OrthodoxChristianity.net

Moderated Forums => Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion => Orthodox-Catholic Discussion => Topic started by: prodromas on October 03, 2007, 08:26:56 AM

Title: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: prodromas on October 03, 2007, 08:26:56 AM
Alliteration aside I was curious if someone (the Catholics if possible) could provide me with some quotes or writing from the pre-schism patristics which show the that bishop or Rome was instituted with universal jurisdiction over the whole universal church.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Anastasios on October 03, 2007, 09:16:34 AM
Be careful; a lot of the time those quotes are taken out of context, omit the fact that other patriarchs were appealed to, are from corrupted sources, etc.  There was certainly a primacy of Rome owing to its orthodox and prestigious position, but it was not due to some notion of Petrine succession (cf. Dvornik's book on primacy, the title of which escapes me).

Anastasios
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Didymus on October 05, 2007, 12:24:25 PM
You may well find a quote from St. Irenaeus saying that it is important for everyone to agree with the Bishop of Rome. (The rest of the quote qualifies that as being whenever this Bishop teaches the True Faith.)

That's the earliest I know about though.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Papist on October 08, 2007, 12:57:05 AM
No it does not. It metions that Rome has maintained the true faith but it does not posit that as the reason that we must follow the teachings of Rome. Rather, the reason it gives is Rome's superior origin.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Νεκτάριος on October 08, 2007, 02:48:55 AM
Quote
No it does not. It metions that Rome has maintained the true faith but it does not posit that as the reason that we must follow the teachings of Rome. Rather, the reason it gives is Rome's superior origin.

The patristic texts weren't written in a vacuum.  They were primarily (and particularly in this case) written by those trained in classical rhetoric and should be understood in that light.  A bit of extra pomp and overstating something sounded very different to an ear back then than it does to the modern ear.  And to go beyond anything other than a mere primacy towards universal jurisdiction or something like infallibility is very ahistorical. 
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on October 08, 2007, 12:15:55 PM
The patristic texts weren't written in a vacuum.  They were primarily (and particularly in this case) written by those trained in classical rhetoric and should be understood in that light.  A bit of extra pomp and overstating something sounded very different to an ear back then than it does to the modern ear.  And to go beyond anything other than a mere primacy towards universal jurisdiction or something like infallibility is very ahistorical. 

Indeed...there are many other exaggerated quotes that can be given the same interpretation towards Alexandria and Constantinople.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ChristianLove on October 11, 2007, 09:08:27 PM
Alliteration aside I was curious if someone (the Catholics if possible) could provide me with some quotes or writing from the pre-schism patristics which show the that bishop or Rome was instituted with universal jurisdiction over the whole universal church.

I have to say at the beginning, I am not a member of the Roman Catholic Church, but a Christian humbled by my findings of the early Church fathers through our brother in Christ, Franky Schaeffer's testimony of Love, and currently on a journey to Orthodoxy but stumped by some wonderful Church Fathers' quotes presented to me by our brethren in the Catholic Churches that have given me greater understanding for why the Catholic theologians believe Roman Catholicism to be the One Church St. Ignatius and St. Iraneus seem to have spoken of:

Following the Chalcedon ecumenical council's support of the Roman Pope's primacy above all others, the following words of our spiritual fathers back the understanding of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith:

You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98


For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts [of the Council of Chalcedon] was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. -- Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).

Summary: what kind of authority, the CHURCH of the 5th century, from the COUNCIL of CHALCEDON consider the POPE to have:

1) The Pope is set apart as the Interpreter of the Voice of Peter
2) He is the CHIEF of all the Bishops
3) He is the HEAD of all the Bishops
4) He has been charged with the Custody of the Vine by our saviour
5) The whole force of the confirmation of the Acts of the Council was reserved for the Authority of the Pope.

Here are other Church fathers including those from the 1st and 2nd century continued through many centuries of the early Church:

"Blessed Peter, preserving in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. ...And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his see. To him whom they know to be not only the patron of this see, but also primate of all bishops. When, therefore, believe that he is speaking whose representative we are." Pope Leo, Sermon 3:3-4

"Now the Lord desired that the dispensing of this gift should be shared as a task by all Apostles, but in such a way that He put the principal charge on the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the Apostles. He wanted His gifts to flow into the entire Body from Peter himself, as it were from the Head. Thus, a man who had dared to separate himself from the solidity of Peter would realize that he no longer shared in the Divine mystery. " Pope Leo, Ep 10

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Savior; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256)

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’…On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?”
St. Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church, 1st edition, A.D. 251

You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

"The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:--'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse." Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place...Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

“Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine--and he was the first who held it --that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation--nothing but what has been handed down.’” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 6 (A.D. 434).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away." Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).

"The great and holy and universal Synod...in the metropolis of Chalcedon...to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo...being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all...and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness..." Pope Leo the Great, Chalcdeon to Pope Leo, Epistle 98:1-2 (A.D. 451).


“For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual: and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter...The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461).

“Seest thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were exalted and deserving of choice, one is called rock, and is entrusted with the foundations of the church.” Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32:18 (A.D. 380).

“For if when here he loved men so, that when he [Peter] had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there.” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32 (c. A.D. 391).

"Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here...” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32:24 (c. A.D. 391).

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?" Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394).


“The memory of Peter, who is the head of the apostles...he is the firm and most solid rock, on which the savior built his Church.” Gregory of Nyssa, Panegyric on St. Stephen, 3 (ante A.D. 394).

"(Peter) The first of the Apostles, the foundation of the Church, the coryphaeus of the choir of disciples." John Chrysostom, Ad eos qui scandalizati 17(ante A.D.
407)

“Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received revelation not from man but from the Father...this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean that unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.” John Chrysostom, De Eleemosyna, 3:4 (ante A.D. 407).

“But that great man, the disciple of disciples, that master among masters, who wielding the government of the Roman Church possessed the authority in faith and priesthood. Tell us therefore, tell us we beg of you, Peter, prince of the Apostles, tell us how the churches must believe in God.” John Cassian, Contra Nestorium, 3:12 (A.D. 430).

“There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever, lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place...” Philip, Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

"The Son granted to Peter over all the earth a power which is that of the Father and of the Son himself, and gave to a mere mortal man authority over all that is in heaven, in giving the keys to the same."
St John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, A.D. 398

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith...” Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

“The decrees of the Roman Pontiff, standing upon the supremacy of the Apostolic See, are unquestionable.” Isidore of Seville, (ante A.D. 636).

“For the extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of our fathers, according to what the six inspired and holy Councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the Incarnate Word among us, all the churches in every part of the world have possessed that greatest church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it possesses the Keys of right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.” Maximus the Confessor, Opuscula theologica et polemica (A.D. 650).

“Peter was pronounced blessed by the Lord...the duty of feeding the spiritual sheep of the Church under whose protecting shield, this Apostolic Church of his has never turned away from the path of truth in any direction of error, whose authority, as that of the Prince of all the Apostles, the whole Catholic Church and the Ecumenical Synods have faithfully embraced...” Pope Agatho, To Ecumenical Council VI at Constantinople, (A.D. 680).

"A copy of the letter sent by the holy and Ecumenical Sixth Council to Agatho, the most blessed and most holy pope of Old Rome…Therefore to thee, as to the bishop of the first see of the Universal Church, we leave what must be done, since you willingly take for your standing ground the firm rock of the faith, as we know from having read your true confession in the letter sent by your fatherly beatitude to the most pious emperor: and we acknowledge that this letter was divinely written (perscriptas) as by the Chief of the Apostles, and through it we have cast out the heretical sect of many errors which had recently sprung up..” Constantinople III, Council to Pope Agatho, (A.D. 680).


Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Anastasios on October 11, 2007, 09:23:35 PM
Michael Whelton had a good book on the topic, "Popes and Patriarchs" that came out recently.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Fr. George on October 11, 2007, 09:35:53 PM
Some threads on OC.net dealing with this issue, as found by Google using the following search (exactly as appearing below):

site:http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum papal primacy pope

"Thou Art Peter"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,2188.0.html

De Gloria Olivae and the next Pope.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,5762.0.html

True Church
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=133.5

Primacy of Honor vs. Primacy of Authority
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=11334.10

I'm getting frustrated...
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=95.0
    
Pope says Orthodox Church is Defective, Others Don't Even Rate
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12113.0.html

Books on Papal Authority
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=7701.msg101627

Pope Drops Title of "Patriarch Of The West'! Still claims 'Vicar Of Christ'!
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8325.0.html

Basic Points of Difference between the Orthodox Church and Papism
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=3736
    
S. Maximos & the Papacy
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=9164
    
Tridentine Latin Mass Returns?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=12103.0
    
Irenaeus and the Papacy
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?topic=4220.0
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: pensateomnia on October 11, 2007, 11:28:05 PM
LoL. I love it. Using Chalcedon to justify Papal supremacy. When can we finally put that one to sleep?

Two words: Genre. Context.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: _Seraphim_ on October 23, 2007, 11:22:47 PM
"Whoever calls himself, or desires to be called 'Universal Priest,' is in his elation the precursor of anit-Christ."
(Epistle XXXIII, Pope St. Gregory to Mauricius Augustus… written in 588 A.D.)

It doesn't get much clearer than this... and from the mouth of a (pre-schism) POPE no less!
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: lubeltri on October 23, 2007, 11:33:31 PM
"Whoever calls himself, or desires to be called 'Universal Priest,' is in his elation the precursor of anit-Christ."
(Epistle XXXIII, Pope St. Gregory to Mauricius Augustus… written in 588 A.D.)

It doesn't get much clearer than this... and from the mouth of a (pre-schism) POPE no less!

 :D THAT clear, eh? How could we be so stupid not to see it?

Talk about ripping quotes from their context! Did you read at all the post immediately before yours? Read it after you read Pope St. Gregory's entire epistle.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: _Seraphim_ on October 23, 2007, 11:42:46 PM
Contrast that quote with (post-schism) Pope Gregory VII's statement in 1073 A.D.

"The Roman pontiff alone is rightly to be called universal."

It seems that post-schism Popes have taken on a considerably different perspective than the pre-schism Popes before them who upheld Orthodox doctrine.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 24, 2007, 12:20:35 AM
"Whoever calls himself, or desires to be called 'Universal Priest,' is in his elation the precursor of anit-Christ."
(Epistle XXXIII, Pope St. Gregory to Mauricius Augustus… written in 588 A.D.)

It doesn't get much clearer than this... and from the mouth of a (pre-schism) POPE no less!
And yet it was this same pre-schism Pope Gregory the Dialogist/Great who was instrumental in expanding papal authority over the universal Church. (see http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,8408.0.html)  Maybe there's more to this Pope than you would like to recognize in your rush to use his quotes out of context to bash our RC brothers and sisters.  I have my own disagreements with the Roman Catholic church, of which I'm sure lubeltri and our other RC posters could tell you, but they're certainly not based on prooftexts taken out of context, particularly from a pope whom Roman Catholics credit for having helped lay the foundation for the papal claims to universal sovereignty, the very claims that you would undermine by quoting this same pope.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: _Seraphim_ on October 24, 2007, 12:41:42 AM
Maybe there's more to this Pope than you would like to recognize in your rush to use his quotes out of context to bash our RC brothers and sisters.

Time out!  Who is "bashing" anyone here?  Going off on a rant is "bashing"... simply posting a quote is not.

What does it matter if this Pope later propagated Papal Primacy?... the fact is he made a statement about claims to "universal priesthood" which both he himself and a later post-schism Pope contradicted.  Popes are supposedly "infallible"... which implies the impossibility of self-contradictory Papal declarations.

If this is taking things out of context, then kindly enlighten us all with the "proper" way to interpret and reconcile these two contradictory statements.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 24, 2007, 12:57:00 AM
What does it matter if this Pope later propagated Papal Primacy?...
How do you know it was later?

Quote
If this is taking things out of context, then by all means kindly enlighten us all with the "proper" way to interpret these two contradictory statements.
I was hoping you would enlighten us on this matter, since you seem to know so much about Pope St. Gregory. ;)  BTW, when does one person constitute "us"?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: _Seraphim_ on October 24, 2007, 01:07:42 AM
How do you know it was later?

Because he didn't make an opposing statement at that exact moment in time.

I was hoping you would enlighten us on this matter, since you seem to know so much about Pope St. Gregory.

I never claimed to "know so much" about him.

BTW, when does one person constitute "us"?

When I'm not the only person on the entire forum.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 24, 2007, 01:18:50 AM
Because he didn't make an opposing statement at that exact moment in time.
Could he have made the statement you quoted at some time while he was expanding his papal prerogatives, which would make his efforts to centralize Church authority the proper context for understanding his statement of supposed opposition to universal papal primacy?

Quote
When I'm not the only person on the entire forum.
As far as I can see, you're the only one pressing your interpretation of St. Gregory, and you're the only one who has expressed an interest in having me teach you the "proper" way to understand St. Gregory and the papal claims.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: _Seraphim_ on October 24, 2007, 01:25:52 AM
Michael Whelton had a good book on the topic, "Popes and Patriarchs" that came out recently.

In his earlier book Two Paths, Michael Whelton mentions Pope St. Gregory's statement about the "universal priest" as an example of two things:

1) Papal statements that go against Papal infallibility
2) Papal statements that are self-contradictory with other Papal statements

My only desire here was to share a quote from this book which I found to be relevant to this particular thread.

So please spare me all the personal attacks and accusations.

Peter, if you have a problem... take it up with Michael Whelton.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 24, 2007, 01:35:52 AM
In his earlier book Two Paths, Michael Whelton mentions Pope St. Gregory's statement about the "universal priest" as an example of two things:

1) Papal statements that go against Papal infallibility
2) Papal statements that are self-contradictory with other Papal statements

My only desire here was to share a quote from this book which I found to be relevant to this particular thread.

So please spare me all the personal attacks and accusations.

If you have a problem... take it up with Michael Whelton.
But you never mentioned Michael Welton until now.  You made it appear as if the objection you expressed and the argument you made to support your objection were yours and yours alone, with no reference to any outside source.  Thus, the critique of your methods to which you opened yourself is indeed a legitimate critique and not a personal attack.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: lubeltri on October 24, 2007, 08:46:41 AM
What I find ironic about the quote is that it comes from letters Gregory wrote to the emperor condemning the Patriarch of Constantinople for presuming to take the title "ecumenical patriarch." Gregory thought it to mean that the Patriarch claimed himself to be the only real bishop of all the world, that the other bishops were mere representatives of his, and not bishops in their own right. He found that abhorrent. In the same letter and others, he lays out the Roman pontiff's primacy, based on Christ's words to Peter.

I always found it strange that some EO use Gregory's words out of context to claim him as one of their own while others point to him as one of the most important players in pulling the West into the "papalist" schism. Whatever you think of Gregory, he did not think himself to have a primacy of honor only.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on October 24, 2007, 08:55:11 AM
While I agree at the irony, Pope Gregory seemed to employ the have-one's-cake-and-eat-it-too argument. Despite what he may have thought of his office, it obviously was not a shared opinion in the east.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: lubeltri on October 24, 2007, 09:02:52 AM
While I agree at the irony, Pope Gregory seemed to employ the have-one's-cake-and-eat-it-too argument. Despite what he may have thought of his office, it obviously was not a shared opinion in the east.

Well, all I can say is, Popes are fallible. Not every word from the Pope's pen is directly from the Holy Spirit, despite Seraphim's ignorant claims* (of course, we RC think Gregory was right in this respect, but the point stands).

*"Popes are supposedly 'infallible'... which implies the impossibility of self-contradictory Papal declarations."
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: _Seraphim_ on October 24, 2007, 10:41:53 AM
But you never mentioned Michael Welton until now.

This thread isn't about Michael Whelton.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: _Seraphim_ on October 24, 2007, 10:47:17 AM
Well, all I can say is, Popes are fallible.

Papal Infallibility is Roman dogma.

...despite Seraphim's ignorant claims...

Thanks, I feel the love.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: lubeltri on October 24, 2007, 11:39:45 AM

Thanks, I feel the love.

I was not sending you love, but stating a fact.

Papal Infallibility is Roman dogma.

Yes, it is, but not at all the way you characterize it. And that is all the time I am going to waste on your ill-informed attacks.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: _Seraphim_ on October 24, 2007, 01:05:10 PM
I was not sending you love...

I noticed

Yes, it is, but not at all the way you characterize it.

I don't believe I've posted enough words on this thread to characterize anything.

And that is all the time I am going to waste on your ill-informed attacks.

No complaints here.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 25, 2007, 12:10:24 AM
This thread isn't about Michael Whelton.
But for you to quote Michael Welton, it would have been much better for you to give him credit right from the start rather than lead us to believe that what you were arguing was totally your point of view.  (I will say no more on this tangent so that we don't hijack this thread with an argument over your use of Mr. Welton's writings.)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: montalban on October 28, 2007, 12:07:36 AM
Alliteration aside I was curious if someone (the Catholics if possible) could provide me with some quotes or writing from the pre-schism patristics which show the that bishop or Rome was instituted with universal jurisdiction over the whole universal church.

See Post #5 here (http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=893877&highlight=bumblebee#post893877) where I list a number of quote-mining sites normally given to me in debate
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on October 28, 2007, 12:44:43 AM
Copying from the site to which montalban linked us (for those who don't necessarily want to visit the Catholic forum)...

http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp

http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/pete.html

http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS4.HTM

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/the_rock.htm

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm


Let me suffix this, though, with this warning from Anastasios:
Be careful; a lot of the time those quotes are taken out of context, omit the fact that other patriarchs were appealed to, are from corrupted sources, etc.  There was certainly a primacy of Rome owing to its orthodox and prestigious position, but it was not due to some notion of Petrine succession (cf. Dvornik's book on primacy, the title of which escapes me).

Anastasios
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: montalban on October 28, 2007, 02:41:52 AM
Copying from the site to which montalban linked us (for those who don't necessarily want to visit the Catholic forum)...

http://www.catholic.com/library/eastern_orthodoxy.asp

http://www.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Atrium/8410/pete.html

http://ic.net/~erasmus/ERASMUS4.HTM

http://www.catholicsource.net/articles/petertherock.html

http://jloughnan.tripod.com/the_rock.htm

http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm


Let me suffix this, though, with this warning from Anastasios:

Some I think are dead links.

Another I've been challenged with is ScriptureCatholic's site
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

A typical debate went like this...

I was shown the following
1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

The actual passage says 1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

One Catholic argued that Peter is 'set aside' from the others by being mentioned separately.

I pointed out that if this is a sign of church heirarchy, then what level are the Lord's brothers who are also set aside from the other Apostles

The response to this was that the person said that they were putting me on their ignore list!
 ::)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on November 12, 2007, 11:14:38 AM
Some I think are dead links.

Another I've been challenged with is ScriptureCatholic's site
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

A typical debate went like this...

I was shown the following
1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

The actual passage says 1 Corinthians 9:5 Don't we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord's brothers and Cephas?

One Catholic argued that Peter is 'set aside' from the others by being mentioned separately.

I pointed out that if this is a sign of church heirarchy, then what level are the Lord's brothers who are also set aside from the other Apostles

The response to this was that the person said that they were putting me on their ignore list!
 ::)

Yes, just like they liked to ignore St. James in Acts 15.

Glad to find you here.  It seems all the refugees from ECF are finding (or returning ;D) home here.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Athanasios on November 12, 2007, 10:29:48 PM
Hello,

"Whoever calls himself, or desires to be called 'Universal Priest,' is in his elation the precursor of anit-Christ."
(Epistle XXXIII, Pope St. Gregory to Mauricius Augustus… written in 588 A.D.)

It doesn't get much clearer than this... and from the mouth of a (pre-schism) POPE no less!
When Saint Gregory the Great mentions Universal Priest - or more usually Universal Bishop - he is referring to the title of Ecumenical Patriarch that the Patriarch of Constantinople had granted. I'm not certain whether it was the Patriarch or the Emperor who bestowed the title. From my reading of the letters, it seems that this may have been a miscommunication between East and West (a common problem given the technological limitations of the era).

What Gregory says is true - as he is condemning the idea of a universal bishop (he equates this with sole bishop) were the other bishops are not really bishops. But he does not condemn, but rather reinforces, the idea of the universality of the Papacy.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Credo.InDeum on December 29, 2007, 01:13:02 PM
This is one of those issues that just is not amenable to reasoned debate using patristics because for every quote from one side of the debate the other side will produce some opposing quote and neither side is going to surrender their most cherished shibboleths.

There is ecumenical discussion between the various jurisdictions perhaps they will be fruitful but I really doubt that a message board discussion will make much progress as long as each side is engaging in some kind of muster of ancient texts to support their side of the debate.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: AMM on December 29, 2007, 01:40:03 PM
Posted this elsewhere, but seems to apply.

Eamon Duffy, author of "Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes", wrote a shorter article called "The Popes: theory and fact" which appeared in the Catholic journal The Tablet.  The link is here - http://www.thetablet.co.uk/articles/6636/  (you have to register to read the free articles).

There are two lengthy quotes in it that to me apply directly to the question:

Quote
From its very beginnings, the papacy has been surrounded with the mantle of timelessness, or rather, with a particular historical myth, whose vulnerability, considered simply as history, is every bit as problematic for Catholics as for anyone else. At least since the high Middle Ages the papacy has been understood as an institution directly created by Jesus Christ in his own lifetime: he willed that his Church should be ruled by the Apostles and their successors, and he gave to Peter, as leader of the apostles, the fullness of spiritual power, the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter came to Rome, and there appointed his own successors, whose names are recited to this day in the canon of the Mass - Linus, Cletus, Clement, and so on down to John Paul II. All that the modern Church claims for the pope, his authority in doctrine and his power over institutions, is on this account a simple unfolding of the dominical bestowal of the keys, and the post-resurrection command to Peter to feed Christ's sheep.

We have known for more than a century that the historical underpinning of this account is unfortunately not quite so simple. The Church of Rome during its first two centuries based its claims to precedence not on the Lord's words to Peter, but on the preaching and death in Rome of two apostles, Peter and Paul. The commission in Matthew 16:18, Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, is quoted in no Roman source before the time of the Decian persecution, in the middle of the third century, and even then the claims which the Pope of the time tried to base on that quotation were indignantly rejected by the Churches of Africa to whom he was addressing himself.

And indeed, the very roots of what may be called the foundation myth of the papacy are themselves uncomfortably complicated. The Church established itself in Rome some time in the AD 40s: we now know that for the best part of the century that followed, there was nothing and nobody in Rome who could recognisably be called a pope. Christianity in Rome evolved out of the Roman synagogues, and to begin with it was not so much a single Church as a constellation of independent churches, meeting in the houses of wealthy converts or in hired halls and public baths, without any central ruler or bishop. The Roman synagogues - there were 14 of them in the first century - unlike the synagogues in other great Mediterranean cities like Antioch . . . were all independent, with no central organisation or single president, and to begin with at least, the churches of Rome also functioned independently. Many of them were in any case ethnic or regional churches, groups of Syrian, Greek, Asian residents in Rome, using their own languages, following the customs of the Christian communities back in their home regions.

Elsewhere in the first century, episcopacy emerged as the dominant form of church order - the rule of each church by a single senior presbyter who took the lead in ordinations and the celebration of the Eucharist, and who was the focus of unity for all the Christians of a city or region. But Rome, probably because of the complexity and ethnic and cultural diversity of the Christian communities of the capital of the world, was very slow to adopt this system.

In the conventional accounts of the history of the papacy, the letter of Clement, written from Rome to the Church at Corinth around the year AD 95, is often thought of as the first papal encyclical, attributed to Pope Clement, Peter's third successor and the last pope personally known to the Prince of the Apostles. In fact, the letter is written on behalf of the whole Roman Church, it is unsigned, and the author speaks unequivocally of the elders who rule the Church, in the plural.

EVERYTHING we know about the Church at Rome in its first century or so points in the same direction, to a community which certainly thought of itself as one Church, but which was in practice a loose and often divided federation of widely different communities, each with its own pastors and its own distinctive and often conflicting liturgies, calendars and customs. It was in fact the threat of heresy within this seething diversity, and the Roman need to impose some sort of unity and coherence on the Church in the city, that led to the emergence of the Roman episcopate, and the firming up of the Roman community's pride in the life and death among them of the two greatest apostles, into a succession narrative. By the 160s the graves of Peter and Paul had shrines built over them and were being shown to Christian visitors to Rome: by the early third century the bishops of Rome were being buried in a single crypt in what is now the catacomb of San Callisto, as a sort of visible family tree stretching back, it was believed, to the apostolic age. But all this was a construct, tidying the mess and confusion of real history into a neat and orderly relay race, with the baton of apostolic authority being handed from one bishop to another.

This symbolic rearrangement of the past is of course an unavoidable aspect of all human attempts to make sense of the present, and it is a notable feature of the New Testament itself. My point is not that any of this disproves the claims we would wish to make for the papacy: it is perfectly open to us to read this process as providential. Nevertheless, the recognition that the emergence of the bishops of Rome was the result not straightforwardly of a direct and immediate act of the incarnate word of God in his own lifetime, but rather of a long and uncertain evolutionary process, which might conceivably have run a different way, surely rules out any absolutist understanding of the nature of papal authority.

In a later section he says

Quote
From its earliest appearance, the papacy has been preoccupied with issues of unity and uniformity, the imposition of Roman order on regional diversity - and from the beginning it has been resisted, and been rebuked by other Christian leaders who were able to appeal to its own remote past against its more authoritarian and tidy-minded present.

In the face of history, then, we cannot quite subscribe to the notion of the papacy as timeless, founded by Our Lord's command in the beginning and maintaining through all the vicissitudes of time the constant exercise of that divine mandate. But another version of that story can be told, less direct, in which the history of the papacy is the history of the steady unfolding of its inner reality. In this version of papal theory, full weight is given to the transformations of history. What remains constant, however, is the inner reality of the papacy, a mission revealed in the biblical sources and the early history of the Church, and steadily rendered clearer and clearer in its long march through time.

Some version of this account, it seems to me, is fundamental to any Catholic belief in papal authority. As it stands, however, it is probably far too tidy. The process by which the papacy has emerged as the administrative and ideological centre of the largest wing of a divided Christendom has been by no means straightforward and progressive. The later doctrinal centrality of Rome for Catholics cannot, I think, be read out of the history of the formative stages of Christian doctrine: the papacy did indeed play a decisive role at the Council of Chalcedon, when the so-called Tome of Pope Leo the Great provided the council with the essential formulation of Catholic incarnational teaching. But this was a highly unrepresentative event: for the most part the early papacy contributed nothing whatever to the shaping of fundamental Christian teaching, and the creative centres of the Church lay elsewhere, in the East.

Nor has the institutional unfolding of the papacy been a story of steady upwards evolution. Papal claims reached their height in the central Middle Ages. Bernard of Clairvaux told his pupil, Pope Eugenius III: In truth there are other doorkeepers of heaven and shepherds of flocks: but you are more glorious than all of these . . . . They have flocks assigned to them, one to each: to you all are assigned, a single flock to a single shepherd. You are called to the fullness of power.

Bernard made these lofty claims in a treatise designed to teach the pope the obligation to serve others, and to reform himself and the papacy, but the same claims were turned by the popes into a platform from which to dominate and cow the world, as Boniface VIII attempted to do in the Bull Unam Sanctam, in which he declared that it was altogether necessary to salvation for every human creature to be subject to the Roman pontiff. Everything the modern papacy claims, and very much more, such as the right to appoint emperors and to depose kings, was then claimed for the popes. Yet in the centuries that followed, the reality of papal authority declined drastically, not simply in the countries of the Reformation, but among all the Catholic powers of Europe. The Baroque papacy inhabited buildings which spelled out a megalomaniac vision of papal dominance, but the reality was that the popes were increasingly reduced to ceremonial figures, preoccupied with preserving their interests in Italy, increasingly marginalised in the councils of kings.

The modern papacy, therefore, is not the product of a steady evolution from simple beginnings, the natural growth of some essential acorn into a mighty oak. In some real sense it is, rather, the result of an historical catastrophe, the French Revolution. The revolution swept away the Catholic kings who had appointed bishops and ruled Churches. The hostile secular states which emerged to replace them in nineteenth-century Europe attempted to control the influence of the Church in public life, but were glad to leave its internal arrangements to the pope.

If one had to single out the most crucial and important practical power possessed by the modern popes, it would certainly be the right to appoint the bishops of the world. It is salutary to remind ourselves that the popes did not possess this power in canon law till 1917, and that as a matter of fact the practice of direct papal appointment of bishops did not become general until well towards the end of the nineteenth century, largely as a result of the decision of the anti-papal kings of Italy not to exercise this traditional prerogative of the secular ruler. Most of the bishops appointed by the pope before then were in fact appointed by the pope functioning not as universal pastor, but as primate of Italy or as secular ruler of the papal states. The 1917 Code of Canon Law, itself, which lies at the heart of papal domination of the modern Church, owed at least as much to the Napoleonic Code as to holy Scripture, and most of the actual exercise of papal authority in the modern Church is rooted in quite specific aspects of the institutional and intellectual history of the last 200 years.

I guess then we can all look at the various quotes and at the Bible itself to figure out what the Papacy is or should be, but really the quotes don't solve the issue since they can be interpreted differently.  The bare history itself tells me what I have believed all along - Rome was accorded its place of reverence and spiritual authority due to its seat as the first city of the Roman Empire and the dual martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul there.  I think the idea of the direct link of Peter to the bishops of Rome and the transmission of "keys" to them is both a misinterpretation of what is in the Bible and is just simple historically untenable.  Much it seems to me rests on this point.

It seems to me the Byzantine Church accepted primacy ( http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355 ) but rejected universal jurisdiction, and that ultimately that is what the schism is about (the Filioque aside).  Muscovy actually probably developed its own distinct ecclesiology after departing from Byzantium.

In the end I think all sides need to rid themselves of their various imperial ecclesiologies.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Fr. George on December 29, 2007, 02:21:48 PM
This is one of those issues that just is not amenable to reasoned debate using patristics because for every quote from one side of the debate the other side will produce some opposing quote and neither side is going to surrender their most cherished shibboleths.

There is ecumenical discussion between the various jurisdictions perhaps they will be fruitful but I really doubt that a message board discussion will make much progress as long as each side is engaging in some kind of muster of ancient texts to support their side of the debate.

What is particularly useful, IMO, is the observation on how the others' interpret the various texts.  Every patristic citation you provide gives me a glimpse into how you read the Fathers, and specifically their references to Peter.  It then allows me the opportunity to evaluate the way I read the texts, and if I find your methodology or conclusions problematic, it provides me with a framework for response in a way that you will (a) understand and (b) consider thoughtfully.

So, yes, we're not going to end the schism here on OC.net.  However, we do have an opportunity to learn about each other and, hopefully, a place to hone our skills at communicating effectively with "the other side."
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Athanasios on December 29, 2007, 05:04:32 PM
Hello,

I think the idea of the direct link of Peter to the bishops of Rome and the transmission of "keys" to them is both a misinterpretation of what is in the Bible and is just simple historically untenable.

How so?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: AMM on December 29, 2007, 06:28:19 PM
How so?

See above.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Athanasios on December 29, 2007, 10:02:08 PM
Hello,

See above.

Are you referring to the two quotes from the magazine in one of your previous posts - or something else?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: AMM on December 29, 2007, 11:24:58 PM
The article pretty well encapsulates what I think the problems are with Papal Supremacy (as opposed to primacy).  The words unfortunately are often used interchangeably. 
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Credo.InDeum on December 30, 2007, 12:21:44 AM
The article pretty well encapsulates what I think the problems are with Papal Supremacy (as opposed to primacy).  The words unfortunately are often used interchangeably. 
What bothers you about papal supremacy though?

Seems to me that bishops exercise authority under some kind of conditions no matter what system is adopted. Collegiate or monarchy ... it does not seem to matter because the people still believe and worship according to traditions that go back a long way but usually cannot be proven to go all the way back to Jesus Christ in his earthly ministy and since that appears to be the root of the set of objections that are raised by Eamon Duffy regarding the papacy a similar critique applied to a great many traditions within the Church would yield the same or a similar degree of uncertainty ... but would we stop believing because of the uncertainty? I do not think that we would.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: montalban on December 30, 2007, 03:02:38 AM
This is one of those issues that just is not amenable to reasoned debate using patristics because for every quote from one side of the debate the other side will produce some opposing quote and neither side is going to surrender their most cherished shibboleths.
Frankly that is to ignore history, then. As pointed out John Chrysostomon spent his life outside of communion of Rome. That in itself is a massive clue to the 'context' of ALL of the quotes.
There is ecumenical discussion between the various jurisdictions perhaps they will be fruitful but I really doubt that a message board discussion will make much progress as long as each side is engaging in some kind of muster of ancient texts to support their side of the debate.
Again, that is to ignore the evidence presented from history. Try engaging in that !
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: montalban on December 30, 2007, 03:04:50 AM
What bothers you about papal supremacy though?
It's to express God in a way that's counterfeit.

The church is the Body of Christ. It's like taking a picture of Christ as he is, cutting it up and re-arranging it and then still calling it Christ, but in a different form
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: buzuxi on January 01, 2008, 05:38:06 AM
The advocates of papal sovereignty on this thread are a perfect example of what Anastasios warned about in reply#1. Thus we have perfect examples of what he meant.


EDIT:  Insulting epithet replaced with something more charitable  - PeterTheAleut
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Credo.InDeum on January 06, 2008, 05:12:18 PM
For anybody interested in the archaeology surrounding saint Peter's remains here's an interesting video http://cdn.libsyn.com/stanastasia/WhyRomeIsHomeiPod_Lo.mp4
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on January 07, 2008, 01:23:16 AM
I split off the political/cultural part of this thread off.  Though it is obviously essential to understand the climate in which the Schism and various dogmas evolved, the flow of this thread was becoming too choppy and hard to follow.

Schism and Evolution of Dogma: Political and Cultural Considerations... (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14193.0.html)

-- Friul


Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Credo.InDeum on January 12, 2008, 07:29:38 PM
Post #6 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12957.msg179060.html#msg179060) supplied a fair selection of patristic quotes supportive of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Is there any need to rehash them or to multiply them?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: montalban on January 12, 2008, 08:40:12 PM
Post #6 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12957.msg179060.html#msg179060) supplied a fair selection of patristic quotes supportive of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Is there any need to rehash them or to multiply them?

How does calling Peter head of anything mean he supports the Papacy? Peter founded the church in Antioch too! Why can't the head of the church in Antioch then be head of all the church?

 How does this go with the historical account of him not being in communion with Rome? Try actually engaging in issues raised

“For if when here he loved men so, that when he [Peter] had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there.” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32 (c. A.D. 391).

How does him loving Rome mean that he supports the Papacy?

The bit of the passage left out is telling!
Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there.
John Chrysostom

Homily XXXII.

Rom. XVI. 17, 18

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vii.xxxiv.html

Note it is Peter AND Paul that he sees makes Rome 'great'
"Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints."
(Ibid.)
Two saints!

Nowhere however does he say "Rome's bishop is the leader of the church" or anything like that.

Peter is 'a' chief. Not 'the' chief.

Oddly enough, he then quotes this bit, separately!
"Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here...” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32:24 (c. A.D. 391).
Note even in his quote, Peter is 'a' chief.

"The Son granted to Peter over all the earth a power which is that of the Father and of the Son himself, and gave to a mere mortal man authority over all that is in heaven, in giving the keys to the same."
St John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople, A.D. 398

The only place I can find this quote is here on this web-site, where he posted it!

So in summary he quotes John Chrysostomon saying Peter is a head of the choir. I've shown he says others are also heads of the choir.

He says Rome is a great city, founded on Peter and Paul.

He says Peter is 'a' chief, not 'the' cheif.

And you've got what point to make?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 12, 2008, 09:59:54 PM
What is particularly significant is that apostolic Tradition is not limited to the body of writings left to us by early church fathers, many of their writings are not available to us anyway - having been lost. Tradition is particularly contained in the teaching of Christ handed down to us both in scripture and in the living teaching that the bishops receive through apostolic succession, particularly through the Spirit of Christ as he teaches them, using all the things that they hear and read and receive by example from their predecessors. So when we say that dogmas have always been believed we are affirming that Christ taught them, even though not every element of his teaching that we have in scripture and in the surviving writings of the church fathers is explicit, so we expect and we receive the enlightenment of Tradition progressively. As individuals we also receive God's teaching progressively as we grow in understanding of the revelation that God gives to us in scripture and in the teaching of the Church.

So those "never believed it" must have their reasons for not believing "it" but I cannot say what those reasons are all I can say is that I think those reasons are mistaken. I confess that I do believe it because the Church teaches it.
So, what patristic evidence do we have that certain dogmas of the Roman Church, such as the Vatican I definition of papal supremacy, have "always been believed in the Church"?  Since the desire for "evidence from Patristics" is the very subject of this thread, maybe you should limit your argument to this rather than give us your own personal interpretation of Tradition.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Credo.InDeum on January 12, 2008, 10:21:39 PM
So, what patristic evidence do we have that certain dogmas of the Roman Church, such as the Vatican I definition of papal supremacy, have "always been believed in the Church"?  Since the desire for "evidence from Patristics" is the very subject of this thread, maybe you should limit your argument to this rather than give us your own personal interpretation of Tradition.

Briefly, the documents produced by the Catholic Church as part of a definition of dogma include patristic quotes that lead to the content of the dogma that is being proclaimed. You can find the decrees of the Western councils here (http://www.piar.hu/councils/~index.htm).
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Credo.InDeum on January 12, 2008, 10:24:04 PM
montalban, saint John Chrysostom is not the only early church father referenced in post #6.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on January 12, 2008, 10:30:50 PM
Briefly, the documents produced by the Catholic Church as part of a definition of dogma include patristic quotes that lead to the content of the dogma that is being proclaimed. You can find the decrees of the Western councils here (http://www.piar.hu/councils/~index.htm).
I see very clear evidence for the primacy of the Roman papacy in our Patristic Tradition, so I believe in the primacy of this papacy as long as it remains orthodox.  What I don't see is any evidence that the Fathers ever supported anything resembling papal primacy as Roman popes have defined this through the second millennium.

IOW, you can build a system of heretical doctrine on the foundation of Patristic teaching (by redefining what the Fathers taught), but this Patristic foundation doesn't make the doctrinal system orthodox (i.e., consistent with the witness of the Fathers).
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: montalban on January 12, 2008, 11:15:19 PM
montalban, saint John Chrysostom is not the only early church father referenced in post #6.

I agree. But as you refuse to even deal with any of the evidence I raise, your 'defence' then amounts to a quote-mine.

You've referred to a slew of quotes as 'evidence'.

When I deal with those relating to John Chyrsostomon, you now point me to the rest of the quotes.

As noted, you refuse to discuss what's raised.

Personally, I find your whole approach less than open. If you want to discuss the texts I dealt with, please do, othewise your whole argument comes to a 'just-so'... a presentation of quotes that can't be scrutinised... for if any are, you point to other quotes. And so the cycle continues.

I could potentially go through each one and you'd either ignore it, or point me to still more quotes.


Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: montalban on January 12, 2008, 11:30:11 PM
Post #6 (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12957.msg179060.html#msg179060) supplied a fair selection of patristic quotes supportive of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Is there any need to rehash them or to multiply them?

As noted above I took the time out to go over some of these quotes. I point out where I think there's problems with them (as per your argument). Rather than deal with that you simply direct me to other quotes in the same post.

This is your great strategy; non-engagement in discussion.

Perhaps formulating an argument is too much of a strain upon you. Or, perhaps you just so believed those quotes were evidence that you have no response to someone who actually questions their use.
Title: Pope Leo
Post by: montalban on January 12, 2008, 11:35:49 PM
Pope Leo the Great

Pope Leo the Great certainly did argue that Rome had a position of Primacy. But it's not the 'Catholic' position. He said that Rome's superiority was based on the foundation of the church by Peter AND Paul. This goes against modern RCC understanding where Peter (alone) has enough power.

“On the Feast of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).
I. Rome Owes Its High Position to These Apostles.
The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries, and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated
with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, was made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood. These are they who promoted thee to such glory, that being made a holy nation, a chosen people, a priestly and royal state, and the head of the world through the blessed Peter's holy See thou didst attain a wider sway. by the worship of God than by earthly government. For although thou weft increased by many victories, and didst extend thy rule on land and sea, yet what thy toils in war subdued is less than what the peace of Christ has conquered.
...
VII. No Distinction Must Be Drawn Between the Merits of the Two.
And over this band, dearly-beloved, whom God has set forth for our example in patience and for our confirmation in the Faith, there must be rejoicing
everywhere in the commemoration of all the saints, but of these two Fathers' excellence we must rightly make our boast in louder joy, for God's Grace has raised them to so high a place among the members of the Church,
that He has set them like the twin light of the eyes in the body, whose Head is Christ. About their merits and virtues, which pass all power of speech, we must not make distinctions, because they were equal in their
election, alike in their toils, undivided in their death. But as we have proved for Ourselves, and our forefathers maintained, we believe, and are sure that, amid all the toils of this life, we must always be assisted in obtaining God's Mercy by the prayers of special interceders, that we may be raised by the Apostles' merits in proportion as we are weighed down by our own sins. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, &c. Leo “Sermon LXXXII”. (On the Feast Of the Apostles Peter and Paul (June 29).) quoted at
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.v.xlii.html

Peter is also referred to as the 'shepherd'. But Pope Leo understood that others also had this role
“…though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock.”
Leo the Great “Sermon III”. (On His Birthday, III: Delivered on the Anniversary of His Elevation to the Pontificate, Chapter II)
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.v.iii.html
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on January 12, 2008, 11:59:28 PM
I looked through this thread and did my best to isolate some of the more major discussion or ones that were a bit off topic, in an attempt to foster more in dept discussions in other threads.  Obviously, it isn't perfect since certain posts touched base on multiple topics.  Hopefully this will all for clearer discussions.   :)

Splits:

St. John Chrysostom: Supporter of modern (Vatican I) Papal Primacy? (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14287.0.html)

Ecumenical Councils: Debate on Possible RC Historical Revisionism... (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,14289.0.html)


When responding to the following post:


Briefly, the documents produced by the Catholic Church as part of a definition of dogma include patristic quotes that lead to the content of the dogma that is being proclaimed. You can find the decrees of the Western councils here (http://www.piar.hu/councils/~index.htm).

Please discuss the patristics found in the citations on the "Browse" links and how how they relate to this thread.  To discuss the historical aspects of the councils, click the related split above.

-- Friul
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Credo.InDeum on January 13, 2008, 04:19:14 AM
Perhaps formulating an argument is too much of a strain upon you.

No, that is not a problem for me.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: montalban on January 13, 2008, 05:06:57 AM
No, that is not a problem for me.

Even that assertion of yours has no evidence!

Please provide some. I addressed point by point the quotes made by John Chrysostomon. You ignored this, urging me instead to read more quotes someone else cited.

That's not even YOUR argument you wish me to engage in! :laugh:
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Credo.InDeum on January 13, 2008, 05:24:58 AM
Even that assertion of yours has no evidence!

Please provide some. I addressed point by point the quotes made by John Chrysostomon. You ignored this, urging me instead to read more quotes someone else cited.

That's not even YOUR argument you wish me to engage in! :laugh:

Isn't there a separate thread for this? ....
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: montalban on January 13, 2008, 05:26:26 AM
Isn't there a separate thread for this? ....
You've not added to that one either.

Fast becoming the sheriff of DODGE city, you still manage to evade engaging in discussion on the issue.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on January 13, 2008, 10:10:12 AM
I'm not sure if this belongs on which frayed thread:

I have seen the apologia for Pope Honorios state that "so, even if he was a heretic, the dogma of Rome hasn't changed."

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean, as you can say that of all the other four patriarchates: though they have had heretics, the Churches are not heretical.

Unless the see the rejection of ultramontanism as heretical.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: skippy on May 29, 2008, 01:23:16 AM
Contrast that quote with (post-schism) Pope Gregory VII's statement in 1073 A.D.

"The Roman pontiff alone is rightly to be called universal."

It seems that post-schism Popes have taken on a considerably different perspective than the pre-schism Popes before them who upheld Orthodox doctrine.
the schism wasn't final for 200 more years. 1054 was not the year of the schism.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: buzuxi on May 29, 2008, 06:03:23 PM
The schism was coming into fruition by the late 8th century. The schism was already realized in 1009 a.d.- the last time a roman bishop is found comemorated on the diptychs of the east.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 28, 2008, 10:15:41 PM
Alliteration aside I was curious if someone (the Catholics if possible) could provide me with some quotes or writing from the pre-schism patristics which show the that bishop or Rome was instituted with universal jurisdiction over the whole universal church.

I think the case for the Romans is strongest from what the patriarchs did not say. The pope of Rome acted as if he had more power than the eastern sees, even from the beginning. If the eastern sees had problems with this, why aren't there not more quotes from them stating as much? That's the question. These debates are centuries old and will never be answered absolutely with logic because it has to answered by faith. Who has the authority? Once that is answered, you can choose your church more easily. Otherwise, you'll be stuck in these circular arguments forever. Human sin has greatly clouded the issues. As a maturing catholic, I see these barriers as opportunities for charity, as opposed to the traditional response: bloodshed and sin. What is the point in being able to define the doctrine of the trinty with great sophistication, if you lack charity and thus offend the trinity?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Asteriktos on June 29, 2008, 02:22:37 AM
I guess different people consider different questions to be important. Personally, I've always thought it telling that the East continually acted like Rome had no binding authority over it. For example, when Rome rejected canons from Ecumenical Councils for a time, the East generally went on accepting those canons. For a long while Rome refused to accept that Constantinople was 2nd in line behind it, for example, but that didn't stop much of the rest of the Church from accepting the canons that said as much (and when someone did object, as Alexandria did, it had nothing to do with Rome). Generally I think you see the Easterners starting to voice their opinions when papal supremacy became a real issue that started to cause problems (c. 9th century and later). Before that, what was there to get all fussy about? When Rome was right, she was right. When she was wrong, she was either chastised as need be (e.g. with Honorius) or was left to correct her own error.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: buzuxi on June 29, 2008, 03:48:40 AM
I think the case for the Romans is strongest from what the patriarchs did not say. The pope of Rome acted as if he had more power than the eastern sees, even from the beginning. If the eastern sees had problems with this, why aren't there not more quotes from them stating as much? That's the question. These debates are centuries old and will never be answered absolutely with logic because it has to answered by faith. Who has the authority? Once that is answered, you can choose your church more easily. Otherwise, you'll be stuck in these circular arguments forever. Human sin has greatly clouded the issues. As a maturing catholic, I see these barriers as opportunities for charity, as opposed to the traditional response: bloodshed and sin. What is the point in being able to define the doctrine of the trinty with great sophistication, if you lack charity and thus offend the trinity?

That Rome wielded more authority than the other Sees , only seems apparent. This is because the Eastern Sees never propagandized various situations as Rome has. For instance Alexandria before the 4th Council undoubtedly held the most authority in early christianity (including the most titles), such as "Judge of the Universe" for being the one responsible for alerting the other patriarchates as to when to celebrate Pascha. 
Here is an interesting article on the rise and fall of the Alexandrian Patriarchate (with paragraphs 18-20 demonstrating the immense power of Alexandria rivalring that of Ceasar):
After Chalcedon, Constantinople held greater power than Rome, given to it by the canons of Chalcedon. These canons were used, only that Constantinople doesnt advertise all the times other bishoprics asked them to intervene, (if Rome had this authority you wouldnt hear the end of it and every historical case would be shoved down our throats).
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 29, 2008, 01:37:56 PM
Yours and buzuxi's post makes my point. Even though the east knew that Rome thought itself superior early on, even though you claim this is erroneous, the east tolerated that for many centuries until geo-political reasons made breaking with Rome finanicially favorable. This is not right. If Rome's view of herself was hereitcal from early on, the east should of corrected that before say the 800s. The fact that it did not is the problem. The silence and obedience from the east towards Rome for centuries, even if you say that they should of corrected Rome's view of herself early on, contributed to the belief that Rome has universal juridiction. The famous quotes from the eastern fathers supporting this view should also have been corrected as well at the time when they spoke for the same reasons. The famous quotes now either have to thrown out as forgeries, or interpreted to the point of obvious twisting of words, that is, in order to suppor eastern views.

Why werent they fixed at the time? Obviously Rome was wrong from the begging, according to eastern views?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on June 29, 2008, 01:46:28 PM
Yours and buzuxi's post makes my point. Even though the east knew that Rome thought itself superior early on, even though you claim this is erroneous, the east tolerated that for many centuries until geo-political reasons made breaking with Rome finanicially favorable. This is not right. If Rome's view of herself was hereitcal from early on, the east should of corrected that before say the 800s. The fact that it did not is the problem. The silence and obedience from the east towards Rome for centuries, even if you say that they should of corrected Rome's view of herself early on, contributed to the belief that Rome has universal juridiction. The famous quotes from the eastern fathers supporting this view should also have been corrected as well at the time when they spoke for the same reasons. The famous quotes now either have to thrown out as forgeries, or interpreted to the point of obvious twisting of words, that is, in order to suppor eastern views.

Why werent they fixed at the time? Obviously Rome was wrong from the begging, according to eastern views?

Umm... yes... the silence of the East in regards your heretical Pope Honorius I was resounding...  ::)
.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 29, 2008, 02:20:55 PM
Umm... yes... the silence of the East in regards your heretical Pope Honorius I was resounding...  ::)
.

Wasnt that in regard to a private letter never taught openly by the See of Rome? We were talking about when Rome thought herself suprimeme and the east went along and did not protest for centuries...your counter point doesn't fit.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on June 29, 2008, 02:49:12 PM
Wasnt that in regard to a private letter never taught openly by the See of Rome? We were talking about when Rome thought herself suprimeme and the east went along and did not protest for centuries...your counter point doesn't fit.

I thought Asteriktos made it very clear that the East did see Rome consider herself supreme only to be ignored completely the same Eastern Church.  They never went along with it, they went against it consistently.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 29, 2008, 03:12:45 PM
I thought Asteriktos made it very clear that the East did see Rome consider herself supreme only to be ignored completely the same Eastern Church.  They never went along with it, they went against it consistently.

You are making my case when you say the eastern sees ignored it for centuries. That's my case, btw.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: buzuxi on June 29, 2008, 03:22:59 PM
I dont see that being the case. Pope Leo wanted to hold the Fourth council in Rome, he was rejected. The fact that the Alexandrian see held a council which condemned Pope Leo shows there was no primacy seen. It does not matter that it turned out to be a false council, the fact that it took place is the point.

Pope Vigilius supported the Three Chapters, he was rejected at the fifth council. At that time a portion of the west, went into schism and broke with Rome which lasted centuries, proving that the west also did not see any primacy in Rome neither.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 29, 2008, 03:53:15 PM
I dont see that being the case. Pope Leo wanted to hold the Fourth council in Rome, he was rejected. The fact that the Alexandrian see held a council which condemned Pope Leo shows there was no primacy seen. It does not matter that it turned out to be a false council, the fact that it took place is the point.

Pope Vigilius supported the Three Chapters, he was rejected at the fifth council. At that time a portion of the west, went into schism and broke with Rome which lasted centuries, proving that the west also did not see any primacy in Rome neither.

I looked up pope Leo and could not find where he was condemned. Why did Alexandria condemn him?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 29, 2008, 03:57:42 PM
I dont see that being the case. Pope Leo wanted to hold the Fourth council in Rome, he was rejected. The fact that the Alexandrian see held a council which condemned Pope Leo shows there was no primacy seen. It does not matter that it turned out to be a false council, the fact that it took place is the point.

Pope Vigilius supported the Three Chapters, he was rejected at the fifth council. At that time a portion of the west, went into schism and broke with Rome which lasted centuries, proving that the west also did not see any primacy in Rome neither.

Maybe this is what your getting at:

Dioscorus I of Alexandria is considered a saint by the Coptic, Syriac, and other Oriental Orthodoxy churches. He is considered a heretic by the Orthodox Church, though some commentators like Anatolius and John S. Romanides think that Dioscorus was not deposed at Chalcedon (451) because of the faith, but for his grave administrative errors at the Robber Council of Ephesus (449), which included restoring Eutyches the heretic and the attack on Flavian, and because he (Dioscorus) had excommunicated Pope Leo of Rome, and also because at Chalcedon he refused to appear in front of the Council although he was summoned to it three times.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NN8iz4KmfjwJ:orthodoxwiki.org/Dioscorus_of_Alexandria+Alexandrian+condemned+Pope+Leo&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on June 29, 2008, 04:00:08 PM
^ Missed by about 100 years...and has the wrong council.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 29, 2008, 04:04:05 PM
^ Missed by about 100 years...and has the wrong council.

I am confused. Are you saying that since pope Leo was excommunicated by a person considerd a heretic from Alexandria by the Orthodox Church proves your point?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 29, 2008, 04:22:24 PM
^ Missed by about 100 years...and has the wrong council.

I know this is beating a dead horse into the ground, but also keep in mind that even if a pope was heretical in his personal views, if the See of Rome never taught the heresy officially and openly, then it never fell into heresy. This is how infalibilty and pope work: the pope in conjunction with the See of Rome declaring matters of faith or morals.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on June 29, 2008, 05:10:13 PM
I know this is beating a dead horse into the ground, but also keep in mind that even if a pope was heretical in his personal views, if the See of Rome never taught the heresy officially and openly, then it never fell into heresy. This is how infalibilty and pope work: the pope in conjunction with the See of Rome declaring matters of faith or morals.

I can only hear the groans of the venerable Orthodox Latin popes as they read that Frankish propaganda. It recalls my reading of the election of new popes (found somewhere on newadvent) where it states that the College of Cardinals do not chose the universal ruler of the Church, but only the bishop of Rome who ASSUMES universal jurisdiction by being a successor to Peter's throne. What double-talk. It neatly (they think) gets around the problem that until the RCC created counter-churches in the east and outright altar-to-alter Orthodox clones, eastern bishops had no say in electing  the so-called "universal pontiff". Yep, another dead horse.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 29, 2008, 07:11:31 PM
I can only hear the groans of the venerable Orthodox Latin popes as they read that Frankish propaganda. It recalls my reading of the election of new popes (found somewhere on newadvent) where it states that the College of Cardinals do not chose the universal ruler of the Church, but only the bishop of Rome who ASSUMES universal jurisdiction by being a successor to Peter's throne. What double-talk. It neatly (they think) gets around the problem that until the RCC created counter-churches in the east and outright altar-to-alter Orthodox clones, eastern bishops had no say in electing  the so-called "universal pontiff". Yep, another dead horse.

I believe the case was that the See of Rome, even though is not superior to the easterns sees according to those sees, thought itself such and was not supposely corrected by the eastern sees until centuries later. Bringing up personal letters from popes as a counter point fails. I still have no idea why pope Leo was brought up as a counter point. Can sombody fill me in here? For why was he thought heretical by the OCC? The case can only be made for this being a counter point if the See of Rome openly and officially taught the heresy.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: buzuxi on June 30, 2008, 01:34:00 AM
Maybe this is what your getting at:

Dioscorus I of Alexandria is considered a saint by the Coptic, Syriac, and other Oriental Orthodoxy churches. He is considered a heretic by the Orthodox Church, though some commentators like Anatolius and John S. Romanides think that Dioscorus was not deposed at Chalcedon (451) because of the faith, but for his grave administrative errors at the Robber Council of Ephesus (449), which included restoring Eutyches the heretic and the attack on Flavian, and because he (Dioscorus) had excommunicated Pope Leo of Rome, and also because at Chalcedon he refused to appear in front of the Council although he was summoned to it three times.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:NN8iz4KmfjwJ:orthodoxwiki.org/Dioscorus_of_Alexandria+Alexandrian+condemned+Pope+Leo&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

Pope Leo originally wanted the council of Chalcedon to be held in Rome at a later date, his request was turned down.

The robber-council of Florence excommuniated Pope Leo (yes, under Dioscorus). If Pope Leo held Papal supremacy then a patriarch of lower ranking would never of attempted such a thing.

In the 5th Ecumenical Council Pope Vigilius was condemned for supporting the 3 chapters. He repented shortly after, and this caused a schism with the churches of northern Italy which lasted over a hundred years. From this the bishop of Aquilieia severed ties with Rome (along with other territories) and Aqulieia became a Patriarchate under bishop Macedonius. This proves that the west saw no papal supremacy in the See of Rome.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 02:22:40 AM
Wait.  Are you guys talking about Ephesus II?  I don't think it took place in Florence, or it wouldn't be called Ephesus II.  St. Dioscoros didn't excommunicate Pope Leo at Ephesus II.  He merely refused to allow Pope Leo's Tome to be read into the record.  He probably did that because he realized that if it were read into the record, he'd have to condemn it (for the same reasons Nestorius loved it,) and he didn't want that diplomatic mess. 

He also didn't excommunicate Pope Leo until after Pope Leo excommunicated him for refusing to adopt the Tome and for condemning Theodoret and Ibas and their writings, which would later make up the Three Chapters. 

Pope Leo may have used Eutyches' reinstatement as an additional excuse, but that excuse would not have been legitimate.  This is because Ephesus II was convened pursuant to a letter written by Pope Leo to the emperor, asking for such a meeting to take place and stating that Eutyches should be reinstated if he were to recant and make an orthodox confession.  Eutyches did recant and make an orthodox confession at Ephesus II, so his reinstatement would not have been in defiance of Pope Leo's instructions.

Chalcedon took place because Pope Leo was angry about his letter not being adopted and about his friends and their writings being condemned.  As indicated above, he initially wanted to hold the council in Rome, and when the emperor said it would be held in Chalcedon, he tried unsuccessfully to have it cancelled. 

At Chalcedon, St. Dioscoros was not condemned for teaching heresy, but for not showing up to one of its sessions.

I'm not trying to derail this thread and start another Chalcedon polemical debate.  Goodness knows, I hate those things.  I am posting this information because a few of the posts above got so many facts wrong. 

For the record, I believe that a close study of the events surrounding Chalcedon show that Pope Leo was trying to assert some sort of supreme authority, but that the reactions of the emperor and other patriarchs and bishops show that such authority was not recognized in the East.

How many times have we been over all of this, on how many threads?  It seems we are beating more than one dead horse here.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: buzuxi on June 30, 2008, 02:36:13 AM
OOPS* , Just saw my slip. Yes i meant Ephesus. Well anyway, the part about Eutyches recanting i disagree with, typical propaganda, this was the council which caused the martyrdom of St Flavian. But its good to see, that finally reasons why we cant unite is brought to light. The fact that Orthodoxy considers Dioscorus to be a murderer and the OO consider him a saint.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 02:46:23 AM
Eutyches recanting his heresy and making an orthodox statement was recorded and witnessed by many.

Which St. Flavian?  You mean the one who was still writing letters six months after his martyrdom by the murderous Dioscoros?  Talented man. 

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,3669.0.html



You are right, though, that the EO's and OO's have much in common, especially with regard to our opposition to certain Catholic beliefs and claims.  As I said, the events surrounding Chalcedon show that the East at that time did not see Rome as having supremacy.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 10:33:27 AM
Quote
Pope Leo originally wanted the council of Chalcedon to be held in Rome at a later date, his request was turned down.


This like saying because he was denied his desire for a particular supper, Rome is not supreme.  ???

Quote
The robber-council of Florence excommuniated Pope Leo (yes, under Dioscorus). If Pope Leo held Papal supremacy then a patriarch of lower ranking would never of attempted such a thing.

This is just not true. It is not the person himself, but the person with the See of Rome that is supreme. This always gets confused among orthodox for some reason.

Quote
In the 5th Ecumenical Council Pope Vigilius was condemned for supporting the 3 chapters. He repented shortly after, and this caused a schism with the churches of northern Italy which lasted over a hundred years. From this the bishop of Aquilieia severed ties with Rome (along with other territories) and Aqulieia became a Patriarchate under bishop Macedonius. This proves that the west saw no papal supremacy in the See of Rome.

I need to study this. Although it would make sense that some cases would exist that showed that people disagreed with Rome. My case really comes down to questioning why wasnt the the supremacy of Rome attacked, as opposed to what you have been saying: that certain policies or heresies were.


Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 10:41:01 AM
Quote
For the record, I believe that a close study of the events surrounding Chalcedon show that Pope Leo was trying to assert some sort of supreme authority, but that the reactions of the emperor and other patriarchs and bishops show that such authority was not recognized in the East.


A close study is called for indeed! Thx...I will when I get a moment and reply.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 10:47:58 AM
Quote
For the record, I believe that a close study of the events surrounding Chalcedon show that Pope Leo was trying to assert some sort of supreme authority, but that the reactions of the emperor and other patriarchs and bishops show that such authority was not recognized in the East.


I just studied a bit on your council and found this:

With the passage of the 28th canon, the council fathers at Chalcedon attempted to elevate the stature of the See of Constantinople (New Rome). Originally, Constantinople was not counted among the pentarchy—that is the five patriarchal sees founded by the apostles. Nonetheless, over time, the Eastern bishops repeatedly asserted the pre-eminence of the bishop of Constantinople, although always second to the Bishop of Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon

In practice, all Christians East and West addressed the papacy as the See of Peter or the Apostolic See rather than the See of the Imperial Capital because it was commonly understood that Rome's precedence comes from Peter rather than its association with Imperial authority.

There was a great deal more topics at that council than what you seem to portray, unless I got the wrong council. If I got the right council you refered to above, it seems to prove my case: that Rome was recognized as supreme. And the said council was an attempt to change that.

With the papal legates opposing the canon, Emperor Marcian and Anatolius, the patriarch of Constantinople, sought the pope's approval of the council in separate letters. Anatolius in particular defended canon 28 in his letter, but Pope Leo remained unmoved and would to withhold his support. In a later letter to the Emperor, Leo says that Anatolius should behave more modestly since he owes his enthronement to the pope's consent. Furthermore, Leo tells the Emperor that he has "abstained from annulling this ordination" because of his desire to preserve peace and unity within the Church.[4] However, growing concerned that withholding his approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 453 he confirmed the council’s canons except for the controversial 28th canon.

Unless I am out of my mind, Council of Chalcedon proves my point. If the east did not recognize the supremacy of Rome, why did they act as if they did?  ???

It seems to me that the above proves that the east knew of Rome's supremacy and shows them trying to legally elavate the New Rome's ranking. When it failed, schism occured. How does this support your case at all?

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on June 30, 2008, 01:24:26 PM
You've a flawed sense of 'supremacy'.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 01:53:19 PM
Aside from Pope Dioscoros' refusal at Ephesus II to kowtow to Pope Leo and accept his Tome, you have the participants of Chalcedon also refusing to accept the Tome without first examining it and questioning it.  When the legates from Rome came to Chalcedon, they wanted everyone to just accept the Tome without question.  The fact that it was written and being submitted by Pope Leo was supposed to be enough for everyone to just embrace it without even first examining it.  The fact that the other bishops refused to do that and insisted on first examining it shows that they, like Pope Dioscoros, did not recognize this sort of supremacy on the part of Pope Leo.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 04:19:35 PM
Aside from Pope Dioscoros' refusal at Ephesus II to kowtow to Pope Leo and accept his Tome, you have the participants of Chalcedon also refusing to accept the Tome without first examining it and questioning it.  When the legates from Rome came to Chalcedon, they wanted everyone to just accept the Tome without question.  The fact that it was written and being submitted by Pope Leo was supposed to be enough for everyone to just embrace it without even first examining it.  The fact that the other bishops refused to do that and insisted on first examining it shows that they, like Pope Dioscoros, did not recognize this sort of supremacy on the part of Pope Leo.

In the quotes I posted above, it seems, unless I am crazy, that the east pursued the pope's appoval in the said council. Just read my italics above. There were many points addressed at this council. It seems that pope was needed to put his stamp of approval of these issues. If Rome was not the head here, why did the east act as if it did in your council?

Now I noticed that you just glossed over the main points in my italics above. Why not address them?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 04:36:38 PM
Keep in mind that my main point is not that Rome is supreme because there was never a schism. Of course there have been times when there was wide spread heresy in the east. This does not refute Rome's supremacy.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on June 30, 2008, 04:47:32 PM
Keep in my that my main point is not that Rome is supreme because there was never a schism. Of course there have been times when there was wide spread heresy in the east. This does not refute Rome's supremacy.
Nor support it either.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 06:10:43 PM
In the quotes I posted above, it seems, unless I am crazy, that the east pursued the pope's appoval in the said council. Just read my italics above. There were many points addressed at this council. It seems that pope was needed to put his stamp of approval of these issues. If Rome was not the head here, why did the east act as if it did in your council?

Now I noticed that you just glossed over the main points in my italics above. Why not address them?

What do you mean by "your council?"  Are you talking about me and Chalcedon?  If so, it certainly is not my council.  My Church rejected it, and for good reason.  You may want to ask the EO's here why their leaders acted as they did.  I know my Church leaders acted appropriately. 

"My council" would be Ephesus II, and Pope Dioscoros made it clear that Pope Leo was not anybody's boss at that meeting.  Hence Pope Leo's angry hissy fit, otherwise known as the Council of Chalcedon, which is definitely not my council.

My goodness, but some of you need to get your facts straight.  When talking to an OO, about the worst thing you can do is call Chalcedon the OO's council.  That's just insulting.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on June 30, 2008, 06:22:16 PM
In addition, for the benefit of EO's, Pope Vigilius' support of the Three Chapters were violently protested against by the East and by the Emperor especially in the second council of Constantinople 553 as Buzuxi earlier alluded.  Instead of asking Rome for approval, quite the opposite happened.  The Council forced Rome to choose against the Three Chapters.  That says a lot about Rome's real power in the past, that even if she thought she had it, it never really existed in the East.

So you have to take into account that Rome and Rome alone gave herself the delusion of supremacy.  The East recognized Rome's delusion, but did not recognize an actual supremacy.  Perhaps brushing it off until the 10th century was a mistake.

Plus, I believe that there is a difference between primacy of honor and temporal or dogmatic primacy.  It is the honor that the East seems to recognize in the past, not the temporal and dogmatic primacy that you seem to think we recognized.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 08:36:47 PM
What do you mean by "your council?"  Are you talking about me and Chalcedon?  If so, it certainly is not my council.  My Church rejected it, and for good reason.  You may want to ask the EO's here why their leaders acted as they did.  I know my Church leaders acted appropriately. 

"My council" would be Ephesus II, and Pope Dioscoros made it clear that Pope Leo was not anybody's boss at that meeting.  Hence Pope Leo's angry hissy fit, otherwise known as the Council of Chalcedon, which is definitely not my council.

My goodness, but some of you need to get your facts straight.  When talking to an OO, about the worst thing you can do is call Chalcedon the OO's council.  That's just insulting.



Sorry. I was confused. I thought you brought up that council. My main point is that the east sought Rome for approval. Are you saying that this never happened in your church's history?

I will look into the council you brought up.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 08:58:49 PM
What do you mean by "your council?"  Are you talking about me and Chalcedon?  If so, it certainly is not my council.  My Church rejected it, and for good reason.  You may want to ask the EO's here why their leaders acted as they did.  I know my Church leaders acted appropriately. 

"My council" would be Ephesus II, and Pope Dioscoros made it clear that Pope Leo was not anybody's boss at that meeting.  Hence Pope Leo's angry hissy fit, otherwise known as the Council of Chalcedon, which is definitely not my council.

My goodness, but some of you need to get your facts straight.  When talking to an OO, about the worst thing you can do is call Chalcedon the OO's council.  That's just insulting.



I have read some info on the Ephesus II. My question to you now is why preciesly was pope Leo's letter ignored?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 09:10:45 PM
My main point is that the east sought Rome for approval. Are you saying that this never happened in your church's history?

Absolutely not.  I belong to the Armenian Church and we don't seek anybody's approval for anything.    :)


In fact, when our Church was first established by St. Gregory the Illuminator, our patriarchs for a while had to be approved by the Patriarch of Caesarea.  That ended around 375 when the King of Armenia wanted to appoint a patriarch whom the Patriarch of Caesarea (probably St. Basil) didn't approve.  The king went ahead and appointed the patriarch anyway and that caused a break in relations between Armenia and Caesarea.  

From what I understand, it was the Patriarch of Constantinople--not Rome--who a couple of decades later intervened and resolved the situation at the request of the Armenian Catholicos St. Sahag.  It was when Constantinople (not Rome) recognized the Armenian Church's Independence from Caesarea that it became an accepted and established fact.  

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 09:32:55 PM
I have read some info on the Ephesus II. My question to you now is why preciesly was pope Leo's letter ignored?

I assume Pope Dioscoros would not let the Tome be read into the record for the same reason Nestorius accepted it.  So the question becomes why did Nestorius accept Pope Leo's Tome and write in the Bazaar of Heracleides that "the Church of Rome was confessing correctly."  (page 340)  It seems both Pope Dioscoros and the heretic Nestorius could see how the language in the Tome could be interpreted in a way to support Nestorius' heresy.

Now this thread is not the place to debate whether the Tome was Nestorian or not.  That has been debated elsewhere, and you can find those debates by clicking on the Tome of Leo tag below.  Other people on this forum have presented very good arguments on how Nestorius' take on the Tome was a gross misinterpretation.

In any event, Pope Dioscorus' decision not to read the Tome into the record at Ephesus II was undoubtedly based on the very real possibility that the Tome could be used to support Nestorianism.  It was not based on any heresy on Pope Dioscorus' part.  Contrary to what some people like to argue, Pope Dioscorus did not embrace Eutyches' heresy.  He explicitly condemned any teaching which undermined Christ's humanity and only reinstated Eutyches upon the latter making an orthodox confession.  Even at Chalcedon Pope Dioscorus couldn't be found guilty of any heresy, despite the strenuous efforts of some of his enemies who wanted to get him on something.  In the end, Pope Dioscorus was condemned at Chalcedon for not showing up to one of the sessions, not for heresy.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 09:35:11 PM
Absolutely not.  I belong to the Armenian Church and we don't seek anybody's approval for anything.    :)


In fact, when our Church was first established by St. Gregory the Illuminator, our patriarchs for a while had to be approved by the Patriarch of Caesarea.  That ended around 375 when the King of Armenia wanted to appoint a patriarch whom the Patriarch of Caesarea (probably St. Basil) didn't approve.  The king went ahead and appointed the patriarch anyway and that caused a break in relations between Armenia and Caesarea.  

From what I understand, it was the Patriarch of Constantinople--not Rome--who a couple of decades later intervened and resolved the situation at the request of the Armenian Catholicos St. Sahag.  It was when Constantinople (not Rome) recognized the Armenian Church's Independence from Caesarea that it became an accepted and established fact.  



I need to look into these matters.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 09:40:19 PM
I assume Pope Dioscoros would not let the Tome be read into the record for the same reason Nestorius accepted it.  So the question becomes why did Nestorius accept Pope Leo's Tome and write in the Bazaar of Heracleides that "the Church of Rome was confessing correctly."  (page 340)  It seems both Pope Dioscoros and the heretic Nestorius could see how the language in the Tome could be interpreted in a way to support Nestorius' heresy.

Now this thread is not the place to debate whether the Tome was Nestorian or not.  That has been debated elsewhere, and you can find those debates by clicking on the Tome of Leo tag below.  Other people on this forum have presented very good arguments on how Nestorius' take on the Tome was a gross misinterpretation.

In any event, Pope Dioscorus' decision not to read the Tome into the record at Ephesus II was undoubtedly based on the very real possibility that the Tome could be used to support Nestorianism.  It was not based on any heresy on Pope Dioscorus' part.  Contrary to what some people like to argue, Pope Dioscorus did not embrace Eutyches' heresy.  He explicitly condemned any teaching which undermined Christ's humanity and only reinstated Eutyches upon the latter making an orthodox confession.  Even at Chalcedon Pope Dioscorus couldn't be found guilty of any heresy, despite the strenuous efforts of some of his enemies who wanted to get him on something.  In the end, Pope Dioscorus was condemned at Chalcedon for not showing up to one of the sessions, not for heresy.

If Rome had no superiority in the east, what was the fuction of the See of Rome?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 09:45:46 PM
I understand your point now. From your example, it seems clear to me that the See of Rome was totally disrepected. Point taken. But are you saying now that the See of Rome was never appealed to from the eastern sees for guidence of the church? Although you brought up an exception to this rule, I think I can provide many examples when the opposite occured.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 09:56:09 PM
If Rome had no superiority in the east, what was the fuction of the See of Rome?

I dunno.  I guess it was to tell the Romans what to do.   :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 10:11:13 PM
I dunno.  I guess it was to tell the Romans what to do.   :)

From reading the different schism, I can see the See of rome being disrepected by the east at times. I will provide some post where Rome is treated as if superior and see how you respond. Until then, may I ask you why the east put up with a see who thought it superior to all of the eastern sees?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 10:14:29 PM
Again, as an Oriental Orthodox, I can only tell you that we didn't put up with it for very long.   :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 10:18:08 PM
Again, as an Oriental Orthodox, I can only tell you that we didn't put up with it for very long.   :)

Why did you put up with it at all?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 10:36:31 PM
Actually, we didn't.  Hence Pope Dioscoros being persecuted, deposed and exiled.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 10:38:36 PM
Again, as an Oriental Orthodox, I can only tell you that we didn't put up with it for very long.   :)

I have done some research on the OO, and realize that my case pertains to more the OC position. I was not aware of the differences between the OO and RC until meeting you. Thanks for motivating me to learn something new. After some quick reading, it seems to me that the division between you and the OC are theological.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 10:55:47 PM
By OC do you mean the Eastern Orthodox?  Usually we abbreviate them EO.

A lot of theologians now say the differences between the EO and OO are more linguistic than theological.  Constantinople II went a long way toward bringing our Christologies in line.

We have more theological differences with the Catholics.  Right now, however, my Church, the Armenian Church, has very warm relations with your Church, despite the differences.  We just don't like other people telling us what to do.    :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on June 30, 2008, 11:03:03 PM
By OC do you mean the Eastern Orthodox?  Usually we abbreviate them EO.

A lot of theologians now say the differences between the EO and OO are more linguistic, than theological.  Constantinople II went a long way toward bringing our Christologies in line.

We have more theological differences with the Catholics.  Right now, however, my Church, the Armenian Church, has very warm relations with your Church, despite the differences.  We just don't like other people telling us what to do.    :)

The OO caught me off guard, but now I know to study them!
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on June 30, 2008, 11:10:44 PM
The OO caught me off guard

We like doing that to people.   ;D

Thank you for taking it so well, and thank you for deciding to study about us.  So few people do that.   :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 01, 2008, 10:55:49 AM
In addition, for the benefit of EO's, Pope Vigilius' support of the Three Chapters were violently protested against by the East and by the Emperor especially in the second council of Constantinople 553 as Buzuxi earlier alluded.  Instead of asking Rome for approval, quite the opposite happened.  The Council forced Rome to choose against the Three Chapters.  That says a lot about Rome's real power in the past, that even if she thought she had it, it never really existed in the East.

So you have to take into account that Rome and Rome alone gave herself the delusion of supremacy.  The East recognized Rome's delusion, but did not recognize an actual supremacy.  Perhaps brushing it off until the 10th century was a mistake.

Plus, I believe that there is a difference between primacy of honor and temporal or dogmatic primacy.  It is the honor that the East seems to recognize in the past, not the temporal and dogmatic primacy that you seem to think we recognized.

After some research, I agree that the treatment of pope Pope Vigilius is another good example of the east disrepecting the the See of Rome. The east may have been under the influence of the Eastern emperor, Justinian. The question I now have is: was this fair treatmeant. But that was not your point. And I believe your point was to show some examples of the east totally not repecting the See of Rome, which you have succeeded in doing. The question now is, why did the east at times disrespect Rome, but at other times act as if Rome was superior? (Of course this challenge is exempt for the OO.)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 01, 2008, 10:58:03 AM
Nor support it either.

Right, but why did the east treat Rome as if she was superior at times? Why did the east commune with the See of Rome that thought herself superior at all?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 01, 2008, 11:34:26 AM
After some research, I agree that the treatment of pope Pope Vigilius is another good example of the east disrepecting the the See of Rome. The east may have been under the influence of the Eastern emperor, Justinian. The question I now have is: was this fair treatmeant. But that was not your point. And I believe your point was to show some examples of the east totally not repecting the See of Rome, which you have succeeded in doing. The question now is, why did the east at times disrespect Rome, but at other times act as if Rome was superior? (Of course this challenge is exempt for the OO.)

I don't think it was so much as to disrespecting Rome whenever the need was there or submitting to some sort of supremacy of Rome to whenever it suited the East.  What was necessary was to involve all the major heirarchs of the Roman empire (in fact, one of the sad lessons of history was defining Christianity as "Roman" Christianity ignoring those outside the empire most of the time).  Rome was just as important as Constantinople and Alexandria, and not solely important as you think.  Alexandria and Constantinople were also given many titles of honor that would make it seem that they were supreme (indeed Constantinople was considered the "New Rome" for the East and equal to the one in the West).  But this wasn't because of supremacy, but because of an honor due with respect, not because one has some sort of authority over other churches.  Rome never had authority over the East.  The idea of Rome's primacy was only necessary when the major sees had problems with one another, as an arbiter of the major sees.  But if Rome was wrong, as is the case of accepting the Three Chapters, then the East took charge against it (although the emperor took it to levels that I would agree would be unacceptable).

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 01, 2008, 11:50:35 AM
I don't think it was so much as to disrespecting Rome whenever the need was there or submitting to some sort of supremacy of Rome to whenever it suited the East.  What was necessary was to involve all the major heirarchs of the Roman empire (in fact, one of the sad lessons of history was defining Christianity as "Roman" Christianity ignoring those outside the empire most of the time).  Rome was just as important as Constantinople and Alexandria, and not solely important as you think.  Alexandria and Constantinople were also given many titles of honor that would make it seem that they were supreme (indeed Constantinople was considered the "New Rome" for the East and equal to the one in the West).  But this wasn't because of supremacy, but because of an honor due with respect, not because one has some sort of authority over other churches.  Rome never had authority over the East.  The idea of Rome's primacy was only necessary when the major sees had problems with one another, as an arbiter of the major sees.  But if Rome was wrong, as is the case of accepting the Three Chapters, then the East took charge against it (although the emperor took it to levels that I would agree would be unacceptable).



In an earlier post of mine from this thread, I showed that the eastern sees at times had councils that showed them pleading to the See of Rome to elevate the new Rome's position to second place behind Rome. If Rome was equal as you are claiming, why was this done?  ???

And if Rome was only equal, then how could play the judge between conflicting eastern sees as you just stated above?

And there are examples of Rome making decisions without needing eastern sees approval to which the east abided. How can that happen if what you claim is true?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 01, 2008, 02:07:39 PM
In an earlier post of mine from this thread, I showed that the eastern sees at times had councils that showed them pleading to the See of Rome to elevate the new Rome's position to second place behind Rome. If Rome was equal as you are claiming, why was this done?  ???

And if Rome was only equal, then how could play the judge between conflicting eastern sees as you just stated above?

And there are examples of Rome making decisions without needing eastern sees approval to which the east abided. How can that happen if what you claim is true?

They also pleaded with Alexandria.  In fact, Alexandria was not at first very fond of the council at Constantinople in elevating Constantinople to the top of the East either.  Alexandria and Rome had to agree to have Constantinople on top, but this is not to say that they had to approve.  Approval from them was important, but equally important was already the emperical power Constantinople had.  They evolved into power that forced Rome and Alexandria in a position to accept Constantinople as "New Rome."

The problem is that you studied Rome-centered works and produce quotes and ignore all other quotes that give the same honor to Constantinople and Alexandria, as if they also mattered to the whole Church.  My point is that approval of Rome alone is not necessarily true, but the approval of synods had to be hand-in-hand approval with the other majors sees of the empire.  Constantinople and Alexandria worked with Rome on acceptance of councils.  The problem with Rome is that later they started to accept dogmas without consulting with Constantinople and Alexandria, which eventually caused the schism of the 10th century.

There is research indicating the understanding of the role of Rome was misunderstood by both sides.  Rome may have thought they were the top of the list, but the East simply believed in working together with the Church as a whole, not on the sole authority of one bishop.  Consulting with Rome was just part of consulting with other bishops for support.  In fact, the reason why you read a lot of letters on consulting with Rome is that most of the time Rome never even attended the councils.  I'm sure if Constantinople and Alexandria did not attend the councils, they would have received letters that also asked for their approvals with words of honor and praise to their respective sees.

God bless.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 01, 2008, 03:20:18 PM
Right, but why did the east treat Rome as if she was superior at times? Why did the east commune with the See of Rome that thought herself superior at all?

Your problem, as with most Franks, is confusing 'superiority' with 'supremacy'. It is as if you can only view history (and reality) through your own lens.
That Rome exercised certain "rights and privileges" among the churches is not disputed. New Rome also came to these same responsibilties. The Latin popes were Orthodox; the Frankish ones, not.
The RCC has morphed into a top-down episcopal model with an over-ruling bishop. The Orthodox popes exercised leadership linearly. Big difference. We know what these 'rights and privileges' were because the EP today now wields them solely since Rome's schism.
Of course Rome had to 'sign-off' on Ecumenical Councils. ALL patriarchates had to do so, otherwise a council could not be or claim to be "according to the whole" - Catholic.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 02, 2008, 10:46:57 AM
Your problem, as with most Franks, is confusing 'superiority' with 'supremacy'. It is as if you can only view history (and reality) through your own lens.
That Rome exercised certain "rights and privileges" among the churches is not disputed. New Rome also came to these same responsibilties. The Latin popes were Orthodox; the Frankish ones, not.
The RCC has morphed into a top-down episcopal model with an over-ruling bishop. The Orthodox popes exercised leadership linearly. Big difference. We know what these 'rights and privileges' were because the EP today now wields them solely since Rome's schism.
Of course Rome had to 'sign-off' on Ecumenical Councils. ALL patriarchates had to do so, otherwise a council could not be or claim to be "according to the whole" - Catholic.

Before I post some evidence supporting Rome's position, can I just ask why if Rome had an erroneous view of herself being superior, and the east knew this, why did not the east point this out early? When I read the quotes of the church fathers, they seem to be involved in this supposed confusion as well.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 02, 2008, 01:44:47 PM
Before I post some evidence supporting Rome's position, can I just ask why if Rome had an erroneous view of herself being superior, and the east knew this, why did not the east point this out early? When I read the quotes of the church fathers, they seem to be involved in this supposed confusion as well.
The question is entirely moot as Rome departed Orthodoxy with the Frankish usurpation of the Roman See.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 02, 2008, 03:14:42 PM
Before I post some evidence supporting Rome's position, can I just ask why if Rome had an erroneous view of herself being superior, and the east knew this, why did not the east point this out early? When I read the quotes of the church fathers, they seem to be involved in this supposed confusion as well.

In Egyptian culture, and I'm sure in an Arabic and probably some Eastern cultures, when someone you dearly love sets foot in your house or when you write a letter to them and want to say or write something that shows how important they are to you, you would go at lengths to exaggerate a "title" for them.  The title being something along the lines of "Oh the lady of all ladies, the beloved of all beloved, you lighted all of Egypt when you set foot on it.  When you talk, everyone listens and obeys."  or here's a funny one, "Oh Pasha (honorable leader), we serve your needs.  You eat, and we become full."

Emperor Haille Sellassie for instance when he became the emperor of Orthodox Ethiopia, he was called "Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Lord of Lords, King of Kings of Ethiopia and Elect of God."

It is no wonder the humility of Pope Gregory the Great showed at least an understanding of the Eastern position in his letter to the Chalcedonian Pope Eulogius of Alexandria:

Quote
For as for me, I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct.  Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour.  For my honour is the honour of the universal Church:  my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren.  Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them.  For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.  But far be this from us.  Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.

There's a post by GiC also giving examples of Constantinople's honor here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10020.msg147645.html#msg147645

So before you send any "proof" or "evidence" think of it this way:  Can you quotes be interpreted not as literal temporal supremacy that you seem to think there existed, but an amplified honor by bishops who merely wanted to show love and brotherhood?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 02, 2008, 04:34:06 PM
The question is entirely moot as Rome departed Orthodoxy with the Frankish usurpation of the Roman See.

The question cannot be answered then? Seems suspicious.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 02, 2008, 04:35:24 PM
In Egyptian culture, and I'm sure in an Arabic and probably some Eastern cultures, when someone you dearly love sets foot in your house or when you write a letter to them and want to say or write something that shows how important they are to you, you would go at lengths to exaggerate a "title" for them.  The title being something along the lines of "Oh the lady of all ladies, the beloved of all beloved, you lighted all of Egypt when you set foot on it.  When you talk, everyone listens and obeys."  or here's a funny one, "Oh Pasha (honorable leader), we serve your needs.  You eat, and we become full."

Emperor Haille Sellassie for instance when he became the emperor of Orthodox Ethiopia, he was called "Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah, Lord of Lords, King of Kings of Ethiopia and Elect of God."

It is no wonder the humility of Pope Gregory the Great showed at least an understanding of the Eastern position in his letter to the Chalcedonian Pope Eulogius of Alexandria:

There's a post by GiC also giving examples of Constantinople's honor here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,10020.msg147645.html#msg147645

So before you send any "proof" or "evidence" think of it this way:  Can you quotes be interpreted not as literal temporal supremacy that you seem to think there existed, but an amplified honor by bishops who merely wanted to show love and brotherhood?

So if I understand you right, all you saying that all of the quotes were all meant to be exaggerations?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 02, 2008, 05:22:14 PM
The question cannot be answered then? Seems suspicious.

Only the specious claims of the Frankish are "suspicious". Point stands...the bishops of Rome are no longer in the "Catholic Church".
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 02, 2008, 08:34:47 PM
Only the specious claims of the Frankish are "suspicious". Point stands...the bishops of Rome are no longer in the "Catholic Church".

You are not addressing the question:

Before I post some evidence supporting Rome's position, can I just ask why if Rome had an erroneous view of herself being superior, and the east knew this, why did not the east point this out early? When I read the quotes of the church fathers, they seem to be involved in this supposed confusion as well.

If you think that you cannot answer, then thats fine.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 02, 2008, 08:44:59 PM
You are not addressing the question:

Before I post some evidence supporting Rome's position, can I just ask why if Rome had an erroneous view of herself being superior, and the east knew this, why did not the east point this out early? When I read the quotes of the church fathers, they seem to be involved in this supposed confusion as well.

If you think that you cannot answer, then thats fine.

Why is the moon not made of cheese? I can't answer that one either.
So much for this latest revival of this long batter topic bereft of any meaning to Orthodox Catholics...
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 02, 2008, 08:52:13 PM
Why is the moon not made of cheese? I can't answer that one either.
So much for this latest revival of this long batter topic bereft of any meaning to Orthodox Catholics...

Okay...thank you for your participation.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 02, 2008, 09:33:39 PM
If Rome had no superiority in the east, what was the fuction of the See of Rome?

Mediate disputes, tend to their own jurisdiction, ceremonial functions...etc.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 02, 2008, 09:45:37 PM
You are not addressing the question:

Before I post some evidence supporting Rome's position, can I just ask why if Rome had an erroneous view of herself being superior, and the east knew this, why did not the east point this out early? When I read the quotes of the church fathers, they seem to be involved in this supposed confusion as well.

If you think that you cannot answer, then thats fine.

The "quotes" used by Rome never seem to hold up to rigorous scrutiny. They fall into three categories:
1.Laudatory quotes that don't necessarily point to Monarchical Rulership by the Pope, but can just as easily have been said about a Papacy that merely had Primacy of Honor
2. Outright forgeries such as the Decrees of Damasus. If there was so much valid evidence, why then did Rome need to churn out so many forgeries?
3. Out of context quotes that when you discover the circumstances within which they were written, they once again do not really buttress or point to Universal Jurisdiction of Rome

Finally, the historical records don't show Universal Jurisdiction  by Rome. Where is the evidence that they ran Antioch for example the way Rome runs the diocese of Detroit or some such... ? Clearly each See was a power unto itself.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 02, 2008, 10:23:57 PM
The "quotes" used by Rome never seem to hold up to rigorous scrutiny. They fall into three categories:
1.Laudatory quotes that don't necessarily point to Monarchical Rulership by the Pope, but can just as easily have been said about a Papacy that merely had Primacy of Honor
2. Outright forgeries such as the Decrees of Damasus. If there was so much valid evidence, why then did Rome need to churn out so many forgeries?
3. Out of context quotes that when you discover the circumstances within which they were written, they once again do not really buttress or point to Universal Jurisdiction of Rome

Finally, the historical records don't show Universal Jurisdiction  by Rome. Where is the evidence that they ran Antioch for example the way Rome runs the diocese of Detroit or some such... ? Clearly each See was a power unto itself.

What if there was a quote that had no evidence of being a forgery and supported the RC position in a way that had no other interpretation? Would you just dismis it because it did not support your position?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 03, 2008, 01:56:07 AM
What if there was a quote that had no evidence of being a forgery and supported the RC position in a way that had no other interpretation? Would you just dismis it because it did not support your position?
Apparently what we are attempting to get through to you - that the Orthodox Latin bishops of Rome of the first 1000 years and the Frankish heterodox ones of the second 1000 - renders any quote war (cut & paste fest) you could deliver meaningless to us.
For over 5 years this topic has been defined, parced, and argued here (to the probable ranking of our #2 rank in 'popularity' - just behind 'gay' topics) and all to no avail or closure because your premises are faulty {primacy=supremacy; today's papacy is the same as the Latin ones}.
Again, it's a moot and boring topic holding little interest here. And that's the truth, "truth".
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 03, 2008, 02:16:56 AM
Apparently what we are attempting to get through to you - that the Orthodox Latin bishops of Rome of the first 1000 years and the Frankish heterodox ones of the second 1000 - renders any quote war (cut & paste fest) you could deliver meaningless to us.
For over 5 years this topic has been defined, parced, and argued here (to the probable ranking of our #2 rank in 'popularity' - just behind 'gay' topics) and all to no avail or closure because your premises are faulty {primacy=supremacy; today's papacy is the same as the Latin ones}.
Again, it's a moot and boring topic holding little interest here. And that's the truth, "truth".

I dont think I understand how this pertains to the question I had for you. Anyway, moving along, I'll post some episodes and have you guys interpret them soon.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 03, 2008, 02:46:30 AM
Marc said it best here:

Quote
1.Laudatory quotes that don't necessarily point to Monarchical Rulership by the Pope, but can just as easily have been said about a Papacy that merely had Primacy of Honor

Couldn't have said it better myself (at least I was trying to earlier).

Like I said before, these same compliments that are given to Rome were given to others, like Constantinople and Alexandria.

And to answer your other question.  I don't think the East knew or thought Rome was in charge.  If anything, they may have brushed the few attempts of Rome's supposed supremacy as nothing but bullying.  But the East and Rome may have misunderstood one another.  But it's quite telling that Pope Gregory the Great apparently was humble enough of a Pope to acknowledge that all other bishops have the same universal honor as he does, as he mentioned to the Alexandrian Pope from the quote I gave to you earlier.

But in any case, please share with us any quote that we can discuss.

God bless.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 03, 2008, 03:05:54 AM
Marc said it best here:

Couldn't have said it better myself (at least I was trying to earlier).

Like I said before, these same compliments that are given to Rome were given to others, like Constantinople and Alexandria.

And to answer your other question.  I don't think the East knew or thought Rome was in charge.  If anything, they may have brushed the few attempts of Rome's supposed supremacy as nothing but bullying.  But the East and Rome may have misunderstood one another.  But it's quite telling that Pope Gregory the Great apparently was humble enough of a Pope to acknowledge that all other bishops have the same universal honor as he does, as he mentioned to the Alexandrian Pope from the quote I gave to you earlier.

But in any case, please share with us any quote that we can discuss.

God bless.

I will. But it just occured to me that you may have quotes that see the eastern sees as Rome. If there were eastern sees that had quotes similiar to those attributed to Rome, lets see them. (From the early church that is...say before 400 AD.) Thank you.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 03, 2008, 03:09:34 AM
Marc said it best here:

Couldn't have said it better myself (at least I was trying to earlier).

Like I said before, these same compliments that are given to Rome were given to others, like Constantinople and Alexandria.

And to answer your other question.  I don't think the East knew or thought Rome was in charge.  If anything, they may have brushed the few attempts of Rome's supposed supremacy as nothing but bullying.  But the East and Rome may have misunderstood one another.  But it's quite telling that Pope Gregory the Great apparently was humble enough of a Pope to acknowledge that all other bishops have the same universal honor as he does, as he mentioned to the Alexandrian Pope from the quote I gave to you earlier.

But in any case, please share with us any quote that we can discuss.

God bless.

How about this one I took from elsewhere:

Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496):

"Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops, whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should be to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment." (Thiel, Ep. 26)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 03, 2008, 03:13:45 AM
Marc said it best here:

Couldn't have said it better myself (at least I was trying to earlier).

Like I said before, these same compliments that are given to Rome were given to others, like Constantinople and Alexandria.

And to answer your other question.  I don't think the East knew or thought Rome was in charge.  If anything, they may have brushed the few attempts of Rome's supposed supremacy as nothing but bullying.  But the East and Rome may have misunderstood one another.  But it's quite telling that Pope Gregory the Great apparently was humble enough of a Pope to acknowledge that all other bishops have the same universal honor as he does, as he mentioned to the Alexandrian Pope from the quote I gave to you earlier.

But in any case, please share with us any quote that we can discuss.

God bless.

I am not sure if this is allowed, but I found this one from an earlier thread:

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 03, 2008, 03:18:35 AM
Marc said it best here:

Couldn't have said it better myself (at least I was trying to earlier).

Like I said before, these same compliments that are given to Rome were given to others, like Constantinople and Alexandria.

And to answer your other question.  I don't think the East knew or thought Rome was in charge.  If anything, they may have brushed the few attempts of Rome's supposed supremacy as nothing but bullying.  But the East and Rome may have misunderstood one another.  But it's quite telling that Pope Gregory the Great apparently was humble enough of a Pope to acknowledge that all other bishops have the same universal honor as he does, as he mentioned to the Alexandrian Pope from the quote I gave to you earlier.

But in any case, please share with us any quote that we can discuss.

God bless.

This is the last quote I found here, then I'll rest so you will have time to answer:

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, ...

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate even as in all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome. (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

If you have similiar quotes attributed to any of the eastern sees during the time period of the early church as the above, I'd love to see them.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 03, 2008, 04:05:19 AM
St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, ...
.......Church of the Romans....... (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Είμαι Ρωμαίος, ένας τίτλος που παρέχεται σε με από το βασιλιά Κωνσταντίνος.
Εσείς πήρατε το όνομα "Ρωμαίος" ος χλευασμού από τους Προτεσταντες.

Translation:
"I am a Roman, a title conferred on me by King Constantine.
You got the name "Roman" as a form of derision from the Protestants."
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: prodromos on July 03, 2008, 05:50:25 AM
Είμαι Ρωμαίος, ένας τίτλος που παρέχεται σε με από το βασιλιά Κωνσταντίνος.
Εσείς πήρατε το όνομα "Ρωμαίος" ος χλευασμού από τους Προτεσταντες.

Translation:
"I am a Roman, a title conferred on me by King Constantine.
You got the name "Roman" as a form of derision from the Protestants."

Mailing Address of the Ecumenical Patriarchate:
Rum Patrikhanesi, 342 20 Fener- Haliç, Istanbul.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 03, 2008, 11:04:35 AM
What if there was a quote that had no evidence of being a forgery and supported the RC position in a way that had no other interpretation? Would you just dismis it because it did not support your position?

Then it would not Jive with the historical records that do not indicate Universal Jurisdiction by the Pope. If there were some Early Church Father who wanted Rome to run the entire Church then nobody apparently paid attention.
The fact is, Universal Jurisdiction was not even mentioned by Rome until the 4th century and then only timidly.

 Orthodox don't proof text and we certainly wont turn over  2000 plus years of Tradition and ignore what we can see from History by an isolated quote. The Protestants try that trick with Biblical passages that we all know mean one thing in isolation but can mean something else within the context of Church History and Tradition.

Finally, I have seen Roman Catholics try to use quotes that they are certain are genuine only to find out later that they are missquotes, tweaked or written by someone in Prison hoping to butter up the Pope so he can get sprung.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 03, 2008, 11:19:19 AM
Then it would not Jive with the historical records that do not indicate Universal Jurisdiction by the Pope. If there were some Early Church Father who wanted Rome to run the entire Church then nobody apparently paid attention.
The fact is, Universal Jurisdiction was not even mentioned by Rome until the 4th century and then only timidly.

 Orthodox don't proof text and we certainly wont turn over  2000 plus years of Tradition and ignore what we can see from History by an isolated quote. The Protestants try that trick with Biblical passages that we all know mean one thing in isolation but can mean something else within the context of Church History and Tradition.

Finally, I have seen Roman Catholics try to use quotes that they are certain are genuine only to find out later that they are missquotes, tweaked or written by someone in Prison hoping to butter up the Pope so he can get sprung.

I see. Well, what I was getting at is that many factors played a role to make it look like the See of Rome was superior to any eastern see. Can you blame people who research and find the many evidences of this and believe in it?

Then it would not Jive with the historical records that do not indicate Universal Jurisdiction by the Pope.

Okay, I'll try to show an example in the early church of the See of Rome acting as if it had Universal Jurisdiction. Keep in mind that the pope is not claimed to have Universal Jurisdiction, but the pope working with the See of Rome.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 03, 2008, 12:31:16 PM
Finally, I have seen Roman Catholics try to use quotes that they are certain are genuine only to find out later that they are missquotes, tweaked or written by someone in Prison hoping to butter up the Pope so he can get sprung.

And no matter how many times this is addressed on this forum, the same boring "quote" gets used by a Catholic newbie who has has copied and pasted it from a Catholic apologetics blog as though it is some Divine Revelation which "disproves" Orthodoxy. It gets boring after a while. So I have tagged all the threads where a Catholic newbie on a mission has tried to use this "quote" and where it is addressed. You can find a list of the threads here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3211
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: wynd on July 03, 2008, 02:21:22 PM
And no matter how many times this is addressed on this forum, the same boring "quote" gets used by a Catholic newbie who has has copied and pasted it from a Catholic apologetics blog as though it is some Divine Revelation which "disproves" Orthodoxy. It gets boring after a while. So I have tagged all the threads where a Catholic newbie on a mission has tried to use this "quote" and where it is addressed. You can find a list of the threads here:
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3211

Someone should do the same for the St. Ireneaus "convenire ad" quote.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 03, 2008, 03:12:40 PM
Someone should do the same for the St. Ireneaus "convenire ad" quote.

Done. You will find a list of threads addressing it here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3212
Not that I think it will make much difference. If my experience is anything to go by, Catholic zealots will keep registering as new users to tell us this "amazing discovery" they made to "prove" how wrong we are.
At least now with the two tags:

That Irenaeus quote (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3212)
and
The St. Maximos Quote (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3211)

we have a paper trail we can point them to instead of having to waste our time rehashing everything.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 03, 2008, 06:38:58 PM
I see. Well, what I was getting at is that many factors played a role to make it look like the See of Rome was superior to any eastern see. Can you blame people who research and find the many evidences of this and believe in it?

Then it would not Jive with the historical records that do not indicate Universal Jurisdiction by the Pope.

Okay, I'll try to show an example in the early church of the See of Rome acting as if it had Universal Jurisdiction. Keep in mind that the pope is not claimed to have Universal Jurisdiction, but the pope working with the See of Rome.
<<

 This is a problem of reading your forgone conclusion backwards into quotes that can mean several things.. For example, a very laudatory quote about the Pope can be read by someone looking to rationalize the modern form of Roman Church Governance could say "Look how much this Saint thought of the Pope/Rome"..That would be true. He did think a lot of Rome..... But at the time Rome was Orthodox ( by our measure of things) and the praise does not refer to Church Governance.. It just says what a sterling guy the Pope /Papacy is...

Roman Catholics take a looooong leap from laudatory remarks to seeing those remarks as  evidence for their foregone conclusions. 
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 03, 2008, 07:52:37 PM
I see. Well, what I was getting at is that many factors played a role to make it look like the See of Rome was superior to any eastern see. Can you blame people who research and find the many evidences of this and believe in it?

Then it would not Jive with the historical records that do not indicate Universal Jurisdiction by the Pope.

Okay, I'll try to show an example in the early church of the See of Rome acting as if it had Universal Jurisdiction. Keep in mind that the pope is not claimed to have Universal Jurisdiction, but the pope working with the See of Rome.

If your contention is that the Modern Papacy is essentially the same arrangement as was found in the Early Church then there should be abundant documentation of the Pope appointing Bishops and Priests and imposing doctrines on all the other Sees.. I don't think that is actually the case. Where are the parallels between how a Modern Pope would be involved in running the Catholic Church Detroit and how Popes were involved running Antioch or Alexandria or Moscow?

Further, in all the places where we would expect the Pope to be in charge, namely the ecumenical councils  we simply don't find it. Instead we see the Roman leggets having a place of honor but not being in charge or having anything but one Bishop one vote power.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 03, 2008, 09:23:13 PM
Done. You will find a list of threads addressing it here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3212
Not that I think it will make much difference. If my experience is anything to go by, Catholic zealots will keep registering as new users to tell us this "amazing discovery" they made to "prove" how wrong we are.
At least now with the two tags:

That Irenaeus quote (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3212)
and
The St. Maximos Quote (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3211)

we have a paper trail we can point them to instead of having to waste our time rehashing everything.

Thank you, I'll read those.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 03, 2008, 09:31:51 PM
<<

 This is a problem of reading your forgone conclusion backwards into quotes that can mean several things.. For example, a very laudatory quote about the Pope can be read by someone looking to rationalize the modern form of Roman Church Governance could say "Look how much this Saint thought of the Pope/Rome"..That would be true. He did think a lot of Rome..... But at the time Rome was Orthodox ( by our measure of things) and the praise does not refer to Church Governance.. It just says what a sterling guy the Pope /Papacy is...

Roman Catholics take a looooong leap from laudatory remarks to seeing those remarks as  evidence for their foregone conclusions. 

The quotes refer to the See of Rome, not the pope only. The quotes clearly state what they do. But let me read what ozgeorge posted to me.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 03, 2008, 09:34:12 PM
If your contention is that the Modern Papacy is essentially the same arrangement as was found in the Early Church then there should be abundant documentation of the Pope appointing Bishops and Priests and imposing doctrines on all the other Sees.. I don't think that is actually the case. Where are the parallels between how a Modern Pope would be involved in running the Catholic Church Detroit and how Popes were involved running Antioch or Alexandria or Moscow?

Further, in all the places where we would expect the Pope to be in charge, namely the ecumenical councils  we simply don't find it. Instead we see the Roman leggets having a place of honor but not being in charge or having anything but one Bishop one vote power.

The position of RC is that the church evolves. In the early church there were not bishops at all. So why do you have them?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 03, 2008, 10:12:53 PM
The position of RC is that the church evolves. In the early church there were not bishops at all. So why do you have them?

That is essentially a Protestant type of argument. We do not think there was a magic moment that occurred in the first few seconds of the Church's existence that has to be frozen in place. We separate the issues of Church Governance and Faith. Somehow Roman Catholics have combined these two things.

The deposit of Faith given to the Apostles is the entire Truth and does not change. It was passed down from one good man to the next in the form of the Apostolic succession of our Bishops. The seven ecumenical councils were necessary to combat various heresies by clarifying the Christian Faith but without adding new and hither to for unheard of doctrines. Roman has added new doctrines.

There were Bishops appointed in the very first few years of the life of the Church. The Jurisdictions were established also within the lifetime of the Apostles and the method of Church governance namely a consular method, one Bishop one vote was set. It was not only good enough for the Early Church but saw us all through the Seven Councils and  one thousand years of Church history. The idea of Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope is FUNDEMENTALLY at odds with Holy Tradition and how the Church was or is meant to be.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 04, 2008, 01:27:27 AM
That is essentially a Protestant type of argument. We do not think there was a magic moment that occurred in the first few seconds of the Church's existence that has to be frozen in place. We separate the issues of Church Governance and Faith. Somehow Roman Catholics have combined these two things.

The deposit of Faith given to the Apostles is the entire Truth and does not change. It was passed down from one good man to the next in the form of the Apostolic succession of our Bishops. The seven ecumenical councils were necessary to combat various heresies by clarifying the Christian Faith but without adding new and hither to for unheard of doctrines. Roman has added new doctrines.

There were Bishops appointed in the very first few years of the life of the Church. The Jurisdictions were established also within the lifetime of the Apostles and the method of Church governance namely a consular method, one Bishop one vote was set. It was not only good enough for the Early Church but saw us all through the Seven Councils and  one thousand years of Church history. The idea of Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope is FUNDEMENTALLY at odds with Holy Tradition and how the Church was or is meant to be.

"We separate the issues of Church Governance and Faith."

Are you saying that having the See of Rome supreme is a change of Church Governance or Faith?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 04, 2008, 02:30:22 AM
Done. You will find a list of threads addressing it here: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3212
Not that I think it will make much difference. If my experience is anything to go by, Catholic zealots will keep registering as new users to tell us this "amazing discovery" they made to "prove" how wrong we are.
At least now with the two tags:

That Irenaeus quote (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3212)
and
The St. Maximos Quote (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php?action=tags;id=3211)

we have a paper trail we can point them to instead of having to waste our time rehashing everything.

Perhaps your suggestion does not work for me. I have read a dozen of post at the threads you linked and they seem illogical. For example, pope Gregory was not against the idea of the see Rome supreme, but of a bishop by himself at the exclusion of any at all. He was against their being only one bishop period.

And most of the others I read didnt contribute anything meaningful. They just try to spin words that clearly say what they say.  ???
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 04, 2008, 02:41:03 AM
Wow, a whole dozen posts out of 1400+.  ::)
Seems you just want to spout off here and not 'talk' at all if you won't read what we've done here before. And those two tagged lines are but two of many more relating to this topic.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 04, 2008, 02:52:17 AM
Wow, a whole dozen posts out of 1400+.  ::)
Seems you just want to spout off here and not 'talk' at all if you won't read what we've done here before. And those two tagged lines are but two of many more relating to this topic.

I just read 30 more and cant make sense of any of it. The standard response from the OC bilos down to this after reading a lot of old post:

The see of Rome was special until it went heretical.

And then when it is pointed out to from history that the fathers state that this could not happen, you end up saying:

Well, they were wrong.

This is how a great deal of post end up. But there is no denying that there was an abundant amount of people in the early church thought that the See of Rome would never venture from leading the church in orthodoxy.

It seems clear that for whatever reason, there is a chasim between the OC and RC. When I read your responses to these quotes, I see bizarre post. I am sure when you read mine, you think the same. So there we are.

I think St Maximus is not hard to understand here:

For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Perhaps the OC can stomach these evidences...I cant.


Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 04, 2008, 02:55:57 AM
Wow, a whole dozen posts out of 1400+.  ::)
Seems you just want to spout off here and not 'talk' at all if you won't read what we've done here before. And those two tagged lines are but two of many more relating to this topic.

At this point I want to tone it down and just ask for the OC views of certain episodes that seem to support the RC views. I have no intention to ask you guys for responses to early church father sayings. I'll let that case rest. Thanks for motivating me to learn.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 04, 2008, 03:02:00 AM
At this point I want to tone it down and just ask for the OC views of certain episodes that seem to support the RC views. I have no intention to ask you guys for responses to early church father sayings. I'll let that case rest. Thanks for motivating me to learn.

Fair enough.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 05, 2008, 09:47:42 PM
Fair enough.

It has occured to me that it really doesnt matter what I bring up, you'll just say that they or whoever was wrong...period. So first, I should ask, under what condition could your mind be changed regarding your opinions? Because I get the feeling that nothing would. And this question goes to everyone here.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 05, 2008, 10:06:38 PM
I just read 30 more and cant make sense of any of it. The standard response from the OC bilos down to this after reading a lot of old post:

The see of Rome was special until it went heretical.

And then when it is pointed out to from history that the fathers state that this could not happen, you end up saying:

Well, they were wrong.

This is how a great deal of post end up. But there is no denying that there was an abundant amount of people in the early church thought that the See of Rome would never venture from leading the church in orthodoxy.

It seems clear that for whatever reason, there is a chasim between the OC and RC. When I read your responses to these quotes, I see bizarre post. I am sure when you read mine, you think the same. So there we are.

I think St Maximus is not hard to understand here:

For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to pursuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Perhaps the OC can stomach these evidences...I cant.




Then perhaps you can stomach what the Fathers of the Sixth Council said, in anathematizing a pope of Rome, with the approval of the Pope of Rome.

Now Maximus might have jumped to Honorius' defense, but the Fathers rejected that.  And their word was accepte by the universal Church.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 05, 2008, 10:12:50 PM
My main question now is what would change your mind? If everything can be explained away, how could you guys ever alter your opinions. This seems like a critical question. Why were so many people confused, like St Maximos?...if your position was so clear in the early church by easterners?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 05, 2008, 10:20:54 PM
Then perhaps you can stomach what the Fathers of the Sixth Council said, in anathematizing a pope of Rome, with the approval of the Pope of Rome.

Now Maximus might have jumped to Honorius' defense, but the Fathers rejected that.  And their word was accepte by the universal Church.

It is a very common error, even when it is pointed out to the Orthodox church members, that they think that the  pope by himself is infallible. But this is not what the see of Rome teaches. You are setting up a straw man. Only when the pope teaches along side the see of Rome about morals etc is when he is speaking infallibly. Okay?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 05, 2008, 10:57:40 PM
It is a very common error, even when it is pointed out to the Orthodox church members, that they think that the  pope by himself is infallible. But this is not what the see of Rome teaches. You are setting up a straw man. Only when the pope teaches along side the see of Rome about morals etc is when he is speaking infallibly. Okay?

Actually, no.

The Vatican on the one hand denies it teaches that the pontiff is infallible by himself, yet then requires assent to his decisions when he doesn't speak ex cathedra.  Such hair splitting doesn't sit well with the phronema of the Fathers.  Vatican I and II (Lumen Gentium) is clear of equating the pope with Rome.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 05, 2008, 11:06:00 PM
Actually, no.

The Vatican on the one hand denies it teaches that the pontiff is infallible by himself, yet then requires assent to his decisions when he doesn't speak ex cathedra.  Such hair splitting doesn't sit well with the phronema of the Fathers.  Vatican I and II (Lumen Gentium) is clear of equating the pope with Rome.

Why do you think this?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 06, 2008, 12:01:36 AM
Dear Truth,

The post I gave you here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12957.msg240597.html#msg240597

provided you with a quote about Alexandria being a Universal Papal See just as much as Rome is according to Pope St. Gregory.  In addition, in that post, I gave you a link to a past post that also gave Constantinople the same honor.

Now speaking as an OO, I think it would be more consistent to look into pre-Chalcedonian fathers to discuss them.  However, seeing this quote by a Chalcedonian father, compared to the quotes you give, I can't help but think of the inconsistency of the positions being held, either that or a misinterpretation.

In addition, the issue of other dogmas accepted by the Catholic Church that I find disagreeable (like the Immaculate Conception) strike me with an even more reason to not believe in the present infalliblity of the Roman Church, let alone the Pontiff.

When I find you more quotes, I will share them with you.

God bless.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 04:29:36 AM
Dear Truth,

The post I gave you here:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12957.msg240597.html#msg240597

provided you with a quote about Alexandria being a Universal Papal See just as much as Rome is according to Pope St. Gregory.  In addition, in that post, I gave you a link to a past post that also gave Constantinople the same honor.

Now speaking as an OO, I think it would be more consistent to look into pre-Chalcedonian fathers to discuss them.  However, seeing this quote by a Chalcedonian father, compared to the quotes you give, I can't help but think of the inconsistency of the positions being held, either that or a misinterpretation.

In addition, the issue of other dogmas accepted by the Catholic Church that I find disagreeable (like the Immaculate Conception) strike me with an even more reason to not believe in the present infalliblity of the Roman Church, let alone the Pontiff.

When I find you more quotes, I will share them with you.

God bless.

I have read quite a bit of your recommended threads. I have to say, I am discouraged to read on, as they seem to be saying the same thing as the others that were recommended to me:

When church fathers are brought in, the OC response is to discard any that doesnt fit their purpose. St Maximos comes up a lot, with the eastern side of the debate simply shooting him down as having only a private opinion only. This makes no sense to me. I also witness the eastern debaters here just insult when their questioned? Why?

If you have any quotes from an early father that says the following to an eastern see as the following quote refers to Rome, I'd like to see it:

St Maximos regarding the See of Rome:

...has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 06, 2008, 08:53:42 AM
I was wrong. You are not engaging in 'cut&paste' debate. You employ 'clip-cut& paste' instead.
As mentioned in the other threads- about that very same partial quote in fact, how about posting the entire letter - preferably in Greek and Latin - from a well-vetted source so debate may continue within a framework of reference historically?
Orthodox Catholics are weary of this 'Petrine Ministry' stretch (which Rome must have or its house of cards falls).
I could probably cull Abraham Lincoln's writings, speeches, and letters and "prove" he supported slavery...doesn't make it so.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 10:42:09 AM
I was wrong. You are not engaging in 'cut&paste' debate. You employ 'clip-cut& paste' instead.
As mentioned in the other threads- about that very same partial quote in fact, how about posting the entire letter - preferably in Greek and Latin - from a well-vetted source so debate may continue within a framework of reference historically?
Orthodox Catholics are weary of this 'Petrine Ministry' stretch (which Rome must have or its house of cards falls).
I could probably cull Abraham Lincoln's writings, speeches, and letters and "prove" he supported slavery...doesn't make it so.

My point is that if the church fathers thought that Rome was superior, how you can you guys blame those who think as they do? I hardly doubt any of you would condemn St Maximos? If the See of Rome is not the head of churches as St Maximos thinks, as well as the other church fathers, then apparently it is a forgivable crime, since you esteem the church fathers that think that Rome is supreme.

So how can you blame anyone who researches history and comes to the church father's conclusions? Also, I was still wondering what would change your mind?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 06, 2008, 12:23:41 PM
My point is that if the church fathers thought that Rome was superior, how you can you guys blame those who think as they do? I hardly doubt any of you would condemn St Maximos? If the See of Rome is not the head of churches as St Maximos thinks, as well as the other church fathers, then apparently it is a forgivable crime, since you esteem the church fathers that think that Rome is supreme.
And so it goes around again...
Some church fathers (maybe- big maybe) do not constitute ALL the church fathers. And you still persist in pointless repetition that your interpretation of these words, disembodied from their full sources and the circumstances of the day, are correct.
Quote
So how can you blame anyone who researches history and comes to the church father's conclusions? Also, I was still wondering what would change your mind?
Easy, you speak but don't listen to response. What would change my mind? Nothing...ever.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 06, 2008, 12:32:55 PM
 ::)
How many times do we have to go through this?
Dear 'truth',
No one is saying that Old Rome was not once first in honour among the Patriarchates. The point is that the Holy and Oecumenical 4th Synod gave equal status (isa presvia) to Constantinople, the New Rome. So when (from our perspective) the Old Rome fell into heresy, primacy of honour goes to the Patriarchate Great Church of New Rome.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 12:40:48 PM
Quote
No one is saying that Old Rome was not once first in honour among the Patriarchates.


This is not what the church father is saying. St Maximos says in fact that Rome:

...has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Why do you think Αριστοκλής is trying to interpret it differently? He knows it hurts his case. Where are the quotes that attributes any of the eastern sees with:

...has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 06, 2008, 12:43:40 PM
This is not what the church father is saying. St Maximos says in fact that about Rome

When you come up with a Church Father who says that the Bishops of Old Rome must be obeyed even when teaching heresy bareheaded and anathemised by the Church, you might have a case.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 12:45:46 PM
When you come up with a Church Father who says that the Bishops of Old Rome must be obeyed even when teaching heresy bareheaded and anathemised by the Church, you might have a case.

Again, it is not the pope by himself that must be obeyed, but the See of Rome with the pope as its head. And the same church fathers say that the See of Rome shall never be prevailed against by the gates of Hell. (by guess who?...St Maximos!)

I must add here again that a pope who has a heretical view in his private opinions in a private letter but does not openly teach it officially along side the See of Rome, does not count as the entire see being heretical. The See of Rome does not teach that the pope is perfect. (It is hard to believe how many times this has to be pointed out.) In contrast, many of the eastern sees openly and officially taught heresies.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: wynd on July 06, 2008, 12:58:03 PM
It has occured to me that it really doesnt matter what I bring up, you'll just say that they or whoever was wrong...period. So first, I should ask, under what condition could your mind be changed regarding your opinions? Because I get the feeling that nothing would. And this question goes to everyone here.

We could ask you this same thing. Did you come here to learn or to teach? Be honest with yourself.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 06, 2008, 01:01:15 PM
Again, it is not the pope by himself that must be obeyed, but the See of Rome  with the pope as its head.
Please read what I wrote above. The "Bishops of Old Rome" is plural and refers to the See of Rome- which we consider to be in heresy.

And the same church fathers say that the See of Rome shall never be prevailed against by the gates of Hell. (by guess who?...St Maximos!)
Spiffing. Here's what the 28th Canon of the Holy and Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon says (which slightly outranks St. Maximos or any other Church Father):

"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."
The Ancient Epitome of this Canon reads:
"Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVIII.
"The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honour as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople."
Source: http://www.haywardfamily.org/ccel/fathers2/npnf214/npnf2204.htm#P5349_1101598
If The See of Rome falls into heresy and divides itself off from the Church, where then does the Primacy lie?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 01:03:47 PM
We could ask you this same thing. Did you come here to learn or to teach? Be honest with yourself.

I wrote what I wrote becuase that is what I have witnessed. People here either say that St Maximos is interpreted wrong or that he was in error. The same could be said for the the other church fathers who state what St Maximos states. What do these actions indicate? That no matter what, church father will be exlpained away one way or another. So I ask you again, what would change your mind?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 06, 2008, 01:05:33 PM
what would change your mind?

Two things:
1) An Oecumenical Council which over rules the Council of Chalcedon, or
2) Old Rome renouncing it's heresies and returning to the Church.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 01:11:02 PM

What does this mean:

...should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 06, 2008, 01:22:42 PM
What does this mean:

...should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her



In Ecclesiatical matters, New Rome has the same power as Old Rome (in fact, the Canon gives her more, since only New Rome can consecrate Bishops in the Barbarian Lands), and New Rome ranks second in honour after Old Rome among the Patriarchates.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 06, 2008, 02:34:02 PM
^ and once, again, past tense.


As I suspected, shoddy scholarship coupled with proof-texting at its worst results in needless debate. St Maximus was referring to a heretical patriarch of Constantinople (Pyrrhus, accused of monotheletism) in this letter. As was proper appeal to Rome was this bishop's only recourse because he, as the bishop of Constantinople, and could not hear his own case despite that seat having authority via Chalcedon to do so otherwise.
Such rights are now held by the Patriarch of Constantinople as the popes of Rome are in schism from the Church.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 09:24:04 PM
Please read what I wrote above. The "Bishops of Old Rome" is plural and refers to the See of Rome- which we consider to be in heresy.
Spiffing. Here's what the 28th Canon of the Holy and Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon says (which slightly outranks St. Maximos or any other Church Father):

"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges (isa presbeia) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."
The Ancient Epitome of this Canon reads:
"Ancient Epitome of Canon XXVIII.
"The bishop of New Rome shall enjoy the same honour as the bishop of Old Rome, on account of the removal of the Empire. For this reason the [metropolitans] of Pontus, of Asia, and of Thrace, as well as the Barbarian bishops shall be ordained by the bishop of Constantinople."
Source: http://www.haywardfamily.org/ccel/fathers2/npnf214/npnf2204.htm#P5349_1101598
If The See of Rome falls into heresy and divides itself off from the Church, where then does the Primacy lie?


I have had to travel all day and just got time to sit at the computer.  I did a quick search on the canon you used and found the following:

Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon and in 453, Pope Leo eventually confirmed all the canons, except for 28th.

However, growing concerned that withholding his approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 453 he confirmed the council’s canons except for the controversial 28th canon.


I havent had time to read more on this, but it seems clear that the pope rejected this. I am not suprised that eastern sees wanted more primacy, and so far not sure if this makes your point. I will have to read more.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 06, 2008, 09:53:28 PM

I have had to travel all day and just got time to sit at the computer.  I did a quick search on the canon you used and found the following:

Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon and in 453, Pope Leo eventually confirmed all the canons, except for 28th.

However, growing concerned that withholding his approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 453 he confirmed the council’s canons except for the controversial 28th canon.


I havent had time to read more on this, but it seems clear that the pope rejected this. I am not suprised that eastern sees wanted more primacy, and so far not sure if this makes your point. I will have to read more.


Yes, Leo disputed the 28th canon.

And the rest of the Church igonred him.  Even he had to complain in his letters that the bishops of Thessalonika, hereto under Rome, had accepted the 28th canon.  And of course, 8 centuries later Rome confirmed the 28th canon, after she had sacked Constantinople and put a Latin on her throne.

Btw, confirming the council's canons (except 28) included the 17th:
Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years.  But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province.  And if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid.  And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 09:54:46 PM
Also found this at New Advent:

Similar letters were written to Pope Leo in December by Emperor Marcian and Anatolius of Constantinople. In reply Pope Leo protested most energetically against canon xxviii and declared it null and void as being against the prerogatives of Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and against the decrees of the Council of Nicaea. Like protests were contained in the letters written 22 May, 452, to Emperor Marcian, Empress Pulcheria, and Anatolius of Constantinople. Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith. This approval was contained in letters written 21 March, 453, to the bishops who took part in the council; hence the Council of Chalcedon, at least as to the first six sessions, became an ecumenical synod, and was considered as such by all Christians, both in the time of Poe Leo and after him.

Funny enough, I found the following at a thread recommeded to me a post ago. It is a reply to the same claim as yours:

Even the Byzantines at Chalcedon never attempted to accord Constantinople equality with Rome, as evinced by its 28th Canon which says New Rome "should be second after her [Old Rome]"  "Second after" does not equal the "equality" which you claim the Empire offered.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 10:04:20 PM
Yes, Leo disputed the 28th canon.

And the rest of the Church igonred him.  Even he had to complain in his letters that the bishops of Thessalonika, hereto under Rome, had accepted the 28th canon.  And of course, 8 centuries later Rome confirmed the 28th canon, after she had sacked Constantinople and put a Latin on her throne.

Btw, confirming the council's canons (except 28) included the 17th:
Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years.  But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province.  And if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid.  And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example.

I need to look into this. You do realize that the council have the Byzantines at Chalcedon never attempting to accord Constantinople equality with Rome, but only second after.

...also, we are talking about supreme authority etc. How can the council at hand be used by you if in the wording of it clearly says second after Rome??? If it is supreme and has unversial power, why did they say this?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 06, 2008, 10:20:09 PM
I have read quite a bit of your recommended threads. I have to say, I am discouraged to read on, as they seem to be saying the same thing as the others that were recommended to me:

When church fathers are brought in, the OC response is to discard any that doesnt fit their purpose. St Maximos comes up a lot, with the eastern side of the debate simply shooting him down as having only a private opinion only. This makes no sense to me. I also witness the eastern debaters here just insult when their questioned? Why?

If you have any quotes from an early father that says the following to an eastern see as the following quote refers to Rome, I'd like to see it:

St Maximos regarding the See of Rome:

...has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Dear Truth,

I think I personally have answered your question on how you can change my mind.  First there has to be consistency, and according to Pope St. Gregory, it is inconsistent with the quote by St. Maximus.  Now, the quote you give does seem to support Roman supremacy, but then again, I can't judge since I haven't studied it.  However, it seems to me that the EO's have interpreted it as something else.  From what I know, St. Maximus defended a Pope who with him condemned Monotheletism and suffered with him for it, the very same heresy that the Patriarch of New Rome was endorsing.

Second reason for changing my mind is to convince me on the dogmas Rome accepted.  Tell me this truth, if Rome, not just the Pope, but all of Rome apparently started to teach a dogma that you feel is heretical, do you still feel Rome is supreme?

God bless.

PS  In today's society, is it really necessary to claim Rome as number one?  Is it really something Christ wanted us to argue over.  Of what dogmatic importance is it to argue who is first and who is second?  "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 25:26-28) "If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." (Mark 9:34)  It is because of this selfish need to find out who is first that is one of the reasons for the schisms we have today.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 06, 2008, 11:54:46 PM
Dear Truth,

I think I personally have answered your question on how you can change my mind.  First there has to be consistency, and according to Pope St. Gregory, it is inconsistent with the quote by St. Maximus.  Now, the quote you give does seem to support Roman supremacy, but then again, I can't judge since I haven't studied it.  However, it seems to me that the EO's have interpreted it as something else.  From what I know, St. Maximus defended a Pope who with him condemned Monotheletism and suffered with him for it, the very same heresy that the Patriarch of New Rome was endorsing.

Second reason for changing my mind is to convince me on the dogmas Rome accepted.  Tell me this truth, if Rome, not just the Pope, but all of Rome apparently started to teach a dogma that you feel is heretical, do you still feel Rome is supreme?

God bless.

PS  In today's society, is it really necessary to claim Rome as number one?  Is it really something Christ wanted us to argue over.  Of what dogmatic importance is it to argue who is first and who is second?  "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave—just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many." (Matthew 25:26-28) "If anyone desires to be first, he shall be last of all and servant of all." (Mark 9:34)  It is because of this selfish need to find out who is first that is one of the reasons for the schisms we have today.

Well, I certainly dont think that RCs are holier than OCs because they are RCs. So I agree with your PS.

IMOP, the problems from the east is due preciesly because they wanted more power, or to be first. Since Rome always had primacy, it never had to seek it. IMOP, the 1054 schism happened not from thoelogical differences between the OC and RC (because the east knew of the See of Rome's idea of herself supreme, as well Rome's endorsement of the filioque as described by St Augustine). Rather it happened for geopolitical reasons.

Quote
...but all of Rome apparently started to teach a dogma that you feel is heretical, do you still feel Rome is supreme?

Interesting scenario. It is a point in fact that Eastern Sees did preciesly this, whereas I have not heard of a justifiable case against the See of Rome. So yes, if the See of Rome taught something like worship satan and steal when no one is looking, I would cease to be a RC. If the RC said that Jesus never died and came back to life, I would cease to be a RC etc.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 07, 2008, 12:04:09 AM
Interesting scenario. It is a point in fact that Eastern Sees did preciesly this, whereas I have not heard of a justifiable case against the See of Rome.
The Eastern Sees did no such thing.
Rome "excommunicated" the East. Please recall who enetered whose Basilica and slapped down a writ of excommunication.
This act created a schism, with Rome believing it was the Church. In fact, to cause a schism is even worse than heresy.
Rome cut itself off from the Church with this act.

So yes, if the See of Rome taught something like worship satan and steal when no one is looking, I would cease to be a RC. If the RC said that Jesus never died and came back to life, I would cease to be a RC etc.
Fine. But this is simply moving the goal post. For us, it is enough that Rome changed the doctrine of the Trinity we received from the Fathers of the first Oecumenical Councils- an act forbidden by these and subsequent Oecumenical Councils.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 07, 2008, 12:16:42 AM
The Eastern Sees did no such thing.
Rome "excommunicated" the East. Please recall who enetered whose Basilica and slapped down a writ of excommunication.
This act created a schism, with Rome believing it was the Church. In fact, to cause a schism is even worse than heresy.
Rome cut itself off from the Church with this act.
Fine. But this is simply moving the goal post. For us, it is enough that Rome changed the doctrine of the Trinity we received from the Fathers of the first Oecumenical Councils- an act forbidden by these and subsequent Oecumenical Councils.


The hersies I was talking about was Arianism etc, which happened in the early church. The east fell into many heresies.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 07, 2008, 12:20:13 AM
The hersies I was talking about was Arianism etc, which happened in the early church. The east fell into many heresies.

Examples???
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 07, 2008, 12:27:18 AM
The hersies I was talking about was Arianism etc, which happened in the early church.
??? Are you solely crediting Old Rome with correcting this? You have to be kidding!

The east fell into many heresies.
And, thanks be to God, She climbed out of them. You've held the Filioque for over a Millenium. :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 07, 2008, 12:50:19 AM
Quote
Are you solely crediting Old Rome with correcting this?


No.


Quote
You have to be kidding!
And, thanks be to God, She climbed out of them. You've held the Filioque for over a Millenium. :)

Actually more than a millenium, since the early church (remember Augustine?)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 07, 2008, 12:56:52 AM
Examples???

Okay, I'll give you some. I actually took this list from a thread that was recommended to me in a post above:

Are you familiar with the Arian crisis?  Constantinople 55 years out of Communion.
Acacian schism?  35 years.
Monotheletism. 41 years.
Iconoclasm.  61 years.

And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?  Who on the heretical?


On a side note, I have no idea why the said threads were recommended to me. They certainly hurt someone's case.



Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 07, 2008, 01:11:19 AM
Okay, I'll give you some. I actually took this list from a thread that was recommended to me in a post above:

<snip>

List any Eastern heresies occurring during the 2nd or 3rd Millennia because all the cited 1st Millennia examples (snipped to preserve bandwidth) were resolved?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 07, 2008, 02:40:34 AM
And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?  Who on the heretical?[/b][/i]
Your facts are not right, but be that as it may, "was" is past tense. Nestorios was Patriarch of Constantinople, just as Honorius was Pope of Old Rome, but both were anathematised as heretics by the Church. What does this prove other than the fact that heretics have sat on both the throne of Old Rome and the throne of The City?
To make your question relevant, you need to ask:
"And who, incidentally, is on the Orthodox side now?  Who on the heretical?"
Who changed the Creed of Our Fathers? Who introduced strange doctrines alien to Christianity and persists in them to this day despite the rebuke of Illumined Fathers like St. Photios, St. Gregory Palamas and St Mark Evgenikos?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 07, 2008, 08:10:57 AM
I see. Well, what I was getting at is that many factors played a role to make it look like the See of Rome was superior to any eastern see. Can you blame people who research and find the many evidences of this and believe in it?

Then it would not Jive with the historical records that do not indicate Universal Jurisdiction by the Pope.

Okay, I'll try to show an example in the early church of the See of Rome acting as if it had Universal Jurisdiction. Keep in mind that the pope is not claimed to have Universal Jurisdiction, but the pope working with the See of Rome.

Easy.  Pope Victor, tried to impose the Roman paschalion on everyone, and got rebuked by the Church, including by St. Iranaeus, his own suffergan.  Btw, the paschalion adopted by the Universal Church was that of the Pope-of Alexandria!
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 07, 2008, 08:20:53 AM
I need to look into this. You do realize that the council have the Byzantines at Chalcedon never attempting to accord Constantinople equality with Rome, but only second after.

...also, we are talking about supreme authority etc. How can the council at hand be used by you if in the wording of it clearly says second after Rome??? If it is supreme and has unversial power, why did they say this?

Easy.  Second, that means Rome is first, Alexandria third, Antioch fourth.

Second.  That means that Rome is not sole, and therefore accountable to the other four of the pentarchy.

Second.  That means when number one removes herself from the pentarchy, number two fulfills the role of number one.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 07, 2008, 08:28:47 AM
Side note: Rome accepted Chalcedon Canon 28 in 1205 - after establishing their puppet Latin Patriarchate at Constantinople. Figures...
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 07, 2008, 08:47:01 AM
Okay, I'll give you some. I actually took this list from a thread that was recommended to me in a post above:

Are you familiar with the Arian crisis?  Constantinople 55 years out of Communion.

Afraid you outdid yourself here.  Yes New Rome was out of communion with old Rome for some time, including the time that St. Gregory the theologian and St. Nectarius were on her throne.  The second Ecumenical council was convened and run by those not in communion with Old Rome, including St. Meltius, patriarch of Antioch, whom Old Rome, through Jerome, had appointed and supported a rival (btw, the second council had the most of any in number of glorified/canonized saints).  All three (and the defunct fourth) of Rome's clamaints for the throne of Antioch trace their succession through St. Meletius, and not Rome's man.

Quote
Acacian schism?  35 years.

Ah yes, "solved" by the confession of Hormisdas.  Only problem was that only the bishops whom the emperor strong armed would sign it: Pope Hormisdas told the emperor to use force to get all the Eastern bishops to sign (seems Rome is inconsistent about caesaropapism).  Patriarch John of Constantinople signed only after adding a preamble which stated the equality of New Rome with Old Rome.  Rome's bishop of Thessalonica tore the document in two.  Actually, the schism was solved by the faithful forcing in on the new Chalcedonian emperors Justin and Justinian.

Quote
Monotheletism. 41 years.


As Pope Honorius adhered to it, how was New and Old Rome out of communion?  And the Maronites?  The only surviving Monothelites ended up with Rome.

Quote
Iconoclasm.  61 years.

The councilf of Frankfurt condemened the Seventh Council (and insisted on the Filioque).

Quote
And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?
 

The Orthodox bishops of the East, of which there were a number.

Quote
Who on the heretical?[/b][/i]

Who indeed.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 07, 2008, 08:49:15 AM
List any Eastern heresies occurring during the 2nd or 3rd Millennia because all the cited 1st Millennia examples (snipped to preserve bandwidth) were resolved?

Don't know if we can say resolved, since they cropped up again in the West during the 2nd and 3rd millenia.  Some people can't learn from others mistakes.  They have also repeated the Western heresies, e.g. Pelagianism.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: LBK on July 07, 2008, 11:05:33 AM
Iconoclasm.  61 years.

And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?  Who on the heretical?[/b][/i]

Sts Theodore of the Studion, John of Damascus, Kassiane the Hymnographer, Stephen the New, to name but a few. Were any of these from the Roman side?  :P

Of all heresies mentioned by "truth", iconoclasm is the most ironic, as Rome effectively ignored most of the rulings on iconography from the Quinisext and Seventh Ecumenical Councils, including the proscribing of statues for veneration.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 07, 2008, 11:31:40 AM
List any Eastern heresies occurring during the 2nd or 3rd Millennia because all the cited 1st Millennia examples (snipped to preserve bandwidth) were resolved?

Why? I was refering to how the early Roman church was perceived by early church fathers etc. If I have the wrong views of Rome, my main point is that I am in very good company historically speaking. You would have to blame many of the early great thinkers for the supposed confusion as well. If Rome was not supreme, why all of the quotes like St Maximos'? You can respond saying they had those views because they were all dumb etc, which is what you are indirectly saying, and so in that case, I'd be happy to be called dumb by you guys too.  ;D
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 07, 2008, 11:41:12 AM
Why? I was refering to how the early Roman church was perceived by early church fathers etc. If I have the wrong views of Rome, my main point is that I am in very good company historically speaking. You would have to blame many of the early great thinkers for the supposed confusion as well. If Rome was not supreme, why all of the quotes like St Maximos'? You can answer because they were all dumb etc, which is what you are indirectly saying, so in that case, I'd be happy to be called dumb by you guys too.  ;D


Such early great thinkers didn't have our benefit of hindsight. ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 07, 2008, 11:46:32 AM
A pope can have heretical views in his personal opinion. What is safeguarded by the papal infallibility in when the pope is teaching alongside the see of Rome.

The difference between the eastern heresies were that the entire sees were heretical. Big difference.

So when I read which side the heresies were on, as well as the testimonies from the likes of St Maximos regarding the suprimacy of the See of Rome, can you really blame me for coming to the conclusions of the RCC?

I know none of you agree, but my main point is maybe instilling in you some kind of understanding on how someone researching history can end up converting to RC.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 07, 2008, 12:13:51 PM
A pope can have heretical views in his personal opinion. What is safeguarded by the papal infallibility in when the pope is teaching alongside the see of Rome.

This argument put forth by various Roman Catholic apologists has always struck me as the most absurd.

Edited to insert more charitable terminology.  -- Friul
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 07, 2008, 02:00:56 PM
A pope can have heretical views in his personal opinion. What is safeguarded by the papal infallibility in when the pope is teaching alongside the see of Rome.

The difference between the eastern heresies were that the entire sees were heretical. Big difference.

So when I read which side the heresies were on, as well as the testimonies from the likes of St Maximos regarding the suprimacy of the See of Rome, can you really blame me for coming to the conclusions of the RCC?

I know none of you agree, but my main point is maybe instilling in you some kind of understanding on how someone researching history can end up converting to RC.

Now you really have blundered.  The entire sees were heretical?  Constantinople under St. Gregory?  Alexandria under St. Athanasius?  Jerusalem under St. Sophronius.  Puh-leeese!

You are making a distinction the Vatican does not make between the pope and Rome.  This idea of "teaching alongside Rome" is decidedly against Lumen Gentium, for instance, Lumen Gentium's addendum to make this clear:
The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 07, 2008, 03:58:29 PM
The difference between the eastern heresies were that the entire sees were heretical. Big difference.

Why is it that you feel the entire sees were heretical?  Do they hold the same heresies today?  The heresies you listed are interesting, since I find no trace of them in the church of today.  By your logic, one can hold Rome accountable of the stupidity behind the Crusades, the age of the serfs, the corruptions that went on, the taking of money for the forgiveness of sins, etc.  All of Rome seemed to be under that spell until the Reformation seemed to wake Rome up a little.

The entire see?  This is obviously false.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: buzuxi on July 07, 2008, 05:02:53 PM
Well the entire See of Rome is heretical today with the heresy of Fillioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception,. Papal Infallibility, Merits of Saints, Anullments, etc etc etc etc
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 07, 2008, 08:29:49 PM
Now you really have blundered.  The entire sees were heretical?  Constantinople under St. Gregory?  Alexandria under St. Athanasius?  Jerusalem under St. Sophronius.  Puh-leeese!

You are making a distinction the Vatican does not make between the pope and Rome.  This idea of "teaching alongside Rome" is decidedly against Lumen Gentium, for instance, Lumen Gentium's addendum to make this clear:
The documents of recent Pontiffs regarding the jurisdiction of bishops must be interpreted in terms of this necessary determination of powers.

3. The College, which does not exist without the head, is said "to exist also as the subject of supreme and full power in the universal Church." This must be admitted of necessity so that the fullness of power belonging to the Roman Pontiff is not called into question. For the College, always and of necessity, includes its head, because in the college he preserves unhindered his function as Christ's Vicar and as Pastor of the universal Church. In other words, it is not a distinction between the Roman Pontiff and the bishops taken collectively, but a distinction between the Roman Pontiff taken separately and the Roman Pontiff together with the bishops. Since the Supreme Pontiff is head of the College, he alone is able to perform certain actions which are not at all within the competence of the bishops, e.g., convoking the College and directing it, approving norms of action, etc. Cf. Modus 81. It is up to the judgment of the Supreme Pontiff, to whose care Christ's whole flock has been entrusted, to determine, according to the needs of the Church as they change over the course of centuries, the way in which this care may best be exercised-whether in a personal or a collegial way. The Roman Pontiff, taking account of the Church's welfare, proceeds according to his own discretion in arranging, promoting and approving the exercise of collegial activity.


I think you make a good point. Thanks.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 07, 2008, 08:33:21 PM
Well the entire See of Rome is heretical today with the heresy of Fillioque, Purgatory, Immaculate Conception,. Papal Infallibility, Merits of Saints, Anullments, etc etc etc etc

Heretical says you. Thats the problem. It comes down to who has the authority. As pointed out, the early church as well as say St Maximos, thought Rome did.

My question to you is how can you blame an honest researcher for converting to RC, given the cloud of witnesses?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 07, 2008, 08:37:49 PM
Quote
Why is it that you feel the entire sees were heretical? 


Well, because they were. They came back from heresy, which must mean that they left right? I thought this was common knowledge?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 07, 2008, 09:26:45 PM
Heretical says you. Thats the problem. It comes down to who has the authority. As pointed out, the early church as well as say St Maximos, thought Rome did.

My question to you is how can you blame an honest researcher for converting to RC, given the cloud of witnesses?

Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said: The Seventh Council, with the approval of two Popes of Rome, anathematized another Pope of Rome, whom St. Maximos had defended. Here we don't even have to get into the question of Pope versus Council: both Popes during the council approved of the Council's decision.

As for the Cloud of Witnesses, the Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of the most saints of any of the Seven (or I think any the Vatican had) were assembled out of communion with Rome: St. Meltios of Antioch opened the council. Rome had appointed a replacement for him (although Rome's present claimants all claim succession through St. Meletios).  St. Gregory Nazianzus, also out of communion.  Ss. Flavian and Nectarius, successors elected at the Council of these two, etc. etc. etc.  St. John Chrysostom lived most of his life out of communion with Rome.  The list goes on.  And this council wrote the Creed we say, and you did until Spain meddled with it.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 07, 2008, 11:51:01 PM
Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said: The Seventh Council, with the approval of two Popes of Rome, anathematized another Pope of Rome, whom St. Maximos had defended. Here we don't even have to get into the question of Pope versus Council: both Popes during the council approved of the Council's decision.

As for the Cloud of Witnesses, the Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of the most saints of any of the Seven (or I think any the Vatican had) were assembled out of communion with Rome: St. Meltios of Antioch opened the council. Rome had appointed a replacement for him (although Rome's present claimants all claim succession through St. Meletios).  St. Gregory Nazianzus, also out of communion.  Ss. Flavian and Nectarius, successors elected at the Council of these two, etc. etc. etc.  St. John Chrysostom lived most of his life out of communion with Rome.  The list goes on.  And this council wrote the Creed we say, and you did until Spain meddled with it.

You forgot to mention the name of the pope that was hererical. And remember, I dont want to be redundant either, but remember, was he heretical for openly teaching the heresy by the See of Rome?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 08, 2008, 12:12:23 AM
You forgot to mention the name of the pope that was hererical. And remember, I dont want to be redundant either, but remember, was he heretical for openly teaching the heresy by the See of Rome?

He was heretical for embracing heresy...  ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 12:35:15 AM
Not to be redundant, but to repeat what I have already said: The Seventh Council, with the approval of two Popes of Rome, anathematized another Pope of Rome, whom St. Maximos had defended. Here we don't even have to get into the question of Pope versus Council: both Popes during the council approved of the Council's decision.

As for the Cloud of Witnesses, the Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of the most saints of any of the Seven (or I think any the Vatican had) were assembled out of communion with Rome: St. Meltios of Antioch opened the council. Rome had appointed a replacement for him (although Rome's present claimants all claim succession through St. Meletios).  St. Gregory Nazianzus, also out of communion.  Ss. Flavian and Nectarius, successors elected at the Council of these two, etc. etc. etc.  St. John Chrysostom lived most of his life out of communion with Rome.  The list goes on.  And this council wrote the Creed we say, and you did until Spain meddled with it.

If you were talking about POPE HONORIUS, then:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp

Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius' letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

In his two letters Sergius warned that teaching two wills in Christ would lead to the idea that the human will of the Son of God was opposed to that of his Father. He advised the Pope that it was better to speak of only one will in our Lord. Sergius was trying a little sleight of hand: He was attempting to deny the existence of Christ's human will by pointing out that our Lord never opposed the Father. Yet if two persons agree, they may be spoken of as being of "one will" this doesn't mean, of course, that one of them has no will at all.

The Pope, with no idea of Sergius' between-the-lines message, answered the Patriarch on the unthinkable subject of Christ's "opposition" to the Father. "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ, since our (human) nature was plainly assumed by the Godhead, and this being faultless, as it was before the Fall." [Quoted in Charles Joseph Hefele, A History of the Councils of the Church, vol. 5 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896; AMS Reprint, 1972), 29]. Since Christ's human will is "faultless," there can be no talk of opposing wills. (Christ hardly would have been faultless if he opposed his Father's will.)

Monothelites, as they grew in numbers and influence over the ensuing years, seized upon Honorius' confession of "one will of our Lord Jesus Christ" as confirmation that the Pope believed with them that Christ had no human will. Newman and other commentators have noted that Honorius' letters to Sergius are not doctrinal definitions ex cathedra; thus they are outside the scope of infallibility defined by the First Vatican Council.

That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius' exact words shows that while he did use a formula--"one will"--that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.

This was picked up as early as 640 by Pope John IV, Honorius' successor, who pointed out that Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says Pope John, "only of the human and not also of the divine nature." Pope John was right. Honorius assumed the existence of a human will in Christ by saying that his nature is like humanity's before the Fall. No one would claim that before the Fall Adam had no will. Thus Honorius's speaking of Christ's assumption of a "faultless" human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement.

The Third Council of Constantinople was thus in error when it condemned Honorius for heresy. But a Council, of course, has no authority except insofar as its decrees are confirmed by the pope. The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because "he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted." [Carroll, 254]

This is a crucial distinction. Honorius probably should have known the implications of using the "one will" formula; he could have found out by writing a letter to Sophronius of Jerusalem. But he was no heretic.

The anti-papists got the wrong guy. It seems incredible that so many readers of Honorius's letters, from Patriarch Sergius to Hans Kng, see only what they want to see in Honorius's "one will" formula. We should thank God that this poor old pope saw fit to explain himself. Rarely outside of the homoousios/homoiousios controversy at the First Council of Nicaea has so much hinged on so few words.

Since this case seemed to be the best one the anti-infallibilists could turn to, I became an infallibilist, a Catholic with faith in the pope as the Vicar of Christ and successor of St. Peter. The Church will live beyond the trials of these days as it did those of Honorius's day. That bare fact may seem abstract and impenetrable in the convulsions of our age, yet it is our unshakable guarantee.


If not, then who?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 12:44:59 AM
He was heretical for embracing heresy...  ;)

Who?...if Honorius, well, he was condemned because of what was found in a private letter. If he was openly teaching it, you'd have a point. This is far from what the eastern sees were caught for.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 12:58:12 AM
Quote
And this council wrote the Creed we say, and you did until Spain meddled with it.

By the way, the creed was meddled with by you guys as well, if you want to use that phraseology.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 08, 2008, 12:58:31 AM
Who?...if Honorius, well, he was condemned because of what was found in a private letter. If he was openly teaching it, you'd have a point. This is far from what the eastern sees were caught for.

So let me get this straight... you're basically saying that you're ok with one of your popes being a 'closet' Heretic?  If so... makes one wonder how many other of your popes were also closet heretics who managed to keep their private letters, and the heresy espoused therein, private.  ::)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 01:07:04 AM
So let me get this straight... you're basically saying that you're ok with one of your popes being a 'closet' Heretic?  If so... makes one wonder how many other of your popes were also closet heretics who managed to keep their private letters, and the heresy espoused therein, private.  ::)

Right...popes are not perfect. Only when teaching ex cathedra.

So you're okay with entire eastern sees openly teaching heresies?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 08, 2008, 01:11:08 AM
Right...popes are not perfect. Only when teaching ex cathedra.

So you're okay with entire eastern sees being heretical?

Umm... I could ask you the same of you - the Roman Patriarchate and it's popes have embraced and espoused heresy for the last millennium.  ::)

Good luck with your closet heretic popes (for your sake and a billion other Roman Catholics, let's hope they manage to stay in the closet).  ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 01:19:13 AM
Umm... I could ask you the same of you - the Roman Patriarchate and it's popes have embraced and espoused heresy for the last millennium.  ::)

Good luck with your closet heretic popes (for your sake and a billion other Roman Catholics, let's hope they manage to stay in the closet).  ;)

I think your missing the point:

Fautling one pope's personal views found in a private letter while ignoring the major eastern heresies, which openly taught the heresies publiclly, is a little lobsided.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 01:25:14 AM
Quote
Umm... I could ask you the same of you - the Roman Patriarchate and it's popes have embraced and espoused heresy for the last millennium.

From your opinion. Rome has never been judged in heresy by an ecunmenical council.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 08, 2008, 01:33:59 AM
I think your missing the point:

Fautling one pope's personal views while ignoring the major eastern heresies, which openly taught the heresies publiclly, is a little lobsided.



Umm... odd how you have overlooked the Roman Patriarchate's millennium long record of embracing, espousing and spreading heresy. Last I checked, your church's current heresies (you know the list) are publically promulgated - nothing private about it. And lest you blithely dismiss this point, just remember that the major western heresies espoused by your pope and his followers have sown unprecedented discord and caused your church to remain outside the Faith far longer any of the eastern heresies ever did. Any of the resolved eastern heresies pale in comparison to Rome's ongoing western heresy and it's fruit.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 08, 2008, 01:37:46 AM
From your opinion. Rome has never been judged in heresy by an ecunmenical council.

You've obviously never read any of our "private letters" on the matter.   :D
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 01:43:42 AM
Umm... odd how you have overlooked the Roman Patriarchate's millennium long record of embracing, espousing and spreading heresy. Last I checked, your church's current heresies (you know the list) are publically promulgated - nothing private about it. And lest you blithely dismiss this point, just remember that the major western heresies espoused by your pope and his followers have sown unprecedented discord and caused your church to remain outside the Faith far longer any of the eastern heresies ever did. Any of the resolved eastern heresies pale in comparison to Rome's ongoing western heresy and it's fruit.

The problem with your comparison is that the west does not agree that it is in heresy, whereas every learned person knows that the eastern sees openly taught heresies. The best you guys have is a private letter from a pope??
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 01:46:41 AM
Quote
just remember that the major western heresies espoused by your pope and his followers have sown unprecedented discord


Any institution that is of great size has more problems than small ones. You guys never reached that much power, which is why you guys were limited in comparison to what you could do etc.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 08, 2008, 01:50:49 AM
Well, because they were. They came back from heresy, which must mean that they left right? I thought this was common knowledge?

The fact that they came back from heresy does not make the "whole see" heretical.  Only certain leaders were.  I think we disagree on "common" knowledge.

If this is the case, I guess we can agree that the whole see of Rome was Nestorian for accepting the Three Chapters before Justinian had to beat it out of the Pope.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 08, 2008, 01:52:26 AM
The problem with your comparison is that the west does not agree that it is in heresy, whereas every learned person knows that the eastern sees openly taught heresies. The best you guys have is a private letter from a pope??

And you miss the point that every learned person within the Church knows that the Patriarchs' of Rome have openly taught heresy for the past millennium.  Your heretical Pope Honorius was simply the first (relatively speaking) of a long line of ongoing heretical Archbishops to taint and subvert the See of Rome.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 01:59:46 AM
Quote
The fact that they came back from heresy does not make the "whole see" heretical.  Only certain leaders were.  I think we disagree on "common" knowledge.

This is denial. They were openly teaching it.

Quote
If this is the case, I guess we can agree that the whole see of Rome was Nestorian for accepting the Three Chapters before Justinian had to beat it out of the Pope.

This is not a clear case of heresy, as the eastern sees indulged in.(three chapters was never officially taught or understood for that matter etc):

The matter was further complicated by the fact that the Latins, Vigilius among them, were for the most part ignorant of Greek and therefore unable to judge the incriminated writings for themselves. Pelagius II in his third epistle to Elias, probably drawn up by St. Gregory the Great, ascribes all the trouble to this ignorance.

It was never openly taught...etc

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Three_Chapters
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 11:07:13 AM
Quote
And you miss the point that every learned person within the Church knows that the Patriarchs' of Rome have openly taught heresy for the past millennium. 


Nobody from the See of Rome does, or any other RC, which has more numbers than the OC, thinks that Rome has been heretical for the last 1000 years. How can you say every learned? On the contrary, Every learned from both the OC and RC knows that the eastern sees were heretical. Big difference.

Quote
Your heretical Pope Honorius was simply the first (relatively speaking) of a long line of ongoing heretical Archbishops to taint and subvert the See of Rome.

Again, what condemned Honorius was his view in a private letter. Rome has never taught that openly. And remember, this is all you have. Big difference. It is not even comparable. It is a serious effort of reaching.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: theistgal on July 08, 2008, 11:44:03 AM


Any institution that is of great size has more problems than small ones. You guys never reached that much power, which is why you guys were limited in comparison to what you could do etc.

Which is actually a point in *favor* of the EO - in my humble opinion as an RC.  :angel:
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 08, 2008, 03:29:46 PM


Any institution that is of great size has more problems than small ones. You guys never reached that much power, which is why you guys were limited in comparison to what you could do etc.

During your Dark Ages, while Rome was a village and overrun by pagans and Arians (it quickly died out in the East, but lived on for centuries until Constantinople stamped it out under Justinian), we were the only show in town.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 08, 2008, 06:36:09 PM


Nobody from the See of Rome does, or any other RC, which has more numbers than the OC, thinks that Rome has been heretical for the last 1000 years. How can you say every learned? On the contrary, Every learned from both the OC and RC knows that the eastern sees were heretical. Big difference.

Filioque.

Quote
Again, what condemned Honorius was his view in a private letter. Rome has never taught that openly. And remember, this is all you have. Big difference. It is not even comparable. It is a serious effort of reaching.

All we have?

Pope Vigilius was stricken from the dyptich until he condemned the Three Chapters.

Pope Zosimos dragged his feet on Pelagius: we had to send him and Jerome back West.

Pope Leo III puts the Creed without the filioque on the doors of St. Peter's and St. Paul's, and Pope Leo IX (?) sends someone to us to excommunicate us for "omitting" it.

etc.ect.ect.


[/quote]
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 08:37:21 PM
During your Dark Ages, while Rome was a village and overrun by pagans and Arians (it quickly died out in the East, but lived on for centuries until Constantinople stamped it out under Justinian), we were the only show in town.

The time being discussed was after 1000 AD. You're kinda missing the point.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 08:40:28 PM
You're missing the point. We were talking about openly teaching heresy. I know that the east have disrepected the roman popes...but thats not the issue.

The filioque is not considered heretical by the learned in the west, whereas everyone learned from the west and east agree that the eastern sees were openly teaching heresies.

Big difference.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 08, 2008, 09:47:39 PM


I just studied a bit on your council and found this:

With the passage of the 28th canon, the council fathers at Chalcedon attempted to elevate the stature of the See of Constantinople (New Rome). Originally, Constantinople was not counted among the pentarchy—that is the five patriarchal sees founded by the apostles. Nonetheless, over time, the Eastern bishops repeatedly asserted the pre-eminence of the bishop of Constantinople, although always second to the Bishop of Rome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Chalcedon

In practice, all Christians East and West addressed the papacy as the See of Peter or the Apostolic See rather than the See of the Imperial Capital because it was commonly understood that Rome's precedence comes from Peter rather than its association with Imperial authority.

There was a great deal more topics at that council than what you seem to portray, unless I got the wrong council. If I got the right council you refered to above, it seems to prove my case: that Rome was recognized as supreme. And the said council was an attempt to change that.

With the papal legates opposing the canon, Emperor Marcian and Anatolius, the patriarch of Constantinople, sought the pope's approval of the council in separate letters. Anatolius in particular defended canon 28 in his letter, but Pope Leo remained unmoved and would to withhold his support. In a later letter to the Emperor, Leo says that Anatolius should behave more modestly since he owes his enthronement to the pope's consent. Furthermore, Leo tells the Emperor that he has "abstained from annulling this ordination" because of his desire to preserve peace and unity within the Church.[4] However, growing concerned that withholding his approval would be interpreted as a rejection of the entire council, in 453 he confirmed the council’s canons except for the controversial 28th canon.

Unless I am out of my mind, Council of Chalcedon proves my point. If the east did not recognize the supremacy of Rome, why did they act as if they did?  ???

It seems to me that the above proves that the east knew of Rome's supremacy and shows them trying to legally elavate the New Rome's ranking. When it failed, schism occured. How does this support your case at all?


Ahh, you gotta love anyone who brings quotes from wikipedia into a serious debate and expects to be taken seriously.  Isn't that kinda like bringing a knife to a gun fight? :D
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 09:55:40 PM
Ahh, you gotta love anyone who brings quotes from wikipedia into a serious debate and expects to be taken seriously.  Isn't that kinda like bringing a knife to a gun fight? :D

Thanks for your rudeness.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 08, 2008, 10:09:33 PM
You're missing the point. We were talking about openly teaching heresy. I know that the east have disrepected the roman popes...but thats not the issue.

The filioque is not considered heretical by the learned in the west, whereas everyone learned from the west and east agree that the eastern sees were openly teaching heresies.

Big difference.

I think the distinction you fail to make is that in our view these "learned in the west" are heretics.  Of course Roman Catholics, learned or otherwise, are not going to see themselves and their leadership as heretical.  But then the same is true of the Mormons or any other 'church' outside the True Faith.
.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 08, 2008, 10:19:33 PM
Okay, I'll give you some. I actually took this list from a thread that was recommended to me in a post above:

Are you familiar with the Arian crisis?  Constantinople 55 years out of Communion.
Acacian schism?  35 years.
Monotheletism. 41 years.
Iconoclasm.  61 years.
The error in your logic, though, is that you equate Constantinople with the whole of the Eastern Church.  When Constantinople fell into heresy, which I will not deny, the orthodox faithful of the East separated themselves from her until she returned to the orthodox faith.

Quote
And who, incidentally, was on the Orthodox side in all these cases?
The Orthodox faithful who could still be found in the East, such as St. Maximos the Confessor.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 08, 2008, 10:28:44 PM
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Three_Chapters
Another quote from a wikipedia copycat? ::)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 08, 2008, 10:31:09 PM
Thanks for your rudeness.
You're welcome. :)  But seriously, I thought my point was just common knowledge. ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 10:51:55 PM
I think the distinction you fail to make is that in our view these "learned in the west" are heretics.  Of course Roman Catholics, learned or otherwise, are not going to see themselves and their leadership as heretical.  But then the same is true of the Mormons or any other 'church' outside the True Faith.
.

Ya, but the point is, the learned from the east and west agree that the eastern sees were heretical.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 10:53:11 PM
The error in your logic, though, is that you equate Constantinople with the whole of the Eastern Church.  When Constantinople fell into heresy, which I will not deny, the orthodox faithful of the East separated themselves from her until she returned to the orthodox faith.
The Orthodox faithful who could still be found in the East, such as St. Maximos the Confessor.

The problem with you using St Maximos is that his quotes are some of the strongest for the See of Rome's case. Especially in regard to pope Honorius. You guys seem to have missed what the Roman popes and St Maximos said regarding Honorius at the said council. No doubt to try to increase your case.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 08, 2008, 11:18:11 PM
Why? I was refering to how the early Roman church was perceived by early church fathers etc. If I have the wrong views of Rome, my main point is that I am in very good company historically speaking. You would have to blame many of the early great thinkers for the supposed confusion as well. If Rome was not supreme, why all of the quotes like St Maximos'? You can respond saying they had those views because they were all dumb etc, which is what you are indirectly saying, and so in that case, I'd be happy to be called dumb by you guys too.  ;D

The above doesn't answer the question I asked in Reply #187.   ???
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 08, 2008, 11:23:37 PM
Ya, but the point is, the learned from the east and west agree that the eastern sees were heretical.

What is your point?  You seem to be arguing from a Greek Catholic perspective where such a concept did not exist before the Great Schism in 1054.   ???
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 08, 2008, 11:30:41 PM
List any Eastern heresies occurring during the 2nd or 3rd Millennia because all the cited 1st Millennia examples (snipped to preserve bandwidth) were resolved?

Why? I dont have to explain what you call heresies in the 2nd and 3rd because I dont think they were heresies.

And if the eastern heresies were resloved, that means they were actually heretical beforehand right? Whereas there is no similiar situation regarding the See of Rome. The best you have are the instances when the east direspected popes, as well as a private letter from Honorius.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 08, 2008, 11:56:28 PM
Why?

And if they were resloved, that means they were actually heretical beforehand right? Whereas there is no similiar situation regarding the See of Rome. The best you have is the instances when the east direspected popes, as well as a private letter from Honorius.
Well, you can argue that we're wrong to say so, and you can argue that you don't see your church this way, but you cannot deny that we Orthodox deem your church to have fallen totally into heresy close to 1000 years ago and that, from our perspective, your church has never resolved this situation.  Until either we Orthodox no longer deem the RCC to have ever been heretical or the RCC recognizes her heresies and repents, this situation will remain unresolved, and your continued argument with us that Rome has never fallen into heresy will be futile.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:01:11 AM
Well, you can argue that we're wrong to say so, and you can argue that you don't see your church this way, but you cannot deny that we Orthodox deem your church to have fallen totally into heresy close to 1000 years ago and that, from our perspective, your church has never resolved this situation.  Until either we Orthodox no longer deem the RCC to have ever been heretical or the RCC recognizes her heresies and repents, this situation will remain unresolved, and your continued argument with us that Rome has never fallen into heresy will be futile.

It is not futile because my case only pertains to the early church, not the later. There is no point for the latter becasue we disagree.

Most of my posts answer the objections for the papacy. (Clarifying councils, roman popes etc.)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 12:06:03 AM
Why? I dont have to explain what you call heresies in the 2nd and 3rd because I dont think they were heresies.

I'm not talking about how the Orthodox domain sees RCs nor how do RCs see themselves; Rather, How do you see us even though RCs severed Communion in 1054?  What heresies did you see in the East in the 2nd and 3rd Millennia regardless if they were ever resolved or not?[/quote]
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:08:21 AM
I'm not talking about how the Orthodox domain sees RCs nor how do RCs see themselves; Rather, How do you see us even though RCs severed Communion in 1054?  What heresies did you see in the East in the 2nd and 3rd Millennia regardless if they were ever resolved or not?

You mean as far as teaching wrong dogma?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 12:15:01 AM
The problem with you using St Maximos is that his quotes are some of the strongest for the See of Rome's case. Especially in regard to pope Honorius.
Ho hum.  How many times have we argued over this quote before, with you and with other would-be apologists like you?  We have argued consistently that RC attempts to use St. Maximos as a defender of your position either take his quote out of context or doctor the quote to fit your arguments or isolate St. Maximos from the authoritative context of all the holy Fathers.  Yet you have done little but dodge our criticisms, accuse us of misusing his writings or of dodging the issue ourselves, and continue with the same thrust that St. Maximos has spoken truth and that we must all assent to [your interpretation of] his quote.

When will you address our criticisms head on and prove to us that you and your ilk are NOT taking an isolated quote from St. Maximos out of context?  When will you give us the whole of the corpus of St. Maximos's writings so we can read his quotes in context?  When will you provide for us a broad picture of the history of the Church during the time of St. Maximos and of the issues that St. Maximos confronted, the issues that shaped how he related to Rome and to the other patriarchates?  Can you do this for us?  Or is this going to be like asking you to go to the moon to bring us back a piece of the green cheese that makes up its surface?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 12:15:41 AM
You mean as far as teaching wrong dogma?

Wake up troll and join us in the 21st Century....  How can one lung teach a different and incorrect dogma than the other lung?

Quote
Similarly, last year the present Patriarch, Bartholomew, publicly hailed Pope John Paul II as a "brother Patriarch" and, using the Pope's own imagery, spoke of Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism as "the two lungs of the Body of Christ." This, Bartholomew proclaimed, is a fundamental ecclesiological truth"!

Source for above quote. (http://www.roca.org/OA/132/132m.htm)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:18:05 AM
Ho hum.  How many times have we argued over this quote before, with you and with other would-be apologists like you?  We have argued consistently that RC attempts to use St. Maximos as a defender of your position either take his quote out of context or doctor the quote to fit your arguments or isolate St. Maximos from the authoritative context of all the holy Fathers.  Yet you have done little but dodge our criticisms, accuse us of misusing his writings or of dodging the issue ourselves, and continue with the same thrust that St. Maximos has spoken truth and that we must all assent to [your interpretation of] his quote.

When will you address our criticisms head on and prove to us that you and your ilk are NOT taking an isolated quote from St. Maximos out of context?  When will you give us the whole of the corpus of St. Maximos's writings so we can read his quotes in context?  When will you provide for us a broad picture of the history of the Church during the time of St. Maximos and of the issues that St. Maximos confronted, the issues that shaped how he related to Rome and to the other patriarchates?  Can you do this for us?  Or is this going to be like asking you to go to the moon to bring us back a piece of the green cheese that makes up its surface?

I am sure most here know the story of the eastern sees persecuting St Maximos, and how he sought the See of Rome for help. Thats it in a nutshell.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:18:49 AM
Wake up troll and join us in the 21st Century....  How can one lung teach a different and incorrect dogma than the other lung?

Source for above quote. (http://www.roca.org/OA/132/132m.htm)

Why insult me?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 12:19:39 AM
It is not futile because my case only pertains to the early church, not the later.
And yet you're pinning your adherence to papal supremacy as it is defined today on the supposed precedent of the early church, which makes our accusation that the RCC fell into heresy in the 2nd Millennium totally relevant to any discussion of how the Eastern churches fell into heresy in the 1st.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 12:21:40 AM
Why insult me?

Not an insult, just the truth - you made your point perfectly clear when you said that the Eastern Churches have taught the wrong dogma while the Ecumenical Patriarch has repeatedly said that the Roman Catholicism is the other Lung of World Christianity.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:24:50 AM
And yet you're pinning your adherence to papal supremacy as it is defined today on the supposed precedent of the early church, which makes our accusation that the RCC fell into heresy in the 2nd Millennium totally relevant to any discussion of how the Eastern churches fell into heresy in the 1st.

I dont understand. Everybody knows the east was heretical. Only the east for the last 1000s years think that the west in is heresy. Why do you think your point relevant?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:26:06 AM
Not an insult, just the truth - you made your point perfectly clear when you said that the Eastern Churches have taught the wrong dogma while the Ecumenical Patriarch has repeatedly said that the Roman Catholicism is the other Lung of World Christianity.

You lost me.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 09, 2008, 12:27:18 AM
Everybody knows the east was heretical.

Everybody knows the West is heretical.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 12:29:45 AM
You lost me.

Trolls are never lost.  What do you call Reply #243?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:33:36 AM
Everybody knows the West is heretical.

Not the west. You're 50% right.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 12:34:36 AM
I am sure most here know the story of the eastern sees persecuting St Maximos, and how he sought the See of Rome for help. Thats it in a nutshell.
That's when Rome was Orthodox.  Why should any Orthodox believer not have the chance to bring his case before the bishop of an Orthodox church, particularly one as prominent as Rome's was at the time?  You might also note that the theology of St. Maximos was vindicated at the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which, like most of the Ecumenical Councils, was largely comprised of Eastern bishops.

Yes, a good majority of Eastern churches did fall into heresy at various times, but you would have to think of the East as a homogeneous, monolithic community, much as the RCC defines itself, to argue from this fact that the WHOLE of the Eastern Church fell into heresy.  The joy of the decentralized authority structure of the Eastern Church is that, as long as a few of her faithful remained Orthodox, she still maintained within herself the ability to correct those of her faithful who fell into heresy; I'm sorry we cannot say this of the strongly centralized, pope-down model of church authority that you follow.  If the pope leads your church into heresy, who is there within your midst who can correct your church?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:35:22 AM
Trolls are never lost.  What do you call Reply #243?

Did you guys get an "okay" to call me a troll by the moderator or something? Why the insult? Why attempt to stear the thread along uncharitable lines?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:38:53 AM
Quote
If the pope leads your church into heresy, who is there within your midst who can correct your church?

God
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 12:39:48 AM
Trolls are never lost.  What do you call Reply #243?
Enough of the troll language, okay.  truth has engaged us in a spirited debate, but I would hardly call his actions trolling.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 12:42:03 AM
God
But how does God choose to correct your church when she does veer from the true faith?  And don't tell me that he does so through his vicar, the pope, which would then make your reasoning very circular.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:46:24 AM
But how does God choose to correct your church?  And don't tell me that he does so through his vicar, the pope, which would then make your reasoning very circular.

Interesting question. Seeing that I dont think that the church ever taught wrongly, I am not sure how I would know. I suppose ultimately the answer would have to be circular. If I were to witness Rome saying to never be holy, and in fact hurt the innocent all of the time, I would cease to be RC. As I see it, Rome is protected from such failures.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 12:47:06 AM
OK, if truth is a legit contributor, he has yet to explain how one lung of World Christianity has taught and continues to teach the wrong dogma to this very day?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 12:51:23 AM
Interesting question. Seeing that I dont think that the church ever taught wrongly, I am not sure how I would know. I suppose ultimately the answer would have to be circular. If I were to witness Rome saying to never be holy, and in fact hurt the innocent all of the time, I would cease to be RC. As I see it, Rome is protected from such failures.

How about the Inquisition or the Crusades - just one time things?  Many people suffered and died under Catholicism and no one in Rome stopped them from occurring.  However, those atrocities vanished with one apology that Pope John Paul II gave in Greece back in 2004.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:51:53 AM
But how does God choose to correct your church when she does veer from the true faith?  And don't tell me that he does so through his vicar, the pope, which would then make your reasoning very circular.

If Rome veered from faith in the past, I'd have a better answer. One of the reasons I became RC was because no such thing happened. All of the examples presented here from the OC fall short IMOP, or fail to tell the rest of the story behind their counter. For example, pope Honorius kept coming up along with the fact that the pope at the time condemned him for heresy. This is not true, as even St Maximos poiunted out. There was another case presented here relying on a canon that a poster stated was evidence that since Rome accepted the council as ecunmenical, that since the said canon was in it, then Rome agreed to it. When I researched the said canon and the council where it was found, I found Rome did except the council except for that particular canon! C'mon.

Time and time again I find the antipapist view mistaken, which reaffirms my faith in RC.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:53:47 AM
OK, if truth is a legit contributor, he has yet to explain how one lung of World Christianity has taught and continues to teach the wrong dogma to this very day?

I am sorry, I dont understand your question.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 12:54:41 AM
I am sorry, I dont understand your question.

What is it about the question that you don't understand?

Patriarch Bartholomew (who writes Patristically as an Orthodox Hierarch) said that Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy are the two lungs of World Christianity.

You said in Reply #243:

Quote from: truth
You mean as far as teaching wrong dogma?

Which leads me to my question:  How does one lung of World Christianity teaches and continues to teach the wrong dogma to this very day?

I know it's a tough question.   ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:55:34 AM
How about the Inquisition or the Crusades - just one time things?  Many people suffered and died under Catholicism and no one in Rome stopped them from occurring.  However, those atrocities vanished with one apology that Pope John Paul II gave in Greece back in 2004.

There have been sins, but not heresies in Rome. Thats the difference. A pope might make a mistake regarding worldly issues, but is protected from spiritual ones.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 12:55:59 AM
What is it about the question that you don't understand?

What are you getting at?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 12:59:46 AM
OK, if truth is a legit contributor, he has yet to explain how one lung of World Christianity has taught and continues to teach the wrong dogma to this very day?
We can appropriately take issue with the legitimacy of truth's contributions to this thread, but that's not the same thing as calling truth a troll.  By definition, to call truth a troll is to accuse truth of intentionally posting to arouse our anger, an intent that can show itself in a refusal to actually engage us in any kind of dialogue regarding his assertions.  I haven't seen this.  If anything, I have seen truth actually take us up on our encouragement to read up on us and get to know us better, particularly as regards the OO who have posted on this thread.  This is hardly trolling, IMO, so for you to continue calling truth a troll without any evidence to support your accusation is actually an ad hominem and will be treated as such by the moderator staff.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 01:07:32 AM
By definition, to call truth a troll is to accuse truth of intentionally posting to arouse our anger, an intent that can show itself in a refusal to actually engage us in any kind of dialogue.  I haven't seen this.

In all fairness, my questions have been answered with what seem to me as evasion rather than explanation or an actual answer.

If anything, I have seen truth actually take us up on our encouragement to read up on us and get to know us better, particularly as regards the OO who have posted on this thread.  This is hardly trolling, IMO, so for you to continue calling truth a troll without any evidence to support your accusation is actually an ad hominem and will be treated as such by the moderator staff.

I would never make such an accusation without understanding and respecting the consequences of making such an accusation.   :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 01:13:17 AM
For example, pope Honorius kept coming up along with the fact that the pope at the time condemned him for heresy. This is not true, as even St Maximos poiunted out.
So, Pope Honorius was condemned for being a mouse, for being too weak and afraid to assert his papal authority to do what he could to squash the rampant heresy of monotheletism.  What's the difference between this and actively teaching heresy?  Thanks to his [lack of] action, the heresy spread just as if he had taught it, and even the quote you cited from Pope Leo II made clear that this was the reason for his condemnation.

Quote
Time and time again I find the antipapist view mistaken, which reaffirms my faith in RC.
Fair enough.  At least you're honest, though I would counter that you're the mistaken one, but I don't call your honesty into question.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 01:16:50 AM
What are you getting at?

Forget it!

Edited to stay away from trouble.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 01:19:52 AM
How about describing your understanding of the question?
How about staying on topic? ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 01:22:19 AM
^ You know Peter, why didn't you say this 20 posts ago?   >:(
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 01:27:46 AM
^ You know Peter, why didn't you say this 20 posts ago?   >:(
Can't fault me for trying. :angel:
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 01:30:48 AM
Brother, truth, I apologize for calling you a troll.  I respect Roman Catholicism as one of the Lungs of World Christianity.  I ask for humble forgiveness.   :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 09, 2008, 01:33:23 AM
Can't fault me for trying. :angel:

Thank You.   :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 09, 2008, 07:41:44 AM
One of the reasons I became RC was because no such thing happened.
I think you need to own that statement. You should say: "One of the reasons I became RC was because I believe no such thing happened."

Time and time again I find the antipapist view mistaken, which reaffirms my faith in RC.
Fine. No one is permitted to proselytize you on this forum. Pay us the same respect and we'll get along just dandy. :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 09, 2008, 10:18:10 AM
The time being discussed was after 1000 AD. You're kinda missing the point.

Was there a point to miss?

You're missing the point. We were talking about openly teaching heresy. I know that the east have disrepected the roman popes...but thats not the issue.

The filioque is not considered heretical by the learned in the west, whereas everyone learned from the west and east agree that the eastern sees were openly teaching heresies.

Big difference.

The Learned of the Universal Ecumenical Seventh Council, both East and West saw no difference, and insisted on the anathema of Honorius while praising St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (one of those eastern sees).  I'm gonna go with them on this.

The second and fourth Universal Councils condemned additions to the Creed, something Pope Leo III enforced "for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith."  What the "learned" of the West think is of no consequence.

Ya, but the point is, the learned from the east and west agree that the eastern sees were heretical.

Actually, no.  We acknowledge that many fell, but you omit that then many rose to defense of the True Faith.  Case in point, the emperor and his archbishop of Constantinople might have been Arian, but St. Gregory and those who followed him in the capital (all out of communion with Rome, btw) were not.  Similarly the Faithful stuck with St. Athanasius in exile.  St. Pope Cyril helped the Faithful of Constantinople depose patriarch Nestorius.  The Iconoclasts and Monotheletes emperors had to remove many of the hierarchs (a point St. Maximus pointed out) to replace them with heretics.  Had the emperor been able to get his hands on Rome, the Pope there would have had a similar fate.  Except Pope Honorius of course, no need to replace him.

The problem with you using St Maximos is that his quotes are some of the strongest for the See of Rome's case. Especially in regard to pope Honorius. You guys seem to have missed what the Roman popes and St Maximos said regarding Honorius at the said council. No doubt to try to increase your case.

And yet the Fathers of the Council condemned Honorius, and Pope St. Leo instituted the papal oath of the Liber Diurnus, which anathematized Honorius by name.  Take it up with them, that they "missed the point."

I am sure most here know the story of the eastern sees persecuting St Maximos, and how he sought the See of Rome for help. Thats it in a nutshell.

St. Maximus had the full backing of St. Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, one of the Eastern Sees.

And yet you're pinning your adherence to papal supremacy as it is defined today on the supposed precedent of the early church, which makes our accusation that the RCC fell into heresy in the 2nd Millennium totally relevant to any discussion of how the Eastern churches fell into heresy in the 1st.

Yes, I've notice how "truth" like to be a moving target.



It means that the See of Rome never taught heresy. And as far I am concerned, if this is the best you guys have against papacy, and knowing of the major heresies taught in the east, there is no comparison. The See of Rome was always kept unsullied. This is one of the reasons why I became RC.

You haven't explained how Arianism lived on for centuries in the Roman patriarchate, whereas it quickly died in the Eastern patriarchates in less than a century.  And the Emperor Justinian in the East had to come and put an end to it.

I dont understand. Everybody knows the east was heretical. Only the east for the last 1000s years think that the west in is heresy. Why do you think your point relevant?

We have been condemning your addition to the Creed over a millenium.  The Pope of Rome did too, then changed his mind.

Interesting question. Seeing that I dont think that the church ever taught wrongly, I am not sure how I would know. I suppose ultimately the answer would have to be circular. If I were to witness Rome saying to never be holy, and in fact hurt the innocent all of the time, I would cease to be RC. As I see it, Rome is protected from such failures.

Ah, the problem of Rome contradicting herself, as Leo IX contradicts Leo III concerning the filioque.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 10:41:28 AM
Quote
So, Pope Honorius was condemned for being a mouse, for being too weak and afraid to assert his papal authority to do what he could to squash the rampant heresy of monotheletism.  What's the difference between this and actively teaching heresy? 


It means that the See of Rome never taught heresy. And as far I am concerned, if this is the best you guys have against papacy, and knowing of the major heresies taught in the east, there is no comparison. The See of Rome was always kept unsullied. This is one of the reasons why I became RC.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 10:51:06 AM
Quote
The Learned of the Universal Ecumenical Seventh Council, both East and West saw no difference, and insisted on the anathema of Honorius while praising St. Sophronius of Jerusalem (one of those eastern sees).  I'm gonna go with them on this.

I already dealt with Honorius. He never taught heresy, and was never condemned for that. He was condemned for what he wrote in a private letter. Big difference.

Quote
The second and fourth Universal Councils condemned additions to the Creed, something Pope Leo III enforced "for love and protection of the Orthodox Faith."  What the "learned" of the West think is of no consequence.

The filioque added nothing to the creed that was not already believed by the west. Besides, you guys changed it as well, and say the same thing. Again, even St Maximos accepted the fact that the filioque was not obviously heretical!

Quote
Actually, no.  We acknowledge that many fell...

We can disagree. You can go ahead and think that the eastern heresies were a very small and almost nondetectable crisis. (Althouth you admit that many fell) I am content knowing that mostly all of the OC think diferently, as well as history books. I wont bring that up with you anymore, or at least until you take the bull by the horns. 
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 09, 2008, 11:10:28 AM
I already dealt with Honorius. He never taught heresy, and was never condemned for that. He was condemned for what he wrote in a private letter. Big difference.

The letter a heresy of commission and this silence (qui tacit consentit) a heresy of omission.  So much for strenghthening the brethren (which was done by Patriarch Sophronius of Jerusalem).

Actually, the Sixth Council dealth with Honorius.

Quote
The filioque added nothing to the creed that was not already believed by the west.

As the Creed was composed in the East, with no bishop from the West, or any imput from the Pope of Rome (in fact, the Fathers at the time were not in communion with Rome at the time), what was believed by the West is irrelevant.

Quote
Besides, you guys changed it as well, and say the same thing.

 
Quote
Again, even St Maximos accepted the fact that the filioque was not obviously heretical!

No, he accepted the explanation he was given, and suggested it be dropped, as in the original Greek, it was heretical (as even your church admits, and does not allow it in the Greek). Instead, the West tried to impose it.


Quote
We can disagree. You can go ahead and think that the eastern heresies were a very small and almost nondetectable crisis. (Althouth you admit that many fell) I am content knowing that mostly all of the OC think diferently, as well as history books. I wont bring that up with you anymore, or at least until you take the bull by the horns. 

I didn't say they were small: I said they were combated and dealt with, and did not survive in the East.  They have been revived in the West, especially by the Protestants (btw, how do you explain them away?).
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 11:35:28 AM
Quote
Actually, the Sixth Council dealth with Honorius.

Right, but not the way that was first presented here. He was the way I presented here. Big difference.

Quote
I didn't say they were small: I said they were combated and dealt with, and did not survive in the East.  They have been revived in the West, especially by the Protestants (btw, how do you explain them away?).

I dont agree that the See of Rome is heretical, so we should stick to where the east and west agreed. As far as protestants, let them believe what they want.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 09, 2008, 11:48:23 AM
Right, but not the way that was first presented here. He was the way I presented here. Big difference.

Well, I guess Rome has spoken.

But not infallibly.

Quote
I dont agree that the See of Rome is heretical, so we should stick to where the east and west agreed. As far as protestants, let them believe what they want.

No, I'm afraid if you are going to bandy about our heretics, schismatics, etc., you are going to have to own up to yours.

And East and West agreed that the Creed shouldn't be tampered with, until Rome changed her mind in the 11th century.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 09, 2008, 11:50:16 AM
Right, but not the way that was first presented here. He was the way I presented here. Big difference.

I dont agree that the See of Rome is heretical, so we should stick to where the east and west agreed. As far as protestants, let them believe what they want.
.

But we know the Archbishop of Rome and the church he leads are heretical and have been for the past millennium. Not only heretical herself, the Roman Catholic Church has spawned the greatest heresy ever - that being your Protestant offspring - you know, the whole 'by their fruits' business. I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree with your views on this matter and the choices you have made.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: theistgal on July 09, 2008, 11:52:00 AM
So, Pope Honorius was condemned for being a mouse, for being too weak and afraid to assert his papal authority to do what he could to squash the rampant heresy of monotheletism.  What's the difference between this and actively teaching heresy?  Thanks to his [lack of] action, the heresy spread just as if he had taught it, and even the quote you cited from Pope Leo II made clear that this was the reason for his condemnation.

I have to thank you because I hadn't thought of this before.  But you're right - and it's even listed in the old prayer books which have lists of ways we can be materially guilty of a sin - and one of them is by "silence".

If a Pope sees a sin - such as a heresy - being committed; has the power to stop it; and doesn't - why wouldn't he be counted guilty of that same sin?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ignatius on July 09, 2008, 12:07:45 PM
I have to thank you because I hadn't thought of this before.  But you're right - and it's even listed in the old prayer books which have lists of ways we can be materially guilty of a sin - and one of them is by "silence".

If a Pope sees a sin - such as a heresy - being committed; has the power to stop it; and doesn't - why wouldn't he be counted guilty of that same sin?

Gratia et Pax Vobiscum (a little Latin doesn't hurt does it?),

On of the nine ways of being an accessary to another's sin is silentio (L: By Silence) as you've said. Perhaps he never actively taught error but by his silence he allowed it.

Lord have mercy.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: theistgal on July 09, 2008, 12:26:17 PM
Gratia et Pax Vobiscum (a little Latin doesn't hurt does it?)

Not at all - as they say, "Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua."  ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on July 09, 2008, 12:38:58 PM
This is one of the reasons why I became RC.

Hi truth,

I'm just curious.  To what Church did you belong before becoming RC?  I am just curious because I think it may help us to better understand you and where you are coming from.  Were you Protestant?  We have a lot of converts from Protestantism here.  That could be something you and other posters could have in common.  You don't have to answer my question, of course.  It's just that I am curious and I always find conversion stories interesting.   :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ignatius on July 09, 2008, 12:52:00 PM
Not at all - as they say, "Sola lingua bona est lingua mortua."  ;)

Only good language is a dead one?  :-\
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: theistgal on July 09, 2008, 02:37:21 PM
Only good language is a dead one?  :-\

Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.  ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 07:40:19 PM
Quote
Well, I guess Rome has spoken.

But not infallibly.

This is not the point. Rome's position was misrepresented. Thats the problem. This is the same problem with the filioque. It is misrepresented in order to attack it. Starw man.

Quote
No, I'm afraid if you are going to bandy about our heretics, schismatics, etc., you are going to have to own up to yours.

Not when we are talking about times when everyone agreed with who was heretical. The west does not agree that the west is heretical, or ever was. Everyone agrees that the eastern sees were heretical. See the difference?

Quote
And East and West agreed that the Creed shouldn't be tampered with, until Rome changed her mind in the 11th century.

You guys adjusted it to.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 07:43:21 PM
But we know the Archbishop of Rome and the church he leads are heretical and have been for the past millennium. Not only heretical herself, the Roman Catholic Church has spawned the greatest heresy ever - that being your Protestant offspring - you know, the whole 'by their fruits' business. I suppose we will simply have to agree to disagree with your views on this matter and the choices you have made.

Protestantism sole source is not the RC. Many of them would protest you too.

Again, I realize you think that RC is heretical. The problem is, that that falls outside of the current domain, that is: when both east and west agree as to who was in heresy.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 07:45:06 PM
I have to thank you because I hadn't thought of this before.  But you're right - and it's even listed in the old prayer books which have lists of ways we can be materially guilty of a sin - and one of them is by "silence".

If a Pope sees a sin - such as a heresy - being committed; has the power to stop it; and doesn't - why wouldn't he be counted guilty of that same sin?

Because it is different? The See of Rome and the pope are protected by God as to what it teaches, not the personal letters of the said pope. The east, on the other hand, openly taught the heresy. Big difference.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 07:46:04 PM
Hi truth,

I'm just curious.  To what Church did you belong before becoming RC?  I am just curious because I think it may help us to better understand you and where you are coming from.  Were you Protestant?  We have a lot of converts from Protestantism here.  That could be something you and other posters could have in common.  You don't have to answer my question, of course.  It's just that I am curious and I always find conversion stories interesting.   :)

I was an atheist.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Salpy on July 09, 2008, 08:03:29 PM
Well, I'm glad you are no longer an atheist.  Please don't let internet religious debates turn you back into one.  That's happened to a couple of people here because of the stupid Chalcedon debates that take place here sometimes.

I have a friend at work who was raised an atheist and then converted to Catholicism.  I remember that after her baptism she came to work glowing.  Just really literally glowing.  Nothing could wipe the peaceful smile off her face.  Some months later during Holy Week I was sitting in the lunch room griping about how busy and tired I was, partly because of all the volunteer work I always end up doing at church.  So I was griping and then I caught sight of my friend, who was glowing again.  I shut up and I congratulated her on her first Easter.

Anyway, I know everyone here, including myself, is disagreeing with you on everything.  Just don't let it get to you.  I think sometimes we have to remember that the internet is not the real world.   :)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 09, 2008, 08:14:25 PM
Thanks for your thoughtful post. I became RC after many years of studying philosophy, theology, and history. Every post directed towards me always strengthens my faith. The same thing happens on atheist disscusion boards. The post directed towards me here always miss a critical point that for whatever reason they think I wont find, or they in fact were not aware of (ie: pope honorius, filioque, particular canons etc.)


So thx for your concern. You were the OO right? I am slowly learning your history.

Thank you.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ialmisry on July 09, 2008, 09:54:45 PM
This is not the point. Rome's position was misrepresented. Thats the problem. This is the same problem with the filioque. It is misrepresented in order to attack it. Starw man.

No, it is not.  You cannot translate it with ekporeusis without committing heresy.  Even your church admits that.  And if it cannot use the words of the Fathers without causing heresy, it is exactly why the Fathers forbade fiddling with the Creed.  And that Rome changed the Creed is neither a misrepresentation nor a straw man.

Quote
Not when we are talking about times when everyone agreed with who was heretical. The west does not agree that the west is heretical, or ever was. Everyone agrees that the eastern sees were heretical. See the difference?

Again, no.  No one in the East says the Eastern Sees were heretical.  Outnumbered at times, yes.  Athanasius contra mundi.  And the West was represented, approved of and promulgatged the Sixth Council, every pope of Rome taking the oath  anathematizing Honorius on assuming the office.

Quote
You guys adjusted it to

Changed We belive to I believe. Earthshaking?

Protestantism sole source is not the RC. Many of them would protest you too.

Again, I realize you think that RC is heretical. The problem is, that that falls outside of the current domain, that is: when both east and west agree as to who was in heresy.

Yes, Honorius for starters.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 09, 2008, 10:56:33 PM
Ho hum.  How many times have we argued over this quote before, with you and with other would-be apologists like you?  We have argued consistently that RC attempts to use St. Maximos as a defender of your position either take his quote out of context or doctor the quote to fit your arguments or isolate St. Maximos from the authoritative context of all the holy Fathers.  Yet you have done little but dodge our criticisms, accuse us of misusing his writings or of dodging the issue ourselves, and continue with the same thrust that St. Maximos has spoken truth and that we must all assent to [your interpretation of] his quote.

When will you address our criticisms head on and prove to us that you and your ilk are NOT taking an isolated quote from St. Maximos out of context?  When will you give us the whole of the corpus of St. Maximos's writings so we can read his quotes in context?  When will you provide for us a broad picture of the history of the Church during the time of St. Maximos and of the issues that St. Maximos confronted, the issues that shaped how he related to Rome and to the other patriarchates?  Can you do this for us?  Or is this going to be like asking you to go to the moon to bring us back a piece of the green cheese that makes up its surface?

This is the game the RCC plays with their Protestants. They look for gotcha quotes ( Biblical with them, Writings with the Fathers with us)...  No isolated passage overturns what is clear from the historical records, especially of the Councils. Rome didn't rule over the entire Church.

If there were such convincing Patristic quotes, why then did Rome promulgate so many writings that we now know were forged? Why bother if genuine quotes and the record of events were so clear? 
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 09, 2008, 11:32:29 PM
Because it is different? The See of Rome and the pope are protected by God as to what it teaches, not the personal letters of the said pope.
And yet, it doesn't appear that God protected Pope Honorius from doing great damage to the Church through his failure or refusal to confront the spreading Monothelete heresy.

Quote
The east, on the other hand, openly taught the heresy. Big difference.
When are you going to get off this kick of blaming the WHOLE of the East for openly teaching heresy?  You've read quite a few of us admit that many churches--in fact, even the majority of churches--in the East did indeed fall into heresy quite a few times, but that many others, also in the East, resisted the various heresies and actually brought the East back to the Orthodox faith.  Thus it can be said that the East remained remarkably faithful to the doctrines of the Apostles despite the many heresies that threatened to destroy her ship from inside.  So how can you continue to say that "the [unqualified] East openly taught heresy"?  Face it, truth, the more you repeat this already tired mantra, the more you undermine the authority of your message on this thread.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 01:26:00 AM
No, it is not.  You cannot translate it with ekporeusis without committing heresy.  Even your church admits that.  And if it cannot use the words of the Fathers without causing heresy, it is exactly why the Fathers forbade fiddling with the Creed.  And that Rome changed the Creed is neither a misrepresentation nor a straw man.

Again, no.  No one in the East says the Eastern Sees were heretical.  Outnumbered at times, yes.  Athanasius contra mundi.  And the West was represented, approved of and promulgatged the Sixth Council, every pope of Rome taking the oath  anathematizing Honorius on assuming the office.

Changed We belive to I believe. Earthshaking?

Yes, Honorius for starters.

I have already answered your counters in previous posts in this thread. I dont blame you if you dont have the time to read them, so please dont blame me for not wanting to repeat myself.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 01:29:09 AM
This is the game the RCC plays with their Protestants. They look for gotcha quotes ( Biblical with them, Writings with the Fathers with us)...  No isolated passage overturns what is clear from the historical records, especially of the Councils. Rome didn't rule over the entire Church.

If there were such convincing Patristic quotes, why then did Rome promulgate so many writings that we now know were forged? Why bother if genuine quotes and the record of events were so clear? 

There were forgeries, but that does not make every quote a forgery automatically because of that. If I find a quote from you saying that you renounced something, when in fact you did not, does that then make any positive statement you had that was true to you a forgery?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 01:34:54 AM
Quote
And yet, it doesn't appear that God protected Pope Honorius from doing great damage to the Church through his failure or refusal to confront the spreading Monothelete heresy.

This is true. But then why does God let so many more evil things happen that dwarf the evil you speak of? The protection I was speaking of was wrong doctrine being taught by the See of Rome, or rather the pope. The case regarding Honorius you guys keep using fails because he was condemned of what was found in a private letter (he never taught it as pope to his see or the entire church), whereas the eastern heresies were openly taught by their popes. See the difference yet?


Quote
When are you going to get off this kick of blaming the WHOLE of the East for openly teaching heresy?

Well, they did. This is documented history that most of you admit without a fuss.

Quote
You've read quite a few of us admit that many churches--in fact, even the majority of churches--in the East


Okay, I'll just let it be agreed that the majority of eastern sees openly taught heresy in order to keep the thread from being halted. Thats fine.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 10, 2008, 02:13:59 AM
This is true. But then why does God let so many more evil things happen that dwarf the evil you speak of? The protection I was speaking of was wrong doctrine being taught by the See of Rome, or rather the pope. The case regarding Honorius you guys keep using fails because he was condemned of what was found in a private letter (he never taught it as pope to his see or the entire church), whereas the eastern heresies were openly taught by their popes. See the difference yet?
The only thing I see is that you continue to miss, or should I say dodge, the point that Honorius was not condemned solely for what he said in a private letter; he was condemned for what he did not do as Pope, which aided the spread of heresy just as much as if he had taught it himself.  In essence, Pope Honorius taught the heresy by doing nothing to combat it.  Why do you not address this point of fact?  Would doing so undermine your thesis?  Or is it just too much of an inconvenience for you?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 10, 2008, 02:16:48 AM
There were forgeries, but that does not make every quote a forgery automatically because of that.
That's not the point.  The point is that many of the quotes you use to bolster your argument with us ARE forgeries, and the use of such known forgeries destroys your position.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 02:36:25 AM
Quote
In essence, Pope Honorius taught the heresy by doing nothing to combat it.  Why do you not address this point of fact?  Would doing so undermine your thesis?  Or is it just too much of an inconvenience for you?

He did not teach the heresy.

And you're right, he could of done a lot more. He kept silent, and even in his letter said as much. I am not dodging any of this. You are wrong however in equating him keeping silent to openly teaching heresy, which is what the eastern sees did. You have to claim that they are equal because it hurts your case not to. Big difference. Not to mention according to St Maximus, that the said popes views were misundertsood. In fact, the roman popes said as much in the said council.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 02:39:21 AM
Quote
That's not the point.  The point is that many of the quotes you use to bolster your argument with us ARE forgeries...
What proof do you have that I have in fact used a forgery many times here? And the points made in the forgeries in question are substantiated elsewhere from those that are not.

The following case should really put this case to rest:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 10, 2008, 03:09:45 AM
He did not teach the heresy.

And you're right, he could of done a lot more. He kept silent, and even in his letter said as much. I am not dodging any of this. You are wrong however in equating him keeping silent to openly teaching heresy,
And yet, the end result was the same, was it not?

Quote
which is what the eastern sees did.
Again, your blanket statements of what the whole East supposedly did, and this in violation of the promise you just made a few posts ago to stop doing this.

Quote
You have to claim that they are equal because it hurts your case not to.
And yet I'm making this claim.

Quote
Big difference.
No, not really.

Quote
Not to mention according to St Maximus, that the said popes views were misundertsood. In fact, the roman popes said as much in the said council.
Again, just saying that St. Maximos said such and such don't make it so.  You have evidence to support your claim, and not just a couple of excerpts of his quotes taken out of context?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 10, 2008, 03:16:10 AM
What proof do you have that I have in fact used a forgery many times here? And the points made in the forgeries in question are substantiated elsewhere from those that are not.

The following case should really put this case to rest:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

Yes, I've read this article.  Just another Catholic apologetic (i.e., second-hand source) quoting whatever patristic or conciliar evidence supports their position--no different from what you're doing here.  It does nothing, absolutely nothing, to put this case to rest.  Now give us something really objective.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 10:55:49 AM
Quote
And yet, the end result was the same, was it not?

You are assuming that the same result would of occured. But I believe many people would not be RC today if Honorius did openly teach heresy. I would not for example. If the See of Rome and the pope are not protected from error in doctrine, why be a RC? This would of had major reprecussions. It would also make decalrations of the pope today self refuting. How can you say that it would make no difference? You only mean that it would make no difference in the numbers of converts to the said heresy. This is false too. Because announcing the said heresy officially would of convinced many to endorse it since they would of believed that it was correct doctrine. But how can you eqaute the effects of a silent teaching with an open one? How would you of been convinced if you never heard of it?...that is, unless you lived in the east? If you are saying that the number of people who would buy a product but never saw an advertisement for it, is the very same number of people who see the advertisements on TV an buy the product, then why are companies spending trillions of dollars on ads?  ???

Your case is illogical. Why do you think that the popes write encyclicals? To spread their teachings.  :-[

But in the Honorius' case, what they found were private letters that have him requesting silence. C'mon.

And keep in mind: this is the best case you have.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 10:59:32 AM
Quote
Again, just saying that St. Maximos said such and such don't make it so.  You have evidence to support your claim...

Your claim was that I used many forgeries. Please try to prove this. Or, withdraw your accusation.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ignatius on July 10, 2008, 11:17:22 AM
Vah! Denuone Latine loquebar? Me ineptum. Interdum modo elabitur.  ;)

Oh! I speak Latin another time? Inept I am. It comes out in spurts....
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: theistgal on July 10, 2008, 11:46:25 AM
Oh! I speak Latin another time? Inept I am. It comes out in spurts....

LOL - sorry, I found this rather amusing site: http://www.biopsych.net/psyhumor/latin_phrases_for_all_occasions.htm (http://www.biopsych.net/psyhumor/latin_phrases_for_all_occasions.htm) and have been cutting & pasting from it.  Mea culpa!  8)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: theistgal on July 10, 2008, 11:49:06 AM
He did not teach the heresy.

And you're right, he could of done a lot more. He kept silent, and even in his letter said as much. I am not dodging any of this. You are wrong however in equating him keeping silent to openly teaching heresy, which is what the eastern sees did. You have to claim that they are equal because it hurts your case not to. Big difference. Not to mention according to St Maximus, that the said popes views were misundertsood. In fact, the roman popes said as much in the said council.

So truth, as one RC to another, let me ask you:  how then do you respond to the fact that in all the old confessional manuals, in the lists of mortal sins, it's always specified that one of the ways of cooperating with a sin is "silence"?

Please explain why, if Pope Honorius had the authority and the opportunity to renounce the heresy, and did not, he was not himself guilty of it?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 10, 2008, 11:51:21 AM
And keep in mind: this is the best case you have.


As ialmisry stated in message #226, and which you have conveniently chosen to ignore, there is more:

Quote
All we have?

Pope Vigilius was stricken from the dyptich until he condemned the Three Chapters.

Pope Zosimos dragged his feet on Pelagius: we had to send him and Jerome back West.

Pope Leo III puts the Creed without the filioque on the doors of St. Peter's and St. Paul's, and Pope Leo IX (?) sends someone to us to excommunicate us for "omitting" it.

etc.ect.ect.
.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ignatius on July 10, 2008, 02:14:08 PM
LOL - sorry, I found this rather amusing site: http://www.biopsych.net/psyhumor/latin_phrases_for_all_occasions.htm (http://www.biopsych.net/psyhumor/latin_phrases_for_all_occasions.htm) and have been cutting & pasting from it.  Mea culpa!  8)

I just winged my translation. Not too bad if I say so myself.  :P

I greatly enjoyed the exchange. No need to feel bad. Pax!
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 10, 2008, 06:41:49 PM
There were forgeries, but that does not make every quote a forgery automatically because of that. If I find a quote from you saying that you renounced something, when in fact you did not, does that then make any positive statement you had that was true to you a forgery?

I didn't say every quote is a forgery or even that every quote is suspect. I said Rome spent lots of time producing and promoting forgeries. It's not like forged documents lauding Rome are some rare exception.  My question is, if the case for Roman Rule was really so strong, why the need for so many forgeries?

In my opinin, they were trying to rewrite history. Go figure
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 07:33:56 PM
Oh! I speak Latin another time? Inept I am. It comes out in spurts....

Why are these post which have nothing to do with the thread not posted or started elsewhere?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 07:38:25 PM
Quote
So truth, as one RC to another, let me ask you:  how then do you respond to the fact that in all the old confessional manuals, in the lists of mortal sins, it's always specified that one of the ways of cooperating with a sin is "silence"?

It was a sin. No doubt. But to never, ever sin is not what God protects his popes from doing. They still need to go to confessions etc. You're missing the point: what the roman pontif's are protected from is openly teaching heresy. Honorius did not do that. Get it? Even the said council specified this difference, which seems impossible for you guys to understand.  ???

Quote
Please explain why, if Pope Honorius had the authority and the opportunity to renounce the heresy, and did not, he was not himself guilty of it?

Okay. He was guilty of something, but not teaching it openly. Why? because he did not teach it openly.  ::)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 07:42:15 PM

As ialmisry stated in message #226, and which you have conveniently chosen to ignore, there is more:
.


I realize you have other attempte. My point was that Honorius was your best, which pales in comparison to the openly taught heresies in the east.

Again, popes are sinners. But at least they did not openly teach heresy. The east did.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 10, 2008, 07:54:50 PM
But at least they did not openly teach heresy.
Ummm... yes they did. Honorius not only taught  the heresy of monothelitism, he championed it.
Check your history.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 08:04:36 PM
I didn't say every quote is a forgery or even that every quote is suspect. I said Rome spent lots of time producing and promoting forgeries. It's not like forged documents lauding Rome are some rare exception.  My question is, if the case for Roman Rule was really so strong, why the need for so many forgeries?

In my opinin, they were trying to rewrite history. Go figure

There have been much worse crimes that forgeries. And I have already stated, whatever was in those forgeries can be found elsewhere. Why did the forgeries exist, and unlike you claim, there are not mountains of them, I'd guess because of sin. This matters not, for the point is that Rome never taught heresy. My question to you is: why has your church sinned?

The point remains: finding a forgery does not make any belief or quote that is different than yours automatically a forgery or wrong.

Quote
In my opinin, they were trying to rewrite history. Go figure


The problem with this is thats we have many quotes that you cannot pawn off as forgeries that actually have the teachings in question from the forgeries substantiated.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 08:09:12 PM
Ummm... yes they did. Honorius not only taught  the heresy of monothelitism, he championed it.
Check your history.

Well, if you want to believe that, fine. The way the east openly taught heresies is a lot different than what Honorius was blamed for. Honorius was condemned by what was found in a private letter. The letter, for heaven's sake, even says to let be in silence.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 10, 2008, 08:29:15 PM
The way the east openly taught heresies is a lot different than what Honorius was blamed for.
Oh please!
Honorius send his Deacon, Gaios, to champion monothelitism at the Synod in Cyprus.
Honorius is named and anathematized as "Honorius the heretic" by an Oecumenical Council.
I really don't care whether you want to be Roman Catholic, Animist, or Zoroastrian, but I do care about the censoring of historical facts to fit in with someone's worldview.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 08:36:05 PM
Oh please!
Honorius send his Deacon, Gaios, to champion monothelitism at the Synod in Cyprus.
Honorius is named and anathematized as "Honorius the heretic" by an Oecumenical Council.
I really don't care whether you want to be Roman Catholic, Animist, or Zoroastrian, but I do care about the censoring of historical facts to fit in with someone's worldview.

What Honorius was condemned for was a private letter; not openly teachig the heresy, as the east did. This is history, as you can look up.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 10, 2008, 08:43:25 PM
There have been much worse crimes that forgeries. And I have already stated, whatever was in those forgeries can be found elsewhere. Why did the forgeries exist, and unlike you claim, there are not mountains of them, I'd guess because of sin. This matters not, for the point is that Rome never taught heresy. My question to you is: why has your church sinned?

The point remains: finding a forgery does not make any belief or quote that is different than yours automatically a forgery or wrong.
 

The problem with this is thats we have many quotes that you cannot pawn off as forgeries that actually have the teachings in question from the forgeries substantiated.

I think you are being coy. I wasn't condemning Rome for making so many forgeries as "the worst sin ever", I asked what the need was. I have seen this debate a dozen times now and it appears to me that the quotes RCC apologists use are either vague and can indicate Primacy of Honor just as well as anthing else, or they are out of context or are out right forgeires. The forgeries tend to be the most explicate in terms of hinting at Roman Supremacy. The genuine quotes tend more to be in the category of vague laudatory statements that can mean any number of things.

But once again, if the case was really so solid based on authentic passages, why did Rome feel the need to churn out so many forgeries?...Too much time on their hands???
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 10, 2008, 08:53:26 PM
Dear Truth,

I'd like to have discussions on the "alleged heresies" of Rome today.  Forget the past, but perhaps you can check previous threads on this site on various things that the Orthodox Church might find disagreeable with Rome.  Personally, I have a couple of questions concerning Immaculate Conception, Petrine Primacy, and the idea of Infinite Sin.  There are others here who find the juridical ideas of salvation and the Filioque objectionable.  So perhaps if you like to rehash old threads, we can discuss this, and maybe return the to the idea of whether the Roman Papacy is somehow divinely protected from teaching heresy.

God bless.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 09:27:46 PM
I think you are being coy. I wasn't condemning Rome for making so many forgeries as "the worst sin ever", I asked what the need was. I have seen this debate a dozen times now and it appears to me that the quotes RCC apologists use are either vague and can indicate Primacy of Honor just as well as anthing else, or they are out of context or are out right forgeires. The forgeries tend to be the most explicate in terms of hinting at Roman Supremacy. The genuine quotes tend more to be in the category of vague laudatory statements that can mean any number of things.

But once again, if the case was really so solid based on authentic passages, why did Rome feel the need to churn out so many forgeries?...Too much time on their hands???

Unlike what you are trying to portray, there are not millions of forgeries. What is contained in them are substaniated elsewhere. Are you claiming that St Maximos's quote is a forgery?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Tzimis on July 10, 2008, 09:36:55 PM
Pope Liberius (352-366 AD.)

himself was unfrocked, because –after being pressured by the Emperor Constantine II- had conceded to signing the quasi-Areian confession regarding the “homiousion” issue, and the condemnation of Saint Athanasius (St.Athanasius, History of Areians E41, Sozomenou Ecclesiastic History D 8-11).  This was an official decision of a Pope…… “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians”…

-Pope Onorius I (625-638 A.D.)

not only lacked infallibility, he actually embraced the heresy of  “Monotheletism” (a conviction that Jesus Christ has only one will, not two: divine &  human)!  In 634 A.D., he wrote in an official (and not an anonymous) letter of response to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios: “therefore we also confess Jesus Christ as having only one will.”

He was promptly anathematized as Bishop of Old Rome, by the 6th Ecumenical Council, along with the bishops Sergios, Theodoros, Cyrus, Peter, Pyrrhus and Paul (Rulings 13, 16 18). He was also referred to as ‘an instrument of the ancient serpent’ and a hindrance to the Church. (Ruling 18). He was accused before the emperor, by the very Pope of Rome, Agathon (Ruling 13)!
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 09:42:10 PM
Dear Truth,

I'd like to have discussions on the "alleged heresies" of Rome today.  Forget the past, but perhaps you can check previous threads on this site on various things that the Orthodox Church might find disagreeable with Rome.  Personally, I have a couple of questions concerning Immaculate Conception, Petrine Primacy, and the idea of Infinite Sin.  There are others here who find the juridical ideas of salvation and the Filioque objectionable.  So perhaps if you like to rehash old threads, we can discuss this, and maybe return the to the idea of whether the Roman Papacy is somehow divinely protected from teaching heresy.

God bless.

Sure I'll post about those elsewhere. I think it logical to cement the fact that the see of Rome never openly taught heresy in the undivided pre-schism church. I think the topic of Honorius is important to focus on because in it, you see clearly differences between a see that openly teaches it, and a man who wrote secretly about in a private letter. The differences between these two episodes is black and white. Yet see how the east says otherwise?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 10:23:10 PM
Pope Liberius (352-366 AD.)

himself was unfrocked, because –after being pressured by the Emperor Constantine II- had conceded to signing the quasi-Areian confession regarding the “homiousion” issue, and the condemnation of Saint Athanasius (St.Athanasius, History of Areians E41, Sozomenou Ecclesiastic History D 8-11).  This was an official decision of a Pope…… “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians”…

-Pope Onorius I (625-638 A.D.)

not only lacked infallibility, he actually embraced the heresy of  “Monotheletism” (a conviction that Jesus Christ has only one will, not two: divine &  human)!  In 634 A.D., he wrote in an official (and not an anonymous) letter of response to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios: “therefore we also confess Jesus Christ as having only one will.”

He was promptly anathematized as Bishop of Old Rome, by the 6th Ecumenical Council, along with the bishops Sergios, Theodoros, Cyrus, Peter, Pyrrhus and Paul (Rulings 13, 16 18). He was also referred to as ‘an instrument of the ancient serpent’ and a hindrance to the Church. (Ruling 18). He was accused before the emperor, by the very Pope of Rome, Agathon (Ruling 13)!

Thanks for thr HW. Need some time to study your post.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 10, 2008, 11:01:25 PM
But how can you eqaute the effects of a silent teaching with an open one?

...

Your case is illogical. Why do you think that the popes write encyclicals? To spread their teachings.  :-[

But in the Honorius' case, what they found were private letters that have him requesting silence. C'mon.
You mentioned earlier this afternoon--in this post, I believe, before you modified it--that you wonder how its even logical to equate Pope Honorius's supposedly silent refusal to combat heresy with open teaching of heresy.  You're right.  This isn't logical; in fact, this isn't even a matter of logic.  Instead, this is a matter of values judgments.  You make a distinct separation between silent assent and open teaching, because it removes an obstacle to your belief that the pope of Rome has always been protected from teaching heresy ex cathedra--this dichotomy would never really be unnecessary if the RC dogma of papal infallibility didn't require it.  We, OTOH, don't make such a strong distinction because his dereliction of duty allowed the heresy to spread just as if he had taught it himself--the end result is the same.  There's no logic to this, except that we base our logic on different premises than you.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: minasoliman on July 10, 2008, 11:12:54 PM
Sure I'll post about those elsewhere. I think it logical to cement the fact that the see of Rome never openly taught heresy in the undivided pre-schism church. I think the topic of Honorius is important to focus on because in it, you see clearly differences between a see that openly teaches it, and a man who wrote secretly about in a private letter. The differences between these two episodes is black and white. Yet see how the east says otherwise?

Well, I find this issue of interpretation interesting.  While you do find it wrong what Pope Honorius did, you go at lengths protecting him from heresy based on your personal belief that the Pope of Rome is always divinely protected from heresy.

Meanwhile the "East" sees something very differently that equally strengthens the faith of those who are in her Church.  Assuming that "all of the East" did at once proclaim a few heresies, somehow these heresies soon disappeared from others in the East who fought against the "Eastern heretics" (and the East were also very thankful for the West when she intervened to help for the sake of the Orthodox faith whenever there was a need, no doubt).  For this, we are grateful that the Holy Spirit speaks through these people and make them stronger.  It was the way of the Old Testament and it continues on through the Church up until today; we struggle and we fight through and several heroes of faith have appeared to put the East straight on the path of Orthodoxy.

So, while you might feel strengthened in faith concerning the person of the Pope of Rome, we are strengthened in faith concerning the general preservation of Orthodox faith throughout centuries of struggle.

God bless.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 10, 2008, 11:24:30 PM
Quote
Pope Liberius (352-366 AD.)

himself was unfrocked, because –after being pressured by the Emperor Constantine II- had conceded to signing the quasi-Areian confession regarding the “homiousion” issue, and the condemnation of Saint Athanasius (St.Athanasius, History of Areians E41, Sozomenou Ecclesiastic History D 8-11).  This was an official decision of a Pope…… “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians”…

This is the most succinct replay I can give on Liberius thus far:

It should be carefully noted that the question of the fall of Liberius is one that has been and can be freely debated among Catholics. No one pretends that, if Liberius signed the most Arian formulæ in exile, he did it freely; so that no question of his infallibility is involved. It is admitted on all sides that his noble attitude of resistance before his exile and during his exile was not belied by any act of his after his return, that he was in no way sullied when so many failed at the Council of Rimini, and that he acted vigorously for the healing of orthodoxy throughout the West from the grievous wound. If he really consorted with heretics, condemned Athanasius, or even denied the Son of God, it was a momentary human weakness which no more compromises the papacy than does that of St. Peter.

http://209.85.141.104/search?q=cache:iTqytuMzxpgJ:www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm+was+Pope+Liberius+a+heretic&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

I will look more into this later.

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 10, 2008, 11:34:55 PM
I realize you have other attempte. My point was that Honorius was your best, which pales in comparison to the openly taught heresies in the east.

Again, popes are sinners. But at least they did not openly teach heresy. The east did.
Puh-LEASE! ::)  Didn't you promise in Reply #302 that you would stop using this infernal language of "the east openly taught heresy"?  Let's review this pledge.

Okay, I'll just let it be agreed that the majority of eastern sees openly taught heresy in order to keep the thread from being halted. Thats fine.

What happened?  Are we to not trust your promises anymore?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 12:07:21 AM
Sure I'll post about those elsewhere. I think it logical to cement the fact that the see of Rome never openly taught heresy in the undivided pre-schism church. I think the topic of Honorius is important to focus on because in it, you see clearly differences between a see that openly teaches it, and a man who wrote secretly about in a private letter. The differences between these two episodes is black and white. Yet see how the east says otherwise?
I found this potential rebuttal to your position quite interesting:

Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. However, a careful reading of the official acts of the Council prove that it thought otherwise. The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything. The Council makes the following statements:

    Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
    Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
    Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).

The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:

*   The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
*   He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of montheletism.
*   He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.

To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position. The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such. According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgment of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgment or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. It is quite obvious that these Eastern fathers did not view the bishops of Rome as infallible. John Meyendorff states that, contrary to the assertions of many Roman Catholics that Honorius did in fact teach the doctrine of monotheletism in a positive sense and helped confirm Sergius in the heresy. Meyendorff gives this summary:

    This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenmical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries. Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).

Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:

    In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)


http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html


What strikes me as most damning is that the proponents of the heresy of Monotheletism actually cited Pope Honorius as one of their supporters, for they could say that no greater a teacher than the Pope of Rome himself confessed their [false] doctrine.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 12:18:54 AM
Quote
-Pope {H}Onorius I (625-638 A.D.)

not only lacked infallibility, he actually embraced the heresy of  “Monotheletism” (a conviction that Jesus Christ has only one will, not two: divine &  human)!  In 634 A.D., he wrote in an official (and not an anonymous) letter of response to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios: “therefore we also confess Jesus Christ as having only one will.”

He was promptly anathematized as Bishop of Old Rome, by the 6th Ecumenical Council, along with the bishops Sergios, Theodoros, Cyrus, Peter, Pyrrhus and Paul (Rulings 13, 16 18). He was also referred to as ‘an instrument of the ancient serpent’ and a hindrance to the Church. (Ruling 18). He was accused before the emperor, by the very Pope of Rome, Agathon (Ruling 13)!


You must of missed of the post here already dealing with Honorius.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 12:19:45 AM
Puh-LEASE! ::)  Didn't you promise in Reply #302 that you would stop using this infernal language of "the east openly taught heresy"?  Let's review this pledge.

What happened?  Are we to not trust your promises anymore?

Thats fine. It still pales in comparison.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 11, 2008, 12:23:19 AM
Thats fine. It still pales in comparison.

Is that all you've got?  ::)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 12:36:28 AM
Quote
-Pope {H}Onorius I (625-638 A.D.)

not only lacked infallibility, he actually embraced the heresy of  “Monotheletism” (a conviction that Jesus Christ has only one will, not two: divine &  human)!  In 634 A.D., he wrote in an official (and not an anonymous) letter of response to the Monothelete Patriarch of Constantinople, Sergios: “therefore we also confess Jesus Christ as having only one will.”

He was promptly anathematized as Bishop of Old Rome, by the 6th Ecumenical Council, along with the bishops Sergios, Theodoros, Cyrus, Peter, Pyrrhus and Paul (Rulings 13, 16 18). He was also referred to as ‘an instrument of the ancient serpent’ and a hindrance to the Church. (Ruling 18). He was accused before the emperor, by the very Pope of Rome, Agathon (Ruling 13)!



You must of missed of the post here already dealing with Honorius.
???  Whom are you quoting here?  I don't recognize this quoted material as ever having been posted on this thread.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 01:36:51 AM
Pope Liberius (352-366 AD.)

himself was unfrocked, because –after being pressured by the Emperor Constantine II- had conceded to signing the quasi-Areian confession regarding the “homiousion” issue, and the condemnation of Saint Athanasius (St.Athanasius, History of Areians E41, Sozomenou Ecclesiastic History D 8-11).  This was an official decision of a Pope…… “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians”…

Here is a little more on Liberius:

"Catholics claim that the pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals, yet Pope Liberious signed an Arian creed, thereby endorsing a heretical view of Christ. Obviously, then, papal infallibility is a fallicy." (Madrid, p. 145, Pope Fiction)

"Allegedly Pope Liberius not only held to an incorrect view of Jesus, but actually endorsed this by signing onto a heretical creed. The fourth century was a hard time for the Catholic Church. Despite all hopes of orthodox Catholics, the Arian movement was growing, especially when Emperor Constantius made it his business to spread Arianism throughout the empire. He was gaining strong ecclesiastical support, but he wasn’t able to change Pope Liberius’ mind. Constantius had Liberius arrested and taken to Milan to appear before him. He was pressured to comply with his will, but Pope Liberius resisted, thus Constantius banished Liberius to live in exile. After 2 years of imprisonment, harassment and exile Liberius was released. Why was he released—did he finally give in and sign this heretical creed, or did the emperor finally give up this battle of the wills? Although it’s possible that Liberius did buckle under the pressure the following evidence indicates he didn’t.  Patrick Madrid writes, "Had he really given in to the emperor during his exile, the emperor would have published his victory far and wide; there would have been no possible doubt about it….." So if Pope Liberius did end up signing this creed, why was there only silence? While it’s true that this is an argument from silence, it can’t be ignored. Assuming the worst case scenario is true, Pope Liberius only signed the creed after two years of harassment, exile and coercion. The signing didn’t come from his own free will, and for this reason papal infallibility isn’t an issue" (Pope Fiction, pp. 144-147).

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:JX0RH-BxcwgJ:www.catholicfaithandreason.org/papal_infallibility.htm+papal+infallibility+liberius&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=us


Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 01:40:32 AM



You must of missed of the post here already dealing with Honorius.

???  Whom are you quoting here?  I don't recognize this quoted material as ever having been posted on this thread.

328
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 01:43:10 AM
I found this potential rebuttal to your position quite interesting:

Roman Catholic apologists generally attempt to salvage the dogma of papal infallibility from the case with Honorius by saying that he was not giving an ex cathedra statement but merely his opinion as a private theologian. Therefore he was not condemned in his official capacity as the pope. According to the Roman Catholic Church there are certain conditions which must be met for the teaching of the pope to fall within the overall guidelines of that which is considered to be. He must be teaching in his official capacity as the pope and he must be defining doctrine for the entire Church. The claim is made that Honorius did not meet these conditions. However, a careful reading of the official acts of the Council prove that it thought otherwise. The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything. The Council makes the following statements:

    Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
    Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...
    Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).

The above statements prove that the condemnation of Honorius meets the basic criteria for ex cathedra statements. The following points show this to be the case:

*   The Council condemns him specifically as a heretic and anathematized him in his official capacity as pope and not as a private theologian.
*   He is condemned for following after and confirming the heresy of montheletism.
*   He is condemned for actively disseminating and propagating heretical teachings in his official capacity as pope which affected the whole Church.

To suggest that the Sixth Ecumenical Council does not invalidate the teaching of papal infallibility because Honorius did not make an ex cathedra statement is historically absurd. This is to erect arbitrary conditions which were not existent at the time to save oneself the embarrassment of a historical fact which undermines one's position. The issue is not what do individual Roman Catholic apologists say, but what did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say. On what basis did it condemn Pope Honorius? By its own words it condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian, for advancing heretical teachings which it says were Satanically inspired and would affect the entire Church. It specifically states that Honorius advanced these teachings, approved of them, and in a positive sense was responsible for disseminating them. And it condemns him by name as a heretic, anathematizing him as such. According to both Roman Catholic and Orthodox theology an Ecumenical Council is infallible so all the arguments which attempt to dismiss the judgment of this Council saying that it was mistaken or that it rushed to judgment or whatever, are simply erroneous and empty, on the basis of their own theology. So an infallible Ecumenical Council (from a Roman Catholic perspective) has condemned as a heretic a bishop of Rome for teaching heresy. It is quite obvious that these Eastern fathers did not view the bishops of Rome as infallible. John Meyendorff states that, contrary to the assertions of many Roman Catholics that Honorius did in fact teach the doctrine of monotheletism in a positive sense and helped confirm Sergius in the heresy. Meyendorff gives this summary:

    This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenmical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries. Protestants, Orthodox and antiinfallibilists at Vatican I in 1870 would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).

Jaroslav Pelikan affirms the same thing in these comments:

    In the controversy between East and West...the case of Honorius served as proof to Photius that the popes not only lacked authority over church councils, but were fallible in matters of dogma; for Honorius had embraced the heresy of the Monotheletes. The proponents of that heresy likewise cited the case of Honorius, not in opposition to the authority of the pope but in support of their own doctrine, urging that all teachers of the true faith had confessed it, including Sergius, the bishop of New Rome, and Honorius, the bishop of Old Rome (Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine (Chicago: University of Chicago, 1974), Volume Two, pp. 150-151)


http://www.christiantruth.com/pope.html


What strikes me as most damning is that the proponents of the heresy of Monotheletism actually cited Pope Honorius as one of their supporters, for they could say that no greater a teacher than the Pope of Rome himself confessed their [false] doctrine.

I already addressed this and gave you a link:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

Remember? You said you already read the article?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 01:54:41 AM
I already addressed this and gave you a link:

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0104fea4.asp

Remember? You said you already read the article?
Yes, I am aware that you addressed this article I quoted from William Webster.  At least now our posters can read the Webster article for themselves and make an objective decision after reviewing both sides of the debate.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Heracleides on July 11, 2008, 01:58:25 AM
Yes.  Now I'm providing the more objective source I asked of you in reply to your address of this.

The fun of debate is that you're not the only one who gets to address the issue. ;)

Ummm... but he quoted a Catholic source - shouldn't that settle the issue???  ;D
.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:05:18 AM
Quote
You mentioned earlier this afternoon--in this post, I believe, before you modified it--that you wonder how its even logical to equate Pope Honorius's supposedly silent refusal to combat heresy (this was not my contention: but rather, he was silent in not openly teaching it, as well as saying as much in a letter-he should of done more, true; but more people would of converted to the said heresy if he openly taught it- this is what you are failing to see)with open teaching of heresy.  You're right.  This isn't logical; in fact, this isn't even a matter of logic.  Instead, this is a matter of values judgments.  You make a distinct separation between silent assent and open teaching (because their are not the same sin!), because it removes an obstacle to your belief that the pope of Rome has always been protected from teaching heresy ex cathedra--this dichotomy would never really be unnecessary if the RC dogma of papal infallibility didn't require it.  We, OTOH, don't make such a strong distinction because his dereliction of duty allowed the heresy to spread just as if he had taught it himself--the end result is the same.  There's no logic to this, except that we base our logic on different premises than you.

This a reply from you to my post:

You are assuming that the same result would of occured. But I believe many people would not be RC today if Honorius did openly teach heresy. I would not for example. If the See of Rome and the pope are not protected from error in doctrine, why be a RC? This would of had major reprecussions. It would also make decalrations of the pope today self refuting. How can you say that it would make no difference? You only mean that it would make no difference in the numbers of converts to the said heresy. This is false too. Because announcing the said heresy officially would of convinced many to endorse it since they would of believed that it was correct doctrine. But how can you eqaute the effects of a silent teaching with an open one? How would you of been convinced if you never heard of it?...that is, unless you lived in the east? If you are saying that the number of people who would buy a product but never saw an advertisement for it, is the very same number of people who see the advertisements on TV an buy the product, then why are companies spending trillions of dollars on ads? 

Your case is illogical. Why do you think that the popes write encyclicals? To spread their teachings. 

But in the Honorius' case, what they found were private letters that have him requesting silence. C'mon.

And keep in mind: this is the best case you have.



Basically, you are saying that being silent on a heresy will have the same outcome as openly endorsing it. How can this be. As I have pointed out, just look how selling products works: companies spend trillions of dollars openly teaching people about their product. According to you, the same result would happen if they hide their products from consumers. This is absolutely absurd. The difference between the east and the west regarding heresies is that the east was advertising as in the example.

Just ask yourself this:

Would you be more likely to convert to heresy if your pope was commanding you to; or if your pope kept it all a secret? Would more people convert if their pope recommended the said heresy, or if he was silent? C'mon.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 02:06:10 AM
Remember? You said you already read the article?
And I dismissed the article as nothing more than infallibilist propaganda hardly worth my time refuting, for it is not at all objective.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:07:16 AM
Yes, I am aware that you addressed this article I quoted from William Webster.  At least now our posters can read the Webster article for themselves and make an objective decision after reviewing both sides of the debate.

Well, I guess I should post it then:

White Is Wrong

Rebutting James White's Rebuttal on Pope Honorius

By Steven O'Reilly



In October 2000, I wrote an article in This Rock on the Sixth Ecumenical Council's (Constantinople III's) condemnation of Pope Honorius (625-638) in A.D. 681. This article, "Guilty Only of Failure to Teach," rebutted the claim of anti-Catholic William Webster that this condemnation disproved the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility.

My piece elicited a rebuttal from another anti-Catholic apologist, James White. Mr. White's article, "Failure to Document: Catholic Answers Glosses Over History," was posted on his web site at www.aomin.org (from which all White quotes herein are taken).

In Mr. Webster's article "An Ecumenical Council Officially Condemns a Pope for Heresy," posted online at www.christiantruth.com (from which all Webster quotations herein are taken), he argues that Pope Honorius was anathematized because he adhered to the monothelite heresy and taught it ex cathedra. Monothelitism held that there was one will and operation-a divine one-in Christ, while Catholic teaching is that there were two wills and operations-divine and human-in Christ. My article made the following three points: Honorius was not a monothelite, he did not teach monothelitism, and he was condemned because he had-through negligence-aided the spread of heresy.



Honorius's letters: Neither monothelite nor ex cathedra in nature


In order to sweep away the arguments that Honorius was orthodox and did not teach monothelitism ex cathedra, Mr. White counters that Honorius used the expression we confess in relation to the monothelite term one will: "Make sure you note the use of the plural 'we confess.' Honorius did not say, 'Oh, I think maybe it's like this.' He employed the very same plural that Roman bishops use today to refer to their representation of the church as a whole."

Leaving aside the fact the papal "we" is not in itself an indicator of an infallible definition, Mr. White simply ignores the evidence that Honorius's use of "one will" is to be understood as orthodox. Honorius says, "We confess one will of our Lord Jesus Christ." However, he immediately explains his meaning: "For evidently it was our nature and not the sin in it which was assumed by the Godhead, that is to say, the nature which was created before sin, not the nature which was vitiated by sin" (Scripta Fraternitatis Vestrae, quoted in the Catholic Encyclopedia, 7:453).

Honorius merely denies that conflicting wills of spirit and flesh as found in fallen man-spoken of in Romans 7:21-23, to which the pope alludes-were present in Christ. In other words, Christ assumed not our fallen human nature but that human nature created before sin. Such a view presumes a human will in Christ as well as a separate divine will with which it is in moral unity.

What is undeniable is that the pope's use of the phrase "one will," though orthodox, manifests a lack of understanding and diligence in regard to the nascent controversy. The mere expression "one will" was consonant with the heresy's view, which denied any human will in Christ. Mr. White appears to admit as much when he says that Honorius "made an error based upon ignorance of the issues involved."

Regardless, it would be surprising if Mr. White were to deny the orthodoxy of Honorius's statement, since doing so would leave Mr. Mr. White with the dubious options of either admitting contrary wills in Christ or falling into monothelitism. Nor is the preceding a modern interpretation made to save the pope's words; soon after his death he was defended in a similar fashion by Maximus the Confessor and Pope John IV against monothelites who cited him as carelessly as does Mr. White.

"Just the facts, ma'am"


The essence of Mr. White's attempt to defend Mr. Webster is to accuse this writer of "deceptive behavior," willfully withholding and ignoring unpalatable historical facts in order to rehabilitate the memory of Honorius. Mr. White claims that the "major problem" with "O'Reilly's attempts to save Honorius" is that a "majority of the facts . . . never appear" in my article. The "facts" Mr. White refers to are fourteen numbered items appearing in his rebuttal, nearly all of which are taken verbatim-and without attribution-from Philip Schaff's work (compare Mr. White to Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, ed. Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, vol. 14, 351).

If Mr. White had read his original source attentively, he would have noted the list was offered expressly to prove " Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council"( Nicene and Post Nice Fathers, vol. 14, 351; emphasis added). Not only did my article not deny this fact, it expressly stipulated it. It was the nature of this condemnation, not the fact of it, that I contested. This consideration renders a number of Mr. White's fourteen points non-pertinent, while others are merely repetitious of charges that were addressed.

My article stated that Honorius was anathematized because he had "fostered" heresy through negligence. Yet Mr. White wonders how my defense of Honorius can be squared with the following three facts. (1) Honorius's letters were burned by the council as "hurtful to the soul" (Session XIII, NPNF, vol. 14, 343). (2) Honorius was considered, along with the others condemned, a "tool of Satan" used by the evil one in the "dissemination" of the heresy (Session XVIII, NPNF, vol. 14, 344). (3) Acclamations were shouted against the condemned, including "Honorius the heretic" (Session XVI, NPNF, vol. 14, 343).

In response to Mr. White, it would do well first to recall the words of the council's official condemnation: "The names of those men whose doctrines we execrate [are] . . . Sergius . . . Cyrus . . . Pyrrhus . . . Paul and Peter . . . and . . . Theodore . . . all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome . . . rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the Holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius . . . because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines" (Session XIII, NPNF, vol. 14, 343).

Clearly, the council specifies two different categories of offenders that merit the same punishment. To the first group belonged those who the council judged to be " minded contrary to our orthodox faith"-Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, and Theodore. Whatever his fault, Honorius was not judged by the council to be "minded contrary" to the "orthodox faith" and thus cannot be considered a heretic in either the material or formal sense. Instead Honorius was faulted for having "followed [i.e., lent support to] the view of Sergius . . . and confirmed his impious doctrines." That is, by agreeing with Sergius that a rule of silence be imposed, Honorius left Cyrus's false reconciliation of the monophysites in place, and thereby gave practical-not theological-confirmation to the heresy.

Honorius, out of ignorance of the issues central to the controversy, had too quickly accepted Sergius's view regarding the necessity for a rule of silence. This ignorance can only be due to a grave failure on the part of Honorius to inquire into the underlying nature of the dispute over a new expression and the reconciliation of the monophysites that was too easily accomplished by the employment of it. By agreeing to a rule of silence instead of issuing a rule or definition of faith, Honorius left the monothelite patriarchs of the East an opening to further insinuate the heresy among the faithful. Honorius's culpable neglect of his duties gave the heresy space to grow and spread. He thereby shared blame for the spread of the heresy, albeit in a different manner from those "minded contrary" to the faith.

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.

The same is outlined in another of Leo II's letters, wherein he writes that Honorius did not "as became the apostolic authority, extinguish the flame of heretical teaching in its first beginning, but fostered it by his negligence" (Leonis II ad Episcopos Hispanie in the Catholic Encyclopedia 7:455; emphasis added). Such wording is inexplicable if Leo II had believed Honorius to be a monothelite. Instead, Honorius's fault is not that he taught heresy, but rather that he "fostered" and "permitted" its spread through "negligence." In sum, Honorius had failed to teach.

Given the above as background, the harsh actions and expressions cited by Mr. White are more easily understood. With regard to any reference to "Honorius, the heretic": It should be noted that the term heretic, in an earlier and looser sense, also included those who "favored" heresy-those who, even though not adhering to a heresy, aid its spread through some action or omission (see The Catholic Encyclopedia, 8:260-261). Owing to the fact Honorius had aided in the spread of heresy, he could be considered a "heretic" in this secondary sense of the word "confirmed by several examples in antiquity" (Paul Bottala, S.J., Pope Honorius Before the Tribunal of Reason and History, 107). One such example is the Type of Constans, a document condemned as heretical during the monothelite controversy since it favored heresy as opposed to positively teaching it.

Similarly, given Honorius's culpable neglect, it is not surprising that he, or anyone who so permits the Lord's flock to be exposed to ravenous wolves, should be spoken of as being a "tool of Satan" and used by him in "disseminating" the heresy. Such images are consistent with the biblical treatment of the neglectful pastor. Nor is it surprising that the council would deem Honorius's letters in which he exhibited such neglect "hurtful to the soul" and order them to be burned.

Mr. White notes approvingly that the papal legates-Pope Agatho's representatives at the Council-remained silent throughout these words and actions directed against Honorius, which he claims indicated that they subscribed to them. But their silence redounds to the defense of Honorius's orthodoxy. These papal legates carried Agatho's letters, fully accepted by the Council. These letters asserted the inerrant magisterium of the apostolic see of Rome. They asserted that all of Agatho's predecessors-a group that includes Honorius-had been orthodox, and that Agatho (and thus any pope) is liable to judgment for negligence in his office as teacher. The legates' silence indicates that they considered the council's decrees fully consistent with these three points.

Had they not considered them so, they would have objected, as previous legates had done unabashedly when councils acted contrary to papal policy. Instead, the record indicates the legates remained silent, since the council-as it said itself-made its decisions in accordance with Agatho's letter. Therefore, those who argue like Mr. White have the more difficult task in explaining why silence, rather than vociferous objections, should indicate the council was at odds with Pope Agatho over Honorius.


The "serious investigator"?


Mr. White writes that the "serious investigator" of history will not find evidence of the Roman claims. In his role as "serious investigator," Mr. White makes the following statement:

"And finally, I remind us all: Honorius died forty years prior to the Council of Constantinople. For four decades his letters existed, teaching what would later be identified as a heresy by an ecumenical Council. No Pope of Rome uttered a word in condemnation during those four decades. It would be like having a Pope teach heresy in 1960, and having to wait till this very year for there to be a 'correction,' and then only from a gathered council, not from the Pope himself. For forty years those letters existed, and if you had looked to the bishop of Rome's teachings during those years, you would have been led into formal heresy thereby."

This is nonsense. Aside from the fact Mr. White has offered no evidence based on the substance of Honorius' letters that this pope taught heresy, the pope's letters were known to a select few Eastern bishops, not to the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition. Far from being the case that no pope "uttered a word" regarding Honorius' letters, the John IV (640-642) defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position.

Regardless, the faithful would not have to wait forty years for a council to either "correct" letters unknown to them or make clear the bishop of Rome's stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome's stand against the monothelites during the forty years between Honorius (d. 638) and Constantinople III (680-681) makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy. Popes Severinus (640), John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653), and others declared numerous condemnations and anathemas against monothelitism and various monothelites. Synods were also held by popes during this forty-year period, such as the Lateran Council of 649 whose acts, sent throughout the East and West, anathematized the works Ecthesis and the Type, as well as the individuals Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul.

The active and preeminent role of Rome in the battle against monothelitism is apparent and is as much admitted in the documents of Constantinople III in a number of places. Pope Agatho is said to have been the "wise physician," given by Christ to drive away the "heretical pestilence" and to "give strength to the members of the Church." The council says it has been "instructed" by Agatho's doctrine, and it is "through" this Roman doctrine the council bases its actions (The Letter of the Council to St. Agatho, NPNF, 349-50). Consequently, it defies credulity to insinuate that the faithful could have any doubt about the position of the apostolic see towards monothelitism.


The serious investigator, infallibility, and the False Decretals


It is impressive, with such an economy of words, that Mr. White has managed to commit so many errors. The target of this effort is, of course, the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, which Mr. White says "surely no one in that day [i.e., the seventh century] believed." Instead, Mr. White says such papal claims were "first introduced by fraudulent means in the middle of the ninth century." Mr. White is referring to the False Decretals, ostensibly an ancient collection of papal correspondence that are in fact ninth-century forgeries.

However, even the harshest scholarly critics of papal infallibility-e.g., Dollinger-admit that the False Decretals were not written at Rome's behest and that their purpose was not the introduction or advancement of the papal claims. Rather, the immediate purpose of the forger was to protect local bishops from the influence of the secular power (Dollinger, The Pope and the Council, 95), not to introduce papal claims. While everyone, including popes, accepted these decretals at face value until advancements in historical analysis, there is nothing about the Roman primacy contained in them that is not contained in other, earlier Church documents recognized as bona fide (see "The False Decretals," This Rock, October 1998).

Mr. White asserts the Vatican I conditions for ex cathedra statements are anachronistically projected back into history and contain any number of trapdoors that render "every single papal statement of the past 'safe' from the allegation of error." However, the reasonable man can see, whether he agrees with the dogma or not, that there is no changing or mysterious formula. Simply put, Vatican I defined that for an ex cathedra teaching the pope must (1) exercise his office as "teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority," and he must (2) define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be (3) "held by the whole Church."

There is nothing inscrutable here. Analogous conditions apply to secular figures in whose acts we may discern the difference between the use of ordinary from extraordinary authority, the binding from non-binding, a resolution from a legal mandate, and the limited from the universal in scope. Whether formalized in a dogmatic definition or not, common sense-not rocket science or trickery-suggests such conditions. With a minimum of diligence, one may employ them to determine whether or not a dogmatic definition is present in a given circumstance.

However, opponents of papal infallibility in the case of Honorius are wanting for such diligence. Honorius explicitly said "we must not define" the disputed expressions; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude he did so. Honorius expressly agreed to a rule of silence to quiet both sides in a dispute over "idle questions"; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude he issued a rule of faith that all should profess. Honorius clearly spoke of a human will in Christ; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude that Honorius, like the monothelites, denied any human will in Christ. Constantinople III excluded Honorius from the category of those considered "minded contrary" to the orthodox faith; yet Mr. White and Mr. Webster conclude the council included him in this category. Pope John IV defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when a monothelite patriarch appealed to Honorius's letters; yet Mr. White concludes no pope "uttered a word."

These conclusions reached by this "serious investigator" contravene the facts. Therefore, I repeat my earlier conclusion: The history of monothelitism and the Sixth Ecumenical Council provides striking evidence of the early Church's acceptance of the primacy and infallible magisterium of the apostolic see.



Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:11:51 AM
And I dismissed the article as nothing more than infallibilist propaganda hardly worth my time refuting, for it is not at all objective.

Dismissing something outright is the very defintion of not being objective.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 02:14:11 AM
Basically, you are saying that being silent on a heresy will have the same outcome as openly endorsing it. How can this be. As I have pointed out, just look how selling products works: companies spend trillions of dollars openly teaching people about their product. According to you, the same result would happen if they hide their products from consumers. This is absolutely absurd. The difference between the east and the west regarding heresies is that the east was advertising as in the example.
1.  Equating the teaching of heresy with advertising is too simplistic a comparison.
2.  As the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council recognized, those who actively spread the Monothelete heresy drew upon the words of Pope Honorius to support their public doctrine.  They could sway their audiences by saying, "This doctrine is endorsed by none other than the Pope himself."  It's kinda like shoe advertisers acquiring an endorsement from a celebrity athlete.
3.  You're breaking your promise to not blame "the east" again.

Quote
Just ask yourself this:

Would you be more likely to convert to heresy if your pope was commanding you to; or if your pope kept it all a secret? Would more people convert if their pope recommended the said heresy, or if he was silent? C'mon.

But what if your teachers claimed the Pope's endorsement?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 02:17:45 AM
Dismissing something outright is the very defintion of not being objective.
That depends on the reasons why one would dismiss something outright. ;)  Now, if I'd dismissed the article without even reading it, you might have a case that I wasn't acting objectively.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:23:00 AM
1.  Equating the teaching of heresy with advertising is not a valid comparison.
2.  As the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council recognized, those who actively spread the Monothelete heresy drew upon the words of Pope Honorius to support their public doctrine.  They could sway their audiences by saying, "This doctrine is endorsed by none other than the Pope himself."  It's kinda like shoe advertisers acquiring an endorsement from a celebrity athlete.
3.  You're breaking your promise to not blame "the east" again.
But what if your teachers claimed the Pope's endorsement?

As I  have already posted, pope Honorius did not openly teach the heresy. In fact, it wasnt till 40 years later that the council condemned him. The letter that condemned him showed that he requested that it remain silent. I am sorry if you have to close your eyes in order not to see how advertising works as in my example. I suppose a lesson in economics it not prudent, for my example trusted a basic understanding of it. If you seriously cannot comprehend the difference in not openly teaching a heresy with openly teaching the heresy, and the different effects this has with the number of conversions to the said heresy, I really dont think we can continue: you are obviously not coming to terms with the obvious result that each scenario comes down to.

We have already been through what the council says and the roman popes, as the article I posted states. Why are you going on?

In my case and point: if Honorius openly taught heresy, I would not be a RC. Period.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:36:25 AM
That depends on the reasons why one would dismiss something outright. ;)  Now, if I'd dismissed the article without even reading it, you might have a case that I wasn't acting objectively.

Here is a small portion of the article, easily digestable:

"And finally, I remind us all: Honorius died forty years prior to the Council of Constantinople. For four decades his letters existed, teaching what would later be identified as a heresy by an ecumenical Council. No Pope of Rome uttered a word in condemnation during those four decades. It would be like having a Pope teach heresy in 1960, and having to wait till this very year for there to be a 'correction,' and then only from a gathered council, not from the Pope himself. For forty years those letters existed, and if you had looked to the bishop of Rome's teachings during those years, you would have been led into formal heresy thereby."

This is nonsense. Aside from the fact Mr. White has offered no evidence based on the substance of Honorius' letters that this pope taught heresy, the pope's letters were known to a select few Eastern bishops, not to the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition. Far from being the case that no pope "uttered a word" regarding Honorius' letters, the John IV (640-642) defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position.

Regardless, the faithful would not have to wait forty years for a council to either "correct" letters unknown to them or make clear the bishop of Rome's stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome's stand against the monothelites during the forty years between Honorius (d. 638) and Constantinople III (680-681) makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy. Popes Severinus (640), John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653), and others declared numerous condemnations and anathemas against monothelitism and various monothelites. Synods were also held by popes during this forty-year period, such as the Lateran Council of 649 whose acts, sent throughout the East and West, anathematized the works Ecthesis and the Type, as well as the individuals Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul.

The active and preeminent role of Rome in the battle against monothelitism is apparent and is as much admitted in the documents of Constantinople III in a number of places. Pope Agatho is said to have been the "wise physician," given by Christ to drive away the "heretical pestilence" and to "give strength to the members of the Church." The council says it has been "instructed" by Agatho's doctrine, and it is "through" this Roman doctrine the council bases its actions (The Letter of the Council to St. Agatho, NPNF, 349-50). Consequently, it defies credulity to insinuate that the faithful could have any doubt about the position of the apostolic see towards monothelitism.


Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 02:37:14 AM
As I  have already posted, pope Honorius did not openly teach the heresy.
And as many of us have already posted, he did, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council recognized this.

Quote
In fact, it wasnt till 40 years later that the council condemned him.
And yet, they condemned him nonetheless, and this was an Ecumenical Council.

Quote
The letter that condemned him showed that he requested that it remain silent.
You have the letter in your hands to be able to prove this to us?

Quote
I am sorry if you have to close your eyes in order not to see how advertising works as in my example. I suppose a lesson in economics it not prudent, for my example trusted a basic understanding of it.
Actually, I know how advertising works.  Go back and read the post you quoted, and you'll note that I now call your comparison too simplistic, because I do recognize some validity to your argument.  I just think your logic misses a key ingredient that quite possibly turns your conclusion on its ear.

Quote
If you seriously cannot comprehend the difference in not openly teaching a heresy with openly teaching the heresy, and the different effects this has with the number of conversions to the said heresy, I really dont think we can continue: you are obviously not coming to terms with the obvious result that each scenario come down to.
Yes, I'm aware that the Monothelete heresiarchs drew strength for their arguments by asserting that they had the support of the Pope Honorius and that, in this way, Honorius was indeed an agent for the heresy's spread.

Quote
We have already been through what the council says and the roman popes, as the article I posted states. Why are you going on?
I couldn't let an article by one of your decidedly biased Roman Catholic apologists be the only "scholarly" material lurkers and posters on this thread have available to them.

Quote
Why are you going on?
You're obviously not going to convince us of the truth of your position using the apologetic materials and logic you insist on using--heck, you haven't said anything new for the past several pages.  So why are you going on?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:41:23 AM
If Honorius views were openly taught as you suggest, why was there nothing in the 40 years saying as much:

Regardless, the faithful would not have to wait forty years for a council to either "correct" letters unknown to them or make clear the bishop of Rome's stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome's stand against the monothelites during the forty years between Honorius (d. 638) and Constantinople III (680-681) makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy. Popes Severinus (640), John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653), and others declared numerous condemnations and anathemas against monothelitism and various monothelites. Synods were also held by popes during this forty-year period, such as the Lateran Council of 649 whose acts, sent throughout the East and West, anathematized the works Ecthesis and the Type, as well as the individuals Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:43:43 AM
Quote
And as many of us have already posted, he did, and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council recognized this.

This is false, as I have already posted what St Maximos and the Roman popes at the time clarified. He was not condemned for openly teaching heresy, as what you are trying sneak in.

Again:

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:46:20 AM
Quote
And yet, they condemned him nonetheless, and this was an Ecumenical Council.


Ya...but not for the reason you are claiming, despite my evidences to the contray. This is crucial.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:48:19 AM
Quote
Yes, I'm aware that the Monothelete heresiarchs drew strength for their arguments by asserting that they had the support of the Pope Honorius and that, in this way, Honorius was indeed an agent for the heresy's spread.

I agree he was an agent, but no in the sense you are hinting at. He was through neglect. He did not openly teach the heresy, as the said east was.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 02:48:59 AM
Here is a small portion of the article, easily digestable:

"And finally, I remind us all: Honorius died forty years prior to the Council of Constantinople. For four decades his letters existed, teaching what would later be identified as a heresy by an ecumenical Council. No Pope of Rome uttered a word in condemnation during those four decades. It would be like having a Pope teach heresy in 1960, and having to wait till this very year for there to be a 'correction,' and then only from a gathered council, not from the Pope himself. For forty years those letters existed, and if you had looked to the bishop of Rome's teachings during those years, you would have been led into formal heresy thereby."

This is nonsense. Aside from the fact Mr. White has offered no evidence based on the substance of Honorius' letters that this pope taught heresy, the pope's letters were known to a select few Eastern bishops, not to the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition. Far from being the case that no pope "uttered a word" regarding Honorius' letters, the John IV (640-642) defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position.

Regardless, the faithful would not have to wait forty years for a council to either "correct" letters unknown to them or make clear the bishop of Rome's stand on monothelitism. Even a brief survey of Rome's stand against the monothelites during the forty years between Honorius (d. 638) and Constantinople III (680-681) makes it clear that there can be no doubt where Rome stood during the controversy. Popes Severinus (640), John IV (640-642), Theodore (642-649), Martin (649-653), and others declared numerous condemnations and anathemas against monothelitism and various monothelites. Synods were also held by popes during this forty-year period, such as the Lateran Council of 649 whose acts, sent throughout the East and West, anathematized the works Ecthesis and the Type, as well as the individuals Cyrus, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paul.

The active and preeminent role of Rome in the battle against monothelitism is apparent and is as much admitted in the documents of Constantinople III in a number of places. Pope Agatho is said to have been the "wise physician," given by Christ to drive away the "heretical pestilence" and to "give strength to the members of the Church." The council says it has been "instructed" by Agatho's doctrine, and it is "through" this Roman doctrine the council bases its actions (The Letter of the Council to St. Agatho, NPNF, 349-50). Consequently, it defies credulity to insinuate that the faithful could have any doubt about the position of the apostolic see towards monothelitism.



In the end, it doesn't matter what a bunch of Roman apologists today say about Pope Honorius, now that papal infallibility is a dogma that must be supported by all means possible, even historical revisionism, lest the modern day Roman Catholic Church fall apart utterly.  What matters is how Pope Honorius's colleagues among the universal college of bishops understood his work, and they made their voice heard in the Third Council of Constaninople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council) when they voiced the words, "To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!" for what he did to actively confirm the Monothelete heresiarchs and aid in the advance of their heresy.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:50:26 AM
Quote
Actually, I know how advertising works.  Go back and read the post you quoted, and you'll note that I now call your comparison too simplistic, because I do recognize some validity to your argument.  I just think your logic misses a key ingredient that quite possibly turns your conclusion on its ear.

Okay, please explain to me why you equate openly advertising something with being silent as to having the same exact numbers in converts? I am all ears, even on my ear.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 02:52:42 AM
I agree he was an agent, but no in the sense you are hinting at. He was through neglect. He did not openly teach the heresy, as the said east was.
I'm going to bed.  Someone please wake me when this fellow offers us something new.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 02:54:07 AM
Quote
What matters is how Pope Honorius's colleagues among the universal college of bishops understood his work...

Right. And they condemned him for different reasons that you give, as was shown not only by the current RC apologist, but by the Roman popes there at the time!:

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.

So no, it is not just the current RC apologist, as you are trying to sneak in...again.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 10:16:14 AM
Right. And they condemned him for different reasons that you give, as was shown not only by the current RC apologist, but by the Roman popes there at the time!:

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.

So no, it is not just the current RC apologist, as you are trying to sneak in...again.
This looks like nothing more than another modern-day apologist's interpretation of Pope Leo II.  Do you have Pope Leo's own words on this?  And even if you did, can you tell us why Pope Leo alone should be seen as representative of the mind of the Sixth Great Council?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 11:15:55 AM
Quote
Do you have Pope Leo's own words on this? 


What do you have in your posscession as far as orignal documents?  ;D

You tried this before, which means nothing except you realize that it hurts your case. In fact, the same can be said when people claim here that St Maximos' quote are forgeries. Since it hurts your case, they must be fake right?

BTW, do you have any of the orignal biblical documents?  :P
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 11:18:49 AM
Quote
This looks like nothing more than another modern-day apologist's interpretation of Pope Leo II.  Do you have Pope Leo's own words on this?  And even if you did, can you tell us why Pope Leo alone should be seen as representative of the mind of the Sixth Great Council?

And also:

In response to Mr. White, it would do well first to recall the words of the council's official condemnation: "The names of those men whose doctrines we execrate [are] . . . Sergius . . . Cyrus . . . Pyrrhus . . . Paul and Peter . . . and . . . Theodore . . . all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome . . . rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subjected to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the Holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius . . . because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines" (Session XIII, NPNF, vol. 14, 343).

Clearly, the council specifies two different categories of offenders that merit the same punishment. To the first group belonged those who the council judged to be " minded contrary to our orthodox faith"-Sergius, Cyrus, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, and Theodore. Whatever his fault, Honorius was not judged by the council to be "minded contrary" to the "orthodox faith" and thus cannot be considered a heretic in either the material or formal sense. Instead Honorius was faulted for having "followed [i.e., lent support to] the view of Sergius . . . and confirmed his impious doctrines." That is, by agreeing with Sergius that a rule of silence be imposed, Honorius left Cyrus's false reconciliation of the monophysites in place, and thereby gave practical-not theological-confirmation to the heresy.

The last two undelines are critical, for they obviously state that he was not accused of openly teaching, as you pretend, but was condemned for recommeding silence via a private letter. Why is this hard for you?

If you did not thnk that Honorius only permitted heresy instead of openly teaching, why were you arguing that they were the same thing for a couple of your post. Did you realize that they were not the same thing at some point and then decided to push for that the council claimed that he openly taught the heresy. Isn't this a concession of your point?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: username! on July 11, 2008, 11:22:09 AM
Right. And they condemned him for different reasons that you give, as was shown not only by the current RC apologist, but by the Roman popes there at the time!:

Pope Leo II (682-683), who confirmed the council, was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy. He wrote that Honorius "did not illuminate this apostolic see with the doctrine of apostolic tradition, but permitted her who was undefiled to be polluted by profane teaching" (Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352). That is, Honorius had failed to teach and had thereby "permitted"-not caused, not joined in causing-the profane teaching of Sergius, et al, to spread. Clearly, Leo II viewed Honorius's fault as one of neglect and inaction that was not befitting his apostolic office.

So no, it is not just the current RC apologist, as you are trying to sneak in...again.

What is the specific reference for the quoted text.  Usually the title, author, translator, publisher, edition, and seemingly now-a-days the isbn no. page no. referenced... that usually helps.  When I see a piece just quoted in a post without the above info how can anyone take any argument serious?  Argue all you want, debate all you want but without solid academic reference to the material you are using as evidence in that argument than it is nothing but a bar room squabble.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 11:25:22 AM
This looks like nothing more than another modern-day apologist's interpretation of Pope Leo II.  Do you have Pope Leo's own words on this?  And even if you did, can you tell us why Pope Leo alone should be seen as representative of the mind of the Sixth Great Council?

Also if he openly taught it the heresy, why did no pope utter a word about it for 40 years?:

This is nonsense. Aside from the fact Mr. White has offered no evidence based on the substance of Honorius' letters that this pope taught heresy, the pope's letters were known to a select few Eastern bishops, not to the faithful at large, and thus were hardly the instrument to convey a dogmatic definition. Far from being the case that no pope "uttered a word" regarding Honorius' letters, the John IV (640-642) defended the orthodoxy of Honorius when Pyrrhus, patriarch of Constantinople, appealed to these letters in defense of his monothelite position.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: username! on July 11, 2008, 11:29:15 AM
So you are basing your current argument on an article?  Why not base it on your own research with quotes from the original material and maybe then use academic essays from credited people to support your position.

Doesn't anyone ever leave the computer and go to a library? 
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 11:54:35 AM
So you are basing your current argument on an article?  Why not base it on your own research with quotes from the original material and maybe then use academic essays from credited people to support your position.

Doesn't anyone ever leave the computer and go to a library? 

Pope Leo:

...was in agreement with the condemnation of Honorius on the grounds of "neglect" and therefore did not count his predecessor among the "inventors" of the heresy.


It does not follow that just because I dont have the orignal document in my hand, that the above is a forgery outright. And we have St Maximos defending the said pope as well. Is this a forgery too?

The council even declared that he was condemned by what was found in a letter.

This is not hard.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Tzimis on July 11, 2008, 11:57:03 AM
The bottom line is who do we trust the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.Or the popes infallibility. While you are putting your trust in Papism. Here are some other issues with papal infallibility.

Pope Innocentius IV (1243-1254)

ordained that heretics must be tortured by Inquisitors, although later Popes also approved (with their official seals!) the burning of heretics. This was an official decision of the Papist “Church” that was faithfully upheld for centuries………

Was this Pope also “infallible”?

 The (orthodox) Pope Leo III (796-816) persistently fought against the “filioque” concept.

-Pope Sergios IV (1009-1012) had arbitrarily inserted the “filioque” into the Symbol of Faith (Creed). 

 Were both these popes “infallible”?

-Pope Paul VI

eliminated the names of a number of saints (such as Saint Barbara) from the Latin Book of Saints. With this act, he not only defied the Holy Tradition of the Church, but also his predecessor-Popes!
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: theistgal on July 11, 2008, 01:04:39 PM
It was a sin. No doubt. But to never, ever sin is not what God protects his popes from doing. They still need to go to confessions etc. You're missing the point: what the roman pontif's are protected from is openly teaching heresy. Honorius did not do that. Get it? Even the said council specified this difference, which seems impossible for you guys to understand.  ???

Okay. He was guilty of something, but not teaching it openly. Why? because he did not teach it openly.  ::)

If that's true, then why not just agree that Pope Honorius was indeed culpable of the sin of heresy, but that this sin doesn't affect the doctrine of papal infallibility, which is more limited than what the Eastern Orthodox (and some of the more ultramontane elements in the Roman Catholic Church) think it is; instead of continuing to try to jump through all sorts of hoops to deny it?  ???
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: username! on July 11, 2008, 01:28:55 PM
you still didn't read my post
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Schultz on July 11, 2008, 01:39:06 PM
-Pope Paul VI

eliminated the names of a number of saints (such as Saint Barbara) from the Latin Book of Saints. With this act, he not only defied the Holy Tradition of the Church, but also his predecessor-Popes!


Um, no.  St. Barbara (and others) were removed from the Calendar, but not from the Roman Martyrology.  A Roman Catholic priest may still celebrate a mass in honor of the Great Martyr Barbara on her feast day but such a memorial is optional one.  She is still recognized as a saint in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 11, 2008, 01:58:57 PM

Um, no.  St. Barbara (and others) were removed from the Calendar, but not from the Roman Martyrology.  A Roman Catholic priest may still celebrate a mass in honor of the Great Martyr Barbara on her feast day but such a memorial is optional one.  She is still recognized as a saint in the eyes of the Roman Catholic Church.
Huh?
Do we have a crossed-eyes emoticon or is that taboo today?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 11, 2008, 02:02:08 PM
Unlike what you are trying to portray, there are not millions of forgeries. What is contained in them are substaniated elsewhere. Are you claiming that St Maximos's quote is a forgery?

Nor did I say that there were "Millions" of forgeries. I said that there are many forgeries to the point that they are not a rare exception. The question then remains, why?
If there were so many genuine passages then why bother and why bother making so many?

I think the answer is that the Roman claim to Universal Jurisdiction is very weak. It simply does not jive with how the various Sees operated or how the Seven Councils were run. In reality there  are not many passages that are genuine that give evidence for Roman Supremacy so they had to churn out fakes that did.   The passages that seem to most direcly argue for Roman rulership never seem to hold up under rigorus scrutiny.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Schultz on July 11, 2008, 02:31:39 PM
Huh?
Do we have a crossed-eyes emoticon or is that taboo today?

This phenomenon of the post-concilar Roman Catholic Church is best explained here (http://www.nccatholics.org/Issues/2007/July/askncc.aspx).
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Tzimis on July 11, 2008, 03:22:15 PM
This phenomenon of the post-concilar Roman Catholic Church is best explained here (http://www.nccatholics.org/Issues/2007/July/askncc.aspx).

Nice try. :D Saints are added to dates. Not removed. Take for instance today.
We have, Euphemia the Great Martyr,
The All-Praised Olga, Equal-to-the-Apostles, Princess of Kiev
Nektarios the New Martyr
St. Nicodemos the New Martyr of Mt. Athos
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: theistgal on July 11, 2008, 03:22:39 PM
you still didn't read my post

Mine either.  I say we quit this thread and go out for a drink.  ;D
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 03:33:39 PM
What do you have in your posscession as far as orignal documents?  ;D
Please don't dodge my question by throwing it back at me.  Do you have the direct word of Pope Leo II himself on how he viewed Pope Honorius's condemnation?  A yes or no answer will do.

Quote
You tried this before, which means nothing except you realize that it hurts your case. In fact, the same can be said when people claim here that St Maximos' quote are forgeries. Since it hurts your case, they must be fake right?
No.  You are the one who needs to prove his case here, and all you've done is ramrod the same arguments with the same [second-hand] source citations, hoping that you'll finally override our rebuttals with your own pigheadedness.  This doesn't prove anything except that you love to argue.

Quote
BTW, do you have any of the orignal biblical documents?  :P
OBJECTION!  Irrelevant question asked with the intent of derailing my inquiry.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Schultz on July 11, 2008, 03:41:30 PM
Nice try. :D Saints are added to dates. Not removed. Take for instance today.
We have, Euphemia the Great Martyr,
The All-Praised Olga, Equal-to-the-Apostles, Princess of Kiev
Nektarios the New Martyr
St. Nicodemos the New Martyr of Mt. Athos


The fact still remains that no saints were "removed" from anything other than the universal calendar.  Priests and laity alike are allowed to commemorate and/or pray to St. Barbara whenever they feel like it.  Your posts make it sound like Rome decided that saints such as Great Martyr Barbara are no longer allowed to be commemorated at all and that is patently false. 

Do I like this way of dealing with the calendar?  Of course not.  It seems quite silly to me.  However, you don't have to spread half-truths in an effort to disprove Roman primacy.  There's plenty of things out there for you to expound on without resorting to this kind of straw man.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Tzimis on July 11, 2008, 05:47:25 PM

The fact still remains that no saints were "removed" from anything other than the universal calendar.  Priests and laity alike are allowed to commemorate and/or pray to St. Barbara whenever they feel like it.  Your posts make it sound like Rome decided that saints such as Great Martyr Barbara are no longer allowed to be commemorated at all and that is patently false. 

Do I like this way of dealing with the calendar?  Of course not.  It seems quite silly to me.  However, you don't have to spread half-truths in an effort to disprove Roman primacy.  There's plenty of things out there for you to expound on without resorting to this kind of straw man.

One day you have a mass entirely in her name and than ceased to venerate Saint Barbara the following year. We see this as a removal. You are free to believe whatever you like too.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: theistgal on July 11, 2008, 07:02:32 PM
One day you have a mass entirely in her name and than ceased to venerate Saint Barbara the following year. We see this as a removal. You are free to believe whatever you like too.


It's no longer a feast day for the entire church but local churches are still permitted to have Masses in her name.  Particularly churches named for her - for example, the Santa Barbara Mission in California.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ignatius on July 11, 2008, 07:46:38 PM
This is what I don't understand about Roman Catholicism... they completely broke with their own Apostolic continuity. It wasn't just Saints that was simply 'removed' it was Holy Altars, Relics, Churches, Pieties... all done away with in some attempt to be relevant in the face of modernity. Only 'one' Archbishop sounded an alarm... only one thought it was 'wrong' to break with the Holy Tradition of the West for some novel liturgy. I honestly can't for the life of me understand how such innovation can seize an institution like the Roman Catholic Church. Perhaps they are picking up the pieces but it's shocking.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 08:16:39 PM
Why is this hard for you?
Simple...  I recognize Constantinople III; I don't recognize Vatican I.

Also if he openly taught it the heresy, why did no pope utter a word about it for 40 years?
If the popes' authority never really meant that much to us, why does it matter?


1.  To the Orthodox, there is no higher dogmatic authority in the Church than the ecumenical council, of which we unanimously recognize seven--some of us recognize eight or nine, but that's beside the point.  No individual pope or father is greater than an ecumenical council, so if St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius I, whom the Sixth Ecumenical Council later condemned, then the Sixth Ecumenical Council overrules St. Maximos, and St. Maximos must be considered wrong to have defended the heretic.  If Pope Leo II offered an explanation of his own condemnation of Pope Honorius that goes counter to the official record of the great council, then we must defer to the infallible authority of the council and recognize Pope Leo's reasoning as merely his own private interpretation of the council's intent, a personal opinion therefore not binding on anyone.

2.  Your continued insistence in arguing that Pope Honorius I was condemned for something less than actively teaching heresy really isn't that important except to buttress your argument that the See of Rome was protected by God from ever teaching heresy from the time of St. Peter himself, the underpinning of the Vatican I dogma of papal infallibility.  If you're not advocating papal infallibility, then why does the case of Pope Honorius even matter?  Seeing that you are advocating papal infallibility, have you become unaware that the necessary foundation for papal infallibility is papal supremacy, something you started to argue from a few select quotes of a handful of fathers but have never established securely.  Maybe you would do well to return to this topic, since it is, after all, the subject of the thread's OP.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 08:46:52 PM
Having tech difficulties
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 08:53:51 PM
If that's true, then why not just agree that Pope Honorius was indeed culpable of the sin of heresy, but that this sin doesn't affect the doctrine of papal infallibility, which is more limited than what the Eastern Orthodox (and some of the more ultramontane elements in the Roman Catholic Church) think it is; instead of continuing to try to jump through all sorts of hoops to deny it?  ???

I actually have done what you have said, unless I am misunderstanding you.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 08:55:02 PM
The bottom line is who do we trust the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council.Or the popes infallibility. While you are putting your trust in Papism. Here are some other issues with papal infallibility.

Pope Innocentius IV (1243-1254)

ordained that heretics must be tortured by Inquisitors, although later Popes also approved (with their official seals!) the burning of heretics. This was an official decision of the Papist “Church” that was faithfully upheld for centuries………

Was this Pope also “infallible”?

 The (orthodox) Pope Leo III (796-816) persistently fought against the “filioque” concept.

-Pope Sergios IV (1009-1012) had arbitrarily inserted the “filioque” into the Symbol of Faith (Creed). 

 Were both these popes “infallible”?

-Pope Paul VI

eliminated the names of a number of saints (such as Saint Barbara) from the Latin Book of Saints. With this act, he not only defied the Holy Tradition of the Church, but also his predecessor-Popes!

The case at hand is whether the RC pope ever openly taught heresy. I could list atrocities by your church as well, but thats not the point here.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 08:59:16 PM
Nor did I say that there were "Millions" of forgeries. I said that there are many forgeries to the point that they are not a rare exception. The question then remains, why?
If there were so many genuine passages then why bother and why bother making so many?

I think the answer is that the Roman claim to Universal Jurisdiction is very weak. It simply does not jive with how the various Sees operated or how the Seven Councils were run. In reality there  are not many passages that are genuine that give evidence for Roman Supremacy so they had to churn out fakes that did.   The passages that seem to most direcly argue for Roman rulership never seem to hold up under rigorus scrutiny.

I have no idea of the quantity of forgeries you are refering to.  ??? What does "many" mean?

And no, there are not mountains of them. You cannot just pawn off quotes you dont like because you found some forgeries. I already gave you an exmaple of finding a forgery that had you misrepresented. It does not follow that everything you posted here is automatically a forgery based on the one forgery.

If you want to give me a ratio, we can get a better idea of what you are getting at.

So...botton line: out of the quotes we have in total, how many are forgeries?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 09:01:19 PM
Please don't dodge my question by throwing it back at me.  Do you have the direct word of Pope Leo II himself on how he viewed Pope Honorius's condemnation?  A yes or no answer will do.
No.  You are the one who needs to prove his case here, and all you've done is ramrod the same arguments with the same [second-hand] source citations, hoping that you'll finally override our rebuttals with your own pigheadedness.  This doesn't prove anything except that you love to argue.
OBJECTION!  Irrelevant question asked with the intent of derailing my inquiry.

You are using a double standard.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 09:08:15 PM
Simple...  I recognize Constantinople III; I don't recognize Vatican I.
If the popes' authority never really meant that much to us, why does it matter?


1.  To the Orthodox, there is no higher dogmatic authority in the Church than the ecumenical council, of which we unanimously recognize seven--some of us recognize eight or nine, but that's beside the point.  No individual pope or father is greater than an ecumenical council, so if St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius I, whom the Sixth Ecumenical Council later condemned, then the Sixth Ecumenical Council overrules St. Maximos, and St. Maximos must be considered wrong to have defended the heretic.  If Pope Leo II offered an explanation of his own condemnation of Pope Honorius that goes counter to the official record of the great council, then we must defer to the infallible authority of the council and recognize Pope Leo's reasoning as merely his own private interpretation of the council's intent, a personal opinion therefore not binding on anyone.

2.  Your continued insistence in arguing that Pope Honorius I was condemned for something less than actively teaching heresy really isn't that important except to buttress your argument that the See of Rome was protected by God from ever teaching heresy from the time of St. Peter himself, the underpinning of the Vatican I dogma of papal infallibility.  If you're not advocating papal infallibility, then why does the case of Pope Honorius even matter?  Seeing that you are advocating papal infallibility, have you become unaware that the necessary foundation for papal infallibility is papal supremacy, something you started to argue from a few select quotes of a handful of fathers but have never established securely.  Maybe you would do well to return to this topic, since it is, after all, the subject of the thread's OP.

First off, the council says he was condemned by what was found in a private letter. It does not say that he was condemned by an encyclical meant to openly teach the said heresy.

And you still havent answered why if he did openly teach it, why was the See of Rome silent of this fact?...for 40 years!

It is critical to have the See of Rome contempories view here, in order to get a better idea if it was openly taught. And from what he have, it supports that he did not openly teach the heresy. Now the council condemned him. I agree. But not for openly teaching heresy, as the eastern sees did. Big difference.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 09:15:26 PM
What is the specific reference for the quoted text.  Usually the title, author, translator, publisher, edition, and seemingly now-a-days the isbn no. page no. referenced... that usually helps.  When I see a piece just quoted in a post without the above info how can anyone take any argument serious?  Argue all you want, debate all you want but without solid academic reference to the material you are using as evidence in that argument than it is nothing but a bar room squabble.

Btw, you dont have to take my post seriously. I am not going to spend my time traveling the world in order to see the orignal documents, or give you a technical reference page. I have done that in school, and dont feel like doing that here. So if the citation in the quote is not agreeable with you, I am sorry. Keep in mind, this is not school, but a discussion board. What do I owe you?

A lot of our research, yes yours too, is based on our trusting historians. Even if I produced an orignal document 2000 years old, how would you know it not a forgery? I have faith God helps preserve what is true.

I could call into question any document from the past and challenge it. You have no way to 100% prove its a validity.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 11, 2008, 11:23:01 PM
Quote
Simple...  I recognize Constantinople III; I don't recognize Vatican I.


This does not mean that you cannot see what the contempory popes and St Maximos thought at the time for a better picture?


Quote
If the popes' authority never really meant that much to us, why does it matter?

You're missing the point: the pope's authority mattered to the See of Rome, yet there is nothing said about the said heresy at all in relation to Honorius from anyone during that time in Rome. This means that his letter was not openly taught, but was a private letter that was not an encyclical that addressed the Roman church. And the letter even said to remain silent. If Honorius wanted to teach it openly, why does it say "silent" in the letter?  ::)

Just read your own account of the said council. Nowhere will you find it saying that Honorius openly taught the heresy. Everywhere you'll find examples of eastern churches teaching the said heresy. Big difference.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 11, 2008, 11:56:13 PM
You are using a double standard.
Well, lets look at the post to which you replied with the above.


Please don't dodge my question by throwing it back at me.  Do you have the direct word of Pope Leo II himself on how he viewed Pope Honorius's condemnation?  A yes or no answer will do.
So far, all you've cited regarding what Pope Leo II said about Pope Honorius is an article by Steven O'Reilly in which O'Reilly says that Pope Leo said such and such.  The thing is, Mr. O'Reilly doesn't even quote Pope Leo on this; he just says, "Pope Leo did not count his predecessor as one of the 'inventors' of the heresy..." and credits a couple of letters from Pope Leo as his source.  Have you read these letters yourself?  Can you quote them for us?  If you cannot, and all that you can do is tell us how Steve O'Reilly interprets them, then please don't cite these letters of Pope Leo as evidence for your case.

Quote
No.  You are the one who needs to prove his case here, and all you've done is ramrod the same arguments with the same [second-hand] source citations, hoping that you'll finally override our rebuttals with your own pigheadedness.  This doesn't prove anything except that you love to argue.
For the last few pages of this thread, you have argued quite vocally--roughly half of the posts beginning with your citation of an article by Robert Spencer in Reply #208 are yours--that there is no way Pope Honorius can be considered an active teacher of heresy.  The past couple of nights you have spent arguing from another article posted by Steve O'Reilly on the same RC apologetics web site.  Clearly you are trying to prove something, which places the burden of proof on you to cite sources that substantiate your assertions.  Neither of these articles cites that many actual quotes of the popes and other persons whose material supposedly supports the weight of their arguments.  Spencer and O'Reilly both write as if they trust in their readers' first hand knowledge of the primary source material they credit (or as if they expect their readers to trust them at their word).  I personally don't think this very convincing.  If you really want to convince us of the truth of your word, then you need to start providing for us primary source materials from the fathers themselves to support your point of view.  You also need to start citing individuals whom we respect as authorities.  Otherwise, your case will be very easily dismissed by your readers here as bearing no substance.

For my defense, I have merely been working with the other posters here to offer rebuttals to your arguments.  In the court of public opinion, I'm not aware that I really need to do anything except plant the seeds of doubt that your word is true.  Even so, I have made some effort to be somewhat convincing by either quoting primary source documents or at least citing articles that do.  The article I posted from William Webster, for instance, included an excerpt several paragraphs long of the official minutes of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and actually prefaced the excerpt with a statement saying, "The reader can judge for himself from the Council's own statements how the situation with Honorius was viewed and whether it would have agreed with the assertions of Keating and Knox that Honorius did not actively teach anything."  Sure, Mr. Webster offered his own interpretation, but he also expressed his hope that his readers could see for themselves what the official record of the great council actually said.  I personally think such reference of primary sources more convincing than what you have done thus far.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 12, 2008, 12:06:46 AM
Quote
I personally don't think this very convincing.  If you really want to convince us of the truth of your word, then you need to start providing for us primary source materials from the fathers themselves to support your point of view.
 

Okay, you first. Provide me where in the said council it says that Honorius was condemned for openly teaching the said heresy. Remember- use primary sources. Maybe I'll learn from you here. I am all ears.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 12, 2008, 12:12:16 AM
 

Okay, you first. Provide me where in the said council it says that Honorius was condemned for openly teaching the said heresy. Remember- use primary sources. Maybe I'll learn from you here. I am all ears.
Don't play games with me, truth.  You are the one with the case to prove, so you provide the sources I asked of you in Replies #353, 378, & 392, or you pull out of this debate right now.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 12, 2008, 12:15:44 AM
Quote
(or as if they expect their readers to trust them at their word).  I personally don't think this very convincing.  If you really want to convince us of the truth of your word, then you need to start providing for us primary source materials from the fathers themselves to support your point of view.  You also need to start citing individuals whom we respect as authorities.  Otherwise, your case will be very easily dismissed by your readers here as bearing no substance.

I could say the same about you. You guys earlier tried to say that even Rome condemned the said pope at the council before recognozing in what way they did so! (he was condemned by neglect etc)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 12, 2008, 12:16:56 AM
Don't play games with me, truth.  You are the one with the case to prove, so you provide the sources I asked of you in Replies #353, 378, & 392, or you pull out of this debate right now.

You made a positive claim that he openly taught heresy. Where is your proof from that council? These are not games; but rather, fairness.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 12, 2008, 12:29:31 AM
You made a positive claim that he openly taught heresy. Where is your proof from that council? These are not games; but rather, fairness.
Since I have already posted this on this thread, I will go ahead and post this excerpt from the record of the Sixth Council, for I think it good to post this alone and without interpretation so that the reader can read it for himself and draw his own conclusions.

Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.

Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!...

Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus...and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
(highlighting mine)


Now, truth, you either provide the primary sources I requested, or you pull out of this debate, for you will get no more proof from me.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 12, 2008, 12:31:57 AM
You forgot to mention one little detail: where does it mention that he openly taught heresy?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 12, 2008, 12:33:43 AM
You forgot to mention one little detail: where does it mention that he openly taught heresy?
No, truth, the next move in this game is yours.  You provide the source for which I asked.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 12, 2008, 12:59:27 AM
No, truth, the next move in this game is yours.  You provide the source for which I asked.

My claim is that the said council did not state that Honorius taught heresy openly. Your case is that it does. How am I suppose to prove a negation??

Since your statement is the affirmation of Honorius teaching heresy openly, the burden of proof is yours. If you cannot prove this, then it stands that the See of Rome never openly taught the said heresy.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 12, 2008, 01:06:43 AM
Since your statement is the affirmation of Honorius teaching heresy openly, the burden of proof is yours. If you cannot prove this, then it stands that the See of Rome never openly taught the said heresy.

This is going from the ridiculous to the more ridiculous - the above is so illogical that it calls into question why this entire thread persists.  ::)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 12, 2008, 01:09:18 AM
I feel geeky and I couldn't resist.   :laugh:

My claim is that the said council did not state that Honorius taught heresy openly. Your case is that it does. How am I suppose to prove a negation??

Quote
Debaters may refer to any information that is within the realm of knowledge of liberally educated and informed citizens. If they believe some cited information to be too specific, debaters may request that their opponent explain specific information with which they are unfamiliar. In the event further explanation of specific information is requested, the debater should provide details sufficient to allow the debater to understand the connection between the information and the claim. Judges will disallow specific information only in the event that no reasonable person could have access to the information: e.g., information that is from the debater’s personal family history.

NPDA Rules of Debating (http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/npdarules.html)

Since your statement is the affirmation of Honorius teaching heresy openly, the burden of proof is yours. If you cannot prove this, then it stands that the See of Rome never openly taught the said heresy.

Quote
The proposition team (e.g. truth) must affirm the resolution by presenting and defending a sufficient case for that resolution. The opposition team (e.g. Peter) must oppose the resolution and/or the proposition team’s case. If, at the end of the debate, the judge (e.g. Peter - as moderator) believes that the proposition team has supported and successfully defended the resolution, they will be declared the winner, otherwise the opposition (e.g. Peter) will be declared the winner.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 12, 2008, 01:27:25 AM
I feel geeky and I couldn't resist.   :laugh:

NPDA Rules of Debating (http://cas.bethel.edu/dept/comm/npda/npdarules.html)


How can peter be the opponent and judge. a little bias he may become.  ;D
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 12, 2008, 01:29:06 AM
^ Give Peter the benefit of the doubt.   ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 12, 2008, 01:32:31 AM
^ Give Peter the benefit of the doubt.   ;)
Actually, in this sense, truth is right.  I can't be both opponent and judge. ;)  Besides, my job as a moderator doesn't require me to judge the winners and losers of debates so much as it requires me to keep debates civil and on topic.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 12, 2008, 01:40:27 AM
Actually, in this sense, truth is right.  I can't be both opponent and judge. ;)  Besides, my job as a moderator doesn't require me to judge the winners and losers of debates so much as it requires me to keep debates civil and on topic.

If this were a debating contest, Friul, who moderates this forum, would probably have a final word in who won the debate.   ;D

Civility and on topic ness is excellent by all participants.   ;)

Carry on.   :laugh:
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 12, 2008, 12:21:20 PM
I have no idea of the quantity of forgeries you are referring to.  ??? What does "many" mean?

And no, there are not mountains of them. You cannot just pawn off quotes you don't like because you found some forgeries. I already gave you an example of finding a forgery that had you misrepresented. It does not follow that everything you posted here is automatically a forgery based on the one forgery.

If you want to give me a ratio, we can get a better idea of what you are getting at.

So...botton line: out of the quotes we have in total, how many are forgeries?

Many means that there are so many of them that we often run into them in these discussions. Many means that the Monks on Athos began to refer to Rome as "The Home of Forgery".. Look up the "Decrees of Damisus" for a start....

My own experience in reading this debate topic about a dozen times on line is that the most direct quotes used by Roman apologists never seem to hold up. They are either tweaked or out of context or  could be referring of Primacy of Honor as easily as Rulership or they turn out to be out right fakes.

So once again, why make any forgeries at all much less so many  that  they have become common fare in these discussions? Why even one or two? If the Roman case has so many genuine quotes that any reasonable person would be persuaded, there would have been no need. Surely my question is clear to you at this point. Why ae there any forgeries at all?

In my opinion there is nearly a total absence of direct and convincing passages from the Fathers as Roman Supremacy was simple not an historical fact. Rome churned out forgeries to back fill the empty space...
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Tzimis on July 12, 2008, 12:21:30 PM
Truth, still hasn't given an ample excuse as to why Pope Liberius in his infaliblity was unfrocked. ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on July 12, 2008, 12:23:08 PM
If this were a debating contest, Friul, who moderates this forum, would probably have a final word in who won the debate.   ;D

Civility and on topic ness is excellent by all participants.   ;)

Carry on.   :laugh:

This thread has hit 10 pages, and the debate it beginning to dwindle and many just seem to be repeating themselves or that which has already been mentioned earlier in the thread.  There are two paths down which this thread my head. 

Firstly, PtA has provided statements from the Third Council of Constantinople outlining the anathematisation of Pope Honorius due to his impious teachings.  Now, since I was a Roman Catholic, I do understand Honorius was hotly debated at Vatican I, with members taking up both sides.  Some saying Honorius was teaching heretical doctrine and this was why infallibility should not be defined, while others saying his will was as weak as his leadership, and no heresy took place.  Now, it is up to truth , as many Roman Catholics have done before him, to try to prove that anathematisation of Pope Honorius did not specifically mean he was heretical.  What was Pope Honorius?  Well, that argument is solely up to truth to formulate and debate.  Please provide your argument and its support by 23:59 EST, 18 July 2008, otherwise option 2 will come into effect.  I believe other questions have gone unanswered, but this is the tangent we shall follow for now.

Secondly, if this debate continues to dry up and falter, I will have no choice but to lock this thread.  Any significant tangents can be debated in their own threads, if required, in an attempt to stimulate meaningful debate.

Friul locuta est, causa finita est.   :P
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Schultz on July 12, 2008, 12:43:15 PM
One day you have a mass entirely in her name and than ceased to venerate Saint Barbara the following year. We see this as a removal. You are free to believe whatever you like too.

Again, there was no ceasing of veneration of St. Barbara, otherwise there would not be churches in her name.  I see what you're saying, but I've been to Orthodox churches where not every saint whose feast day it was had his or her name announced during the ambon prayer.  I've also been to Orthodox churches where the priest most assuredly said every saint-of-the-day's name. 

The simple fact remains is that you are wrong in asserting that St. Barbara and others were "removed" from the Roman Catholic Martyrology.  While priests have the freedom to not commemorate an "optional" saint on any given day, in practice, at least in my experience of both attending and serving for the first 25 years of my life, most priests commemorate all the saints on any given day at some point in the Mass.  Those that don't are clearly exercising their freedom to not do so in this matter but their decision does not mean that the entire Roman Catholic Church does not venerate St. Barbara or has removed her from veneration.

Fact is fact, and until you offer data from a scientific poll, for example, that the veneration of St. Barbara never happens among Roman Catholics (and thus "removed" from veneration), you are simply wrong and spreading falsehood for the sake of a misguided attempt to argue against the primacy of Rome.  All you're doing is discrediting your own arguments and I hate to see it when people do that. 

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: SolEX01 on July 12, 2008, 04:01:56 PM
^^ The moderator of the debate has spoken.   ;)
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 13, 2008, 01:12:00 AM
Quote
Many means that there are so many of them...

This is too vague. A ratio please.

Quote
Why are there any forgeries at all?

Human sin. Some may have been accidental; some on purpose. There have been much greater crimes.

Quote
In my opinion there is nearly a total absence of direct and convincing passages from the Fathers as Roman Supremacy was simple not an historical fact.


You forgot the obvious St Maximos one. It cannot get anymore direct than this:

...has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world. (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

Remember? You were suppose to prove this a forgery.  ;D  What a minute, you just threw out right?...because you dont like it?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 13, 2008, 01:27:18 AM
Truth, still hasn't given an ample excuse as to why Pope Liberius in his infaliblity was unfrocked. ;)

I did in reply 333 and 340
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 13, 2008, 01:39:40 AM
Quote
Firstly, PtA has provided statements from the Third Council of Constantinople outlining the anathematisation of Pope Honorius due to his impious teachings. 


The point I made, as well as the popes at the time, as well as modern apologist, is that he was not teaching heresy openly. What the said council indicates was that he was condemned from a letter addressed to Segiuis; not to the entire church or universal. This explains why there was no open heresy to be found in the See of Rome, and in fact the letter has him saying to be silent.

Quote
...as many Roman Catholics have done before him, to try to prove that anathematisation of Pope Honorius did not specifically mean he was heretical.

Every RC source I have read regarding him has him condemned as heretical, just not openly teaching it. Please show me where in the said council it says this! The council mentions a private letter, not an encyclical addressed to the entire church as you would have it.  :o

Quote
What was Pope Honorius? 


Heretical. That was easy.

Quote
Well, that argument is solely up to truth to formulate and debate. 


Not if he was condemned by an ecunmenical council, which he was.

Quote
Please provide your argument and its support by 23:59 EST, 18 July 2008, otherwise option 2 will come into effect.  I believe other questions have gone unanswered, but this is the tangent we shall follow for now.

Please provide where in the said council that he was condemned for openly teaching heresy. Until then, what am I suppose to prove?...a negation? A negation means it was absent, which is what I am saying.

Quote
Secondly, if this debate continues to dry up and falter, I will have no choice but to lock this thread.  Any significant tangents can be debated in their own threads, if required, in an attempt to stimulate meaningful debate.

You should dry it up, because no one is providing any evidence for their case. They say that he was openly teaching heresy; yet the council says that he was condemned by a private letter.

Keep in mind this private letter is the best case you have against Rome in the pre-schism hereies. This pales in comparison to the openly taught heresies in the east, and in doing so killed St Maximos in the process.

I am begging anybody here: please show me where your claim that he openly taught the said heresy from the from the said council. I know the council said that he was condemned for his views confirmed in the private letter. This is not the same.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 13, 2008, 02:24:34 AM
The point I made, as well as the popes at the time, as well as modern apologist, is that he was not teaching heresy openly.

...

Every RC source I have read regarding him has him condemned as heretical, just not openly teaching it.
There's your problem.  You've been reading the wrong sources.  Popes seeking to defend their authority and modern day RC apologists seeking to defend his infallibility can be among the least objective of witnesses.  You need to balance this by reading sources from an Orthodox point of view, or at least from an historian's point of view not "tainted" by any affiliation with a dogmatic Christian tradition.

Quote
Please show me where in the said council it says this!
I already did.  If the pertinent words of the Sixth Ecumenical Council with no more interpretation than a little highlighting is not enough for you, then I'm afraid nothing will convince you.

Quote
The council mentions a private letter, not an encyclical addressed to the entire church as you would have it.  :o
Modern condition that you're trying to enforce upon a council that occurred over a thousand years ago--a bit anachronistic if you ask me.  What is really important is what the council considered to be the active teaching of heresy, and, apparently, these holy fathers didn't need to see an official papal encyclical to believe that Pope Honorius was actively teaching heresy.

Quote
Please provide where in the said council that he was condemned for openly teaching heresy. Until then, what am I suppose to prove?...a negation? A negation means it was absent, which is what I am saying.
Well, you told us that both Pope Leo II and St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius in their belief that he did not actively teach heresy, but you haven't provided any primary source documentation to prove THIS.  Maybe you can't prove a negation, but your declaration that St. Maximos and Pope Leo II agree with you is a positive assertion that therefore does require proof, and, per the request of this section's moderator, you have less than seven days to provide this proof.

Quote
I am begging anybody here: please show me where your claim that he openly taught the said heresy from the from the said council. I know the council said that he was condemned for his views confirmed in the private letter. This is not the same.
I already did all that needs to be done to show you.  If you can't see this for yourself in the record of the council, then that's your problem.  Besides...  TAG!  You're IT! ;D  And you have until the time Friul gave you to provide primary sources in defense of your thesis.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 13, 2008, 02:37:26 AM
And you have until the time Friul gave you to provide primary sources in defense of your thesis.
Which I am in full agreement with.
Please come back when you are ready to fulfill this request from the Section Moderator in accordance with this forum rule: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.msg220111.html#msg220111
Thanks,
George
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 13, 2008, 02:49:21 AM
Quote
Well, you told us that both Pope Leo II and St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius in their belief that he did not actively teach heresy, but you haven't provided any primary source documentation to prove THIS.  Maybe you can't prove a negation, but your declaration that St. Maximos and Pope Leo II agree with you is a positive assertion that therefore does require proof...

You make a good point. I will try...out of town at the moment.

Everything else in your post does not satisfy me a bit.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 15, 2008, 11:50:11 AM
What's wrong with the St Maximos citation btw?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 15, 2008, 11:10:30 PM
Quote
Well, you told us that both Pope Leo II and St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius in their belief that he did not actively teach heresy, but you haven't provided any primary source documentation to prove THIS. 


Here is the citation for the St Maximos quote:

Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692

If this is not acceptable, I need to know why.


Here is the one for Pope Leo:

Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352

Again, why are these unacceptable?

Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 15, 2008, 11:34:57 PM


Here is the citation for the St Maximos quote:

Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692

If this is not acceptable, I need to know why.


Here is the one for Pope Leo:

Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352

Again, why are these unacceptable?


Well....  What do they say?  I've seen these references in the articles you posted, but I've not yet seen you or these articles actually quote these sources.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Αριστοκλής on July 16, 2008, 08:16:09 AM
I guess we need a theme tune for this, our own OC.net soap opera...like the TV versions, this never ends.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: ozgeorge on July 16, 2008, 07:33:20 PM
I guess we need a theme tune for this, our own OC.net soap opera...like the TV versions, this never ends.

"Like sands through the hourglass
This is the waste of our lives......."
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 17, 2008, 10:57:37 AM
Well....  What do they say?  I've seen these references in the articles you posted, but I've not yet seen you or these articles actually quote these sources.

Sorry, I dont undertsand you. You are acknowledging that these are references, but not references?
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on July 17, 2008, 12:03:17 PM
Sorry, I dont undertsand you. You are acknowledging that these are references, but not references?

PtA is saying that yes, you are referring to an external source, but without a copy of that specific letter and without a copy of the 14th volume of Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, we cannot a) verify the reference, b) read the reference in context, and c) comment on them properly.  If you can quote a significant part of (or all of) the letter or the pages in question in NPNF, then it would be a proper reference.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: PeterTheAleut on July 17, 2008, 03:21:55 PM
PtA is saying that yes, you are referring to an external source, but without a copy of that specific letter and without a copy of the 14th volume of Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, we cannot a) verify the reference, b) read the reference in context, and c) comment on them properly.  If you can quote a significant part of (or all of) the letter or the pages in question in NPNF, then it would be a proper reference.
For example, my Reply #397...  I didn't just post Sections __ from the Proceedings of the Third Council of Constantinople and leave it at that with the expectation that you would do a Google search for the reference and find its text online for yourself.  Nor did I paraphrase the text of the source in my own words.  What I did was paste a significant portion of the text directly into my post to make it easy for you to read the citation for yourself.  This is what I hope to see from you.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Fr. George on July 17, 2008, 04:46:43 PM
I guess we need a theme tune for this, our own OC.net soap opera...like the TV versions, this never ends.

"This is the thread that never ends,
yes it goes on and on, my friends,
Some people started replying it
not knowing what they're talking about,
and they'll continue posting it forever just because...."
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Marc1152 on July 17, 2008, 09:59:34 PM
"This is the thread that never ends,
yes it goes on and on, my friends,
Some people started replying it
not knowing what they're talking about,
and they'll continue posting it forever just because...."

Memory Eternal: Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: truth on July 18, 2008, 12:24:19 AM
This thread has hit 10 pages, and the debate it beginning to dwindle and many just seem to be repeating themselves or that which has already been mentioned earlier in the thread.  There are two paths down which this thread my head. 

Firstly, PtA has provided statements from the Third Council of Constantinople outlining the anathematisation of Pope Honorius due to his impious teachings.  Now, since I was a Roman Catholic, I do understand Honorius was hotly debated at Vatican I, with members taking up both sides.  Some saying Honorius was teaching heretical doctrine and this was why infallibility should not be defined, while others saying his will was as weak as his leadership, and no heresy took place.  Now, it is up to truth , as many Roman Catholics have done before him, to try to prove that anathematisation of Pope Honorius did not specifically mean he was heretical.  What was Pope Honorius?  Well, that argument is solely up to truth to formulate and debate.  Please provide your argument and its support by 23:59 EST, 18 July 2008, otherwise option 2 will come into effect.  I believe other questions have gone unanswered, but this is the tangent we shall follow for now.

Secondly, if this debate continues to dry up and falter, I will have no choice but to lock this thread.  Any significant tangents can be debated in their own threads, if required, in an attempt to stimulate meaningful debate.

Friul locuta est, causa finita est.   :P

Sorry...been working a lot and traveling. It might not be until next week.
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: _Seraphim_ on July 18, 2008, 09:52:04 AM
"This is the thread that never ends,
yes it goes on and on, my friends,
Some people started replying it
not knowing what they're talking about,
and they'll continue posting it forever just because...."

 :laugh: ;D
Title: Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
Post by: Entscheidungsproblem on July 19, 2008, 12:02:32 AM
Since this conversation appears to have run its course, it has been locked.

truth, if/when you are able to provide the sources you were to post, PM me and I will decide whether to unlock this thread or just to start a new one.

Thank you.

-- Friul