The Supremacy of Rome: Debate with an Eastern Orthodox

This dialogue took place in response to our article regarding the Eastern Church Fathers vs. the Eastern Orthodox Church on the preeminence and supremacy of St. Peter and his successors in the Bishops of Rome. To get the wider context, please refer back to the previous article.

The interlocutor will be given the initials TR. Our response will be from ROTK.

TR: If this were true and not just papal quote mining, then why was a pope condemned as a heretic at the 6th council? Rome accepted it and did not think it odd that a council could make such a claim over it. Rome wasn't even involved at the 2nd and 5th councils which dogmatized vital christological truths! Peter is indeed the rock, the icon of all bishops who weild authority as concilia servants not an earthly king.

ROTK: "If this were true" does not make sense given the statements themselves. One can call it "papal quote mining' but that does not answer the actual verbatim quotes. Your question about Honorius is simply answered this way: because he was a heretic. He was condemned by two Popes, including his immediate successor, and three Ecumenical Councils. Of course he never taught his heresy publicly or bound the Church to it, it was contained in a private letter intended for the heretic Sergius. So he was justly and authoritatively condemned by Rome. Regarding the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Pope St. Damasus sent legates. A council is recognized as ecumenical once its works are approved by a pope. The pope does not need to attend a council for it to be an ecumenical council. The earliest councils were held in the East, and the reigning popes usually sent legates to represent them. He was unable to attend due to old age, and he died years later. This was an era where Popes just couldn't take a flight over. The 5th ecumenical council was ratified by Pope St. Leo the Great. Leo sent a letter to Flavian, archbishop of Constantinople, which was read to the Council Fathers, and they responded, "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!"

TR: Leo's letter was indeed Orthodox, but yet a council was still convened because the Church is synodal. Both Leo and the rest of the church understood that a council judges Orthodoxy, not one bishop. There have been many great Orthodox popes who like st Gregory the great believed that anyone calling himself universal bishop is the antichrist.

ROTK: St. Leo's letter arrived during the Council, and the Fathers said, "Peter has spoken through Leo." Ecumenical Councils received their authority once ratified by the Bishop of Rome, which St. Leo did for Chalcedon. Regarding St. Gregory, your quote misses far too much context, and is a good example of quote mining. The same argument is raised by the Protestants. Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all bishops. Gregory was not making these statements in regard to himself or to any other pope. He believed the bishop of Rome had primacy of jurisdiction over all other bishops. Like his predecessors and successors, Gregory promulgated numerous laws, binding on all other bishops, and called the diocese of Rome "the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches." He said, "I, albeit unworthy, have been set up in command of the Church." He taught that the pope, as successor to Peter, was granted by God a primacy over all other bishops. He claimed that it was necessary for councils and synods to have the pope's approval to be binding and that only the pope had the authority to annul their decrees. He enforced his authority to settle disputes between bishops, even between patriarchs. When John the Faster called himself the Universal Bishop, Gregory wrote, "As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it." John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, wanted to be bishop even of the dioceses of subordinate bishops, making himself the universal or only real bishop. Gregory condemned this idea, and wrote to John telling him that he had no right to claim to be universal bishop or “sole" bishop in his Patriarchate. So in this context, "the antichrist" that St. Gregory was referring to was any bishop claiming such a title for oneself and not recognizing the preeminence and supremacy of the See of Rome.