Exactly nine hundred
years have passed since the separation of the two great Churches of Christendom
when the Western Church broke away from the Eastern Orthodox. Many still seek
the cause of this most unfortunate division. Actually, it can be found in the
difference concerning the Primacy of the Pope of Rome.
Until the Fifth Century
A.D. there was not even a single instance of dissention or antagonism between
the two Churches. The bishop of Rome had always been considered the First in
the order of hierarchy. This was a natural consequence of the position of Rome
as the capital of the Roman Empire. When Constantinople became the new capital
of the Byzantine State its Bishop assumed the second position in the ranks of
hierarchy. The third canon of the Second Ecumenical Council (381) designates
the position of honor of the Bishop of Constantinople as second only to that of
the Bishop of Rome. This decision of the Council is based on the premise that
Constantinople is the new Rome, and incidentally, it has been retained among
the titles of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
This indicates, as was
brought out at the Council, that the political importance of the city defined
the honorary status of its hierarchy. The same fact was repeated with emphasis
by the now renown 28th Canon of the Fourth Ecumenical Council held at Chalcedon
in 451. At that time, the Bishop of Constantinople was acclaimed as equal in
honor to the Bishop of Rome.
In the meantime,
erroneous beliefs began to circulate in the Church of the West. Of these, the
most serious was an addition to the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople concerning
the Holy Spirit. The Church of Rome wanted to say that the Holy Spirit proceeds
"and from the Son". In Latin, this addition was accomplished by the
word, "filioque".
It should be made clear
at this point that the Creed or PISTEVO was compiled and authorized as the
Christian Confessions of faith by the First and Second Ecumenical Councils. The
first seven articles of the Creed were approved at the First Council and the
remaining five were composed at the Second Council which was held in
Constantinople. The Eighth article states "and in the Holy Spirit, the
Lord, Giver of Life, who proceedeth from the Father, who together with the
Father and the Son is worshipped..." The addition of "filioque"
("and from the Son") was first heard in Spain during the middle of
the Sixth Century. From there, this innovation spread to other western
countries. It is most noteworthy however, that during the early part of the
Ninth century,Pope Leo III protested against this addition to the Creed.
Convinced that it should remain as it has been written and proclaimed by the
first two Ecumenical Councils. He ordered that the Creed be inscribed without
any change upon two silver plaques. These were placed in St. Peter's at Rome
for all to see. This is a historical fact which is accepted by all historians
as true.
The first to object
strongly to this addition to the Creed, and to other errors of the Western
Church, was Photios, the great Patriarch of Constantinople, who flourished in
the middle of the Ninth Century. Photios was a brilliant scholar and theologian
who held a high position in the Imperial Byzantine Court. He attained great
literary fame with his monumental work, "Myrio Biblos", in which he
summarized 280 ancient writings of which the majority were subsequently lost.
Due to his great ability and exceptional virtues as a layman he was admitted to
the priesthood and in a period of six days he was ordained deacon, priest and
bishop. On Christmas day of 857, he was enthroned as Patriarch of
Constantinople.
The discord between the
Eastern and the Western Church continued on a livelier vein even after
Patriarch Photios. The Eastern Church, with the Patriarch of Constantinople at
its head, protested against the errors in dogma taught by the western Church.
Constant appeals were made to Rome to renounce all error and conform with the
teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the first eight
centuries.Simultaneously, the Western Church, with the Pope as its head,
maintained that the entire Christian Church was obliged to adhere without
discussion to the pronouncements of the Roman See. They maintained that the
primate of the Church of Rome was the vicar of Christ on earth, because he was
supposedly the heir to the primacy of St. Peter whom Christ our Lord had
installed as head of the universal Church and who founded the Christian Church
of Rome.
Now let us see what we
can learn from the original account of the events in question:
a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt.16) when he asked His Disciples, "Whom do men say that I am?" And they said, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets". He saith unto them, "but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God". And Jesus answered and said unto him,"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt.IΣΤ¨13-18).
a) We should first consider that passage from the Gospel according to St. Matthew upon which the Roman Catholics base the primacy of St. Peter. Our Lord was at Caesarea of Philippi (Matt.16) when he asked His Disciples, "Whom do men say that I am?" And they said, "Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others Jeremias, or one of the prophets". He saith unto them, "but whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, "Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God". And Jesus answered and said unto him,"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar Jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Matt.IΣΤ¨13-18).
It is quite evident from
these words of our Lord that He built His Church not upon Peter for then He
would have clearly said,"Thou art Peter and upon thee I will build my
Church," but upon the rock of the true Faith which Peter confessed.Christ
our Lord clearly said that His Church is built upon the truth which Peter
declared that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of the living God. Only through
considerable distortion of the text can one draw the conclusion of the Roman
Catholics, that Christ built the Church upon Peter.
b) It is also
clear from the Scriptures that St. Peter had no authority over the Apostles. In
his Epistle to the Galatians, St. Paul states that when he saw Peter was not
thinking correctly, he corrected him in the presence of others, "But when
Peter was to come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be
blamed" (Gal B:11).Further down, St. Paul elaborates by saying,
"...when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the
gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, "if thou, being a Jew, livest
after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compellest thou the
Gentiles to live as do the Jews?" (Gal B:14). On the basis of these words
of St. Paul we may justly question, "Is there even a trace of recognition
here of Peter's authority to teach without the possibility of errors?".
c) Concerning the
foundation of the Christian Church in Rome there is authoritative testimony
that it was not accomplished by St. Peter. It was established by Christians who
settled in Rome. Moreover, St. Paul considered it his Church He mentioned this
in his epistle to the Romans "....from Jerusalem and round about unto
Illyricum, I have fully preached the gospel of Christ. Yea, so have I strived
to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build upon
another man's foundation...for which cause also I have been much hindered from
coming to you. But now having no more place in these parts, and having a great
desire these many years to come unto you. Whensoever I take my journey into
Spain, I will come to You: for I trust to see you in my journey"
(Gal.IE:19-20,22-23).
From this passage,
therefore, we clearly see that St. Paul had no knowledge that St. Peter was in
Rome or that Peter had founded the Church there. On the contrary,he says that
he feels obliged to preach the gospel where no other Apostle taught so that he
would not build upon the foundation laid by another. Surely this is an explicit
testimony that St. Peter was in no way connected with the foundation of the
Church of Rome. Actually, St. Peter served the Church for many years in
Antioch, as verified by St. Jerome, and then went to Rome where he suffered
martyrdom with St. Paul.
d) In conclusion, it
should be pointed out that the order of precedence given to the Apostolic Sees
was determined exclusively by the political importance of various cities. The
Bishop of Rome was recognized as first because Rome was capital of the empire.
Originally, the Bishop of Constantinople was designated as second by the Second
Ecumenical Council. Subsequently, when Constantinople became the capital of the
Byzantine Empire and was referred to as New Rome, the Fourth Ecumenical Council
proclaimed the Bishop of Constantinople equal in rank with the Bishop of Rome.
The Bishop of Alexandria
was designated third, because his city was then the great center of learning;
and following him were the Bishop of Antioch and Jerusalem. If the position of
honor were determined not by the political but by the religious significance of
the city, does it not stand to reason that the primacy of honor would be
reserved for Jerusalem,the Mother Church of Christendom? There would be no
dispute in that case, for our Lord lived there, was crucified there and arose
from the tomb there. Moreover, the first Christian Church was founded in
Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost.
These are the true and
accurate facts as they are brought to light by the authentic documents which
make up Ecclesiastical History. It is very unfortunate that the Western Church
insists on its viewpoint for so many centuries.
We Orthodox are deeply
grieved that our Roman Catholic brethren distort the facts. We are praying
daily and will continue to pray that the Roman Catholic Church will again
embrace the truth, as many learned laymen of that faith have done already. That
event will be one of the most momentous in the entire history of mankind. It
will mark the beginning of the fulfillment of the prayer of our Lord on the
night of His betrayal, "Father, I pray that they all may be one; as thou
Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; that the
world may believe that thou hast sent me".
Archbishop Michael
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου