THE CHAIR OF PETER
The Church's Center of Unity by Divine Law

N.B.: The following article is posted with special permission granted by Dr. James Likoudis.

---

– The Chair of Peter is the Center of Unity for Eastern Orthodox,
Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian and Protestants –

20 centuries have come and gone, but the Bishop of Rome still sits on the Chair of Peter. During this time, as history tell us, we have seen kingdoms, rulers, governments, countries, nations, dictatorships, empires, they all have risen, crumble and eventually disappear in the dustbin of human history. But why, one may ask, is the Pope still ruling the Catholic Church when all other forms of structures and governments have failed or disintegrated in the course of time? The answer is simple: "The Chair of Peter was established and ordered by Divine Decree to be the center of Unity for all believers in His Church."

To the hyper-critical and scoffers, the Pope is a medieval anachronism that should not even exist; these, presume that a modern church should be one where the individual believer chooses what to believe without interference from dogmatic authority figures or restrictive tenets. Essentially, these are people that cannot suffer any type of religious control or authority. Their claim is that Christianity is not a monolithic faith, but one which allows each believer to choose his tenets. Moreover, the overt and covert enemies of the Church point out, as evidence, that there is no unity because the Church is broken and fractured by Eastern schisms and the Protestant Reformation, resulting in thousands of sects. In essence they claim that Jesus' Plea for unity to His Heavenly Father at the Last Supper, went utterly unfulfilled.

On the contrary, the Father, indeed, granted His Son's ardent supplication by guarantying the visible Unity of His Church through the Son's commission of Simon Peter as Chief Pastor, Vicar, and Primate of the Apostles. The Father always grants the prayers of the Son; to believe otherwise, would be blasphemy. Again, one may ask: What made Peter, a simple fisherman, deserving of such privilege?

1.) Simon Peter, the fisherman, is mentioned "first" as listed among the Apostles and in St. Matthew's Gospel (Matthew 10:2), he is specifically termed "the first", a clear witness to his being regarded as the undisputed leader of the Apostles (see also Acts).

2.) Simon Peter was the first of the Apostles to recognize and to acknowledge Jesus as Messiah and God: "Thou are the Messiah, the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:16). From that moment on, Simon Peter became known as the Rock on which THE CHURCH STANDS; his confirmation as Chief Pastor of the Church Jesus founded came later after the Resurrection.

However, this writing will not explore why Simon Peter was chosen by Jesus to be His chief representative, Vicar, and leader of His Newly founded Church; after all who can scrutinize the mind of God? Rather, it is intended to assert and affirm how he was invested and commissioned by Jesus into the office of Chief Pastor and visible head of His Apostolic Church, and as such, established as the center of unity for all Jesus's disciples who call themselves Christians.

It was Jesus' prerogative, as the promised Christ-Messiah, to anoint Simon son of Jonas as the supreme Pastor of the Church He founded, and to him alone He bestowed the Keys of His Kingdom, and only him, among His disciples, received from Jesus a new name, to be known as Kephas=Rock, a name that will endure to the end of ages and beyond. In doing thus, the Lord granted Simon Peter, and his successors, a special endowment-charism of infallibility and indefectibility, for the preservation and continuation of the Church HE founded. As such, Peter (after the Lord's Ascension) was made the leader and center of unity for all the followers of the ONLY Church established by HIM.

Indeed, what makes the Church undivided, One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic, is because of its Petrine Primacy' privilege (De Jure Divino). It was given to a man named Rock (Simon Peter) — an attribute inherited by all his successors. As long as there are bishops and faithful followers united with Peter's successor, the Church IS AND REMAINS ONE, undivided in Her inner and external Unity. Those separated from Her do not divide Her, they do indeed cause damage to Her Unity, but they cannot destroy it. They become like dust, lint, stains, or lacerations on the Church as on that Robe of Christ which, incredibly, remained one and seamless during the Passion. Consider that in this earthly pilgrimage The Church resembles that Robe of Her crucified Lord, beaten, wounded, torn and lacerated, bleeding, spat upon, and yet remaining whole, just as it was recorded in Sacred Scriptures "They divided my garments, and for my vesture they cast lots" (John 19:24) and "not one bone of Him was broken." (John 19:36)

The Catholic Church has endured for 20 centuries, precisely because she possesses the "Chair of Peter", and with IT the 4 distinctive Marks, and THIS CHURCH will last to the end of the world, just as Jesus has said: "Heaven and Earth shall pass, but my word shall never pass" (Matthew 24:35). And it is this writer's affirmation that this is not just an expression of some Catholic triumphalism, but rather the exact fulfillment of Christ's promise so that, even today, we can easily witness the "City seated on a hill" (Matthew 5:14) towards which all the nations come.

A critic may venture to ask: "The Apostle Peter may have been given the privileges of a Primacy by Jesus for the immediate benefit of His band of followers, but the successor of Peter (after Peter himself was martyred with Paul at Rome) was just another Bishop who replaced him, and was equal in authority to the other Bishops, also successors to the Apostles".

To find the answer to that critic’s objections, we have to go back 30 centuries.

How Simon Peter received the preeminence in Authority and Power "De Jure Divino" (by Divine Right)

Throughout human history symbols have great and lasting significance and meaning such as a king's throne referred to as the seat of supreme leadership, or a judge's chair denoting juridical authority, or a ruler's Staff, or king's scepter, denoting supreme executive authority, or a palace' steward holding the Keys when the master or Lord is away, denoting supreme legislative authority.

Without any doubt, powerful Symbols (Semiotics) have great meaning and influence on people, and can instill awe, respect, fear, love, deference, obeisance, loathing, etc.

In legitimate studies of the Bible, the Word of God, semiotics takes on a special and supernatural meaning; thus we say: The Chair of Moses, the House of David, the Keys of the House of David, Jerusalem, Priest in the order of Melchizedek, Keys of the Kingdom, House of Israel, The throne of David, etc., to denote certain privileges granted individuals, or have reference to events that have within a corresponding allegorical but supernatural meaning in the Old and New Testaments.

One particularly striking example can be found in the book of the Prophet Isaiah (Isaiah 22:19-25) where God, through His prophet, intervenes to remove an unworthy steward and replace him with one of His choosing. For this, I defer to my good friend Mr. James Likoudis, who in his book "The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy: Letters to a Greek Orthodox on the Unity of the Church" illustrates this particular event in a most eloquent way:

[A NOTE of interest here, to the hypercritic:] while later on, Jesus extended the power of binding and loosing to the rest of the Apostles, the Keys remained firmly and permanently in the hands of Peter, and Peter's alone. While all the Apostles are also the foundations of the Church, and all the Apostles, including Peter, share the same sacerdotal dignity, "Peter alone is the Rock-foundation, the bedrock on whom these foundations stand."

1. Peter alone possesses the Keys,
2. Peter alone was given the mandate to Confirm, Shepherd and Feed all his brothers.

The Kingdom of Heaven was established for the human race, and therefore, the Church, reflecting Her Founder, is both Spiritual and Human (Visible), and as a Visible entity it has to have a leader to prevent chaos and anarchy. Even within Orthodoxy this structure is evident, with the local Patriarch exercising and claiming "De Jure" authority over the Bishops in his jurisdiction. And yet, there is no converging or uniting authority among the Patriarchs themselves, leaving the door open for them to be "sifted like wheat" by the Enemy. Can a kingdom, government, or business enterprise exist without a king, president or prime minister, or a CEO? The Church, as a Visible organization, is no different.

Three times Jesus conferred a special preeminence to Simon Peter, and each time with greater amplification:

The first: "Blest are Thou, Simon son of Jonas! ... For I declare to Thee, Thou are 'Rock', and on this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. To Thee I will entrust the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever Thou declare bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven; whatever Thou declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." (Matthew 16:11-19)

The second time: "Simon, Simon! Behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that Thy own faith may not fail; and once Thou have turned back, Thou must strengthen Thy brothers." (Luke 22:31-32)

The third time: "Simon son of John, do Thou love me more than these? ... Feed my lambs...Tend my sheep...Feed my sheep...Follow me." (John 21:15-19)

It is very important to note that in the first instance Jesus changed the name of Simon son of Jonas to Kephas=Rock:

"When God gives a person a new name, that name signifies the person's mission and the divine endowments with which the Lord equips him for that mission. Thus Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter, "Rock", and brought him to the unshakeable rock-like faith on which He built His Church"
(Paul Hinnebusch, O.P. "Jesus, The New Elijah" pg. 31)

All that was needed for the establishing of the Church was for Jesus to speak His words: "Thou are Rock, and on this Rock I will build my Church... To Thee I will entrust the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven... Whatever Thou declarest bound... shall be bound... Strengthen Thy brothers... Feed my lambs... Tend my sheep... Follow Me."

Know that the above words are spoken by Jesus as the God-man, HE IS that same Divine Person that we profess every Sunday when reciting the Creed "Through Him all things were made", and Who is also the One and the same Word who spoke and things came into being:

• in Genesis 1:3 "Let there be light.." and light was made;
• From the burning bush "I AM WHO I AM" (Exodus 3:14);
• It was the Word of God Himself which changed water into wine (John 2:7-11);
• Calmed the Storm ( Mark 4:39);
• Raised the dead (John 11:43);
• Multiplied bread and fish (Luke 9:16-17);
• Changed bread and wine into His Body and Blood, (Matthew 26:26-28) etc.

No one, of those who believe, is morally free to reject Christ's words and teachings. The Holy Gospel must be accepted and acknowledged in Its totality. And thus, for all those who follow and/or claim to love Jesus and His Gospel, the burning question is:

<<<Who are we to doubt, add or subtract, question or falsify the Declarations of the Eternal Word?>>>

God says what He means and means what He says. His Word IS LIFE and takes immediate effect. By His spoken word, Jesus provided His Church with its visible head and supreme authority. Disregarding or spurning the words of Jesus commissioning His Chief steward, Peter the Rock, greatly offends the Heavenly Father, for Jesus is the Father's Word, and disregard of Peter's headship and Primacy vouchsafed him, wounds the Holy Spirit, Who is supreme Love. God is offended when His Son in effect, is termed a liar by biblical exegetes who deny His Messiah even intended to establish a visible Church.

It is this writer's affirmation that the supreme Chair of Peter was established "De Jure Divino" for the guidance, the structure and the administration of His Church on Earth. Just like God, through the prophet Isaiah, chose Eliakim over Shebna for the stewardship of the House of David, the same God chose Peter for the government of His Church. The stamp or Seal of the Holy Trinity is remarkably shown and evidenced in the endurance of the Petrine Office;

1. God the Father wills it,
2. God the Son founded it,
3. God the Holy Spirit gives it life and sustains it.

The perfect accord of the Holy Trinity is reflected in The Church by Its Unity to Its visible Head and Chief Pastor.

It would have been illogical that Jesus would leave His newly founded Church without a visible leader to rule in His absence. He chose Simon Peter as the Rock of the Church and to take His place (not replace Him) as the regent Vicar until He comes in glory at the Second Coming. Peter's Vicariate is one of service, not for personal vainglory, just as the example of the Lord was: "I did not come to be served, but rather to serve" [Mark 10:45]. Therefore, soon with the Petrine Primacy of Pope Gregory the Great, came the most important papal title "Servant of the Servants of God". The Vicariate of Peter, the Rock of the Church, did not end after the Prince of the Apostles was martyred with Paul at Rome, but continues to this day because the Holy Spirit endows each of Peter's successors with the same privileges until the Bridegroom comes in Glory.

One more point on the Petrine servanthood: God does not bestow honorific titles that have no real meaning or mission, neither grants special endowments to those whom He designate for other purposes according to His will (remember James and John wished to be seated on each side of the Lord). Therefore, when He commissioned Peter "De Jure Divino", [The Lord changed Simon's name to Kephas=Rock, to signify his new mission] and bestowing the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter alone, He also clothed and commissioned him with a REAL TITLE, possessing REAL POWER and AUTHORITY ["Strengthen Thy brothers... Feed my lambs... Tend my sheep... Follow Me."], and an episcopal Throne-Chair from which to exercise those faculties. The Lord DID NOT dispense to Peter a mere "Primacy of Honor" or an empty title such as "first among equals"- titles which would be of no value in dealing with the patriarchal and episcopal disputes that would mark the early Christian history. But Christ did indeed provide for a real Petrine Primacy – one of real Authority to deal with disorders threatening the Unity of HIS Church.

It also may be added here that the "Chair of Moses" denoting the supreme teaching and legislative authority in the Old Testament, passed into the "Chair of Peter" after Christ's Death and Resurrection (remember how the Temple shook and the curtain hiding the Holy of Holies was torn in 2 pieces). The occupants of the Chair of Moses proved utterly unworthy of that office. It was the will of the Holy Trinity to transfer (not to abolish, see Matthew 5:17) this long esteemed and venerated institution into the person of Peter (Kephas=Rock), and to all his successors afterward. Just as the Chair of Moses passed on to the Jewish priests and Pharisees after his death, so, after the Death and Resurrection of the Lord, that same Chair passed on to Peter and his successors. Of course, just as Moses had 72 elders to help him, Peter was to have an episcopate to help him govern the Church of God. And as just as the Jewish chief priest sitting on the Chair of Moses was invested with REAL teaching, legislative, and administrative powers, so also Peter was to sit on the throne of TRUTH given him by Jesus Himself.

The question that critics and detractors ask is: "If God did not abolish the Law of the Old Testament, only the pharisaical practices, where is and who sits on the Chair of Moses now?"

The answer to such critics is as follows: "This important institution of a supreme authority was handed to the newly appointed Chief Priest Peter known as Kephas=Rock, chosen by Jesus Himself, and to the infant Church at large as united to Her head (see Acts chapter 15), when Jesus with His powerful life-giving Words anointed Peter in Matthew 16:11-19".

Let us explore this further. The hyper-critic may ask: "Why is the Roman Pontiff's claim to hold the traditional Chair of Moses to be believed? Why not also, the claim of Protestants or the Eastern Orthodox Churches — who have preserved most of the apostolic teaching — be valid? After all, it was The Catholic Church which fell into error and heresy".

The simple answer is: Because God willed it so! Also because Jesus specifically [see Luke 22:31-32] prayed that Peter's Faith, and with him all his successors, would never fail. We believe that His prayer was granted, because the Father grants always what the Son prays for, and moreover, the Holy Spirit is the protector and guarantor of this special charism of the Church's indefectibility in Faith. Now, a more particular answer in regard to the Protestant churches;

• with over 30.000 different sects, differing widely in doctrine and theology, with no point of reference, and no religious discipline,
• but even more critical, the absence of a valid priesthood, which means no valid sacraments (except Baptism and Matrimony),
• their utter rejection of at least 7 holy books from the Bible, their personal erroneous interpretations of Holy Scriptures,
• and their almost total lassitude regarding Christian morality.
• Witness their advocating or tolerating divorce and remarriage, homosexual marriage and homosexual activity, abortion, contraception;
• the existence of Hell and the Devil are proclaimed by many Protestants to be myth or fiction!
• Salvation comes by saying only once "Jesus is my Savior" and it does not matter what one does afterward.

TRULY, can any reasonable person say that the Chair of Moses rests with any of the Protestant denominations and sects? If one reads further, it will be demonstrated that it was they who separated from Rome, not Rome from them, as is sometimes foolishly asserted.

Regarding the Eastern Orthodox, they consist of 16 autocephalous (independent) national churches with NO VISIBLE CENTER OF UNITY. Among themselves these national churches betray doctrinal disagreements. At times they are at odds with themselves, suffering severe internal schisms. One such Schism is occurring presently as I write; the Ukrainian Orthodox has separated from the Moscow Patriarchate (after 300 years) to rejoin the patriarchate of Constantinople. Moreover, the majority of these churches are under the rule or quasi-control of their civil national governments. The Greek Orthodox Church remains as Intricately enmeshed with its national government as was the great medieval Byzantine Church dominated by the Byzantine emperor's political ambitions. Those autocephalous (independent) Churches possess complete freedom only where they possess faithful in Western Europe or North and South America.

Orthodox doctrine and theology for the most part remain frozen since the 11th century, but this has not prevented some startling deviations from their own past traditional teachings concerning the eternal Procession of the Holy Spirit from or through the Son and the liceity of using unleavened bread for the Eucharist. In contradiction to the teaching of Christ, most Orthodox Churches allow divorce and remarriage and now contraception. Their teaching on the after-life is confused and askew: while some of their prelates and theologians negate the existence of Purgatory, they celebrate services and prayers for the dead; their immense love for Mary the Most Holy Mother of God is proverbial, but yet some reject vehemently the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception while other Orthodox theologians no longer regard it as heretical.

Again, like their Protestant counterparts, it was the Orthodox who separated from the Catholic Church, not vice versa. With regard to their main objection that the Catholic Church innovated with its "new" doctrine of the Filioque, suffice to say that the Filioque was widely taught throughout the Western Church from the 5th to the 10th centuries and supported by the Popes as embodying orthodox doctrine. That the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Son was supported by the Eastern Fathers who wrote on the relations between the Son and the Spirit, this being acknowledged in the East long before 1054. It was then that the patriarch of Constantinople, Michael Cerularius, revived the fatal error on the procession of the Holy Spirit by his 9th c. predecessor Photius. For personal and political reasons, he unleashed the fury of controversy in the vineyard of the Lord. During the first Millennium, obedience to the supreme Chair of Peter was always considered necessary to maintaining Catholic communion, but Cerularius chose instead to break the bond of communion over the issue of the Filioque, thus plunging other Eastern Sees dominated by Constantinople into schism. Later in the 14th century, the questionable theology of Gregory Palamas would be used to justify the existing separation with "heretical" Rome. Do the Orthodox have a claim to the Chair of Moses (now Peters')? NO, not at all, they carry too much unworthy doctrinal baggage to claim the inheritance of that precious Chair of Unity.

Who then, sits on the Chair of Moses?

<<<  Jesus could not have been more specific  >>>

"Blest are Thou, Simon son of Jonas! ... For I declare to Thee, Thou are 'Rock', and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. To Thee I will entrust the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever Thou declare bound on earth shall be bound in Heaven; whatever Thou declare loosed on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."
Jesus commissioning the Apostle Peter (Matthew 16:11-19)

How does a King or powerful man appoint a steward to watch over his house or affairs, when he may be elsewhere, or absent? Are there special formulas or rituals or secret protocols for this purpose? No, the King's word and the public handing of the keys of the palace, is sufficient to appoint the chosen person to the stewardship, and thereafter, the King's command is obeyed and respected by all in his household.

The words pronounced by Jesus in Matthew 16:11-19 <<<  DID JUST THAT.  >>>

A critic may even object that Jesus did not notarize a document to that effect, or have it publicly displayed. However, the Church does possess a document recording the appointment of Peter by Jesus, a document going back almost 2,000 years – "The Holy Gospel of Matthew", which has been notarized by the blood of untold millions of Western and Eastern martyrs.

In conclusion of this section it must be said that the Chair once belonging to Moses is possessed by the one to whom Jesus first entrusted His Church, the Apostle known as Kephas=Rock, and his episcopal successors at Rome. Receiving the Keys, Peter also received the Chair of Unity, to rule as the visible Vicar and Chief Pastor of His Church. Just as by the will of God, Eliakim replaced Shebna, Peter also took over Moses' Chair from the Jewish priests, a Chair that would last until the end of the world.

– One Lord, One Church –

It is the sad history of the Church that some of Her children abandoned Her visible Unity, but today is no different than 20 centuries ago. Many disciples then left Jesus because of His hard sayings regarding the Eucharist. And in the course of time, many others engaged in quarrels which led to schism such as:

• the ambitious Byzantine patriarch of Constantinople Michael Cerularius (for political reasons);
• Martin Luther (for his arrogance and ignorance, he did not even understand the doctrine of indulgences which he attacked);
• King Henry VIII (he was denied an adulterous marriage);
• Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre (he did not like the liturgical reforms of Vatican II).

In spite of all these separations, the Church IS and remains ONE, united to the Vicar appointed by Jesus Himself.

• Consider again the Eastern Orthodox: divided into 16 autocephalous and autonomous churches based on national borders; they have had their own schisms (the Old Calendarists in Greece, Bulgaria, and Roumania, and now the Ukrainian Orthodox).
• Consider the Protestant Reformation initiated by Luther; there are now over 30,000 different "ecclesial communities" and sects, with doctrinal issues that range over the entire range of Christian Revelation.
• Consider the Anglican Communion: splintered and based on national borders like the Eastern Orthodox, they have become morally lax and even worse, are in doctrinal chaos.
• Additionally, consider other sects that call themselves Christian, but are really not, such as: the Jehovah Witness, The Mormons, The Moonies, and many more.

The truth is that Jesus founded ONE CHURCH and ONE CHURCH ONLY.

All of the above groups have broken unity with the Chair of Peter for very selfish and myopic reasons; they all proclaim their undying love for Jesus, but all appear united in a visceral hatred for the Chief Steward of the Church whom Jesus Himself appointed and, sadly, they continue to despise the ONLY CHURCH HE ESTABLISHED.

Many are the objections that the separated Christians put forward when there is talk of ecumenism. However, for E. Orthodox, the primary and major reason given for refusing reconciliation with the Catholic Church is always the Petrine Primacy of the Pope. They fail to acknowledge that Jesus Himself willed it, and therefore they go into mental and intellectual gymnastics to justify their resistance to the reunion of the Churches and their enmity for Rome.

[ADDED NOTE: the "Filioque" issue was originally the MAJOR cause (or better, the excuse) for discord with the Holy Roman Church. In time it was realized that acceptance of the Filioque would lead to acceptance of the Roman Primacy. Therefore, to keep and maintain the Schism, it became ever more expedient to deny a Primacy of universal authority and jurisdiction to the Pope. It may be recalled that at the famous Reunion Council of Florence (1439), the Greeks objected far more vigorously against the Filioque than against the Roman Primacy whose strong formulation by the Council they easily accepted.]

In Germany, Luther convinced some princes to overthrow papal rule, and as a result, a hundred thousand peasants died; hundreds of churches, monasteries, and abbeys were burned and destroyed. Afterwards, there was no longer a divinely established episcopate and priesthood, only two sacraments (Baptism and Matrimony) remained; there were seven less books in the Bible; and everyone could interpret the Word of God for himself.

A few years later, in England, the same kind of religious revolt happened as in Germany. However, there, they went a step further. Henry VIII demanded to be proclaimed "Head of the Church", and as the ultimate insult to the Pope, he kept the title ("Defensor Fidei" - Defender of the Faith - a title that to this day the Monarchs of England possess) that the Pope had granted him a few years earlier for his writing a book against Luther. Thus, Henry took a page from Byzantine history, subjecting the Church to the State. As a wag noted, under his rule, if he wished his bishops to jump, they would ask "How high"?

Everyone can see and witness the utter theological and doctrinal chaos of contemporary Protestantism. As observed previously, even the most fundamental tenets of Christianity are ignored, denied, dismissed, and openly flouted. The logical conclusion that a reasonable believer comes to is simple: there is no legitimate or divine stewardship in these denominations, only political correctness, and a pandering to human respect. All too much is rendered to Caesar; Jesus' words to Peter for the Unity of His Church are cast aside. It brings to mind the words of James Likoudis: "The many liberal Protestants who have lost Faith in Christ as the God-man, have no legitimate right to be called 'Christians'" (see his article "Atheism and the Divinity of Christ").

Critics and skeptics may retort that in the Catholic Church not everyone is loyal to Her teachings and to the Pope! They point to dissenting movements among "traditionalists" and radical liberals who question the teachings of Vatican II and threaten the Unity of the Church. The Church has always been challenged by dissenting movements and continues to show Her tolerance until confronted by openly avowed declarations of formal schism and heresy.

True! Dissenters, material heretics, traitors and moles masquerading as Catholics, and outright enemies, covert and overt, can be found inside the Church; some of these are lay people and some are clerics, viz., priests, bishops and even cardinals. There is no surprise there, for even Jesus had to endure a betrayer and traitor, Judas.. But, as my friend James Likoudis once said, "Dissenters who remain in the Church lack the courage and audacity of a Mark of Ephesus or Luther". Some burrow inside the Catholic Church like cowards, and stay put, because they fear to lose their prestigious positions and salaries. Still others refuse to leave, desiring to cause as much damage as they possibly can. However, for our consolation, the Lord has taught that the chaff will be sifted from the good grain when the harvest is reaped.

The absence of a valid priesthood and hierarchy, and the rejection of the Petrine Primacy of the Pope, is at the core of the spiritual alienation of Protestants. This situation can be rectified by an honest dialogue between Protestant leaders and the Catholic Church and a sincere effort to remove the stumbling blocks that caused their separation in the first place.

History shows that the Catholic Church did not separate from the Eastern Orthodox and the Protestant reformers. It was they who took the fatal steps to rupture communion with the Chair of Peter. It was they who insisted on erroneous interpretations of the Church' Dogmas and their desire to free themselves from the "yoke" of papal authority.

They further claimed that it was the Catholic Church which separated from them due to corruption and heresy while ignoring the truth that ONLY the Church in communion with the Chair of Peter has been graced with a divine promise that the Gates of Hell cannot prevail against it. No seeker of truth can ignore the theological and doctrinal chaos, the internal schisms and discords, the moral collapse, the proliferation of contradictory theories regarding the meaning of "Church" and, the slavish capitulation to anti-Christian civil law and rulers by all those ecclesial entities no longer in communion with Rome.
The occupant of the Chair of Peter cannot remain the stumbling block for those who truly love God and His Word and decide to heed the call to re-unification, for there is only ONE LORD and ONLY ONE CHURCH.

– Further Reflection on Eastern Orthodoxy –

It is this writer's conviction, that when the Orthodox come finally to a frank and honest understanding and acceptance of the Petrine ministry of the Apostolic See, even if this understanding and acceptance means a less rigid and a more conciliar primacy (as proposed by some ecumenists), then all the rest of dogmatic and theological issues and questions fall into place. Also, as a side benefit of this reunion between Orthodox and Catholics, those who belong to Protestant churches will be motivated to re-unite, for the Church's Unity and Catholicity will shine out even more brilliantly to an unbelieving world.

Among all the separated churches, only the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and the Assyrian Church of the East, possess a valid Priesthood, Hierarchy, and valid Sacraments. Most of them are governed by Patriarchs, or regional heads, or Synods. Due to these considerations, it is understandable that ecumenical dialogues between Rome and the Orthodox take special precedence and urgency.

For too long the successors of Peter and the bishops of the Eastern Orthodox Churches have been alienated from each other. Their centuries-old quarrels must end if all are to truly take to heart the words of Our Savior. It was His will that the Apostolic College be one in heart and mind, and that Bishops as successors of the Apostles identify with His Gospel of forgiveness. What kind of example do the successors of the Apostles give the world when they remain alienated from each other? Did not Jesus say "By love for one another, the world will know you are my disciples"? (John 13:34-35). And was it not a Primacy of love which Christ established in the Apostolic See of Peter?

Schisms and separations are not an indication of that fraternal love, as commanded by the Lord, especially when these are based on, and justified by spurious objections to Catholic doctrines. It is a fundamental and inescapable truth that the Church is the Body of Christ, as St. Paul teaches, and therefore it is Christo-centric in her orientation, Liturgy, and hierarchical structure. With respect to the doctrine of the All-Holy Trinity and specifically, the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit, as the Fathers and Doctors taught, "it is the Son Who remains the centre of union between the Father and the Holy Spirit" (see J. Likoudis' "Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism" pg. 83). Perhaps an honest study of this formula will lead the Eastern Orthodox to reconsider their opposition to the Church's possessing an indivisible center of Unity in the Roman Primacy that mirrors the undivided Unity of the Trinity.

[NOTE of Interest in Ecumenism Talks:] The Patriarch of Constantinople has been considered and respected by the Orthodox as "The Ecumenical Patriarch of All Orthodox". As such, he is the nominal head and leader of Orthodoxy. He is considered the "first among equals" and therefore having the "primacy of honor". However, such titles imply no real authority or power to resolve ecclesial disputes and what is to be understood as "Constantinople's leadership" in Orthodoxy is being seriously challenged today.

• Witness the Patriarch of Moscow accusing the Patriarch of Constantinople of "Caesaro-papism" tendencies,
• and even worse – cutting off relations over the schisms among the Ukrainian Orthodox.
• There has also been the inability of Constantinople to bring about the consensus of all Orthodox Churches to the Council–Synod held in Crete last June 2016 (see J. Likoudis' "Reflections on the Recent Great and Holy Orthodox Council in Crete").
• The failure of Constantinople to control or correct conflicting doctrinal and theological issues in the national autocephalous churches reveals yet again the fatal flaw in Orthodox ecclesiology: the lack of a Primacy with real authority by divine right.

In ecumenical talks between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox, the Orthodox Patriarchs are willing only to concede to the Bishop of Rome, a mere "Primacy of honor" or "first among equals" title, thereby nullifying Christ's commission to Peter and his successors on the Cathedra Petri to "CONFIRM HIS BROTHERS". The problem is that even if Constantinople returns to full union with Rome, there is no guarantee that the other remaining autocephalous Churches would; such is the unintended consequence of empty, and largely meaningless, honorific titles.

It is not the intention, nor the scope of this writing to re-examine historical events, assess faults, or referee grudges and accusations. Rather, it is intended to demonstrate that the Petrine office of the Roman Pope, IS the center of unity for all believers in Christ. Now, let us explore the possible benefits (and the cost) of the eventual reunion between East and West. What will the Eastern Churches look like after the Great Schism is healed?

– How the Church may look after the miracle of re-unification –

There will surely be great joy and celebration in Heaven; the Saints will exult, the Most Holy Virgin will smile with pleasure, God will bless the Church even more, and Jesus will cover His Bride in glory. On Earth, however, that ancient Beast, the Devil, will not rejoice and will doubtless unleash new persecutions of the faithful.

Reunion with the Chair of Peter will give our separated Eastern brethren a renewed prestige, an international recourse of appeal to the Holy See, freedom of apostolic missionary movement, and most of all, support to resist the transgressions of civil/secular powers. These would be some of the legitimate benefits affecting ecclesiastical affairs; they would retain, in toto, their respective liturgical customs and discipline; they would retain their respective Patriarchal Sees; they would continue to choose their own Patriarchs and bishops; their Patriarchs' authority over their faithful overseas in the West would be strengthened in recognition of their union with the Apostolic See of Peter.

Perhaps the best benefit they will get is the total and unconditional backing of the Bishop of Rome, for he alone is recognized as the world-wide leader of the Catholic Church possessing a unique moral influence. But even better, the Catholic Churches of the Eastern rite would be enabled to engage with greater apostolic success in evangelizing Europe, Asia, and Africa, receiving a greater impetus with renewed strength from the Holy Spirit.

50 years of intense Ecumenism in the Catholic Church has produced some good progress. However, deep seated rancor exists today with too many Orthodox laity and, sadly, clergymen and prelates, who actively impede the progress in Ecumenical dialogue. It is well known how the monks of Mount Athos regard themselves as the "Guardians of Orthodoxy", despise ecumenical contacts with Rome, and wear their disdain like a badge of honor.

The leaders of the Orthodox churches must obviously tread lightly when negotiating with Rome, for fear of a revolt from their members, who most likely will not understand why they have to reverse centuries of discord. Additionally, their respective national governments will scrutinize (and perhaps nix) decisions and accords they might make with Rome. Historic political and cultural animosities are difficult to overcome.

The history of Byzantine Christianity is such that Church and State were intimately identified as one and the same. After the fall of the Byzantine Empire in 1453, Byzantine anti-unionists preferred subservience to Mehmet II, rather than freedom with Rome. They also lived in fear that a chosen freedom with Rome would mean their total extermination by Muslim rulers. Later, 19th century revolts led to freedom from the Ottoman Turks, but the new Balkan nations only continued the political subjection of the Church to the State except where Eastern Orthodox had immigrated to the West.

To this day the Patriarch of Constantinople (Istanbul) is severely restricted to freely exercise his office due to impositions from the Turkish government, the heir to the Ottoman rulers. He must be a Turkish citizen and is restricted to a small enclave of the city (the Phanar). He is essentially under house arrest and is constantly under threat of assassination by Muslim fanatics. Due to these considerations, the Greek Orthodox church several years ago suggested that the Patriarch move his See to Greece or Cyprus, but he has refused, and rightly so. Such a move would entail losing the Patriarchal See in Constantinople permanently, and the Turkish Government would further suppress the remaining Greek community there. That Turkey is a member of the European Union does not matter at all to its Islamist extremists.

Similarly, despite certain privileges granted – the Russian Orthodox Church – by Putin, there remain strictures imposed by the government. A government department oversees religious affairs and controls every aspect of Church activity. Every move Russian bishops make must be approved by government bureaucrats. Long ago, the Russian Orthodox Church followed the example of the Byzantine Empire where empire and church were one. After the Bolshevik revolution the Church was completely subjugated. Now, some Russian Orthodox has revived talk of a "Third Rome", an ideology supported by Putin to fuel anti-West sentiments and enhance ambitions to restore a Russian Empire. Not surprising, at the core of the recent Ukrainian Orthodox schism from the Moscow Patriarchate, is the rancor of the Ukrainians for the Russian Church's supporting and abetting the geo-political machinations of the atheistic Soviet state which exercised despotic domination of its neighbors. Today, the Patriarch of Moscow appears to be collaborating with Putin to build up a new Russian Empire. Traditional suspicions of the West may favor keeping the Churches separated and to maintain the Schism with Rome, just as Mehmet II did in 1453.

[A NOTE ON the Greek Orthodox Church of Greece.] While it enjoys most western freedoms, it restricts the civil rights of their compatriots who are not Orthodox, especially the Catholics of the Byzantine Greek rite whom the Orthodox regards with particular suspicion and disdain. Interestingly, the official Church successfully and incredibly, petitioned the government to place a stamp on all passports of Greek citizens, stating whether the holder was Orthodox or not. This measure effectively results in Church-sanctioned discrimination and a third-class citizenry with less civil rights. Greece, like Turkey, is a member of the European Union which itself exhibits a profound anti-Christian ethos. Recent events in Greece have revealed a few interesting features. As the Russian Orthodox Church operates in league with the Russian government, the Greek government has been "ONE" with the Greek Orthodox Church. However, last November, the Greek government asked for a "divorce" from the Church, allowing the state to declare itself "religiously neutral". In a terse article titled "Greece’s Orthodox Church and state consider divorce" published in Nov. 22, 2018 by DW news outlet, the following is disclosed:

• The Greek government wants to sack [fire] the nation's clergy in a bid to lessen the influence of the church. No longer will the State pay the salaries of clergy. Severing those ties in Europe's most religious country could spell a "holy war" between Church and State.
• Unshackled from the handcuffs of international creditors and brutal bailout loans, Tsipras [the prime minister and an avowed atheist] wants a divorce that would result in obtaining a stake in the church's vast fortune.
• So, in a bid to find an amicable settlement, he's stitched together a canny 15-point plan paving the way for a seamless separation in one of Europe's most theocratic member states.
• Under that scheme, the nation's 9000-strong clergy would be sacked [fired]. They would be removed from the state payroll and stripped of plump, public benefits and pensions which the wealthy Greek Orthodox Church would instead be required to pay.
• In return, the state would drop all claims to vast tracts of lands and property which the Church has long claimed its own, forming, instead, a massive money-making land development project which both sides would supervise and share profits, 50%-50%.
• Sounds lucrative? Heronymos II, the Archbishop of Athens and all Greece, was sold within 45 minutes of the sales pitch. He was seen shaking hands with Tsipras and briefly hugging him before parting ways after a surprise meeting earlier this month.
• Yet no sooner had both men publicly praised what they called a "landmark deal," their secret agreement ignited a furious backlash, with various important bishops and clergy condemning it as a betrayal.
• Furious controversy has since broken loose, turning this divorce into a nasty showdown.
• At an urgently convened meeting this week of the Church's senior-most decision making body, 72 of the country's 82 leading bishops sided with the nation's clergy, refusing to purge them from the state payroll.
• The government almost immediately shot back. "Let's make things clear," said government spokesman Dimitris Tzannakopoulos, "The government is well within its rights to regulate anything and everything that has to do with the state budget. So, if the church does not side with our proposal concerning the clergy, then the government will take it upon itself to do so."
• The "divorce-agreement" pushes the country closer to becoming genuinely secular. It opens the church's books to the state auditors to look into its vast fortune, estimated at over €700 billion ($800 billion). By purging the clergy from the state's expenses, it makes room for 9,000 desperately needed jobs in a country topping Europe's unemployment list.
• "It's beyond political wizardry," said Bishop Seraphim of Piraeus in a fiery public statement. "These are fascist-like designs which the flock will resist if the government acts on them."

More could be said concerning the socio-political implications of this Machiavellian-Byzantine imbroglio related above, but it will serve to illustrate yet another example of Eastern Orthodoxy giving "Caesar" the lion share of a Church-State agreement, and paying lip service to God's evangelical counsels. A perennial problem for the Orthodox is how to extricate themselves from the iron jaws of their governments? Our dear Lord was very clear and specific when He spoke of not giving to Caesar what is God's.

The Chair of Peter is a world-wide force that the Governments of Moscow, Ankara, Tehran, Peking, or even Athens with their political agendas, do not want to deal with, and do their best to contain the moral influence of the Catholic Church. A reunion of the Churches of East and West would be considered a substantial threat to hostile regimes and interests.

"The Blood of Christians is the seed of the Church", said Tertullian in the 3rd c., noting the savage persecution of the Church by the Roman Emperors. Is not our period – following the most massive and bloody persecution and Martyrdom of Christians in history – the best time for the re-unification of separated Christians? Is there not, as Pope Francis noted, a "spiritual ecumenism" flowing from the martyrdom of millions of Catholics, Protestants, and Orthodox who died at the hands of totalitarian governments that promises much for the future? Already, various events indicate that NOW is the appropriate ecumenical moment for the Orthodox Bishops to meet as brothers with the successor of Peter the Rock. Their Unity is what Jesus surely wants, and that is what Jesus surely prayed for in His High Priestly Prayer at the Cenacle. May His will be done!

It is the writer's hope that all Christians may recognize the Chair of Peter being the centre of the Church's visible Unity, as Jesus the Eternal Word IS the centre of union between the Father and the Holy Spirit. Only then will the Eastern Orthodox and Protestants be truly orthodox in faith.

Hopefully it has been indicated:

1. That the Church IS representative of the Seamless Robe of Christ.
2. That the fisherman Peter received "De Jure Divino" the Petrine supremacy with the Keys and the power derived from them; Peter's successors on his Chair in Rome attest to the endurance and importance of the role of the Papacy.
3. That, despite separations and schisms, the Church remains always "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic" because of its adherence to the indefectible and infallible See of Peter, and will be so to the end of time.
4. And finally, why all Christians should unite in communion with the Bishop of Rome if they are to be faithful to the will of Christ.

– Conclusion –

All the great heresiarchs that have led great portions of the people of God astray are gone, but what remains for all to see is their desolate spiritual legacy. How to convince the separated Christians of today to return to the full communion of the Catholic Church is a truly daunting challenge. Then, too, there are the enemies of the Church who work endlessly to cause and maintain divisions and discord among Christians.

May the Most Blessed Virgin Mary, the Mother of Unity and of the Eternal High Priest, intercede and inspire all the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs and Bishops (and indeed our separated Protestant leaders) to embrace their brother, Pope Francis, the Successor of Peter "Kephas=Rock", and again to be ONE with us in Jesus, the Lord. Amen.

Only in their communion with the See of Peter
will our separated Eastern brethren be truly ORTHODOX.

 

---