OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 10:11:52 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The primacy of Peter.  (Read 6769 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2012, 07:06:25 PM »

Quote
When news of Vigilius' condemnation of the Three Chapters reached the West, the bishops of Aquileia, Liguria, Aemilia, Milan and of the Istrian Peninsula all went into schism from the infallible Roman Pontiff, believing that he had betrayed the faith of Chalcedon, as if they believed that he wasn't infallible on matters of faith or something. How odd.

Just like arian, anti chalcedonian, or nestorian bishops didnt agree with the true faith, but it does not refute the existence of the Papacy, of the nicean faith, or the 2 natures of Christ.

And before that; Theodoret of Cyruss 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 07:08:09 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #46 on: March 13, 2012, 07:12:43 PM »

Quote
When news of Vigilius' condemnation of the Three Chapters reached the West, the bishops of Aquileia, Liguria, Aemilia, Milan and of the Istrian Peninsula all went into schism from the infallible Roman Pontiff, believing that he had betrayed the faith of Chalcedon, as if they believed that he wasn't infallible on matters of faith or something. How odd.

Just like arian, anti chalcedonian, or nestorian bishops didnt agree with the true faith, but it does not refute the existence of the Papacy, of the nicean faith, or the 2 natures of Christ.

Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

And before that; Theodoret of Cyruss 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.



Until the heretic pope, Honorius. And also pope Vigilius who held the heterodox opinion that the Letter of Ibas was orthodox in content (and declared so with the authority of the apostolic see), until the Second Council of Constantinople declared otherwise and he recanted under pain of anathema.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 07:13:40 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #47 on: March 13, 2012, 07:14:34 PM »

I''ll reply more in depth later, because i'm tired and needs to work on this. Just this one:

Quote
This is the oldest known attestation to the use of the term "Catholic" i.e. "according" kat "to the whole "holos" i.e. Universal in reference to the Church.  And it makes reference to the local bishop, not the one in Rome.

378 [On the Death of Satyrus 1:47 in PL 16:1306], "But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"St Ambrose of Milan http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34031.htm

I'll answer to the rest, many unrelated topics later Smiley  
Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #48 on: March 13, 2012, 07:18:34 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #49 on: March 13, 2012, 07:19:28 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870. The only pride I see is the pride of the Roman pontiffs who arrogated powers which were never theirs.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 07:20:20 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2012, 07:52:01 PM »

Quote
Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870. The only pride I see is the pride of the Roman pontiffs who arrogated powers which were never theirs.

You like to bring many different topics at the same time lol
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,068



« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2012, 07:58:22 PM »

Quote
Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870. The only pride I see is the pride of the Roman pontiffs who arrogated powers which were never theirs.

You like to bring many different topics at the same time lol

please make sure to include the username of the person you are quoting  va rugam sa cititi regulile de oc.net. mulţumesc -username! section moderator
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #52 on: March 13, 2012, 09:43:19 PM »

Quote
So what happens when the Pope under threat of anathema forbids anybody to anathematize a person (Theodore of Mopsuestia), and a council anathematizes that person and all who defend him?
This is a matter of discipline, it can be debated, the Pope can change his minde, debates and peacefull attitude dont go against the Papacy.
Assertions, hair splitting, and excuses.  It's not an original mix.
Contrary to the contention of Protestants, Jansenists, Gallicans, and modern enemies of the Papacy, the "Case of Vigilius" fails to support their thesis that Ecumenical Councils are superior to the Pope and that Papal Infallibility is disproved. Actually, in the words of Dom John Chapman, O.S.B., (ibid.)
"No Council has more emphatically testified than the Fifth Ecumenical Council that under ordinary circumstances the Pope must preside, that his decision should be the ground of the Council's decree, and that his confirmation is a "sine qua non" if a Council is ro have ecumenical authority." (The First Eight Ecumenical Councils and Papal Infallibility, CTS, London, 3rd edition, 1928)
http://papsttreu.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-apologist117.html
In the words of the Acts of Fifth Ecumenical Council:
Quote
While I am still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius, that it be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are entrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm
These facts should be remembered in judging the conduct of Vigilius. He came to Constantinople in a very resolute frame of mind, and his first step was to excommunicate Mennas.
Whom Pope Vigilius, Pope Agapetus, had consecrated.  EP Mennas responded by striking Pope Vigilius' name from the diptychs.  The dispute was EP Mennas forcing his suffragans to condemn the Three Chapters.

But he must have felt the ground was being cut from under his feet when he was supplied with translations of some of the worst passages in the writings of Theodore.

IOW EP Mennas was right, and Pope Vigilius was WRONG.
In 548 he issued his "Judicatum" in which the Three Chapters were condemned, and then temporarily withdrew it when the storm it raised showed how ill-prepared the Latins were for it.
chip off the ol' Vatican rock. Good thing you have an infallible supreme pontiff to decide things. Roll Eyes.  The rock of constancy, until opposition shows up.

But then, you claim that rejections of your supreme pontiff's infallible teaching doesn't matter to papal supremacy, so I guess when he abandons it for the rejectors', it doesn't matter as well.
Next he and Justinian agreed to a general council in which Vigilius pledged himself to bring about the condemnation of the Three Chapters, it being understood that the emperor should take no further steps till the council should be arranged. The emperor broke his pledge by issuing a fresh edict condemning the Chapters. Vigilius had twice to take sanctuary, first in the Basilica of St. Peter, and then in the Church of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon, from which he issued an Encyclical to the whole Church describing the treatment he had received.
He received as he gave:
Quote
Vigilius entered the service of the Roman Church and was a deacon in 531, in which year the Roman clergy agreed to a Decree empowering the pope to determine the succession to the Papal See. Vigilius was chosen by Boniface II as his successor, and presented to the clergy assembled in St. Peter's. The opposition to such a procedure led Boniface in the following year to withdraw his designation of a successor and to burn the Decree respecting it.

The Decree was uncanonical, by the Apostolic canons, and hence void.  Somewhere here I've dealt with that before.
Quote
The second successor of Boniface, Agapetus I (535-36), appointed Vigilius papal representative (Apocrisiary) at Constantinople; Vigilius thus came to the Eastern capital. Empress Theodora sought to win him as a confederate, to revenge the deposition of the Monophysite Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople by Agapetus and also to gain aid for her efforts in behalf of the Monophysites. Vigilius is said to have agreed to the plans of the intriguing empress who promised him the Papal See and a large sum of money (700 pounds of gold). After Agapetus's death on 22 April, 536, Vigilius return to Rome equipped with letters from the imperial Court and with money. Meanwhile Silverius had been made pope through the influence of the King of the Goths. Soon after this the Byzantine commander Belisarius garrisoned the city of Rome, which was, however, besieged again by the Goths. Vigilius gave Belisarius the letters from the Court of Constantinople, which recommended Vigilius himself for the Papal See. False accusations now led Belisarius to depose Silverius. Owing to the pressure exerted by the Byzantine commander, Vigilius was elected pope in place of Silverius and consecrated and enthroned on 29 March, 537. Vigilius brought it about that the unjustly deposed Silverius was put into his keeping where the late pope soon died from the harsh treatment he received. After the death of this predecessor Vigilius was recognized as pope by all the Roman clergy.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

On how Pope Viglius "came to Constantinople in a very resolute frame of mind":
Quote
The Oriental patriarchs and bishops signed the condemnation of these Three Chapters. In Western Europe, however, the procedure was considered unjustifiable and dangerous, because it was feared that it would detract from the importance of the Council of Chalcedon. Vigilius refused to acknowledge the imperial edict and was called to Constantinople by Justinian, in order to settle the matter there with a synod. According to the Liber pontificalis on 20 November, while the pope was celebrating the Feast of St. Cecilia in the Church of St. Cecilia in Trastevere, and before the service was fully ended, he was ordered by the imperial official Anthimus to start at once on the journey to Constantinople. The pope was taken immediately to a ship that waited in the Tiber in order to be carried to the eastern capital while a part of the populace cursed the pope and threw stones at the ship.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm

Then an agreement was patched up and Vigilius agreed to a general council but soon withdrew his assent.  Nevertheless, the council was held
Sorta contradicts this "No Council has more emphatically testified than the Fifth Ecumenical Council that under ordinary circumstances the Pope must preside" nonsense.  In fact, NO Pope (of Rome, that is.  The Pope of Alexandria presided at the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus) EVER presided over, or even attended ANY Ecumenical Council, even when, as here, he was in town.  And no, no pope of Rome ever called an Ecumenical Council.
and, after refusing to accept the "Constitutum" of Vigilius (see VIGILIUS, POPE)
Refuse?  I thought they couldn't refuse "any ordinances [of] the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”
it then condemned the Three Chapters.
IOW followed EP Mennas rather than Pope Vigilius.
Finally Vigilius succumbed
Succumbed?  The rock of Peter!?!  Say it ain't so!

Good thing he "succumbed" to the Orthodox and not his schismatic Latins in Italy.

So Pope Vigilius "showed what happens" "when a pope disagrees with an ecumenical council."  There is your example.

confirmed the council, and was set free.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm
IOW,  "the Council's decree" was "the ground of" "his decision," and not the other way around.  Like, undisputably, the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea I and Constantinople I.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #53 on: March 13, 2012, 09:43:19 PM »

Quote
Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870. The only pride I see is the pride of the Roman pontiffs who arrogated powers which were never theirs.

You like to bring many different topics at the same time lol
Different angles on the same point, exposing the lie of Ultramontanism from all sides.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #54 on: March 13, 2012, 09:47:15 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.

Indeed!
In the same correspodence Pope St. Gregory tells the Pope of Alexandria (the title originated there, centuries before Rome took it) and Antioch that they are all bishops of the one Petrine See.
Another thing sidestepped and not mentioned in the article is that St. Gregory during this cotroversy wrote that the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria (through St. Mark) and Antioch are all one Petrine See.  I've yet to see an explanation, then why Antioch shouldn't be ahead of Alexandria, since Antioch is Petrine directly, Alexandria second hand.  Could it be because that was the secular order within the empire, like the Fathers alluded to in Constantinople c. 3 and Chalcedon c. 28 (btw, St. Gregory is quite wrong on the Pope's veto power: even Pope St. Leo recognized that his own bishops were not following his veto of canon 28)? Roll Eyes

I always love this quote:

"As regards the Church of Constantinople,WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it."

So the brother bishop of Constantinople, a/k/a the percursor of antichrist, continually acknowleges Rome.  I've never seen the antichrist cited as a Church Father for papal supremacy outside of a Chick tract.

"As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city." 

So St. Gregory's brother and bishop of the Church of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch a/k/a "the precursor of antichrist," constanty owns that he is subject to "the Apostolic See" as the Vatican fancies itself. I'll repeat, never seen the precursor of the antichrist cited as a Church Father in favor of Ultramontanism, outside of this and Chick Publications.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #55 on: March 13, 2012, 09:51:22 PM »

Just like Vatican 1 dogma was discussed, or the Immaculate conception etc. The fact that it was discussed then does nothing to refute papal supremacy.
Except that your supreme pontiff Leo demanded that it be accepted as the definition of the Council without discussion, which isn't what the Fathers of the Council did.

This has probably been asked before, but can you demonstrate that Pope Leo demanded that it be accepted without discussion?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #56 on: March 13, 2012, 09:53:53 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #57 on: March 13, 2012, 10:24:05 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #58 on: March 13, 2012, 10:28:39 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.

Well let me add a specific example: Cardinal Newman said that he had already believed Papal Infallibility before it was dogmatically defined in 1870. (He was very firmly against it being dogmatically defined, but that's a different kettle of worms.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 13, 2012, 10:29:56 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.

Not if he is acting under threat of violent coercion.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #60 on: March 13, 2012, 11:17:31 PM »

I''ll reply more in depth later, because i'm tired and needs to work on this. Just this one:

Quote
This is the oldest known attestation to the use of the term "Catholic" i.e. "according" kat "to the whole "holos" i.e. Universal in reference to the Church.  And it makes reference to the local bishop, not the one in Rome.

378 [On the Death of Satyrus 1:47 in PL 16:1306], "But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"St Ambrose of Milan http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34031.htm
As Schaeff, from which Newadvent gets this, notes:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.iii.ii.html
Quote
At this time there was no doubt concerning the faith of the Roman Church, as there would have been later under Liberius and Honorius. Consequently Satyrus instances it, as being the chief and best known see.
St. Ambrose, however gives further context:
Quote
And possibly at that place the Church of the district was in schism. For at that time Lucifer had withdrawn from our communion, and although he had been an exile for the faith, and had left inheritors of his own faith,
On Lucifer
Quote
Lucifer was Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia. At the synod of Arles, a.d. 353, he had strenuously resisted the condemnation of St. Athanasius, though it was urged by the Emperor Constantius, maintaining that the Nicene faith was opposed in the person of Athanasius. Against the synod of Milan, a.d. 355, he was equally resolute in defence of the belief of Nicæa, for which the emperor banished him to Syria. But when the synod of Alexandria, a.d. 362, determined on the restoration of certain Arians after repentance, he withdrew from Catholic Communion.
St. Jerome had words against Lucifer the bishop, summarized thus:
Quote
This Dialogue was written about 379, seven years after the death of Lucifer, and very soon after Jerome's return from his hermit life in the desert of Chalcis. Though he received ordination from Paulinus, who had been consecrated by Lucifer, he had no sympathy with Lucifer's narrower views, as he shows plainly in this Dialogue. Lucifer, who was bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, first came into prominent notice about a.d. 354, when great efforts were being made to procure a condemnation of S. Athanasius by the Western bishops. He energetically took up the cause of the saint, and at his own request was sent by Liberius, bishop of Rome, in company with the priest Pancratius and the deacon Hilarius, on a mission to the Emperor Constantius. The emperor granted a Council, which met at Milan in a.d. 354. Lucifer distinguished himself by resisting a proposition to condemn Athanasius, and did not hesitate to oppose the emperor with much violence. In consequence of this he was sent into exile from a.d. 355 to a.d. 361, the greater portion of which time was spent at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, though he afterwards removed to the Thebaid. It was at this time that his polemical writings appeared, the tone and temper of which is indicated by the mere titles De Regibus Apostaticis (of Apostate Kings), De non Conveniendo cum Hæreticis, etc. (of not holding communion with heretics). On the death of Constantius in 361, Julian permitted the exiled bishops to return; but Lucifer instead of going to Alexandria where a Council was to be held under the presidency of Athanasius for the healing of a schism in the Catholic party at Antioch (some of which held to Meletius, while others followed Eustathius), preferred to go straight to Antioch. There he ordained Paulinus, the leader of the latter section, as bishop of the Church. Eusebius of Vercellæ; soon arrived with the synodal letters of the Council of Alexandria, but, finding himself thus anticipated, and shrinking from a collision with his friend, he retired immediately. Lucifer stayed, and declared that he would not hold communion with Eusebius or any who adopted the moderate policy of the Alexandrian Council. By this Council it had been determined that actual Arians, if they renounced their heresy, should be pardoned, but not invested with ecclesiastical functions; and that those bishops who had merely consented to Arianism should remain undisturbed. It was this latter concession which offended Lucifer, and he became henceforth the champion of the principle that no one who had yielded to any compromise whatever with Arianism should be allowed to hold an ecclesiastical office. He was thus brought into antagonism with Athanasius himself, who, it has been seen, presided at Alexandria. Eventually he returned to his see in Sardinia where, according to Jerome's Chronicle, he died in 371. Luciferianism became extinct in the beginning of the following century, if not earlier. It hardly appears to have been formed into a separate organization, though an appeal was made to the emperor by some Luciferian presbyters about the year 384, and both Ambrose and Augustine speak of him as having fallen into the schism.

The argument of the Dialogue may be thus stated. It has been pointed out above that Lucifer of Cagliari, who had been banished from his see in the reign of Constantius because of his adherence to the cause of Athanasius, had, on the announcement of toleration at the accession of Julian (361), gone to Antioch and consecrated Paulinus a bishop. There were then three bishops of Antioch, Dorotheus the Arian (who had succeeded Euzoius in 376), Meletius who, though an Athanasian in opinion, had been consecrated by Arians or Semi-Arians, and Paulinus; besides Vitalis, bishop of a congregation of Apollinarians. Lucifer, in the earnestness of his anti-Arian opinion, refused to acknowledge as bishops those who had come over from Arianism, though he accepted the laymen who had been baptized by Arian bishops. This opinion led to the Luciferian schism, and forms the subject of the Dialogue.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3005.htm
Given that the Luciferian schism was a Western Schism in Italy, reference to the bishop of Rome, the metropolitan of Italy and the Patriarch of the West, would make sense in Milan.  In Egypt, the reference would be to the Pope of Alexandria.

I'll answer to the rest, many unrelated topics later Smiley  
inconvenient doesn't make a fact unrelated.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #61 on: March 13, 2012, 11:17:31 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.

Not if he is acting under threat of violent coercion.
Why not?  That's how he got the office.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,620



« Reply #62 on: March 14, 2012, 12:04:39 AM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.

Not if he is acting under threat of violent coercion.

So the condemnation against the letter of Ibas was wrong then? Do you believe that the fifth ecumenical council made a doctrinal error?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #63 on: March 14, 2012, 12:08:18 AM »

Just like Vatican 1 dogma was discussed, or the Immaculate conception etc. The fact that it was discussed then does nothing to refute papal supremacy.
Except that your supreme pontiff Leo demanded that it be accepted as the definition of the Council without discussion, which isn't what the Fathers of the Council did.

This has probably been asked before, but can you demonstrate that Pope Leo demanded that it be accepted without discussion?
I have, but for a brief overview of some points from Price and Gaddis' translation:
Quote
Discussion quickly turned to the possibility of a new council. In order to avoid a repeat of Ephesus II, Leo insisted that any such council be held in Italy where he could control the agenda....Just ten days later Leo had the opportunity to write to Marcian again (Document 5), and he now revealed his objection to the emperor’s plan to hold a council in the east: he had no wish for a council which would reconsider doctrinal questions that, in his view, had already been resolved in his Tome, while the disciplinary questions relating to the standing of various bishops could be settled without calling a council. In subsequent letters 8 he added the objection that bishops in provinces threatened by war could not properly absent themselves from their dioceses. His reference to Sicily as ‘that province that seems to be safer’ in a subsequent letter (Document 7) implies that he was thinking of Italy; this shows his argument to be specious, since very few Italian bishops would attend an eastern council in any event. Undeterred by papal opposition, Marcian proceeded on 23 May to summon the eastern bishops to an ecumenical council, to be held at Nicaea in September of the same year (Document 6)....Leo bowed to the situation, and in the last week of June wrote two letters to Marcian that gave the names of those he had chosen to represent him at the council (Documents 7 and Cool. 11 Since Marcian had written months before in terms that seemed to invite Leo to chair the council (Document 2), Leo presumed that his senior legate would chair the council on his behalf, thereby controlling the agenda; it was probably only when his representatives arrived in the east that they discovered that the pope had been hoodwinked. 12 He pleaded again that the council should not be an occasion for the reopening of the doctrinal debate: it should simply reaffirm Nicaea and condemn the heretics. At the same time he wrote to Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum in Sicily, who was to be his senior legate; the letter (Document 9) is an impressive summary of the case against Eutyches, without the onesided rhetoric and hostages to fortune that marred the Tome. He also wrote a letter to the bishops who would now assemble (Document 10), which was
subsequently read out at the council (XV. 6). In this letter he instructed the bishops to reaffirm the condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus of 431, and recommended his own Tome as providing the solution to the more recent doctrinal controversy; he also mentioned the need to reinstate the bishops who had been deposed at Ephesus II. In a subsequent letter to Pulcheria (Document 11) he wrote on the assumption that the principal business of the council would be accepting the repentance of the bishops who had played a leading role at Ephesus. 13 In all, Pope Leo regarded the doctrinal controversy as having been settled by his Tome; if there had to be
a council, he held that, apart from settling the status of persons, it should simply acknowledge and confirm the teaching of the Tome, as the definitive ruling on the points at issue; the last thing he wanted was a reopening of the debate, as if the teaching of the heir and successor of St Peter were simply one among a plethora of competing voices....Indicative of the politics of the council was Marcian’s remark (Document 14) that the Roman delegates had expressed reluctance to attend the council in his absence. They must already have sensed the tensions between themselves and the majority of the eastern bishops that were to explode dramatically at the fifth session. It was indeed the firm hand of the emperor that would ensure that the outcome of the theological debate was acceptable to Rome.
14....

....Bishop Leo to the holy council held at Nicaea [i.e. the original destination of Chalcedon]....let your fraternity deem me to be presiding over the council. You are not deprived of my attendance, since I am present in my representatives and have for a long time not been failing in the preaching of the catholic faith, with the result that you cannot be in ignorance of what we believe from ancient tradition or
in doubt as to what I desire.
Therefore, most dear brethren, through a complete rejection of the effrontery of arguing against the faith divinely revealed, may the futile infidelity of the erring cease, and may it not be permitted to defend what it is not permitted to believe, since, in accordance with gospel authority, the prophetic sayings and the apostolic teaching, the letter which we sent to Bishop Flavian of blessed memory declared most fully and most lucidly what is the pious and pure confession of the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...
http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/109.pdf
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #64 on: March 14, 2012, 02:31:29 AM »

Quote
If the "doctrine" of the Papacy is something that had to change and grow over time, then it is clearly something that belongs to the earthly aspect of the Church and not the "faith delivered once for all".

Not really, the form can change, but it existed. The fact that the princip of the Papcy existed is all we need, the form or understanding of it can grow, and this is what matters.

If the 'princip' existed, you'd be able to provide a single example of someone bowing to that authority--something the collection of proof-texts you're working from is apparently not helping with as you've yet to produce a single such example. All you've produced are some individual opinions which were generally dismissed (summarily, as not even worth discussing) by councils your own church recognizes as Ecumenical (the Second Ecumenical Council, headed by a man Rome was not in communion with; the Fourth Ecumenical Council which subjected St. Leo's Tome to an examination in light of St. Cyril's synodical letters to determine its orthodoxy; the Fifth Ecumenical Council as already well covered by Cavaradossi and ialmisry).


Quote
Quote
because the idea that 'doctrines' can grow and change over time is unheard of among the Fathers.  


You put word in my mouth, i didnt talk about a change, only a growing.

You might want to check your definitions - growing is change.

Quote
"The Fathers, including the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, were always very careful to demonstrate that their doctrine was not a new development but a faithful statement (or re-statement) of the Apostolic teaching in the face of new developments like Arianism, Nestorianism, or Monotheletism."

Palamite doctrine is a devlepoment, yet many orthodoxs consider it dogma. If you apply your criteria to your own church, then we are both wrong. A development is not new, it is logical.  The thing is you put words in my mouth and claim what you have yet to prove.

"Palamite doctrine" is no more a 'development' than Nicea's doctrine that Christ and the Father are one. St. Gregory had 3 key points: 1) God is and does, 2) God is unknowable in His Essence, and 3) God is knowable in His acts. His great work was to demonstrate that these 3 points were not a development but part of the Apostolic doctrine whereas his opponents' rejection of one or more of these points was a rejection of Apostolic doctrine--and therefore to be condemned as heresy.

Quote
"It is no coincidence that Protestantism rose out of Rome and its 'development of doctrine' idea. Both, at base, come from the idea that 'we' *now*, understand the Faith better than did the Apostles and their disciples. "

Just like Gregory Palama did, so this is really not concistent. The growing in knowledge is something normal, we dont claim to know anything better than the apostles.

First you are terribly mischaracterizing St. Gregory as noted above. Second, your second sentence is internally contradictory. If I as an individual 'grow in knowledge' between when I am 10 and when I am 30, then my 30 year old self knows more than my 10 year-old self. If I don't know more than my 10-year self then it would be incorrect to say that I have 'grown'. If the Church has 'grown in knowledge' between the Apostolic age and the present, then Christians in the present day know more than the Christians in the Apostolic age, ipso facto. When it comes to worldly matters like physical science or geography, that is true--but Orthodoxy strongly rejects any claim that modern Christians know more about the essentials of salvation than the Apostles.


Quote
"What is apparantly impossible to find is an example of a Father who believed 'X' to be the Apostolic tradition, who knew that Rome believed 'x' to be incorrect, and consequently changed his position because he thought being in agreement  (or even communion) with Rome was more important than fidelity to what he believed to be Apostolic Doctrine."

Since Rome was right and didnt contradict any apostolic teaching, i dont see why it would have happened.
[snip]
"The clear Patristic response, still followed by Orthodoxy, when Rome tried to invent new doctrines was to remain faithful to the Apostolic Teaching."

An example?

I gave you 7 in the post you're responding to, several of which (St. Cyprian, St. Meletius and the 2nd Ecumenical Council) are well-known and covered in any basic Church History. Given that that is 7 more than you've provided, how many more do you need?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 02:31:55 AM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #65 on: March 14, 2012, 09:01:07 AM »

Just like Vatican 1 dogma was discussed, or the Immaculate conception etc. The fact that it was discussed then does nothing to refute papal supremacy.
Except that your supreme pontiff Leo demanded that it be accepted as the definition of the Council without discussion, which isn't what the Fathers of the Council did.

This has probably been asked before, but can you demonstrate that Pope Leo demanded that it be accepted without discussion?
I have, but for a brief overview of some points from Price and Gaddis' translation:
Quote
Discussion quickly turned to the possibility of a new council. In order to avoid a repeat of Ephesus II, Leo insisted that any such council be held in Italy where he could control the agenda....Just ten days later Leo had the opportunity to write to Marcian again (Document 5), and he now revealed his objection to the emperor’s plan to hold a council in the east: he had no wish for a council which would reconsider doctrinal questions that, in his view, had already been resolved in his Tome, while the disciplinary questions relating to the standing of various bishops could be settled without calling a council. In subsequent letters 8 he added the objection that bishops in provinces threatened by war could not properly absent themselves from their dioceses. His reference to Sicily as ‘that province that seems to be safer’ in a subsequent letter (Document 7) implies that he was thinking of Italy; this shows his argument to be specious, since very few Italian bishops would attend an eastern council in any event. Undeterred by papal opposition, Marcian proceeded on 23 May to summon the eastern bishops to an ecumenical council, to be held at Nicaea in September of the same year (Document 6)....Leo bowed to the situation, and in the last week of June wrote two letters to Marcian that gave the names of those he had chosen to represent him at the council (Documents 7 and Cool. 11 Since Marcian had written months before in terms that seemed to invite Leo to chair the council (Document 2), Leo presumed that his senior legate would chair the council on his behalf, thereby controlling the agenda; it was probably only when his representatives arrived in the east that they discovered that the pope had been hoodwinked. 12 He pleaded again that the council should not be an occasion for the reopening of the doctrinal debate: it should simply reaffirm Nicaea and condemn the heretics. At the same time he wrote to Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum in Sicily, who was to be his senior legate; the letter (Document 9) is an impressive summary of the case against Eutyches, without the onesided rhetoric and hostages to fortune that marred the Tome. He also wrote a letter to the bishops who would now assemble (Document 10), which was
subsequently read out at the council (XV. 6). In this letter he instructed the bishops to reaffirm the condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus of 431, and recommended his own Tome as providing the solution to the more recent doctrinal controversy; he also mentioned the need to reinstate the bishops who had been deposed at Ephesus II. In a subsequent letter to Pulcheria (Document 11) he wrote on the assumption that the principal business of the council would be accepting the repentance of the bishops who had played a leading role at Ephesus. 13 In all, Pope Leo regarded the doctrinal controversy as having been settled by his Tome; if there had to be
a council, he held that, apart from settling the status of persons, it should simply acknowledge and confirm the teaching of the Tome, as the definitive ruling on the points at issue; the last thing he wanted was a reopening of the debate, as if the teaching of the heir and successor of St Peter were simply one among a plethora of competing voices....Indicative of the politics of the council was Marcian’s remark (Document 14) that the Roman delegates had expressed reluctance to attend the council in his absence. They must already have sensed the tensions between themselves and the majority of the eastern bishops that were to explode dramatically at the fifth session. It was indeed the firm hand of the emperor that would ensure that the outcome of the theological debate was acceptable to Rome.
14....

....Bishop Leo to the holy council held at Nicaea [i.e. the original destination of Chalcedon]....let your fraternity deem me to be presiding over the council. You are not deprived of my attendance, since I am present in my representatives and have for a long time not been failing in the preaching of the catholic faith, with the result that you cannot be in ignorance of what we believe from ancient tradition or
in doubt as to what I desire.
Therefore, most dear brethren, through a complete rejection of the effrontery of arguing against the faith divinely revealed, may the futile infidelity of the erring cease, and may it not be permitted to defend what it is not permitted to believe, since, in accordance with gospel authority, the prophetic sayings and the apostolic teaching, the letter which we sent to Bishop Flavian of blessed memory declared most fully and most lucidly what is the pious and pure confession of the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...
http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/109.pdf

Alright. So when you say that Pope Leo "demanded" that it be accepted without discussion, you basically mean that he wanted it to be accepted without discussion, right?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,487


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #66 on: March 14, 2012, 09:20:40 AM »

So if the other fathers told Leo no, that it would be discussed, why didnt he just order it? Why did he not use this supremacy that was supposedly so obvious?

Quote
let your fraternity deem me to be presiding over the council
does not sound like he was ordering anything there.....

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,422


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #67 on: March 14, 2012, 11:52:41 AM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

1. Early NT Period: presbyters were at first identical to bishops (ἐπίσκοποι/episkopoi; compare Acts 20:17 and vs. 28; Titus 1:5 and vs. 7; 1 Pet 5:1 and vs. 2 (cf. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2005, p. 211); compare Jewish synagogues governed by a council of elders (Greek: πρεσβύτεροι presbyteroi).
2. 49 AD: Jerusalem Council (Acts 15); leadership of James at Jerusalem; 62 AD: martyrdom of James; martyrdom of Paul (c. 67 AD); 70 AD: destruction of Jerusalem by then general (later emperor) Titus. The Jerusalem Council was, of course, paradigmatic for later Councils.
3. 57/58:  Book of Romans (composed winter AD 56 or 57 from Corinth): no apparent community order with episkopos.
4. Later NT Period: "Early Catholicism," viz. single ruling bishops (Pastoral Epistles/AD 65 and afterward; Timothy and Titus to are told by Paul to ordain presbyters/bishops and e.g. "exhort with all authority" -Titus 2:15) with respect to Ephesus and Crete respectively.
5. Early writings including 1 Clement (c. 90 AD; Clement was directly appointed by the apostles) and the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve, variously dated 60-100AD -cf. subsequent redactions) also speak of two *local* offices (viz. (1) presbyter/bishop and (2) deacon). The Didache speaks of prophets and teachers as celebrants of the Eucharist, and only after them bishops and deacons.  Ignatius c. 110 AD did not address a bishop of all or of all Rome any more than Paul did. Only later would the local presbyter -as a distinct category from the bishop- and deacon be understood as local *prests* (not a mis-spelling) and deacons. A monarchical episcopate -only possible when the bishopric and eldership became dstinct entities- can be demonstrated for Rome only from around the middle of the second century; the lack of the same previously -as has already been seen above- is multiply attested in all earlier extant sources.
6. 142 AD: One Diocesan Bishop (proper) over other Bishops. The first single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome was Pius I (142 - 155). That later official lists of early "popes" (an alternate term for bishop not originally exclusive to the bishop of Rome) actually presided only over a council of elders is the unanimous verdict of all major academic historians (including Roman Catholic historians).
7. 325 AD Metropolitan Bishop over Diocesan Bishops. Metropolitan bishops are first mentioned in the canons of the Council of Nicea. Bishops in the great cities tended to have more education and prestige; country bishops (called chorespicopi) were described as lacking education and more vulnerable to heretical ideas. The colloquial Greek pappa (from which our rendering "pope" derived) was from the beginning of the third century used for Eastern metropolitans, diocesan bishops, regular bishops, abbots, and eventually parish priest. The title of "pope" early on was used by several Metropolitan Bishops at once. Later in the West, after Old Rome had been conquered and ceased to be bilingual, the Greek pappa became more obscure to the Latin speakers in the West and fell into disuse outside of the immediate environment of Old Rome in the West. The term then became increasingly reserved for the bishop of Rome until this was made an official demand by Gregory VII in the later eleventh century. The term papacy (papatus) -designed to sharply demarcate the office of the Roman bishop from  all bishops also originated at the end of the eleventh century.

From a mainstream scholarly/historical perspective the "papacy" (itself a later term) was clearly and without controversy not even *at* much less "over" the level of Diocesan, Metropolitan, or Patriarch before those offices even existed historically. Now obviously one can disagree with mainstream historians, but it is intellectually dishonest to claim that mainstream historians would agree that the Roman Church has always held a similar position. Most internet apologetic discussions presuming a univocal concepts of "papacy," "pope," "papal primacy"  where later realities are presumed to apply to earlier realities reduce to obscurantist apologetic anachrononisms.

Has the Pope always really been the head of the whole church on earth with immediate jurisdiction everywhere, or is the Pope simply one of several man-made ranks, like other monarchical bishops, diocesan bishops, metropolitan bishops, and patriarchs, in the divinely instituted episcopate, the apostolic ministry? (To hold to the latter is not to hate the papacy or Western Catholicism, believe they’re graceless heretics and so on, which is where I think I and many/most Orthodox sharply part ways.)

How does the modern historical picture relate to Orthodoxy? Just fine. Cf. St. Justin argument that all developments of office beyond the local bishop are not divinely ordained or necessary to the Church although they are justifiably adopted for pragmatic reasons; this is essentially the same thing writers like Fr. Laurent Cleenwercke mean when they distinguish functional from ontological primacy in the Church. Universal primacy/supremacy of the Roman bishop by divine right and/or scriptural mandate is an anachronistic position which no major contemporary historian believes actually existed in the early Church -despite frequent claims of amateur apologists to the contrary.

Orthodox Christians rather than Roman Catholics are therefore more in tune with the picture presented by mainstream historians when they, as Fr. Schmemann observes, reject "...the understanding and practice of primacy as 'supreme power' and, therefore, to a universal bishop as source and foundation of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical structure. The Orthodox Church has condemned this distortion in its pure and explicit Roman Catholic form." (Schmemann, The Primacy of Peter, p. 163)

As witega astutely observed in another thread "true sedevacantists are thoroughly Roman, in that they share the same distorted ecclesiology which is at the root of most of the difference between Orthodoxy and the Papacy--to whit, that the "Patriarchate of the West" (that is any honors or privileges possessed by the Bishop of Rome beyond those of any other diocesan bishop) is a integral part of the Apostolic Deposit rather than a historically contingent development with important practical but no doctrinal implications. The Apostolic portion of Church governance is the bishop ruling his local church, and meeting in council with other bishops to address those issues which affect more than the local church. Everything beyond that is a contingent development that is not necessary to the Faith. Some of those developments are broadly practical: the general organization of those local councils into permanent bodies along geo-political lines and the selection of one see to hold the chairmanship ('presiding') of those bodies. Some simply recognized the contemporary 'facts on the ground' (and then in a conservative organization, those recognitions ossified and remain long after their initial impetus has gone away): Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the three most important cities in the Roman Empire, with the most people (both Christian and not), and therefore the most resources so they were from early on given greater deference and responsibility; Jerusalem, the city of our Lord's Passion and Ressurection, of the one Church founded by all of the Apostles, of the first martyrs was practically wiped out in 70AD and took a long time to recover, so when it finally did it was slotted in behind the first 3; Constantinople was set up as 'New Rome' so it was given the 'perogatives of honor after Rome'; the Russian Church grew larger than the ancient patriarchates and was backed by an Imperial power, so was made a Patriarchy itself."

The fact that the princip of the Papcy existed is all we need, the form or understanding of it can grow, and this is what matters.
This is Newman's concept of development; development is valid so long as it can be traced to a "seed" (cf. Aristotle, and more especially G. W. F. Hegel's paradigm of development from which Newman drew much of his inspiration). The problem is, as even Roman Catholic Cardinals have admitted, we do not always have even so much as a "seed" to point to.

The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians. There is no trace of papal infallibility or even the germ of what developed into it according to Roman Catholic Cardinal/historian Yves Congar for over a thousand years. The notion that certain truths of morality may be arrived at by discursive reason apart from Roman Catholic faith, a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, is not only unknown to the Undivided Church of the first millennium, it is met with almost universal denial of this alleged ability by philosophers who are not Roman Catholics with the paradoxical result that Roman Catholics today are virtually alone in defending it. Aquinas according to Jesuit philosopher Fr. Frederick Copleston was majorly controversial in his own day, but all that changed after a single proclamation after 1869. It has formed the "basis" for Magisterial ethical pronouncements that have been rejected even by the vast majority of practicing Roman Catholics themselves. The notion that we can see the essence of God in Beatific Vision, which no first millennium father ever taught, is Roman Catholic dogma, purgatory, original sin understood in an Augustinian manner and its corollary, an "immaculate conception," and so on.

i didnt talk about a change, only a growing.
Academic historians tend toward the view -echoed also by many Roman Catholic scholars- that there is not so much as a trace of papal infallibility in the entire first millennium of Christianity.

Dominican Cardinal Yyves Congar said there was not even a *germ* of what developed into papal infallibility until the 1200s. The notion seems to have originated first on the lips of "dissident Franciscans" (cf. Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, cited below)

Roman Catholic Fr. Hans Kung (note: dissenting, but from an purely historical perspective on this point) observes:
""[before the Orthodox/Latin Schism]The Eastern patriarchs and metropolitans certainly still regarded the pope as bishop of the old imperial capital and sole patriarch of the West. But as such he was first among equals. And this was not, say because of a special biblical promise or a legal authority. Of course, no one at that time, even in Rome would have thought that the bishops of Rome were infallible...

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries. The freely invented legend of the holy Pope Silvester comes from the fifth/sixth centuries. In the eighth century it led to a highly influential forgery, the Donation of Constantine (shown to be a forgery in the fifteenth century), according to which Constantine left Rome and the Western half of the empire to Pope Silvester, allowed him the imperial insignia and garments (purple) and a court to match; and bestowed on him the primacy over all other churches, especially Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. In fact Constantine had left him only the Lateran palace and the new basilicas of the Lateran and St. Peter's" Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (2001), pp. 60-61.

Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages, affirms "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281).

cf. also Bernhard Hasler, (Roman Catholic priest) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion( (1981).

Vatican I had said it was a part of the faith of the Latin church from the beginning. The adamant denial that this is so by academic historians including Roman Catholic academics is sometimes explained theologically with reference to the paradigm of development defended by Cardinal John Henry Newman (cf. Hegelian dialectic) which became a prominent factor in Vatican II according to Pope John Paul who called it "Newman's Council." Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding it seems reasonable to suggest -if there is no trace of papal infallibility for a thousand years as many scholars argue- that the Latin church is susceptible to the same criticism Cardinal Newman in his Development of Christian Doctrine used to counter Protestantism:

"...this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: "So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'—Nay dead and buried—and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!—then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will,... and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless."

Catholic simply means universal. The opposite is particularistic theology -faith which is held by some but not universally, like faith in papal infallibility, of which there is not even the germ of what developed into the later idea in the entire first millennium of Christianity according to academic historian and Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves Congar, the general consensus of major academic historians, and the Orthodox Church.

Orthodox Christians affirm the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and so do Roman Catholics, these beliefs are "universal/catholic,"

Roman Catholics have 21 Councils -fourteen beyond our seven. These do not reflect universal or historic Christian belief at many points and therefore are not "catholic" in the original sense of the word "universal" -from our point of view. There are a number of dogmas of Latin Catholicism which are not shared by the Orthodox Church, like propitiation in soteriology, storehouses of merit, sin as demerit which has to be "paid back," purgatory as a paying off of one's sins, indulgences, and so on. These from our perspective are not "universal" beliefs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church (these are just examples, not meant to be comprehensive, and of course there will be different "slants" on all of these things ad infinitum).

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 12:16:35 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,422


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #68 on: March 14, 2012, 01:35:14 PM »

On an additional note I have always found it bizarre when amateur Roman Catholic apologists appeal to Pope St. Leo's role in the proceedings of Constantinople I as supporting the notion that the pope was ever the universal head of all Christendom by divine right.

The very opposite is evident at this Ecumenical Council!! Chalcedon was a "bitter defeat" for Pope Leo. His legates were sent away *rejected* and primacy was *removed* from old Rome by that Ecumenical Council:

"In the same year, 451, Leo suffered a bitter defeat at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, at which the crucial issue of the relationship between divine and the human in Christ was defined; his three legates were flatly refused the precedence which they claimed. Despite his explicit prohibition, the letter which Leo had sent on the issue was first of all checked by the council to see if it met the norms of orthodoxy, and only then did his christological formula meet with approval. Not only was he not accorded any privileges over the whole church, but the church status of a city was made dependent on its civil status. Consequently the see of New Rome [Constantinople] was given the same primacy as the old imperial capital. The protest of the Roman legates rang out unheard at this great council with its six hundred members, as did Leo's protest afterward. But his delay of two years in recognizing the council helped only its opponents in Palestine and Egypt, from among whom the non-Chalcedonian churches emerged: the monophysite Coptic Church in Egypt, the Nestorian Church in Syria, and the Armenian and Georgian Churches. They still exist today" (Kung, The Catholic Church: A Concise History, pp. 58-59).

The clear, decisive, and "catholic"/universal sentiment among those present at the Council of Chalcedon I concerning primacy (as reflected in Canon 28) was to *transfer* primacy (which was an expediency in the first place rather than a divine right) to the new capital of Rome rather than keeping it in the ruins of the old capital city whose population had dwindled to a fraction of what it was before.

Quote from: Council of Chalcedon Canon 28
The fathers in fact have correctly attributed the prerogatives to the see of the most ancient Rome because it was the imperial city. And thus moved by the same reasoning, [we] have accorded equal prerogatives to the very holy see of New Rome, justly considering that the city is honored by the imperial power and the senate and enjoying the prerogatives equal to those of old Rome, the most ancient imperial city, ought to be elevated as Old Rome in the affairs of the Church, being in the second place after it.    -Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28 (AD 451)

The new capital of the Roman Empire was quite naturally given primacy at that time. Primacy was never regarded as a divine right or a dogma, but an expediency. It is still not considered a dogma in the Christian East to this day. This is no late "schismatic" sentiment!
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 02:03:35 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,147



« Reply #69 on: March 14, 2012, 02:27:53 PM »

On an additional note I have always found it bizarre when amateur Roman Catholic apologists appeal to Pope St. Leo's role in the proceedings of Constantinople I

Yes, that's quite bizarre. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #70 on: March 14, 2012, 02:40:07 PM »

Quote
The clear, decisive, and "catholic"/universal sentiment among those present at the Council of Chalcedon I concerning primacy (as reflected in Canon 28) was to *transfer* primacy (which was an expediency in the first place rather than a divine right) to the new capital of Rome rather than keeping it in the ruins of the old capital city whose population had dwindled to a fraction of what it was before.

Is this because of this transfer that st Gregory the Great could say this later on:

""For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? ""
Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

For Pope vigilius:

"The all-important circumstance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion, which at once deprives his action of any claim to be considered ex cathedra"
http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/i/infallibility.html

It was about Liberius, but the same is true about Pope Vigilius. So if it was not ex cathedra, it does not refute Papal infailiability.

Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #71 on: March 14, 2012, 02:51:47 PM »

Quote
This is Newman's concept of development; development is valid so long as it can be traced to a "seed" (cf. Aristotle, and more especially G. W. F. Hegel's paradigm of development from which Newman drew much of his inspiration). The problem is, as even Roman Catholic Cardinals have admitted, we do not always have even so much as a "seed" to point to.

Some scholars say this, some say something else... Yves congar is not a good example, he was not trustworthy in the eyes of Pie XII, and became cardinal because of oecumenism. So i would not take his word on it. Just like when Dvornik, who made an amazing work for the historical truth about st photius, was wrong about the abrogation of the 8th oecumenical council of 869/870, because of oecumenism. So let's not mix everything, please!

Quote
Orthodox Christians affirm the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and so do Roman Catholics, these beliefs are "universal/catholic,"

The truth is that you dont even know how many oecumenical councils you have:

http://orthodoxnorthwest.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/e-p-announces-long-awaited-8th-council-to-be-held-in-portland/
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx
http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2010/03/concerns-about-8th-ecumenical-council.html

But wait, i thought the 8th oecumenical council was in 879-880 with alleged abrogation of the one in 869-870 by John VIII lol.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 02:53:08 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #72 on: March 14, 2012, 02:57:21 PM »

Quote
All you've produced are some individual opinions


To see what the Tradition was you need to look at the individual opinios of the fathers and the saints, so that is not a good reply.

Quote
You might want to check your definitions - growing is change.

A change in the form. Just like palamite doctrine is a development, but there you accept it...

Quote
"Palamite doctrine" is no more a 'development' than Nicea's doctrine that Christ and the Father are one. St. Gregory had 3 key points: 1) God is and does, 2) God is unknowable in His Essence, and 3) God is knowable in His acts. His great work was to demonstrate that these 3 points were not a development but part of the Apostolic doctrine whereas his opponents' rejection of one or more of these points was a rejection of Apostolic doctrine--and therefore to be condemned as heresy.

It was not only that, but i'll refer to the work of Martin Jugie on this issue:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/martin-jugie-the-palamite-controversy/

Quote
If I as an individual 'grow in knowledge' between when I am 10 and when I am 30, then my 30 year old self knows more than my 10 year-old self. If I don't know more than my 10-year self then it would be incorrect to say that I have 'grown'. If the Church has 'grown in knowledge' between the Apostolic age and the present, then Christians in the present day know more than the Christians in the Apostolic age, ipso facto. When it comes to worldly matters like physical science or geography, that is true--but Orthodoxy strongly rejects any claim that modern Christians know more about the essentials of salvation than the Apostles.


Well the CHurch is not only composed of the Apostles. But anyway, you dont claim to know more but you believe things that were not explicitly taught by the Apostles. So it means that what was implicitly known at their time can be explicit at ours. As such, eastern ortodox may deny development for polemical reasons, but the fact is that their praxis proves it.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 03:03:41 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #73 on: March 14, 2012, 04:26:19 PM »

Quote
All you've produced are some individual opinions


To see what the Tradition was you need to look at the individual opinios of the fathers and the saints, so that is not a good reply.

When you edit out the rest of the sentence about individual opinions "which were generally dismissed (summarily, as not even worth discussing) by councils."  Of course, that's a completely dishonest way of dealing with what I said.

But for the record, to see what the Tradition is, you first look to what the Fathers have decided in council. And only if there has been no conciliar determination do you need to turn to individual Fathers' opinions (and actions--I notice you still don't have an example of anyone bowing to the supposed 'princips' of the Papacy).


Quote
Quote
You might want to check your definitions - growing is change.

A change in the form. Just like palamite doctrine is a development, but there you accept it...

Quote
"Palamite doctrine" is no more a 'development' than Nicea's doctrine that Christ and the Father are one. St. Gregory had 3 key points: 1) God is and does, 2) God is unknowable in His Essence, and 3) God is knowable in His acts. His great work was to demonstrate that these 3 points were not a development but part of the Apostolic doctrine whereas his opponents' rejection of one or more of these points was a rejection of Apostolic doctrine--and therefore to be condemned as heresy.

It was not only that, but i'll refer to the work of Martin Jugie on this issue:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/martin-jugie-the-palamite-controversy/

And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.

Quote
Quote
If I as an individual 'grow in knowledge' between when I am 10 and when I am 30, then my 30 year old self knows more than my 10 year-old self. If I don't know more than my 10-year self then it would be incorrect to say that I have 'grown'. If the Church has 'grown in knowledge' between the Apostolic age and the present, then Christians in the present day know more than the Christians in the Apostolic age, ipso facto. When it comes to worldly matters like physical science or geography, that is true--but Orthodoxy strongly rejects any claim that modern Christians know more about the essentials of salvation than the Apostles.


Well the CHurch is not only composed of the Apostles. But anyway, you dont claim to know more but you believe things that were not explicitly taught by the Apostles. So it means that what was implicitly known at their time can be explicit at ours. As such, eastern ortodox may deny development for polemical reasons, but the fact is that their praxis proves it.

Unless you can demonstrate that Orthodoxy believes anything as Dogma that was not believed by the Apostles--and I mean actually demonstrate, not just claim that St. Palamas innovated something which only demonstrates your ignorance of St. Palamas actual teaching--then the above paragraph is simply so much false nonsense.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #74 on: March 14, 2012, 05:25:14 PM »

Quote
You might want to check your definitions - growing is change.

A change in the form. Just like palamite doctrine is a development, but there you accept it...


Quote
If I as an individual 'grow in knowledge' between when I am 10 and when I am 30, then my 30 year old self knows more than my 10 year-old self. If I don't know more than my 10-year self then it would be incorrect to say that I have 'grown'. If the Church has 'grown in knowledge' between the Apostolic age and the present, then Christians in the present day know more than the Christians in the Apostolic age, ipso facto. When it comes to worldly matters like physical science or geography, that is true--but Orthodoxy strongly rejects any claim that modern Christians know more about the essentials of salvation than the Apostles.


Well the CHurch is not only composed of the Apostles. But anyway, you dont claim to know more but you believe things that were not explicitly taught by the Apostles. So it means that what was implicitly known at their time can be explicit at ours. As such, eastern ortodox may deny development for polemical reasons, but the fact is that their praxis proves it.
As I point out, you all can't distinguish between growing to adulthood and undergoing a sex change operation, because both are "change."
Finally, how does this relate to the Roman Catholic concept of doctrinal development? This really sounds like "development" to me if not innovation.
Let's go further back (I've dealt with this before):
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.
Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.  Wink

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #75 on: March 14, 2012, 05:25:14 PM »

Quote
This is Newman's concept of development; development is valid so long as it can be traced to a "seed" (cf. Aristotle, and more especially G. W. F. Hegel's paradigm of development from which Newman drew much of his inspiration). The problem is, as even Roman Catholic Cardinals have admitted, we do not always have even so much as a "seed" to point to.

Some scholars say this, some say something else... Yves congar is not a good example, he was not trustworthy in the eyes of Pie XII, and became cardinal because of oecumenism. So i would not take his word on it. Just like when Dvornik, who made an amazing work for the historical truth about st photius, was wrong about the abrogation of the 8th oecumenical council of 869/870, because of oecumenism. So let's not mix everything, please!
So let's dispense with your excuse via accusation of "ecumenism."  Dvornik said and proved what he said and proved.

Quote
Orthodox Christians affirm the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and so do Roman Catholics, these beliefs are "universal/catholic,"

The truth is that you dont even know how many oecumenical councils you have:

http://orthodoxnorthwest.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/e-p-announces-long-awaited-8th-council-to-be-held-in-portland/
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx
http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2010/03/concerns-about-8th-ecumenical-council.html

But wait, i thought the 8th oecumenical council was in 879-880 with alleged abrogation of the one in 869-870 by John VIII lol.
Trying to create problems when none exist.  EVERY Orthodox who does NOT believe the Fourth Constantinople Council is ecumenical BELIEVES what it teaches.  Without exception.  So too with the Palamite Councils.

In contrast, your Vatican is confused about when the Second Ecumenical Council was Ecumenical, changed its mind on Fourth Constantinople, repudiated its council of Pisa by its council of Constance, simultaneously accepts the authority of its council of Constance while repudiating that council's statement of its authority (Haec Sancta Synodus) and covering up the council of siena Constance (and its pope) called, dances around its council of Basel will deriving its council of Florence from it.

Quite a heap of logs you have there. Excuse me as I rub my eye.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #76 on: March 14, 2012, 06:34:51 PM »

Quote
So let's dispense with your excuse via accusation of "ecumenism."  Dvornik said and proved what he said and proved.

And Father Grumel refuted him on this point, so what i said stands.
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/grumel-on-dvornik/

Quote
EVERY Orthodox who does NOT believe the Fourth Constantinople Council is ecumenical BELIEVES what it teaches.  Without exception.  So too with the Palamite Councils.

You beg the question. Is it oecumenical council or not?

Quote
changed its mind on Fourth Constantinople

No, Father Grumel refuted that claim.


Quote
As I point out, you all can't distinguish between growing to adulthood and undergoing a sex change operation, because both are "change."

Well, this can apply to your Church as well, so i dont get your point.

Quote
But for the record, to see what the Tradition is, you first look to what the Fathers have decided in council.


What makes a council oecumenical?

Quote
and actions--I notice you still don't have an example of anyone bowing to the supposed 'princips' of the Papacy

What are those princips to you?

"And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.
"

I rely on scholar works just as you did, i dont see why you get upset.

"Unless you can demonstrate that Orthodoxy believes anything as Dogma that was not believed by the Apostles--and I mean actually demonstrate, not just claim that St. Palamas innovated something which only demonstrates your ignorance of St. Palamas actual teaching--then the above paragraph is simply so much false nonsense"

THis is not what i said. What i say is that you believe things that apostles didn't preach explicitly. Like about the Theotokos, or about hypostatic union etc. It was not explicit in the apostles teachings. Or the Canon of scriptures, with the denying by many early Fathers of the inspiration of the book of Revelation.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 06:37:14 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,127


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #77 on: March 14, 2012, 09:43:22 PM »

I am completely lost on this conversation...

...just wondering, why is it that the Supremacy of Rome carry such a dogmatic importance with the Latin Church?  Isn't it just one type of ecclesiology that affirm one bishop for the Church?  Why not make it a theologomenoun?  It has always been the ecclesiology of choice for the West, whereas the East also had different opinions from the very beginning.  Therefore, while we continue the quote mining, one has to acknowledge that from the very beginning of the Church, two different ecclesiologies were at practice here (and that's not including the structure of organization of churches outside the Roman Empire).
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #78 on: March 14, 2012, 09:57:33 PM »

So let's dispense with your excuse via accusation of "ecumenism."  Dvornik said and proved what he said and proved.
And Father Grumel refuted him on this point, so what i said stands.
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/grumel-on-dvornik/
Not from what you linked he hasn't, and so you fall with it.

Left hanging are several issues, the way Rome tried to ram through the Formula of Hormisdas, again, for instance.  And how Fr. Grumel likes to sweep under the rug the centuries of silence of the 869 council in the West, while Rome still tried to press its claims on Bulgaria, and other instances with reference to the voided council, e.g.
Quote
In Constantinople, the patriarch Photius had been ejected and Stephen, the son of Emperor Basilius, elevated to the patriarchate. Archbishop Stylian of Neo-Cæsarea and the clerical opponents of Photius had written to Stephen V, requesting dispensation and confirmation for those clerics who had recognized Photius only under compulsion and had received orders at his hands. In his reply to this petition (892) Formosus insisted on a distinction of persons; indulgence might be readily shown in the case of the laity, but in the case of clerics such a course was attended with difficulties; the rule must be the sentence of the Eighth General Council (Can. iv), viz, that Photius neither had been nor was a bishop, and all clerics ordained or appointed by him must resign their office; the papal legates, Landulf and Romanus, were to consult with Stylian and Theophylactus of Ancyra on the matter. In this instance, Formosus only corroborated the decisions of his predecessors, Nicholas I and Hadrian II.
Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06139b.htm
The importance of both, of course, underlined by your supreme pontiff trying to pass off poof-texts derived therefrom in Pastor Aeternus.  This, given the fragmentary record of the voided council, pieced together from dusty anti-Photian pamphlets, dusted off.  It seems Rome had quite forgotten the council it now claims as ecumenical and "of everlasting memory." 

EVERY Orthodox who does NOT believe the Fourth Constantinople Council is ecumenical BELIEVES what it teaches.  Without exception.  So too with the Palamite Councils.
You beg the question. Is it oecumenical council or not?
I'm not begging any question:I'm telling you straight out that there is no question. EVERY Orthodox believes what the Fourth and Fifth Councils of Constantinople taught. Without exception.

It is an interesting question, though, since Rome was in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in 879, and the reference in, for instance the office of reception of converts, to the Seven Ecumenical Councils, where do people get the goofy idea that we can't hold an Ecumenical Council because the Vatican is not in communion?  We are, however, in communion with Rome


changed its mind on Fourth Constantinople
No, Father Grumel refuted that claim.
No, he asserted he refuted it.  Like you.  The record of the record of the council in the West shows differently.

As I point out, you all can't distinguish between growing to adulthood and undergoing a sex change operation, because both are "change."
Well, this can apply to your Church as well, so i dont get your point.
No, we can distinguish between the growth of tissue and the growth of a tumor, between puberty and sex reassignment.

But for the record, to see what the Tradition is, you first look to what the Fathers have decided in council.

What makes a council oecumenical?
Recognition by the Church, sealed by the Spirit living in her.  That is how ever single one has been recognized.

and actions--I notice you still don't have an example of anyone bowing to the supposed 'princips' of the Papacy
What are those princips to you?
Nothing. That's what he told you.

"And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.
I rely on scholar works just as you did, i dont see why you get upset.
We rely on St. Gregory's own words as well, which you seem not to have seen.

Unless you can demonstrate that Orthodoxy believes anything as Dogma that was not believed by the Apostles--and I mean actually demonstrate, not just claim that St. Palamas innovated something which only demonstrates your ignorance of St. Palamas actual teaching--then the above paragraph is simply so much false nonsense
THis is not what i said. What i say is that you believe things that apostles didn't preach explicitly. Like about the Theotokos
Galatians 4:4.  We believe an Apostle wrote that.

or about hypostatic union etc.
John 1:14.  We believe an Apostle wrote that as well.

It was not explicit in the apostles teachings. Or the Canon of scriptures, with the denying by many early Fathers of the inspiration of the book of Revelation.
And yet is it there, written in the days of the Apostles and preserved by the Church to our days.  Now the secrets of Fatima...
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #79 on: March 14, 2012, 10:14:19 PM »

Quote
"And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.
"

I rely on scholar works just as you did, i dont see why you get upset.

fixed your quotes

I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. You referred me to a "Catholic controversialist" (description at your link). I referred you to the words of the saint himself. The two aren't even vaguely equivalent. It's as if I made some false claim about Pastor Aeternus and when a Latin pointed out my error, I said 'no, no, don't read the actual text go see what Jack Chick said about it.'
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #80 on: March 14, 2012, 11:26:57 PM »

Quote
When news of Vigilius' condemnation of the Three Chapters reached the West, the bishops of Aquileia, Liguria, Aemilia, Milan and of the Istrian Peninsula all went into schism from the infallible Roman Pontiff, believing that he had betrayed the faith of Chalcedon, as if they believed that he wasn't infallible on matters of faith or something. How odd.

Just like arian, anti chalcedonian, or nestorian bishops didnt agree with the true faith, but it does not refute the existence of the Papacy, of the nicean faith, or the 2 natures of Christ.

And before that; Theodoret of Cyruss 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.
Odd that you quote a bishop condemned for his Nestorian views by an Ecumenical Council, whom the Council of Chalcedon had to force to anathematize Nestorianism, moreover in the very letter said bishop wrote when he had been deposed for his Nestorian views and was trying to cajole allies to restore him to his see.  Given that Rome was the only see not involved in his deposition, it is not surprising that he would claim its bishop, with whom he was currying favor to his own purposes, would play up its precedence.  He didn't say supremacy, though.  And given that he didn't think Theodore of Mopsuestia's ideas-already condemned by St. EP Proclus of New Rome and later confirmed by Ecumenical Council-were heretical, of what value is his assertion that "above all" "the Holy See...is free from all taint of heresy"?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,963



« Reply #81 on: March 15, 2012, 01:09:26 AM »

I am completely lost on this conversation...

...just wondering, why is it that the Supremacy of Rome carry such a dogmatic importance with the Latin Church?  Isn't it just one type of ecclesiology that affirm one bishop for the Church?  Why not make it a theologomenoun?  It has always been the ecclesiology of choice for the West, whereas the East also had different opinions from the very beginning.  Therefore, while we continue the quote mining, one has to acknowledge that from the very beginning of the Church, two different ecclesiologies were at practice here (and that's not including the structure of organization of churches outside the Roman Empire).
Not from the beginning.  The ecclesiastical practice of Rome was very similar to that of Alexandria (except that Alexandria was even more centralized in the pope, diocesan bishops arising quite late there), and New Rome later (Antioch was different).  It did not coagulate into a different ecclesiology until far later, in the 9th century, though Rome had tried asserting it centuries earlier, but repeatedly backed down.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #82 on: March 15, 2012, 04:13:51 AM »

Quote
"And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.
"

I rely on scholar works just as you did, i dont see why you get upset.

fixed your quotes

I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. You referred me to a "Catholic controversialist" (description at your link). I referred you to the words of the saint himself. The two aren't even vaguely equivalent. It's as if I made some false claim about Pastor Aeternus and when a Latin pointed out my error, I said 'no, no, don't read the actual text go see what Jack Chick said about it.'



Well, Martin Jugie is not only a controversialist, he is a great scholar. And he made the job, so i point to his works.

Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #83 on: March 15, 2012, 04:15:10 AM »

Quote
He didn't say supremacy, though.

It is implied, so that is enough.
Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #84 on: March 15, 2012, 04:19:43 AM »

Quote
Not from what you linked he hasn't, and so you fall with it.

LOL.

The third and most important question is that which concerns the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Dvornik thinks he can prove that it was abrogated by John VIII. To this end, he makes use of documents transmitted by Yves of Chartres, not taking account of the fact that these fragments originated at the Photian council where the papal documents had been altered. He makes use also of the Western juridical tradition according to which the ecumenicity of this council did not appear until the end of the eleventh century. One should not forget that this council of 869, which produced no definition of faith, was convened solely to decide on matters relating to persons and that, after the Photian question had been settled at the council of 879, there was no reason to bring it up again, and the peace of the Church demanded that it not be. But between this and an abrogation there is quite a stretch. Furthermore, the complete letter from Pope Stephen I to Emperor Basil I (which we presented at the International Congresses of Byzantine Studies of Paris and of Bruxelles) shows clearly that no pope, up to Stephen’s time, had annulled the acts of the Eighth Council.
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/grumel-on-dvornik/

http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/879-880-constantinople-robber-council/
3. Pope John VIII of Rome of pious memory (872-882) did not annul the Council of 869-870. Daniel Stiernon [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 180] points out that nowhere does Pope John VIII, in his genuine (i.e., unmodified) letters, abrogate the 869-870 Council, and he cites [n. 148] Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A., “Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius,” in Echos d’Orient, XXXIX (1940), 138-156. Stiernon also stresses [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 176] that in the pope’s genuine letter to Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian [MGH, Epist., VII, 169), Pope John VIII cites canon 68 of the 419 local Council of Carthage [Mansi III:771E], which reads:


not that the Council which met about this matter in foreign parts should be done away, but that it may remain in force with regard to those who so will to come over to the Catholic Church that there be procured by them no breaking of unity… there shall not be objected to them the decree contrary to their honor adopted by a foreign council, for salvation is shut off to no one, that is to say, that those ordained by the Donatist party, if having been corrected they have been willing to return to the Catholic Church, are not to be received in their grades, according to the foreign council; but they are to be excepted through whom they received the advice to return to Catholic unity.”

4. Moreover, the letter of Pope Stephen V of pious memory (885-891) to Emperor Basil I in 885 or 886 proves that no pope annulled the 869-870 Council, since Photius, who nonetheless died in the odor of sanctity, was still, at the time, trying to have the former council abrogated. See Fr. Grumel’s “La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l’empereur Basile Ier” on pp. 129-136 of the 1953 edition of Revue de etudes byzantines; the letter, according to p. 137, is from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 1117, 326v-328v. Fr. Dvornik of pious memory did not address this even in the 1970 edition of his monumental work, The Photian Schism
Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #85 on: March 15, 2012, 04:30:49 AM »

Quote
I'm not begging any question:I'm telling you straight out that there is no question. EVERY Orthodox believes what the Fourth and Fifth Councils of Constantinople taught. Without exception.

I'm not asking if you believe it or not. I'm asking you is it an oecumenical council or no?

Quote
No, we can distinguish between the growth of tissue and the growth of a tumor, between puberty and sex reassignment.
Well this is just your claim and your personal distinction.

Quote
Recognition by the Church, sealed by the Spirit living in her.  That is how ever single one has been recognized.
By the whole Church? And if parts of the Church dont recognize it?

Quote
Nothing. That's what he told you.
The Papacy has no definition nor princips? Lol.

Quote
We rely on St. Gregory's own words as well, which you seem not to have seen.

Jugie did, just read his work.

Quote
Galatians 4:4.  We believe an Apostle wrote that.

I dont see where galatians 4:4 teaches explicitly your hymns about the Theotokos. It is implicit.

Quote
John 1:14.  We believe an Apostle wrote that as well.

Where do you see the words hyspostatic union here?


Quote
And yet is it there, written in the days of the Apostles and preserved by the Church to our days.  


Wich proves that polemics or denying by some does not prove it is not apostolic nor true. Thank you Smiley
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 04:32:35 AM by Montenero1439 » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,127


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #86 on: March 15, 2012, 10:22:33 AM »

I am completely lost on this conversation...

...just wondering, why is it that the Supremacy of Rome carry such a dogmatic importance with the Latin Church?  Isn't it just one type of ecclesiology that affirm one bishop for the Church?  Why not make it a theologomenoun?  It has always been the ecclesiology of choice for the West, whereas the East also had different opinions from the very beginning.  Therefore, while we continue the quote mining, one has to acknowledge that from the very beginning of the Church, two different ecclesiologies were at practice here (and that's not including the structure of organization of churches outside the Roman Empire).
Not from the beginning.  The ecclesiastical practice of Rome was very similar to that of Alexandria (except that Alexandria was even more centralized in the pope, diocesan bishops arising quite late there), and New Rome later (Antioch was different).  It did not coagulate into a different ecclesiology until far later, in the 9th century, though Rome had tried asserting it centuries earlier, but repeatedly backed down.

Well if we entertain the thought, one can still show that Latin ecclesiology was for the Latins, and had no bearing on the Eastern Church, neither should it have dogmatic significance, since it ultimately makes no difference to the essential Orthodox faith.  I remember also in a past thread an eye-opening understanding of different translations of conciliar minutes, where the Latin translation showed a sense of Roman papal supremacy, whereas te Greek translation showed a more conciliar supremacy with Roman papal respect and veneration.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,090


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #87 on: March 15, 2012, 10:30:21 AM »

I'd like to see the heavy swingers on CA come here for a debate-off...

Yes.

Perhaps you should go over there and extend an invitation  angel.

Can't many of us were banned from there.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 10,172


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #88 on: March 15, 2012, 10:44:48 AM »

I'd like to see the heavy swingers on CA come here for a debate-off...

Yes.

Perhaps you should go over there and extend an invitation  angel.

Can't many of us were banned from there.

Was Aindriu?  The suggestion was for him, although the English language being what it is, I can understand your confusing the singular "you" with the plural "you" in this instance  Wink.  Besides, "many" doesn't mean, in this case, "all"--I'm sure there are others here who could go there and extend the invitation.  I could, for instance, but have no such inclination--though I might be persuaded, but I don't know how   Wink.  I'm not even sure in which section one would offer it.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian

"Sometimes you're the windshield.  Sometimes you're the bug." ~ Mark Knopfler (?)
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,741


look into my lovable alpaca eyes


« Reply #89 on: March 15, 2012, 12:09:40 PM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 12:10:13 PM by ZealousZeal » Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Tags: papacy Petrine Primacy Pope Leo 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.265 seconds with 74 queries.