Greetings to my fellow readers, and beloved faithful, recently I have come across a claim that has been made which directly attacks the position of the Church of The East. It is a claim that I have never seen been made formally, however, according to a recent lecture done by a specific individual, he has argued that the Church of The East has never formally rejected the Papacy, or in other words, the idea that the Bishop of Rome (Pope) is the supreme head of the entire universal Church, and that he is the true successor of Peter, who holds the keys to heaven, and holds universal jurisdiction amongst all of the sees of the 4 corners of the world, as formally defined by Vatican I and The Council of Florence, specifically in its decree Laetentur Caeli (1439). See the below references:
“Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. To which all, of whatever rite and dignity, both pastors and faithful, both individually and collectively, are bound, by their duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those concerning the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world.”
“We also define that the Holy Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff have primacy over the whole universe; that the Roman pontiff himself is the successor of the blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, he is an authentic vicar of Christ, head of the whole church, father and doctor of all Christians; that our Lord Jesus Christ has transmitted to him, in the person of the blessed Peter, the full power to graze, hold and govern the universal church, as is also attested in the acts of the Ecumenical councils and in the sacred canons.”
According to the gentleman, who also is currently writing a book based on this thesis, argues that the Church of The East never formally rejected this as being dogma, and instead, according to its patristics and theology of the liturgy, has accepted it. My purpose in this article is to demonstrate that the Church of The East rejects this idea, and has always rejected this according to its patristics and liturgy, and that to be “Catholic” means something different to us rather than being in communion with the Roman Pontiff. I will be going one by one of each claim that has been made and offering a rebuttal to it along with the sources to properly demonstrate the Church of The East position. Let us begin with claim #1.
Claim #1: The Church of The East has been Catholic since Day 1
First we must establish what does it exactly mean to be catholic? Based on the topic of discussion, the person presupposes that to be catholic means to be in communion with the Roman Pontiff, but let us first look at what patristics say. The word “catholic” in of itself just simply means universal, as defined by Saint Cyril of Jerusalem, in which the “catholic” Church is the Church that spreads across the whole world, and does not discriminate amongst its members, rather it is meant for all. After all, this is the biblical understanding which Saint Paul says:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
– Galatians 3:28
And here is Saint Cyril of Jerusalem along with Saint Ignatius of Antioch:
“It is called Catholic then because it extends over all the world, from one end of the earth to the other; and because it teaches universally and completely one and all the doctrines which ought to come to men’s knowledge, concerning things both visible and invisible, heavenly and earthly ; and because it brings into subjection to godliness the whole race of mankind, governors and governed, learned and unlearned; and because it universally treats and heals the whole class of sins, which are committed by soul or body, and possesses in itself every form of virtue which is named, both in deeds and words, and in every kind of spiritual gifts.
So for Saint Cyril, what Catholic means is, that the Church is not confined to a single city or nation, but its message extends throughout the whole world. It means that the Christian Faith is taught in its entirety and fullness, and not just in some manners of dogma. And it means that the Church is the hospital for the faithful, and serves as the body which addresses all sin and offers its Sacraments for healing. None of which has anything to do with the idea of Roman Supremacy. Now of course, this doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church rejects this position, however for the sake of this argument and article, I am using it to demonstrate that saying the Church of The East has always been catholic, is not at all diminishing to our position, as we are in agreement that we are Catholic according to the patristic definition, but rather we disagree with the presupposition that catholic means to be in communion with Rome. Let us as well look at Saint Ignatius:
“ See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
So for Saint Ignatius, to be catholic means to have Christ in the Church, as he is the pillar, and ground of its entire foundation, and so unity with the Catholic Church is thus unity with Christ. That is why he gives the example of the Bishop being the head of the Church, just as Christ is the head of his body (which is the Church), and so Christians gather around the Bishops for sacramental unity.
I can give much more patristic citations such as the Council of Constantinople I and Saint Augustine (very revered Saint and Doctor of the Catholic Church) who all define and are in agreement with this, but for the sake of moving on to the rest of the claims, I will concede with this point that to be “Catholic” is not submission to the Roman Pontiff.
Claim #2: Peter, Rome, and the Pope are Icons of Communion
To be in communion with Peter is absolutely a sign of communion, after all, he is the head of the Apostles which believe it or not, the Church of The East does not reject and neither does any other Apostolic Church, but what exactly does it mean to be the head of the apostles? We reject the notion that this implies Papal Supremacy, especially on the grounds that Peter is exclusively tied to being the Bishop of Rome. Therefore we would reject that the signs of communion are to be in communion with Rome and the Pope. The question I would simply pose is, why must communion be symbolized by one bishop who possesses supreme jurisdiction over all other bishops? Vatican I would place the other Patriarchal Sees below Rome, yet Peter himself established more than one See, such as Antioch, which Rome places as the 3rd See. Let us examine what Saint Basil has to say:
For you yourself understand more exactly than anyone else that, after the manner of the most learned physicians, you must give your first care to the most vital parts. Now what could be more vital to the churches of the world than the Church of Antioch? If it came to pass that this church returned to a state of concord, nothing would prevent its affording health, in the manner of a sound head, to the whole body.
– St Basil, Letter 66 (to Athanasius)
Saint Basil himself argues that Antioch is the most vital See in the world, meaning if anything, Antioch deserves primacy. So what exclusively puts Peter and Rome first when he also established Alexandria, Antioch, and arguably we would say that Seleucia – Ctesiphon itself is a direct successor of Peter on account of his faith, as Mar Abdisho of Nisibis places Saint Peter as the first Patriarch of Seleucia in his appendix of the Marganitha, meaning that Peter is a successor for us too, which ties in to other ecclesiastical sources such as the Synod of Mar Dadisho of 424 and Mar Isaac of 410 that demonstrates that the Catholicos Patriarch, is Peter to us. Whether or not Peter actually went to Seleucia is up for debate, rather this still does not diminish our argumentation that on account of Peter’s faith, we maintain his succession, such as in Matthew 16:18 which is quoted alot in reference to Papal Supremacy:
“And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
– Matthew 16:18
And for those who would disagree with this interpretation of the verse, let us see what Chrysostom defines it as, who is as well a doctor of the Catholic Church:
“And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church, that is, on the faith of his confession.”
I can even demonstrate the same interpretation from our own Syriac Fathers, not that it would make any difference as Saint Chrysostom is a great Saint for us as well, but just to show that this interpretation is found in the Syriac Tradition of the Church of The East as well and not an outside tradition, but even Mar Isho’dad of Merv would be in agreement with Chrysostom:
“He calls Cepha [= a rock]; not the person of Simon, but the confession and the right faith that were in him, which the Father had caused to flow into his mouth, which [confession] is incorruptible and immoveable for ever.
…
He calls the gates of Sheol the persecutions that lead people to death.This, that I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. By means of the person of Simon He promised [this] also to all congregations of believers, those that share in his confession; for his power is one with that of all priests and orthodox persons.
So for us, to be in communion with Peter is absolutely necessary, yet this is on account of his faith most importantly above all and not just episcopal succession, as history has proved that episcopal succession is not the sole factor in deciding where the Church is. Take for example every crisis the Church has faced against any heretics; the arians, the eunomians, the apollinarian, the docetists, the gnostics, the marcionists, and etc. These were all “apostolic” faithful who fell astray yet maintained an episcopal succession, but it is on account of the faith that you find where the true Church lies, which is most important above all. This then moves us on to the third claim that was made, and we will now examine what this leads to.
Claim #3: The Church of The East never rejected Rome and never denied that Peter was the rock.
Since we defined what it meant for Peter being the Rock, let us look at what Peter means for us as defined by The Synod of Mar Dadisho who defined the Catholicos Patriarch in this way:
“All of these bishops offered a petition to the chief, head, and leader of all the bishops of the East, the venerable of God and holy Mar Dadisho‘ the catholicos. They asked of him that he return to his see and stand at the head of the church of God, ruling and leading the flock of Christ in all the lands of the East, which had been committed to him by Christ in the high priesthood which he had received, as (it had been committed) to the head of the apostles, Peter.
…
“Mar Dadisho the catholicos, who is Peter for us, the head of our ecclesiastical council.
For no reason should anyone think or say that the catholicos of the East may be judged by those who are under him, or by a patriarch like himself; but he shall render judgment upon all who are under him, and his judgment shall be reserved to Christ, who chose him, raised (him) up and placed him at the head of his church, for so it pleased his eternal Lordship that his own all-governing Lordship should be entrusted to and honored in the primacy of his church.
The first quote is very interesting to me. If the Church of The East never formally rejected the Papacy, then can one explain why the Synod of Mar Dadisho articulates the first quote in a way where it very specifically contradicts Papal Supremacy? If one of the core premises of Papal Supremacy is supreme and universal authority over every jurisdiction, then why is this Synod saying that no other Bishop or Patriarch may exercise his authotity over the Catholicos, as his jurisdiction is reserved to himself? As well, why does the Synod define the Catholicos as being Peter for us? It is because just as Peter is the head of the apostles, likewise is the Catholicos the head of his flock and Synod of Bishops, again on the account that his faith is in communion with Peter, and thus has the succession of Peter which leads us to claim #4.
Claim #4: The Church of The East never rejected in its Church Fathers or liturgy that the See of Peter is first and the head.
The response to this would be that, we absolutely agree, but again, this needs to be qualified on what it means to be the See of Peter. We also are in absolute agreement that Peter is the head of the Apostles, hence why in our Night Prayers he is constantly referred to as “Resh Talmeedeh” (head of the Apostles). So again, for us, we believe that the heir to Peters throne is reserved to the one in communion with him as he is in communion with Christ, and on account of his faith do we have his succession. This is even redefined and again established in the Synod of Mar Khnanisho of 776 A.D:
“For Peter was the head of the Twelve, and he who sits upon this catholic throne is Peter inasmuch as he is heir to Peter, and if one who seeks to be Peter wishes to become Peter, he (really) ought to be Peter. For if he who is Peter is not of Peter, he cannot be Peter, for it is written in the Scriptures of the Lord of Peter, ‘I am the vine and my father is the vine-dresser,” and again, ‘I am the vine and you are the branches. A branch is not able to bear fruit unless it remains in the vine.” Therefore it is clear that Peter is a portion of Christ, as a branch is a portion of a vine, and whoever inherits this throne is Peter and is a portion of Christ in the likeness of Peter, and a portion is not able to be a portion of anything to which it belongs unless it possesses the fullness and disposition of that to which it belongs, according to the definition which reason has ordained. For this is the fullness and disposition of one who is Peter’s portion: an entity who possesses love, peace, and long-suffering, as well as justice.”
Now the whole point and idea of this quote, is that the Synod is understanding that the character of Peter and communion with him means sharing in his spiritual relationship to Christ in order to be the true heir to his throne. This also does not imply in any way that Peter holds any special authority over the rest of the Apostles, as we read in Matthew 18:18 where the rest of the Apostles, on account of their faith, are given the same keys to bind and loose as Peter did, that is on the account of their faith, but rather for this argument we are demonstrating instead that the Primacy of Peter is not something the Church of The East rejects, and neither does any other Apostolic Church, rather we believe this does not imply a Roman Supremacy. The one who is making this claim would need to demonstrate on what premise does Peter have authority and how does this imply to the Church of The East, a sort of Roman Supremacy when the Church of The East holds steadfast to the doctrine that we hold in communion to Peter and are his true heir, since the entire claim is that the Church of The East never rejected the Papacy. That is why in the reference to the Synod above, there is an extent in which the office of Peter is attributed to, and that episcopal succession does not automatically establish the authority of the See, rather instead the Synod distinguished between occupying Peter’s throne vs being his successor. In other words, one cannot simply just occupy Peter’s throne to be his heir, rather he must be of Peter himself, and possess the same qualities, which is, being in communion with Christ in regards to his faith and that is exactly what the Church of The East holds to. This is also why the Synod gives the analogy of the vine and the vine-dresser, referring to John 15. The analogy would establish that Peter’s identity and authority cant be separated with his communion with Christ, just as Christ is the Vine, Peter is the Branch and this is not apart from Christ. So instead of implying a special sort of ecclesiastical authority, it instead demonstrates the identity one must have in Christ to be the heir of Peter’s throne, which leads to the strongest succession of the passage that says “whoever inherits this throne is Peter and is a portion of Christ in the likeness of Peter”. You will also never find any other contradicting interpretation anywhere else in our liturgy or in the writings of our Fathers that would demonstrate otherwise. I would also like to add, that again, episcopal succession is not by itself a complete definition of what it means to have Papal Supremacy and Petrine Succession, however, to establish the latter, one would still have to demonstrate evidence of jurisdictional authority inherited by the successor of Peter and the extent of those powers over other See’s, especially when the Church of The East itself believes to hold this throne, yet does not hold to this interpretation over authority. Since the claim is that the Church of The East never formally rejected the Papacy, this rebuttal is to demonstrate that there is a misinterpretation of the meaning of the office of Peter, and since we believe to hold to this office, one must differentiate between us and Rome and why Rome must hold the special authority and not Seleucia. Let us move on to Claim #5.
Claim #5: The Successors of Peter were always loved and accepted by the Church of The East
This claim alone does not even establish the conclusion it would seek to achieve. Number 1, it presupposes again that the successors of Peter are reserved to the Roman Pontiff, and Number 2, even when granted that the Roman Pontiff is the successor of Peter, it conflates recognition of that See with acceptance of the doctrine as a whole. Many different patriarchal see’s in the history of the Church have loved and accepted Rome and even appealed to Rome in times of trouble, but this can’t possibly be a premise to establish the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, because then the argument would need to be made for other See’s, such as Antioch, Constantinople, Alexandria, and Seleucia. To say that respect to the officeholder would imply the papacy, would be a fallacy of equivocation. Again, the Synod of Mar Dadisho in 424 reinforced the idea of the autonomy of the Church and it’s independence from other ecclesiastical leadership. It directly states that the Catholicos is to maintain his own authority, episcopate, and synodal order, that is rightfully only reserved to his seat and nobody else, which certainly contradicts Vatican I. You would need a very thorough examination of Church history to establish this premise that it implies Roman Supremacy. Consequently, this claim would force a non sequitur, in that it moves the idea of the alleged recognition of Peter’s successors to the acceptance of Papal Supremacy without establishing a necessary connection between these two ideas. Remember, what is relevant to establish here is whether or not the Church of The East recognized this supreme and universal jurisdiction through its Synod’s, Church Fathers, or Liturgy, and all of which I have demonstrated to contradict Vatican I’s doctrine of the Papacy. Let us move on to Claim #6.
Claim #6: The Church of The East and Roman Catholic disagreement and separation was geographical, not dogmatic.
This claim in of itself is just simply disingenuous and does not tell the full story of the Church of The East. The argument that is being made here is one based on location, arguing that because the Church of The East was outside of the confines of the Roman Empire, and located in a rival empire in the Persian Empire, this implies the Church of The East thus never formally got to recognize and understand the papacy, yet also never formally reject it. And if that is also the case, why may it be so that It formally recognized and received the canons of Nicea and Constantinople I according to the Synod of Mar Isaac in 410 and Mar Yahballaha 420? See the reference below:
Mar Acacius the bishop, has also come down on an embassy to this place, and has agreed with your honorable priesthood and with us upon all that is proper to the order of the priesthood, it is incumbent upon us that we ask for, write down, seal, and ratify with our seals and signatures the glorious ordinances which, through succession from the blessed fathers, the apostles, were fittingly established for the administration of the priesthood, as weil as the steadfast laws and canons which were established in the synods of bishops which took place in the West at various times during the years of the truly God-loving Constantine, the victorious king, when the three hundred and eighteen bishops gathered in the city of Nicea, and the other canons which were established by the synod which took place in Ancyra of Galatia, and in Syria and Cappadocia, and the additional canons which were established by the synod [which took place] inthe city of Caesarea, and the further canons which were established by the synod which took place in the city of Gangra, and the further canons which were established by the synod which took place in the city of Antioch at the dedication of the church, and the further canons which were established by the synod which took place in the city of Laodiceaof Phrygia.
…
“If our Lord is pleased to hear our petition, and the victorious King of Kings commands, and the bishops gather and a synod takes place, we now have sent you all the appointed canons which were established in the great synod which took place in the city of Nicea in the days of the just and God-loving Constantine the victorious king, when three hundred and eighteen bishops gathered and, according to the fear of God which was in them, established and set forth steadfast admonitions, chaste laws, upright rules, glorious canons, andenlightening ordinances.”
When we heard this passage from the letter of those honored members, immediately our holy father, worthy of a good memorial, in whose days our bent head was lifted up and tranquillity and peace came to us, Mar “Ishaq, bishop of Seleucia and Ctesiphon and catholicos (and) chief bishop, was the first to open his mouth, as the head of his members. He said to his brother, joined in his love and in the concord of Christ, Mar Maruta the bishop: “Let them bring the volume in which the canons are written, and let it be read before the whole synod of these bishops.” And when they had brought it and read it, and when we had heard from it all the provisions which were needed for the upright order of the ministry of the church of Christ and had learned from it all the canons which were composed in the wisdom of God by our fathers, the bishops in the great and holy synod of the West, our soul was exceedingly gladdened with perfect joy. First Mar “Ishaq the bishop, as the elect head of his members, said, “Anyone who does not agree to these glorious laws and upright canons and does not accept them shall be considered anathema by all the people of God and may not hold authority in the church of Christ.”
My question would thus be then, if matters of Dogma were not accepted on the basis of geographical exclusion from the West, then how is it that the Church of The East formally received the canons of the West as established by Nicea under the appointment of the King Constantine? Surely would it also not be a geographical issue? Another point of contention I would like to bring to the table, is that Mar Abdisho of Nisibis in The Book of The Pearl, addresses the differences of theology in the different “sects” of Christianity, in which he names the “Franks” (Roman Catholics) amongst one of the Churches with a distinct confession of faith from the Church of The East. Here is the reference:
“The Second sect are those who confess the doctrine of two Natures and one Qnuma in CHRIST, and these are called “Malkaye” (Royalists) because it was imposed forcibly by the king. This is the Doctrine which is received by the Romans called Franks, and by the Constantinopolitans who are Greeks and by all the northern peoples such as he Russians, Alani, Circassians, Assai, Georgians md their neighbours. But the Franks differ from he rest of these in maintaining that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and in their use of unleavened bread for the Eucharist. These two sects also accepted the appelation “Mother of God”; but the Jacobites have added to the canon; “Holy God”, etc., “who was crucified for us.”
– Mar Abdisho of Nisibis, The Book of Marganitha, Chapter IV
Now despite Mar Abdisho not listing the Papacy as a formal doctrine of difference, does not necessarily mean that there was a shared agreement between the understandings of it. The purpose of this reference is to demonstrate that there were real theological differences between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of The East, and the differences were not something of a political or geographical background, but rather these two groups understood each other’s positions and rejected each other fully. It is to demonstrate that absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence, and this would be fallacious to say that because the Church of the East never formally rejected the papacy, that would conclude that it would, and has accepted it in its history. If anything I would argue that because there was not yet a formal doctrine established in regards to the papacy, that there was no reason for the Church of The East to formally reject it and use it as a means of discussion in its dialogues, which is why Mar Abdisho does not cite it as one of the differences between the Churches. And even aside from that, just the very later idea of the Papacy has already been proven to have been rejected by the Church of The East as early as the 5th century, even though it is an indirect rejection. We can even point to Western Councils that indicate that despite being on two vastly different geographical planes, the two Churches in some way shape or form have crossed paths in understanding and defining each other’s faiths for the purpose of rejecting one another, such as the Council of Constantinople II, which formally condemned the person and teachings of Saint Theodore of Mopsuestia as a heretic (unfortunately) which the Catholic Church accepts, meanwhile 40 years later, the Synod of Mar Sabrisho in 596 formally accepted and authorized the teachings and person of Saint Theodore. This is a direct contradiction to the point that our differences remained of geography and not theological, as one would have to explain, why the two Churches chose to address all these differences and issues yet chose to abstain from addressing the papacy? The burden of proof is on the one taking the affirmative position that the Church of The East never rejected the Papacy, to demonstrate a formal acceptance of it. Therefore the assertion that the differences between the Church of The East and Rome were merely geographical is historically inadequate to say, and disingenuous to the thousands of years of crisis and controversy that our beloved Saints have died trying to ward off, which is the reason why we ask for their intercession in the daily canonical offices of the Church. Geographical and political differences undoubtedly played a role in the way that the ordinances of Church History played out, however to dismiss everything as just being that is not being academically honest enough to the true issue behind the controversies. Let us now move on to claim #7.
Claim #7: The premise of the Papacy is Matthew 16:18
This in of itself is a bad argument and alot of well read and knowledgeable Catholics will avoid this type of argumentation as they understand that this is not the deciding factor or sole premise of the Papacy, but nonetheless we have already demonstrated the proper interpretation of what this means in our previous correspondence of the gentleman’s claims. Let us offer up some more Church of The East patristics to understand the meaning of this quote.
“This is not the property of Peter alone, but it came about on behalf of every human being. Having said that his confession is a rock, he stated that upon this rock I will build my church. This means he will build his church upon this same confession and faith. For this reason, addressing the one who first confessed him with this title, on account of his confession he applied to him this authority, too, as something that would become his, speaking of the common and special good of the church as pertaining to him alone. It was from this confession, which was going to become the common property of all believers, that he bestowed upon him this name, the rock. In the same way also Jesus attributes to him the special character of the church, as though it existed beforehand in him on account of his confession. By this he shows, in consequence, that this is the common good of the church, since also the common element of the confession was to come to be first in Peter. This then is what he says, that in the church would be the key of the kingdom of heaven. If anyone holds the key to this, to the church, in the same way he will also hold it for all heavenly things. He who is counted as belonging to the church and is recognized as its member is a partaker and an inheritor of heaven. He who is a stranger to it, whatever his status may be, will have no communion in heavenly things. To this very day the priests of the church have expelled those who are unworthy by this saying and admitted those who have become worthy by repentance.
Here we have Saint Theodore, who is a very important Saint for Church of The East patristics, also arguing that Christ named Peter the “Rock” because he was the first to make the confession, indicating his status of holding primacy over the rest of the Apostles, not supremacy, but yet this confession would become a common possession of all believers, including the Apostles as I mentioned happens later on in Matthew 18:18 when they receive the same authority on account of their confession of Faith, sharing in communion with Peter. Theodore even says that this was not on the property of Peter alone but rather something that came along for everyone, which establishes that the Church is thus founded on the Rock, the confession of faith, of Peter, who’s authority is not uniquely inherited by the Roman Pontiff but rather all who share in communion with Peter.
Conclusion
With the arguments that I have now demonstrated along with their rebuttals, I believe have accurately demonstrated that the historical relationship between the Church of The East and the Roman Catholic Church, cannot be properly defended in a way where we, along with patristics can confidently say that there was an acceptance of the Doctrine of the Papacy, rather instead if anything, we find the complete opposite, that there is a clear difference in understanding of what the character of Peter really means, and how the Church of The East interprets him as being the head of the Apostles. My aim for this article was not to refute or argue that the Papacy is true or not, as that can be left up for debate and another article in of itself, rather my goal was to demonstrate that nobody can confidently say that the Church of the East was ever “Papist” in any sort of sense ever in its history. This separation and difference is not one of geography, or that the Church of The East has always accepted the successors of Peter, or that its recognition of Peter’s authority is an indication of Papal Supremacy, rather we have defined our own understanding and interpretations that we believe hold steadfast to the traditions of the Holy Fathers who came before us, and the Faith in which is preserved by the Holy Spirit that was transmitted by Peter and the rest of the Apostles. Any such claims against our position would require the affirmative to accurately demonstrate, without isolated and out of context quotations, the very conclusion that they are trying to establish, and it must be demonstrated using the Church of The East’s own authoritative sources such as the ones I have provided today, and understood with their respective theological and historical context. Everything that I have demonstrated today is that the Church of The East has established a clear distinct ecclesiastical hierarchy, and a confession of faith that can not be harmonized with what Vatican I teaches in regards to the Papacy. Likewise, our vast respect for the Apostle Peter, and recognition of his prominence amongst the Apostles, does not automatically establish acceptance of papal supremacy. These are distinct propositions and to move from the first to the last requires evidence that the Church of the East recognized that the bishop of Rome maintains this specific universal jurisdiction that is claimed. The distinction is essential to maintain that the primacy of Peter is different from the historical importance of Rome, and the jurisdictional prerogatives of the Roman pontiff, which cannot be treated as interchangeable concepts. My purpose, therefore, is not to deny Peter’s importance or to dismiss the historical significance of the Roman Church. It is to demonstrate that the testimony of the Church of the East must be evaluated on its own terms, without confusing primacy with universal jurisdiction, or reading it into our patristics. Only through a careful examination can the historical and ecclesiological position of the Church of the East be represented fairly. I would like to thus end this article with a quote from one of our own Patriarch, Mar Timothy I, and what he believes about the Patriarchate of Seleucia – Ctesiphon.
