name change, so Peter receives one. Peter is the New Abraham of the New Covenant. As Abraham became a father of a multitude, so Peter will go from being a mere fisherman to being the chief fisher of men. As Abraham is recognized as the Rock of the Old Covenant (Isaiah 51:1–2), so Peter is the Rock of the New Covenant.
The third point is Jesus’ statement that the gates of Hades will not be able to overcome his Church. While apostasies come and go, this Church will ultimately overcome them all, with Peter the Rock and the Apostles as the foundation stones ensuring the Church will not fall into apostasy. The gates of hell will not be able to prevail. Thus, the very power of hell can not conquer this firm foundation built upon the Apostles, with Peter as the head. This is the basis for clinging to the Magisterium, which is the Pope in union with the Bishops, most especially during times of doctrinal confusion and upheaval, because of the promise and the prophecy given by our Lord that the powers of Satan can not, and will never, defeat his Church.
The fourth point is the handing of the keys to Peter. While Jesus gives the commission to all the Apostles to bind and loose in Matthew 18, only Peter singularly is given the promise to receive the keys of the kingdom. And in this passage, only Peter singularly is given the charge to bind and loose, showing the distinction Jesus makes between Peter individually and the Apostles in union with Peter collectively. This teaching still stands today, as the Pope individually can bind and loose because he holds the keys as the successor to St. Peter, and the Pope in union with the Bishops can bind and loose since they are successors to Peter and the Apostles. God designates this unique authority to Peter on hi own, to act and teach and guide on his behalf visibly to the world. So we see a sharing of this authority, of the keys, between God and Peter.
The final point is the binding and loosing that is assigned to Peter personally and singularly in this passage, which is a power that Jesus then extends to all the Apostles in Matthew 18:15–20. However, Peter receives it alone in this passage, and he is the only Apostle to receive it in conjunction with the promise to receive the keys of the kingdom, which belong to God alone but are then designated to Peter. The Jewish audience to whom Matthew was writing would have immediately understood what this language of binding and loosing was indicating, and this understanding belonged to the early Church as well. Binding and loosing are rabbinical terms which refer specifically to teaching and instituting doctrinal laws on faith and morals and worship. In using this language, Jesus is teaching that his Church is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant kingdom. This is most clearly brought out when reading Isaiah 22:15–22.
Isaiah 22:15–22 is a passage in which God is deposing an Old Covenant Prime Minister and replacing him with a new one. This is extremely important for understanding what Jesus is doing with Peter in Matthew 16. The Old Covenant kingdom had a king, and underneath the king was the office of Prime Minister, who worked in collaboration with the Cabinet, and yet who exercised a unique authoritative office in the physical absence of the king. So, for example, if the king ever went off to war, the Prime Minister would act and rule in his place, and exercised the exact same authority as the king himself. In Isaiah 22, we read the following: “I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”
The connection between Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16 screams to us to understand what Jesus is doing with Peter and the Apostles. He is appointing Peter as the Prime Minister of the New Covenant kingdom, thus fulfilling the Old. In the physical absence of the King of Kings, the Prime Minister is to administer with his same authority in regards to administration, worship, and doctrine. An important element is to understand that the office of Prime Minister is just that: an office. This implies papal and apostolic succession, for when one member dies, another must be called to take his place, just as we see occurring in Acts 1 when Peter appoints a successor for Judas who had committed suicide. We also see in the Isaiah 22 passage that the Prime Minister is to be a “father figure,” which is precisely where the term “Pope” developed, for the term itself means “papa” or “father.” So, if Peter is the head of the Apostles and charged with administration, discipline, and doctrine in a unique way separate from the rest, then this would transfer to his successors as well. This is where we see the supremacy and preeminence of Peter's position.
Also, take note of the deeper teaching underlying Jesus’ comments to Peter. Catholicism teaches the doctrine of papal infallibility, which means in certain circumstances, the Pope can define a doctrine on faith or morals without any possibility for error, whatsoever. The Bishops, in union with him, also exercise this authority due to this power being granted to them collectively in Matthew 18. Peter and his successors can not bind a lie, otherwise it would be contradicting the words of Jesus himself. Thus, the doctrine of papal infallibility is established with this promise and prophecy given by Jesus to Peter, and to his successors in the office as well. The reason this is so important is because Peter is singled out by Our Lord in Matthew 16, whereas Matthew 18 has the Apostles together, but without mention of the keys. Again, this shows us the supremacy and preeminence of Peter, and by extension, his successors.
The keys play an important part in this topic because the Orthodox will argue that all the Apostles essentially have the same authority possessed by St. Peter, whereas we see something unique occuring that clearly distinguishes Peter's role from the other Apostles. Let's examine this briefly by first turning to the relevant passages specifically where Peter receives the keys of the kingdom in conjunction with binding and loosing, and the second one where all the Apostles are given the authority to bind and loose, but without reference to the keys.
Matthew 16:19, Jesus speaking to Peter: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Matthew 18:18, Jesus speaking to the Twelve: Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
The relevant point here is that Matthew 18 nowhere uses the Greek term kleidas (keys). That term is only found in Matthew 16, and it is applied in the Greek singularly to Peter alone. "Doso soi tas kleidas." "I will give to YOU (Greek singular) the keys." In Matthew 18, the Apostles are collectively given the authority to bind and loose, and the "You" here is in the plural for that very reason. Not singular. In union with Peter, who alone is said to possess the keys, they also can exercise the authority to bind and loose. Peter, apart from them, can do this on his own, as he alone is given the keys singularly, and he alone is given the prerogative to bind and loose. The Greek is very clear on this.
The keys do not belong to everyone. Jesus gave them to Peter singularly, and Peter had successors. That list continues unbroken to this day.
St. Augustine, 4th century, traces the Bishop of Rome in his day directly back to St. Peter: "For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: "Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!" The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found."
In 251AD, St. Cyprian of Carthage wrote, "On him he builds the Church, and commands him to feed the sheep, and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were what Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, by which it is made clear that there is one Church and one chair… If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he think that he holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he be confident that he is in the Church?"
In 431AD, the Council of Ephesus singled St. Peter out alone as possessing the keys: "The holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ… who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place."
Further biblical evidence is given in John's Gospel, where St. Peter is shown to be designated the chief shepherd of the Church. In John 21:15-17, we see Peter's preeminent place and his supremacy among the Apostles.
Let us breakdown the three dialogues between Our Lord and St. Peter in John 21:
Verse 15: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs."
Verse 16: He said to him a second time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep."
Verse 17: He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" and he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep."
Why is Our Lord asking Peter this question three times? First, Peter had denied Him three times at the onset of His Passion. So in conjunction with the threefold denial, there is now a threefold confession of loving faith towards Our Lord, which is a form of penance for St. Peter, and is restorative in nature so that Peter can be the Apostle that Jesus needs him to be to lead the Church, even to his martyrdom.
Secondly, it has been noted that there was an ancient near Eastern custom of repeating something three times as a means committing to a contractual agreement.
In verse 15, Jesus gives Peter the charge to "Feed my lambs." Here, the word "feed" in Greek is Boske, which means to spiritually feed and nourish. Lambs, in this context, refers to the laity, the Church militant on Earth. Peter is being commissioned to feed and nourish the universal Church through teaching. We will see him exercise this role all throughout the book of Acts.
Next, in verse 16, we have a very important word used in the Greek by Our Lord to Peter. The phrase here is "Tend my sheep." The Greek for "tend" is Poimaine. It is translated as tend, yet in Greek it carries the connotation of shepherding, governing, and ruling.
In fact, we see this same root word used by St. Peter himself when he is giving leadership and guidance to the clergy in 1 Peter 5:2-3. He writes, "Shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock."
The sheep of verse 16 applies to the other Apostles and future Bishops. This hearkens back to when Our Lord directly told them, "Behold, I am sending you out as sheep in the midst of wolves" (Matthew 10:16). Soon, Jesus will be giving them the Great Commission to go into the world, and He will be sending them the Holy Ghost at Pentecost to equip them in their task. Here, he is telling Peter to shepherd, govern, and rule them in this mission.
In the final charge from verse 17, Our Lord now tells Peter to spiritually feed the sheep, which in this context applies now to the lambs and sheep together. In other words, the entire universal Church.
St. Cyril of Jerusalem noted St. Peter as not only the Rock of the Church, but also her Shepherd. He writes, "He [Christ] promises to found the Church, assigning immovableness to it, as he is the Lord of strength, and over this [the Church] he sets Peter as shepherd."
St. John Chrysostom notes: "He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band... And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and he brings forward not the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, If you love me, preside over your brethren, and show now the warm love that you have always manifested and in which you rejoiced; and the life that you said you would lay down for me now give for my sheep."
St. Augustine writes, "The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his Resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep, up to the present episcopate, keeps me here [within the Catholic Church]."
Author Stephen K. Ray makes the point, "The Good Shepherd appoints Peter to participate in his own authority as shepherd, to exercise delegated authority and leadership over the flock. What is this but a veritable primacy of jurisdiction? There are two sides to every coin: When Jesus commands Peter to govern his sheep, he implicitly commands the sheep to submit to and obey the universal shepherd — Peter."
We also ought to examine Acts 15:1-29 which details the events of the Council of Jerusalem. Here we see a controversy spreading among the primitive Church, and a debate concerning the topic of whether Gentile converts need to be circumcized and follow the Old Convenant laws. This was a major issue for the Apostles, and so they all decided to gather in a council to discuss and pray together.
In verses 6-12, we read: The apostles and the elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly fell silent.
The salient point here is that Peter assumes the role of hearing the debate and then standing up to settle the disagreement. He concludes that Gentile converts do not need to be circumcized, and all those assembled fall silent. Peter's decision settles the dispute, and we see him in his role as chief of the Apostles. This is all the more interesting since James is the bishop of Jerusalem, not Peter. And yet it is Peter who hears the debate and then stands up to give the dogmatic decision, causing the assembly to go silent once he pronounces it.
The Fathers
When we turn to Sacred Tradition and the Fathers, we see that the Fathers had no problem recognizing the unique and authoritative position held by St. Peter and his successors in the Bishops of Rome. The early Church further backs up these plain teachings from Sacred Scripture. In particular, Fathers of the East believed in the primacy, preeminence, and supremacy of St. Peter and his successors in the Bishops of Rome.
St. Irenaeus, 180AD: “For with this Church [in Rome], because of its superior origin, all 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.”
This citation from Irenaeus is particularly notable considering its early origin, having been composed in 180AD. It is no small matter that the holy saint and martyr was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who of course was a disciple of St. John the Apostle. Now, whether one wants to argue that Peter is not singled out here (since Irenaeus credits both Sts. Peter and Paul as being the instrumental source of building the Church in Rome), nevertheless what we do clearly see is the preeminence and supremacy noted of Rome specifically. She is said to be of "superior origin," and "all churches must agree" with her. No other Apostolic See is given this kind of mention by Irenaeus. It suffices then to see how Tradition continued to build up on Peter's unique connection to Rome. While both he and Paul helped established the Church in Rome, it was to St. Peter whom Tradition credits as being the first Bishop of the See of Rome.
Origen of Alexandria A.D. 248 : “If we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” Commentary on Matthew 13:31.
St. Cyprian, 251AD: “The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’…On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
In his letter to Pope Cornelius, Cyprian calls Rome, "The Chair of Peter." We see a clear connection made between St. Peter and the Roman See.
St. Optatus A.D. 367: “You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” The Schism of the Donatists 2:2.
St. Ambrose, 388AD: “They have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven.’”
Augustine A.D. 397: Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7.
“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages” Commentary on Psalm 108 1.
Jerome A.D. 396: “Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” Letters 15:1.
“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” ibid., 15:2.
Peter Chrysologus A.D. 449 : “We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” Letters 25:2.
St. Cyril: “Peter, the Foremost of the Apostles, the Chief Herald of the Church… key-bearer of the Kingdom of Heaven… the preeminent one.”
Ephraim the Syrian A.D. 351: “[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” Homilies 4:1.
St. John Chrysostom: “Peter himself the Head or Crown of the Apostles, the First in the Church, the Friend of Christ, who received a revelation, not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed art thou, This very Peter and when I name Peter I name that unbroken Rock, that firm Foundation, the Great Apostle, First of the disciples, the First called… Peter, the Leader of the choir of Apostles, the Mouth of the disciples, the Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the faith, the Foundation of the confession, the Fisherman of the universe… Peter, the mouth of all Apostles, the head of that company, the ruler of the whole world.”
Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria A.D. 450: I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds. (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).
St. Nilus: “Peter, who was foremost in the choir of Apostles and always ruled amongst them.”
Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople: “Such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.”
Emporer Justinian to the Pope: “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.”
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.”
St. Nicephorus: “For it is 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.”
St. Athanasius called Rome “the Apostolic Throne” and called Peter “the Chief” of the Apostles.
St. Macarius: “Moses was succeeded by Peter, who had committed to his hands the new Church of Christ, and the true priesthood.”
Eulogius of Alexandria: “Neither to John, nor to any other of the disciples, did our Savior say, 'I will give to thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven,' but only to Peter.”
St. Sophronius: “Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine.”
St. Maximus the Confessor A.D. 650: “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.”.. 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)
Bishop Stephen of Dora, in the 7th century, wrote this to Pope Martin: “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. Theodore to Pope Leo III, 760AD: “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.”
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. 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... 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."
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 highest 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'... 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... 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."
Popes
The Popes of the early Church era also understood that they possessed a unique authority since they succeeded St. Peter in their office.
Pope Damasus I, 382AD: “Likewise it is decreed: We have considered that it ought to be announced that... the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it."
Pope Innocent I, 408AD: “In seeking the things of God... you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us [the Pope and Church of Rome], and have shown that you know that it is owed to the Apostolic See [Rome], if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged."
Pope Leo I, 445AD: “As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree... I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter... 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, 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... Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he [the Pope] rules in every part of the world.”
Also from Pope Leo: "For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual: and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter... The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See.”
Pope Gregory I, 597AD: “Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors... And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me, who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra."
Councils
Having surveyed Scripture, The Fathers, and the Popes, let us look at the Councils.
Council of Ephesus A.D. 431: “Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” Acts of the Council, session 3.
Chalcedon A.D. 451: After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope 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 [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.” Session II.
“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.” Council of Chalcedon, Session III.
The Council ask Pope Leo to make the Patriarch of Constaninople the second in authority:
“And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded that your holiness will accept and ratify them, when you are told. The long prevailing custom, which the holy Church of God at Constantinople had of ordaining metropolitans for the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, we have now ratified [Canon 28] by the votes of the Synod, not so much by way of conferring a privilege on the See of Constantinople as to provide for the good government of those cities…We have ratified also the canon [Canon 3] of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople…for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also… Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed father to accept as your own wish, and as conducing to good government the things which we have resolved on for the removal of all confusion and the confirmation of church order. For your holiness’ delegates, the most pious bishops Paschasinus and Lucentius, and with them the right Godly presbyter Boniface, attempted vehemently to resist these decisions...
For we duly regarding our most devout and Christ loving Emperors, who delight therein, and the illustrious senate and, so to say, the whole imperial city, considered it opportune to use the meeting of this ecumenical Synod for the ratification of your honour, and confidently corroborated this decision as if it were initiated by you with your customary fostering zeal, knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parent’s glory. Accordingly, we entreat you, honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded to the head our agreement on things honorable, so may the head also fulfil for the children what is fitting. But that you may know that we have done nothing for favor or in hatred, but as being guided by the Divine Will, we have made known to you the whole scope of our proceedings to strengthen our position and to ratify and establish what we have done.”
Pope Leo the Great’s Reaction to the Council:
“And so after the not irreproachable beginning of your ordination, after the consecration of the bishop of Antioch, which you claimed for yourself contrary to the regulations of the canons, I grieve, beloved, that you have fallen into this too, that you should try to break down the most sacred constitutions of the Nicene canons: as if this opportunity had expressly offered itself to you for the See of Alexandria to lose its privilege of second place, and the church of Antioch to forego its right to being third in dignity, in order that when these places had been subjected to your jurisdiction, all metropolitan bishops might be deprived of their proper honor. By which unheard of and never before attempted excesses you went so far beyond yourself as to drag into an occasion of self-seeking, and force connivance from that holy Synod [Chalcedon] which the zeal of our most Christian prince had convened, solely to extinguish heresy and to confirm the Catholic Faith: as if the unlawful wishes of a multitude could not be rejected, and that state of things which was truly ordained by the Holy Spirit in the canon of Nicæa could in any part be overruled by any one. Let no synodal councils flatter themselves upon the size of their assemblies, and let not any number of priests, however much larger, dare either to compare or to prefer themselves to those 318 bishops, seeing that the Synod of Nicæa is hallowed by God with such privilege, that whether by fewer or by more ecclesiastical judgments are supported, whatever is opposed to their authority is utterly destitute of all authority.”
The History Behind the Schism
Fr. Raymond Taouk, SSPX, provides a brilliant and concise history behind the fall out between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Schism:
The Orthodox church is the Body of Eastern Schismatics that separated them selves from the Catholic Church in the year 1054, which was brought about by what is today known as the Eastern Schism. The schism itself however was due to a number of contributing factors such as Iconoclasts who sought the destruction of Catholic images and other issues such as that of the "Photian Schism" of Patriarch of Constantinople, in the ninth Century, but was finally consummated in the eleventh Century, by the ambition of Michael Cerularius, one of his successors, in 1054.
Schisms Prior to 1054: Leading up to 1054 there were various events which took place only to eventualise in schism by the East. Yet, it is undeniably true that the West (and especially the Roman See) had a much more solid and consistent record of orthodoxy. For example, the Eastern Church split off from Rome and the Catholic Church on at least six occasions before 1054:
The Arian schisms (343-98);
The controversy over St. John Chrysostom (404-415);
The Acacian schism (484-519);
Concerning Monothelitism (640-681);
Concerning Iconoclasm (726-87 and 815-43).
This adds up to 231 out of 500 years in schism (46% of the time)! In every case, Rome was on the right side of the debate in terms of what was later considered "orthodox" by both sides. Thus, the East clearly needed the West and the papacy and Rome in order to be ushered back to orthodoxy.
However to understand the events that lead up to the Schism of the East it must be understood that before Constantine had chosen Byzantium as his new capital ,the Episcopal see of that city depended upon the Metropolitan of Heraclea. But no sooner had that city received from the great emperor the title of "The second Rome, eldest and beloved daughter of the old Rome," (Constantine was referring to the Old Pagan Rome, which was the Center of the Roman Empire) than ambition arose in the hearts of its Bishops, proud of the favor which they enjoyed at Court and twisting to their advantage the third Canon of the first Council of Constantinople (381), which conferred upon the Bishop of Byzantium "the primacy of honor second to that of the Bishop of Rome," they did not wait long until they claimed to possess over the Eastern Church also the primacy of jurisdiction which had always belonged to the Roman Pontiffs. Claiming that Constantinople should b as exalted in ecclesiastical as it was in political matters.
Already in the fifth century, the Pope, St. Leo, who had occasion to protest against the usurpation of the rights of the Church of Rome, had said with much truth: "the presence of the Emperor may make a royal residence, but he cannot create an Apostolic See, divine things not being patterned after human concerns.
Nevertheless despite the ever-increasing ambition of the Bishops of Constantinople, the confirmation of every new Patriarch by the Poe continued, before and after Photius, to be considered, if not indispensable, at least of great importance for the newly-elected Bishop, to increase his prestige and as a proof of his orthodoxy. Thus Photius himself, though he had usurped the See of Constantinople, did not fail to send to Rome an embassy to request confirmation from Pope Nicholas I. The confirmation was, however, refused, and in a Roman Council the usurper was excommunicated. It was only after reconciliation, followed by a second excommunication, fulminated by Pope John VIII, that Photius threw away the mask and revealed himself for what he really was. Yet despite this the East and West continued to be united up to the time of Michael Cerularius, who renewed the claims previously put forth by Photius against the Roman Church, and who consummated the separation from the Church.
This final schism was the result of the clash of two powerful personalities, of Pope Leo IX and Michael Cerularius. In 1024 the Emperor had asked Pope John XIX for the recognition of the independence of the Church of Constantinople in her own sphere. This was refused since the Church of Christ is universal and the Popes being the Supreme Shepard has influence over the whole and not simply part of the Church (Matt 16:18, John 21:15-17). In 1053 Cerularius, fearing an alliance between the Emperor and Pope, which might result in the transfer of the Greek province in S. Italy from his jurisdiction, and perhaps in other infringements of his authority, decided upon schism. He ordered the closing of all churches of the Latin rite in Constantinople. In 1054, in spite of the Emperor’s efforts at mediation, the Roman legates at Constantinople excommunicated the patriarch. Cerularius anathematized them in reply and Schism was complete. However previous to this Pope Leo had already written to Michael Cerularius stating as follows:
“You are said to have publicly condemned the Apostolic and Latin Church, without either a hearing or a conviction. And the Chief reason for this condemnation, which displays and unexampled presumption and an unbelievable effrontery, is that the Latin Church dares to celebrate the commemoration of the Lord’s passion with unleavened bread. What an unguarded accusation is this of yours, what an evil piece of arrogance! You place your mouth in heaven, while your tongue, going the world, strives with human arguments and conjectures to undermine and subvert the ancient faith... In prejudging the case of the highest See, the see on which no judgment may be passed by any man, you have received the anathema from all the Fathers of all the venerable Councils... As a hinge, remaining unmoved, opens and shuts a door, so Peter and his successors have an unfettered jurisdiction over the whole Church, since no one ought to interfere with their position, because the highest See is judged by none."
It has often been said that no great dogmatic differences separate the Orthodox people from the Church of Rome. We would like to believe this were true, however the reality reveals only the contrary. Unfortunately, heresy, modern unbelief, and irreligion has found its way among the Orthodox Eastern churches. The people themselves scarcely realize this. They do not understand the difference between schism and heresy. The great majority do not even realize that they should be united to the Holy Father, the Vicar of Christ on earth. The teaching of the Orthodox Church denies the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope thus rejecting the monarchial structure of the Church (founded on Peter - Matt 16:18; Luke 22:31; John 21:15-17), while claiming that their Patriarch is infallible also and that there is no single visible head of the Christian Church since they affirm the Church to be aristocratic.
There is no unanimity or agreement in the teachings of the various Orthodox churches (some have adopted Calvinistic and Lutheran views) except, perhaps, they recognize the infallible authority of the first seven councils (all held in the East) since they claim that this is when the whole authoritative Church (the East and West) were united together. Yet on this same point we must clearly note the contradiction, as either the Church never had the power to clarify her teaching and if so then the Orthodox can not refer to the first seven councils, but only to Apostolic times; however if the Church had this power and has lost it; then you have a substantial change, which amounts to saying that the Church established by Christ has defected and no longer exists. Christ made it clear however that he would be with his Church "all days even to the consummation of the world" (Matt 28:20) and that the same gospel he proclaimed would be that proclaimed by his Apostles and their lawful successors (Matt 24:14 - "THIS GOSPEL" shall be preached in the whole world", and not another gospel). It suffices from this alone to show indeed that the Orthodox have not only become schismatics but have over time become heretics denying Catholic teachings which were well affirm for the first nine centuries in the Eastern Church. While they seem to hold that the bond of marriage is indissoluble, they allow divorce for marital infidelity and for other reasons which is contrary to the words of Christ " whosever shall put away his and marry another commits adultery with her" (Mark 10:11 see also Luke 16:18; Matt 5:32 ; 19:9).
It is clear from the Eastern Schism that these Churches (now called Orthodox) have placed themselves outside the Church instituted by Christ and have become almost no different to any other protestant sect for today they deny a number of Catholic doctrines (i.e. Purgatory, the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son) which were affirmed by their own Church fathers!
In fact this is one of the most evident signs of the Orthodox being in heresy, in that they deny the very truth's as found in the works of the Fathers and saints they claim to venerate and honor. What is more is that they often forget that the Roman See, with its bishop, the pope, was the supreme arbiter of orthodoxy in the early centuries of the Church. There is abundant historical evidence for this, but suffice it to say that even many of the East's most revered Church Fathers and Patriarchs sought refuge in Rome (theologically and/or geographically), for example: St. Athanasius (339 to 342), St. Basil the Great (371), St. John Chrysostom (404), St. Cyril of Jerusalem (430), and St. Flavian of Constantinople (449).The East all too frequently treated its greatest figures much like the ancient Jews did their prophets, often expelling and exiling them, while Rome welcomed them unambiguously, and restored them to office by the authority of papal or conciliar decree.
Many of these venerable saints (particularly St. John Chysostom), and other Eastern saints such as (most notably) St. Ephraim, St. Maximus the Confessor, and St. Theodore of Studios, also explicitly affirmed papal supremacy. The popes functioned as the "supreme court" of the Church, and they presided over (personally or through papal legates) and ratified the Ecumenical Councils of the Church.
In part 2, we will examine the Filioque controversy, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, whether Ecumenical Councils ceased, divorce and remarriage, and artificial contraception.
