St. John Chrysostom and communion with Rome

[Trebor135]

"John was ordained as a deacon in 381 by Saint Meletius of Antioch who was not then in communion with Alexandria and Rome. After the death of Meletius, John separated himself from the followers of Meletius, without joining Paulinus, the rival of Meletius for the bishopric of Antioch, but after the death of Paulinus he was ordained a presbyter (that is, a priest) in 386 by Evagrius, the successor of Paulinus.[16] He was destined later to bring about reconciliation between Flavian I of Antioch, the successor of Alexandria and Rome, thus bringing those three sees into communion for the first time in nearly seventy years.[17]"

--Wikipedia article on St. John Chrysostom

It appears from this limited information that for several years St. John Chrysostom saw no problem being separated from Rome. If communion with the successor of St. Peter in that see were regarded in the Early Church as equivalent to communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, why wouldn't such a great saint as this have done all he could to end his part in the Meletian schism right away?

[Zosimus41]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

"John was ordained as a deacon in 381 by Saint Meletius of Antioch who was not then in communion with Alexandria and Rome. After the death of Meletius, John separated himself from the followers of Meletius, without joining Paulinus, the rival of Meletius for the bishopric of Antioch, but after the death of Paulinus he was ordained a presbyter (that is, a priest) in 386 by Evagrius, the successor of Paulinus.[16] He was destined later to bring about reconciliation between Flavian I of Antioch, the successor of Alexandria and Rome, thus bringing those three sees into communion for the first time in nearly seventy years.[17]"

--Wikipedia article on St. John Chrysostom

It appears from this limited information that for several years St. John Chrysostom saw no problem being separated from Rome. If communion with the successor of St. Peter in that see were regarded in the Early Church as equivalent to communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, why wouldn't such a great saint as this have done all he could to end his part in the Meletian schism right away?

check out he makes some good points along with the histories

The Orthodox Schism
By Raymond Taouk

[Mintaka]

Not everything about a saint's life is necessarily admirable.

He was young. He obeyed his local bishop. That would be the normal thing.

Later on, when he had more oomph, he spent a lot of time _not_ being in communion with schismatics and heretics, and getting exiled by emperors for not going along. That would be the more saintly, leadership thing to do.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Zosimus41

check out he makes some good points along with the histories

The Orthodox Schism
By Raymond Taouk

I have limited resources, can you share some excerpts here from the book?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Mintaka

Not everything about a saint's life is necessarily admirable.

He was young. He obeyed his local bishop. That would be the normal thing.

Later on, when he had more oomph, he spent a lot of time _not_ being in communion with schismatics and heretics, and getting exiled by emperors for not going along. That would be the more saintly, leadership thing to do.

I think Trebor's point was at the time there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome as a sign of being part of the OHCAC. Something that the Catholic Church teaches today. Chruches back in the day frequently lost communion with one another for a reason or another. Even today Orthodox Churches sometimes have issues with one another where they strip one Church(Hierarch) from their diptychs signifying loss of communion.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I have limited resources,

And I didn't find the book on Amazon.com, so I expect it would be pretty expensive.

can you share some excerpts here from the book?

I second this request.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I think Trebor's point was at the time there doesn't seem to be a pressing need to be in communion with the Bishop of Rome as a sign of being part of the OHCAC. Something that the Catholic Church teaches today. Chruches back in the day frequently lost communion with one another for a reason or another. Even today Orthodox Churches sometimes have issues with one another where they strip one Church(Hierarch) from their diptychs signifying loss of communion.

Indeed.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Mintaka

Not everything about a saint's life is necessarily admirable.

True.

He was young. He obeyed his local bishop. That would be the normal thing.

Is it the "normal thing" in the present-day Catholic Church?

Later on, when he had more oomph, he spent a lot of time _not_ being in communion with schismatics and heretics, and getting exiled by emperors for not going along. That would be the more saintly, leadership thing to do.

One way to find out whether communion with Rome was considered necessary to be orthodox back then would be to see if St. John Chrysostom ever repented, by public (verbal) or private (written) declaration, of his time in schism from Rome.

[Lancer]

Better source...New Advent...Wikipedia is agenda flavored or just ignorant on many Church issues...TOFU.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm

It appears from this limited information that for several years St. John Chrysostom saw no problem being separated from Rome. If communion with the successor of St. Peter in that see were regarded in the Early Church as equivalent to communion with the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, why wouldn't such a great saint as this have done all he could to end his part in the Meletian schism right away?

Where is Chrysostom's words/judgment recorded that verify what you claim?...documented?...you are making an assumption...drawing a conclusion from that assumption...that can't be substantiated or verified? Shaky at best...a straw-man argument...that is simply straw.

And you clearly have not read any of Chrysostom's homilies or theology on the Primacy of Peter... the Pope and the importance of communion with him for the Unity of the Body of Christ.to remain in communion vis-a-vis John 14-17. Take a look...it quite heartening.

Pax Christi

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Lancer

Better source...New Advent...Wikipedia is agenda flavored or just ignorant on many Church issues...TOFU.

The Wikipedia article excerpt cited above contained references to two external sources.

The material quoted below is worth your consideration, too:

Continued in next post.

[Trebor135]

1) From "Meletius of Antioch":

Aside from the inherent difficulties of the situation, the slowness of communication was an added hindrance. Not only did Basil's representative have to travel from Cæsarea to Armenia, and from Armenia to Alexandria, he also had to go to Rome to obtain the sanction of Pope Damasus and the acquiescence of the West. Notwithstanding the blunder committed at Antioch in 363, the generous spirit of Athanasius gave hope of success, his sudden death, however (May, 373), caused all efforts to be abandoned. Even at Rome and in the West, Basil and Meletius were to meet with disappointment. While they wrought persistently to restore peace, a new Antiochene community, declaring itself connected with Rome and Athanasius, increased the number of dissidents, aggravated the rivalry, and renewed the disputes. There were now three Antiochene churches that formally adopted the Nicene Creed. The generous scheme of Basil for appeasement and union had ended unfortunately, and to make matters worse, Evagrius, the chief promoter of the attempted reconciliation, once more joined the party of Paulinus. This important conversion won over to the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East. Great was the consternation of Meletius and his community, which in the absence of the natural leader was still governed by Flavius and Diodorus, encouraged by the presence of the monk Aphrates and the support of St. Basil. Though disheartened, the latter did not entirely give up hope of bringing the West, especially the pope, to a fuller understanding of the situation of the Antiochene Church. But the West did not grasp the complex interests and personal issues, nor appreciate the violence of the persecution against which the orthodox parties were struggling. In order to enlighten these well-intentioned men, closer relations were needed and deputies of more heroic character; but the difficulties were great and the "statu quo" remained.

After many disheartening failures, there was finally a glimpse of hope. Two legates sent to Rome, Dorotheus and Sanctissimus, returned in the spring of 377, bringing with them cordial declarations which St. Basil instantly proceeded to publish everywhere. These declarations pronounced anathemas against Arius and the heresy of Apollinaris then spreading at Antioch, condemnations all the more timely, as theological excitement was then at its highest in Antioch, and was gradually reaching Palestine. St. Jerome entered into the conflict, perhaps without having a thorough knowledge of the situation. Rejecting Meletius, Vitalian, and Paulinus, he made a direct appeal to Pope Damasus in a letter still famous, but which the pope did not answer. Discontented, Jerome returned to Antioch, let himself be ordained presbyter by Paulinus, and became the echo of Paulinist imputations against Meletius and his following. In 378 Dorotheus and Sanctissimus returned from Rome, bearers of a formal condemnation of the errors pointed out by the Orientals; this decree definitively united the two halves of the Christian world. It seemed as though St. Basil was but waiting for this object of all his efforts, for he died 1 Jan., 379. The cause he had served so well seemed won, and Emperor Valens's death five months earlier warranted a hopeful outlook. One of the first measures of the new emperor, Gratian, was the restoration of peace in the Church and the recall of the banished bishops. Meletius therefore was reinstated (end of 378), and his flock probably met for worship in the "Palaia" or old church. It was a heavy task for the aged bishop to re-establish the shattered fortunes of the orthodox party. The most urgent step was the ordination of bishops for the sees which had become vacant during the persecution. . In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382). The end of the schism was near at hand. Since the two factions which divided the Antiochene Church were orthodox there remained but to unite them actually, a difficult move, but easy when the death of either bishop made it possible for the survivor to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement. Meanwhile, a great council of Eastern bishops was convoked at Constantinople to appoint a bishop for the imperial city and to settle other ecclesiastical affairs.

Continued in next post.

[Trebor135]

In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria, the presidency rightfully fell to the Bishop of Antioch, whom the Emperor Theodosius received with marked deference, nor was the imperial favour unprofitable to Meletius in his quality of president of the assembly. It began by electing Gregory of Nazianzus Bishop of Constantinople, and to the great satisfaction of the orthodox it was Meletius who enthroned him. The Council immediately proceeded to confirm the Nicene faith, but during this important session Meletius died almost suddenly. Feeling his end was near, he spent his remaining days re-emphasizing his eagerness for unity and peace. The death of one whose firmness and gentleness had kindled great expectations caused universal sorrow. The obsequies, at which Emperor Theodosius was present, took place in the church of the Apostles. The funeral panegyrics were touching and magnificent. His death blasted many hopes and justified grave forebodings. The body was transferred from Constantinople to Antioch, where, after a second and solemn funeral service, the body of the aged bishop was laid beside his predecessor St. Babylas. But his name was to live after him, and long remained for the Eastern faithful a rallying sign and a synonym of orthodoxy.

For all this time, Meletius was out of communion with Rome. He was able to oversee what became the Second Ecumenical Council and was celebrated for his orthodoxy: no concern was shown in the East for Meletius's separation from the pope--in Catholic terms the true successor of St. Peter and the centre of ecclesiastical unity.

Continued in next post.

[Trebor135]

2) From "St. John Chrysostom" (your link):

Life
Boyhood

... During the whole of the fourth century religious struggles had troubled the empire and had found their echo at Antioch. Pagans, Manichaeans, Gnostics, Arians, Apollinarians, Jews, made their proselytes at Antioch, and the Catholics were themselves separated by the schism between the bishops Meletius and Paulinus. Thus Chrysostom's youth fell in troubled times. ...

Chrysostom as lector and monk

It was a very decisive turning-point in the life of Chrysostom when he met one day (about 367) the bishop Meletius. The earnest, mild, and winning character of this man captivated Chrysostom in such a measure that he soon began to withdraw from classical and profane studies and to devote himself to an ascetic and religious life. He studied Holy Scripture and frequented the sermons of Meletius. About three years later he received Holy Baptism and was ordained lector. But the young cleric, seized by the desire of a more perfect life, soon afterwards entered one of the ascetic societies near Antioch... He remained there two years, but then as his health was quite ruined by indiscreet watchings and fastings in frost and cold, he prudently returned to Antioch to regain his health, and resumed his office as lector in the church.

Chrysostom as deacon and priest at Antioch

... Very probably in the beginning of 381 Meletius made him deacon, just before his own departure to Constantinople, where he died as president of the Second Ecumenical Council. The successor of Meletius was Flavian (concerning whose succession see F. Cavallera, "Le Schime d'Antioche", Paris, 1905). Ties of sympathy and friendship connected Chrysostom with his new bishop. As deacon he had to assist at the liturgical functions, to look after the sick and poor, and was probably charged also in some degree with teaching catechumens. At the same time he continued his literary work... In the year 386 Chrysostom was ordained priest by Flavian, and from that dates his real importance in ecclesiastical history. His chief task during the next twelve years was that of preaching, which he had to exercise either instead of or with Bishop Flavian. But no doubt the larger part of the popular religious instruction and education devolved upon him. ... These years, 386-98, were the period of the greatest theological productivity of Chrysostom, a period which alone would have assured him for ever a place among the first Doctors of the Church. ...

St. Chrysostom as bishop of Constantinople

In the ordinary course of things Chrysostom might have become the successor of Flavian at Antioch. But on 27 September 397, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, died. ... Chrysostom was hurried to the capital, and ordained Bishop of Constantinople on 26 February, 398, in the presence of a great assembly of bishops, by Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria... The change for Chrysostom was as great as it was unexpected. His new position was not an easy one, placed as he was in the midst of an upstart metropolis, half Western, half Oriental, in the neighbourhood of a court in which luxury and intrigue always played the most prominent parts, and at the head of the clergy composed of most heterogeneous elements, and even (if not canonically, at least practically) at the head of the whole Byzantine episcopate. The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome. Constantinople itself soon began to feel the impulse of a new ecclesiastical life.

St. John Chrysostom made great advances in the spiritual and homiletic arenas under Meletius and Flavian during the course of three decades, despite being out of communion with the bishop of Rome--again, in Catholic terms the true successor of St. Peter and the centre of ecclesiastical unity.

[Jehannette]

It seems as if you are trying to “prove a negative”. Did he ever say, explicitly, that he was not in communion with the Pope?

[Dollinger]

Originally Posted by Lancer

Better source...New Advent...Wikipedia is agenda flavored or just ignorant on many Church issues...TOFU.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm

Where is Chrysostom's words/judgment recorded that verify what you claim?...documented?...you are making an assumption...drawing a conclusion from that assumption...that can't be substantiated or verified? Shaky at best...a straw-man argument...that is simply straw.

And you clearly have not read any of Chrysostom's homilies or theology on the Primacy of Peter... the Pope and the importance of communion with him for the Unity of the Body of Christ.to remain in communion vis-a-vis John 14-17. Take a look...it quite heartening.

Pax Christi

St John Chrysostome was out of communion with Rome for some time, that's a fact.

Furthermore, about Peter's position in st Chrysostom writings:

"For though we do not retain the body of Peter, we do retain the faith of Peter, and retaining the faith of Peter we have Peter" ~Chrysostom, On the Inscription of the Acts, II.

He didnt need the bishop of Rome to be in communion with Peter. Before that in the same homily, he calls Flavian "Peter".