OrthodoxChristianity.net
April 16, 2014, 03:25:36 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The Rules page has been updated.  Please familiarize yourself with its contents!
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags CHAT Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Papal Infallibility vs Ecumenical Councils  (Read 19231 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #45 on: November 19, 2006, 05:55:14 PM »

Actually, the Patriarch wears the same nice clothes as every other Orthodox bishop, as far as I can tell.  Look at Icons of Patriarchs and then Icons of regular bishops, I can't point out any differences.  Same with current pictures of the patriarch and bishops.  The only Patriarch that I can think of that wears slightly different clothes is the Patriarch of Moscow, who wears a different hat (maybe somebody can help me out with the proper term for this) than the other bishops, but otherwise, everything else is the same.
Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
francis-christopher
Banned
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of Richmond
Posts: 366


St. Francis pray for us!


« Reply #46 on: November 19, 2006, 05:59:48 PM »

In nomine Iesu I offer you all peace,

It's disheartening to see that these deep discussions devolve into such petty 'polemical' debates.

Personally I don't see the necessary conflict between Papal Infallibility and Ecumenical Councils as both serve Holy Tradition. The Official Chrism of the Papal Office is not under the whim of any 'one' individual but the spiritual guidance given by Holy Tradition through the Church of the Living God by the Holy Spirit present among its members. The Papal Office is 'in the service of' Holy Tradition and not 'the source of' just as the exercise of those Chrisms present within Ecumenical Councils ultimately act in the service of Holy Tradition.

Devout Roman Catholics hold our Roman Patriarch in the deepest respect and honor as a necessary link to our relationship with Christ and His Church from the beginning. To debate which 'side' is the Church of the Living God is something no devout Roman Catholic can objectively engage. My personal trust in Christ to guide 'me' in my faith as well as the larger institutional Church is simply not in question nor should it be in question for you if you are well feed by your tradition and thus ultimately serves no real point for dialogue between traditions. Such can and should be the subject with inquirers but not between devout and faith-filled members of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Perhaps it is difficult to determine who among us visiting are inquirers but such should be pointed out in my humble opinion and steps made to exercise respect and peace between those who are devout members of either tradition. Such is the only Christian thing to do in my humble opinion.

Pax
Logged

Francisce-Christophorus

Sancte Francisce, athleta Christi, ora pro nobis. Amen.
ozgeorge
I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Oecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople, the New Rome, the Great Church of Christ.
Posts: 16,382


My plans for retirement.


WWW
« Reply #47 on: November 19, 2006, 06:28:15 PM »

It's disheartening to see that these deep discussions devolve into such petty 'polemical' debates.
It's not polemical, it's just stupid. Papist made a claim that the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" is meaningless, yet this title has been granted in an Oecumenical Council. Yet no Oecumenical Council decreed that the Pope of Rome is "Supreme Pontiff"- which is the basis of his 'argument'.
Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #48 on: November 19, 2006, 07:32:15 PM »

It's not polemical, it's just stupid. Papist made a claim that the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" is meaningless, yet this title has been granted in an Oecumenical Council. Yet no Oecumenical Council decreed that the Pope of Rome is "Supreme Pontiff"- which is the basis of his 'argument'.
It is meangningless if the only difference between a regular Patriarch and the "Ecumenical Patriach" is the title.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #49 on: November 19, 2006, 07:33:27 PM »

In nomine Iesu I offer you all peace,

It's disheartening to see that these deep discussions devolve into such petty 'polemical' debates.

Personally I don't see the necessary conflict between Papal Infallibility and Ecumenical Councils as both serve Holy Tradition. The Official Chrism of the Papal Office is not under the whim of any 'one' individual but the spiritual guidance given by Holy Tradition through the Church of the Living God by the Holy Spirit present among its members. The Papal Office is 'in the service of' Holy Tradition and not 'the source of' just as the exercise of those Chrisms present within Ecumenical Councils ultimately act in the service of Holy Tradition.

Devout Roman Catholics hold our Roman Patriarch in the deepest respect and honor as a necessary link to our relationship with Christ and His Church from the beginning. To debate which 'side' is the Church of the Living God is something no devout Roman Catholic can objectively engage. My personal trust in Christ to guide 'me' in my faith as well as the larger institutional Church is simply not in question nor should it be in question for you if you are well feed by your tradition and thus ultimately serves no real point for dialogue between traditions. Such can and should be the subject with inquirers but not between devout and faith-filled members of either Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

Perhaps it is difficult to determine who among us visiting are inquirers but such should be pointed out in my humble opinion and steps made to exercise respect and peace between those who are devout members of either tradition. Such is the only Christian thing to do in my humble opinion.

Pax
Actually, it is a debate that every Catholic should engage in for our Church teaches that it is the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church alone (those in union with Rome) that is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Period.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #50 on: November 19, 2006, 07:56:43 PM »

It's not polemical, it's just stupid. Papist made a claim that the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" is meaningless, yet this title has been granted in an Oecumenical Council. Yet no Oecumenical Council decreed that the Pope of Rome is "Supreme Pontiff"- which is the basis of his 'argument'.
And yet, an ECUMENICAL council, Vaticn I, declared it so.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,075


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #51 on: November 19, 2006, 07:59:07 PM »

And yet, an ECUMENICAL council, Vaticn I, declared it so.

What are you trying to do, just bait the Orthodox posters for fun?  You know full well that the Orthodox do not recognize  Vatican 1 as an ecumenical council.
Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #52 on: November 19, 2006, 08:01:27 PM »

What are you trying to do, just bait the Orthodox posters for fun?  You know full well that the Orthodox do not recognize  Vatican 1 as an ecumenical council.
No not at all. I am just trying to get the Eastern Orthodox to see that just because they says something is so, does not make it so and for them to argue that no ecumenical council has defined the doctrines of the infallibility and universal jursidiction of the Pope, does not hold water with a Catholic. I can say, just as much, that maybe they are trying to bait me by saying what they say for they know that I disagree.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
drewmeister2
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Hellenic Orthodox Traditionalist Church of America
Posts: 415


Christmas at St Markella's Cathedral, Astoria, NY


« Reply #53 on: November 19, 2006, 08:06:38 PM »

Actually, what Orthodoxy says is so, whether Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, etc agree with it or not.  Orthodoxy is the Truth, and Truth is not subjective to how many people accept it or not.  Of course, you are right though, Catholics do not accept the Truth of Orthodoxy, so of course they don't accept what Orthodoxy teaches, however, Orthodoxy is still the Truth. 

BTW, we are not baiting you, as this is an Orthodox, not Catholic, forum.  When we speak the Truth here we do not do it to bait people, but rather for the purposes of preaching the Truth.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2006, 08:07:43 PM by drewmeister2 » Logged

Orthodoxia i Thanatos

IC    XC      ...and in ONE HOLY CATHOLIC
    +                   and APOSTOLIC CHURCH...
NI    KA

www.hotca.org | www.YouTube.com/GreekOrthodoxTV
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #54 on: November 19, 2006, 08:21:03 PM »

Actually, what Orthodoxy says is so, whether Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, etc agree with it or not.  Orthodoxy is the Truth, and Truth is not subjective to how many people accept it or not.  Of course, you are right though, Catholics do not accept the Truth of Orthodoxy, so of course they don't accept what Orthodoxy teaches, however, Orthodoxy is still the Truth. 

BTW, we are not baiting you, as this is an Orthodox, not Catholic, forum.  When we speak the Truth here we do not do it to bait people, but rather for the purposes of preaching the Truth.
My friend, I certainly appreciate your conviction, but it so divorced from reality you can't even see it. But aside from that, telling me that Eastern Orthodoxy is true does not make it so. Believing it to be true does not make it so. I can say the same thing, "Whether Easern Orthodox Christians, Protestants, Muslims, Jews, etc agree with it or not Catholicism is true". And you know what, I would be right. But it does not produce any fruit on a forum like this. It is pointless to state things like that on a Catholic forum or an Eastern Orthodox forum because it causes no conversions.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Panagiotis
Libertarian/Orthodox/Lush
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: The Phanar
Posts: 406


Advocating Liberty Since 1973


WWW
« Reply #55 on: November 19, 2006, 08:30:35 PM »

No not at all. I am just trying to get the Eastern Orthodox to see that just because they says something is so, does not make it so and for them to argue that no ecumenical council has defined the doctrines of the infallibility and universal jursidiction of the Pope, does not hold water with a Catholic. I can say, just as much, that maybe they are trying to bait me by saying what they say for they know that I disagree.
Of course you stated "No not at all." We here who are Eastern Orthodox are just trying to get the Roman Catholics to see that just because they says something is so, does not make it so and for them to argue that Papal Infallibility or Papal Primacy has defined the doctrines of the authority of the Ecumenical Councils which contain the whole of the Church who have not broken from the foundations which is Constantine's founded Patriarchal See of New Rome, does not hold water with an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

I can say, just as much, that maybe you are trying to bait us by saying what we say for you know that we disagree.
It goes both ways, sir Papist.

Kyrie Eleison,
Panagiotis
Logged


"The first condition for the establishment of perpetual peace is the general adoption of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism"
-Ludwig Von Mises
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #56 on: November 19, 2006, 08:45:09 PM »

Of course you stated "No not at all." We here who are Eastern Orthodox are just trying to get the Roman Catholics to see that just because they says something is so, does not make it so and for them to argue that Papal Infallibility or Papal Primacy has defined the doctrines of the authority of the Ecumenical Councils which contain the whole of the Church who have not broken from the foundations which is Constantine's founded Patriarchal See of New Rome, does not hold water with an Eastern Orthodox Christian.

I can say, just as much, that maybe you are trying to bait us by saying what we say for you know that we disagree.
It goes both ways, sir Papist.

Kyrie Eleison,
Panagiotis
Exactly.
Many Blessings in Christ.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #57 on: November 19, 2006, 09:34:36 PM »

Actually, the Patriarch wears the same nice clothes as every other Orthodox bishop, as far as I can tell.  Look at Icons of Patriarchs and then Icons of regular bishops, I can't point out any differences.  Same with current pictures of the patriarch and bishops.  The only Patriarch that I can think of that wears slightly different clothes is the Patriarch of Moscow, who wears a different hat (maybe somebody can help me out with the proper term for this) than the other bishops, but otherwise, everything else is the same.

He does get a nifty title  Grin

This from the home page of Patriarch Bartholomew's website www.patriarchate.org (image is too wide to post on one line):




Some Catholic blogs are having a little fun with this graphic, linking to it underneath the heading HOLIER THAN THOU.  Wink
« Last Edit: November 19, 2006, 09:37:12 PM by lubeltri » Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #58 on: November 19, 2006, 09:41:57 PM »

Personally I don't see the necessary conflict between Papal Infallibility and Ecumenical Councils as both serve Holy Tradition.

Simply put, the pope cannot contradict the solemnly defined dogmatic teaching of an ecumenical council, and a council is not ecumenical without the Holy See or its legates.
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #59 on: November 19, 2006, 09:48:53 PM »

It's not polemical, it's just stupid. Papist made a claim that the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" is meaningless, yet this title has been granted in an Oecumenical Council.

Indeed, the See of Constantinople was established as second only to the See of Rome in "prerogative of honor" at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. It took some time for all of the other patriarchates to agree to this re-ordering, but eventually they were on board.
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #60 on: November 19, 2006, 09:49:29 PM »

He does get a nifty title  Grin

This from the home page of Patriarch Bartholomew's website www.patriarchate.org (image is too wide to post on one line):




Some Catholic blogs are having a little fun with this graphic, linking to it underneath the heading HOLIER THAN THOU.  Wink
LOL. I noticed that they are dressed very differently. LOL. Check out those hats.  Wink
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 11,958


Truth, Justice, and the American way!


« Reply #61 on: November 19, 2006, 09:50:59 PM »

Indeed, the See of Constantinople was established as second only to the See of Rome in "prerogative of honor" at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. It took some time for all of the other patriarchates to agree to this re-ordering, but eventually they were on board.
You must remember that this was not done for theological reasons. Rather, it was done for Political reasons, and still the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" cares no meaning because it carries no authority. Its just a nice name.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #62 on: November 19, 2006, 10:08:11 PM »

Papist,
Due to repeated warnings, uncharitable behaviour, insulting of the Orthodox Faith, and a general consensus of continuous trolling behaviour, you are hereby officially warned and your posts shall be closely watched by me and the other moderators.  If said behaviour continues, further consequences may follow.  This goes for you and for all, posts that show on a consist ant basis a tendency to troll, will not be tolerated!
Daniel
Orthodox-Catholic Moderator
« Last Edit: November 19, 2006, 10:09:37 PM by dantxny » Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
dantxny
OC.net Mineshaft gap
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Russian
Posts: 769



« Reply #63 on: November 19, 2006, 10:09:23 PM »

Double Post
« Last Edit: November 19, 2006, 10:09:50 PM by dantxny » Logged

"If you give the average Frenchman a choice between a reforming president who would plug the country's huge deficit and a good cheese, he would probably opt for the cheese." - Stephen Clarke
I think the French may be on to something here.
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #64 on: November 19, 2006, 10:10:40 PM »

It is true that Patriarchs of Constantinople long ago regarded that title as representing some real authority, which they claimed and attempted to exercise. Power rivalries between patriarchates go way back---rival Antioch obviously was not happy when Constantinople leapfrogged the other, older, apostolic patriarchates.

But after the Ottoman conquest of Byzantium, such authority was curtailed, leaving Moscow to attempt to assert its own preeminence as the "Third Rome." It is sad that so few Christians remain in Turkey. Unfortunately, the Ecumenical Patriarch remains handcuffed, in some sense, by the Turks. I'd like to see the EU insist on a whole list of preconditions for Turkey to be considered for admittance, among them no more persecution of the Christian churches in Turkey.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2006, 10:19:49 PM by lubeltri » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #65 on: November 19, 2006, 10:58:17 PM »

You must remember that this was not done for theological reasons. Rather, it was done for Political reasons, and still the title "Ecumenical Patriarch" cares no meaning because it carries no authority. Its just a nice name.

Actually, it carries with it a very specific authority. The title was bestowed by the Emperor on the Bishop who was given the right to set the agenda for and preside over an Imperial or Oecumenical Synod. Prior to Chalcedon this title was granted to a different bishop each time, depending on the will of the Emperor; however, after Chalcedon, the title was permanently bestowed on Constantinople, making her the perpetual President of any synod at which she was present, and requiring her presence for any synod to be Oecumenical or Imperial in authority. By the seventh century it was established as custom (later to be established by Imperial law, I believe with Leo VI, though I could be mistaken, it might have been a bit later) that any synod over which the Oecumenical Patriarch presided was Imperial in authority, thus granting the endimousa synod of Constantinople the authority to depose and enthrone other Patriarchs (an authority which it exercized on many occasions, not merely with the excommunication of Rome).
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 11,903


St. Hripsimeh pray for us!


« Reply #66 on: November 19, 2006, 11:07:50 PM »

I guess no one here knows anything about the Arian CRISIS. The CRISIS happened after the council of Nicea when almost all of the Church fell to the Arian heresy.

I thought I did answer your question in my post above (reply #20.)  To repeat, sometime after the Council of Nicea, an emperor came into power who believed in the Arian heresy.  Suddenly, Arianism was in fashion and just about everyone went over to it, including, if I recall correctly, the Pope of Rome.  St. Athanasius, who was the Pope of Alexandria, however, remained true to the Orthodox faith and was repeatedly exiled and persecuted.  Eventually, however, he straightened everthing out by getting some of the more moderate Arians, who objected to Nicea on linguistic grounds (they were afraid it was Sabellian) to sign mutual agreements on faith with him.  This isolated the more hard core Arians and they eventually died out.  So the Arian Crises was resolved by a pope, but it was the Pope of Alexandria.
Logged

"I don't think I've ever eaten anything Armenian I didn't like.  I even drink my non-Armenian coffee out of a St Nersess Seminary coffee mug because it is better that way." --Mor Ephrem
Keightlynn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #67 on: December 15, 2006, 09:13:18 PM »

What would you do in a situation like the Arian crisis?

It would not matter.  That's the beauty of the Orthodox church.  Orthodoxy is defined by true faith, not by any man.  Men can become corrupt.  Look at the Popes who had affairs, illegitiment children, became corrupt with politics, sold indulgences, etc. etc.  Men fall into corruption, and when the faith is based on men, it will fall into heresy.  In Orthodoxy it does not matter if EVERY bishop falls into heresy, because in Orthodoxy, the faithful have equal responcibilty to uphodl the faith and reject heresy. 

We saw an example of this when the bishops, seeking protection from Rome, submitted to papal authority.  They came home to find that the faithful rejected it. Becuase it was against the faith.  The same thing with iconoclasm.  Orthodoxy is defined by adherance to the faith.  If you do not adhere to it, you place yourself outside the church - whether you are a peasant or a bishop.
Logged
Keightlynn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #68 on: December 16, 2006, 12:56:05 AM »

The Eastern Orthodox model does not work right now. Issues like "toll houses", old vs. new calendar, ecumenism, the use of birth control, the validity of non-Eastern Orthodox sacraments all appear to be issues that your current "conciliar" model cannot resolve. Just look at what happened at the Catholic and Orthodox theological dialogue in September. The representatives all agreed on a statement concerning the nature of the Ecumenical Patriarchate, except of course, our lovable brethren from the Russian Orthodox Church.

Papist, the problem you're having is that you don't understand how Orthodoxy works becuase you are looking at it through your Catholic lense.  My major in school is Chinese.  One of the hard things about learning Chinese is that Chinese is so based on the Chinese way of thinking.  Being American and English speaking, I have a very western understanding of language.  In elementary school I memorized grammer rules, recited them, learned how to conjegate, etc.  In high school I studied Spanish and it was pretty easy to learn. Same thing, it's based on a set of rules and it's all pretty logical and I can memorize how to conjegate and all that jazz. So now I'm learning Chinese. Chinese has no conjection.  It essentially has no past or future tense either.  There's the particle "le" that make actions completed, and you have to add it in all these places, but it's not just about completing stuff, you have to use it in all these different circumstances.  There's general rules about when you use it, but really, the only way you ever will understand how to use it correctly is living in China and speakign Chinese. Chinese people just -know- when to use it. So here I am with my set of grammer rules from my text book trying to speak Chinese correctly, and to Chiense people I just sound rediculous. They are wondering why I just don't get it. But I'm never going to get it as long as I try to keep focusing on my text book.  To me it seems like Chinese doesn't have grammer, that they must just apply the grammer rules randomly. But in actuality, that's not the case at all. There are right and wrong ways to apply it, there is logic to it, and Chinese people apply grammer in the same way. It's just in a way that doesn't make sense to me, with my check list of grammer rules.

This is sort of the problem with Catholics looking at Orthodoxy.  You have your set of rules that your trying to apply and were telling you it doesn't work that way. To you it looks like Orthodoxy lacks organization, that there's no law, no clear truth. To us, there is. And it's consistant and it makes sense. But you'll never understand it if you can't let go of your western legalistic mind frame.

You brought up several issues such as toll houses, the calander issue, etc.  Again, this is an example of the different worldviews we have.  The Catholic church likes to define everything. Nothing is left to speculation.  So every issue, from the big issues such as the nature of God to the little issues such as the amount of time one must linger on a thought to make it a mortal rather than venial sin, is defined by the church as absolute truth. The Orthodox church takes the approach that there are a lot of things we don't know.  Certain things, such as those things defined in the Eccumenical Councils, we know to be true and one must believe them to be Orthodox. On other things, that the church really doesn't know about and aren't necessary for our salvation, the church chooses not to define.  Is the calander we use going to effect our salvation? No. Toll houses are what we call "pious opinions."  There are a lot of these in the church.  We realize that men are fallible, but we also realize that certain people have spent their lives in prayer and devotion to God and so their opinions deserve to be listened to and deeply thought about. Does that mean if you disagree you aren't a Christian? No, of course not. Now if you reject the Trinity does that mean you aren't a Christian? Yes. That's why the church defines issues that relate to the  nature of Christianity.  The issues you listed are not issues that we know about, so instead we rely on pious opinions, but not presumptions to know God's mind on issues that we actually don't.
Logged
cothrige
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133

OC.net


« Reply #69 on: December 16, 2006, 02:58:02 PM »

You brought up several issues such as toll houses, the calander issue, etc.  Again, this is an example of the different worldviews we have.  The Catholic church likes to define everything. Nothing is left to speculation.  So every issue, from the big issues such as the nature of God to the little issues such as the amount of time one must linger on a thought to make it a mortal rather than venial sin, is defined by the church as absolute truth. The Orthodox church takes the approach that there are a lot of things we don't know.  Certain things, such as those things defined in the Eccumenical Councils, we know to be true and one must believe them to be Orthodox. On other things, that the church really doesn't know about and aren't necessary for our salvation, the church chooses not to define.  Is the calander we use going to effect our salvation? No. Toll houses are what we call "pious opinions."  There are a lot of these in the church.  We realize that men are fallible, but we also realize that certain people have spent their lives in prayer and devotion to God and so their opinions deserve to be listened to and deeply thought about. Does that mean if you disagree you aren't a Christian? No, of course not. Now if you reject the Trinity does that mean you aren't a Christian? Yes. That's why the church defines issues that relate to the  nature of Christianity.  The issues you listed are not issues that we know about, so instead we rely on pious opinions, but not presumptions to know God's mind on issues that we actually don't.

I have always greatly admired this overall approach to these issues, and it is one of the great virtues of the East, in my opinion.

Patrick
Logged
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #70 on: December 18, 2006, 01:34:08 AM »

You brought up several issues such as toll houses, the calander issue, etc.  Again, this is an example of the different worldviews we have.  The Catholic church likes to define everything. Nothing is left to speculation.  So every issue, from the big issues such as the nature of God to the little issues such as the amount of time one must linger on a thought to make it a mortal rather than venial sin, is defined by the church as absolute truth.

This is a pretty gross exaggeration. Perhaps there is mutual misunderstanding between East and West?

--

As for those "pious opinions" in Orthodoxy, it seems that not all Orthodox agree with you that they are things "we don't know." After all, some of those issues have become communion-breakers.
Logged
Keightlynn
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 13


« Reply #71 on: December 19, 2006, 02:17:15 AM »

This is a pretty gross exaggeration. Perhaps there is mutual misunderstanding between East and West?

It was a bit of an exaggeration, but not much. I was raised Roman Catholic (I'm converting this Pascha), and studying Catholic teaching on mortal/venial sin was the first thing that lead me away from the church.  It's amazing how much the Church defines.

--

Quote
As for those "pious opinions" in Orthodoxy, it seems that not all Orthodox agree with you that they are things "we don't know." After all, some of those issues have become communion-breakers.

Well, sadly we are all sinners, and sometimes human pride steps in. As I explained before, the beauty of Orthodoxy is it is not defined my the sins of men, but by adherance to truth.
Logged
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #72 on: January 17, 2007, 06:20:30 PM »

Quote
Indeed, the See of Constantinople was established as second only to the See of Rome in "prerogative of honor" at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. It took some time for all of the other patriarchates to agree to this re-ordering, but eventually they were on board.

Truth to tell, it cannot even be said that the 2nd Oecumenical Synod truly & with just & proper authority constituted the Constantinopolitan See as second in Christendom.  It must be remembered first of all that the 2nd Oecumenical Synod gained its Oecumenical status only retroactively, by its acceptance as such by the Pope & Church Catholic.  (This acceptance was gradual: even by the mid-5th Century Dioscor of Alexandria (of unhappy memory) considered Ephesus the 2nd Oecumenical Synod.  This is of course understandable given the Patriarchal usurpation embodied in the Council's 3rd Canon.)

Even when the council was accepted as Oecumenical, it was only its doctrinal decisions which were regarded as authoritative.  Pope St. Damasus would confirm only the council's dogmatic decree against Macedonius, and Pope St. Gregory Dialogist would say, "The Roman Church hitherto neither acknowledges nor recieves the Canons and Acts of that Synod, she accpets the same Synod in that which it defined against Macedonius" (Epistle vii. 34). Furthermore, Pope St. Boniface I made reference to the 3rd Canon as a "new usurpation which is contrary to the knowledge of the ancients", positing in contradistinction "you will find which are the second and third sees after Rome.  Let the great Churhes keep their dignity according to the Canons, that is Alexandria & Antioch" (Ep. ad Rufinum Thessal.)  Writing to Anatolius of Constantinople, Pope St. Leo the Great says, "You boast that certain bishops sixty years ago made a rescript in fovour of this your persuasion.  No notice of it was ever sent by your predecessors to the Apostolic See." (Epistle cvi.)

Gratian's Corpus Iuris included the controversial canon, but the Roman correctors added thereto the caveat: "This Canon is one of those that the Apostolic Roman See did not receive at first or for a long time."
« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 06:22:44 PM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #73 on: January 17, 2007, 08:26:40 PM »

Truth to tell, it cannot even be said that the 2nd Oecumenical Synod truly & with just & proper authority constituted the Constantinopolitan See as second in Christendom.

No, the synod did not make the Great Church of Christ the second see in Christendom, rather it simply recognized the already de facto truth, that Constantinople was the Imperial See and therefore the See, following the elevation of the city in the manner later set forth at Trullo, deserved a dignity above all else in Christendom. Old Rome alone was not to be diminished in authority not because of some fool's argument about apostolicity, but rather because she had once been the seat of the Senate and the Imperium. As was later codified in the 38th Canon of Trullo (and is found in numerous places throughout the Code of Justinian), ecclesiastical order follows imperial order.

Quote
It must be remembered first of all that the 2nd Oecumenical Synod gained its Oecumenical status only retroactively, by its acceptance as such by the Pope & Church Catholic.  (This acceptance was gradual: even by the mid-5th Century Dioscor of Alexandria (of unhappy memory) considered Ephesus the 2nd Oecumenical Synod.  This is of course understandable given the Patriarchal usurpation embodied in the Council's 3rd Canon.)

So we had several popes who were of a dubious theology and not in line with the rest of the Church...they wouldn't be the last ones. However, your emphasis on Constantinople I is curious, all that said synod did was elevate Constantinople in matters of liturgical honour. The real codification of the authority of the Imperial See came at Chalcedon where all the rights previously given to Old Rome were bestowed upon New Rome, which had by this time surpassed the former in glory.

Oh, and synods only become Oecumenical Retroactively, numerous Imperial synods declared themselves to be Oecumenical but were never accepted as such, so a self-declaration of Oecumenical status is irrelevant.

Quote
Even when the council was accepted as Oecumenical, it was only its doctrinal decisions which were regarded as authoritative.

Sounds like a version of Ecclesiastical monophysitism to me, accepting the spiritual decrees but rejecting the pragmatic decrees relating to Church discipline. Of course, the opinion of Rome on this matter is completely irrelevant; I don't believe the Synod ever gave Rome the option of a line item veto. Of course, Rome has a tendency to try and take things that arn't hers, but that's what got her excommunicated and kicked out of the Christian Church. The fact of the matter is that by this time Rome was a provincial backwater, Constantinople was the centre of the Empire and Constantinople, with the aid of our God-ordained Emperors, governed the Church.

Quote
Pope St. Damasus would confirm only the council's dogmatic decree against Macedonius, and Pope St. Gregory Dialogist would say, "The Roman Church hitherto neither acknowledges nor recieves the Canons and Acts of that Synod, she accpets the same Synod in that which it defined against Macedonius" (Epistle vii. 34). Furthermore, Pope St. Boniface I made reference to the 3rd Canon as a "new usurpation which is contrary to the knowledge of the ancients", positing in contradistinction "you will find which are the second and third sees after Rome.  Let the great Churhes keep their dignity according to the Canons, that is Alexandria & Antioch" (Ep. ad Rufinum Thessal.)  Writing to Anatolius of Constantinople, Pope St. Leo the Great says, "You boast that certain bishops sixty years ago made a rescript in fovour of this your persuasion.  No notice of it was ever sent by your predecessors to the Apostolic See." (Epistle cvi.)

Interseting thing is that Antioch and Alexandria accepted the authority of Constantinople, it's only Rome that objected (and even then only for a short time, later the popish lateran synods, though heretical in nearly all matters of faith they discussed, did demonstrate that Rome eventually accepted the orderings of Constantinople I and Chalcedon...guess they thought the could hold the city indefinitely, kinda stupid to make such a political mistake then codify it in an 'oecumenical' synod...LOL)

Quote
Gratian's Corpus Iuris included the controversial canon, but the Roman correctors added thereto the caveat: "This Canon is one of those that the Apostolic Roman See did not receive at first or for a long time."

And yet she eventually did accept it, so we must conclude that those who initially rejected it where in error; even from the perspective of Rome.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 08:28:32 PM by greekischristian » Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 8,882


Pray for me, Sts. Mina & Kyrillos VI for my exams


WWW
« Reply #74 on: January 17, 2007, 08:53:28 PM »

Quote
the mid-5th Century Dioscor of Alexandria (of unhappy memory)

That part in the parentheses was unnecessary.  You have some OO's (like myself) who would rather think it was of "joyous" memory.

God bless.

Mina
Logged

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

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #75 on: January 17, 2007, 10:10:35 PM »

Quote
No, the synod did not make the Great Church of Christ the second see in Christendom, rather it simply recognized the already de facto truth, that Constantinople was the Imperial See and therefore the See, following the elevation of the city in the manner later set forth at Trullo, deserved a dignity above all else in Christendom. Old Rome alone was not to be diminished in authority not because of some fool's argument about apostolicity, but rather because she had once been the seat of the Senate and the Imperium. As was later codified in the 38th Canon of Trullo (and is found in numerous places throughout the Code of Justinian), ecclesiastical order follows imperial order.

Fool's argument about apostolicity?  I'm sorry to see you consider Pope St. Leo the Great's to be a fool's argument, who had these words to say to Emperor Marcian concerning the ambition of Bp. Anatolius:

"Let the city of Constantinople, as we wish, have its glory; and under the protection of the right hand of God may it long enjoy the government of your Clemency.  But there is one law for civil arrairs and another for divine things; and no building can be firm apart from the Rock which the Lord founded originally.  He who seeks undue honours loses his real ones.  Let it be enough for the said bishop [Anatolius of Constantinople], that by the help of your piety and by the consent of my favour he has got the bishopric of so great a city.  Let him not despise a royal see because he can never make it an Apostolic one; nor should he by any means hope to become greater by offending others.  The rights of the Churches are fixed by the Canons of the holy Fathers, and by the decrees of the Venerable Nicene Synod..."

He has this further to say, by way of elaborating his 'fool's argument' drawn from apostolicity with regard to the other Patriarchal sees:

"The rights of probinvial primate may not be injured, nor may metropolitan bisops be defrauded of their ancient priviledges.  The dignity that the Alexandrian See deserves because of St. Mark, the disciple of blessed Peter, must not perish; nor may the splendour of so great a Church be darkened because Dioscur falls through his obstinate wickedness.  And the Antiochene Church, too, in which by the preaching of the blessed Peter the Christian name first arose, should remain in the order arranged by the Fathers, so that having been put in the third place it should never be reduced to a lower one."

St. Gregory the Dialogist asks concerning the Imperial See,

"Who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?  Indeed the most pious Lord Emperor and our brother the bishop of that city both eagerly acknowledge this."  "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See."

Note that St. Gregory too relies upon the 'fool's argument' from apostolicity, hence his constant reference to Rome as the 'Apostolic See'.

That Rome might have held the primacy because of its location as Imperial Capital makes no sense given that these statements of sainted pontiffs come after the translation of the capital to Constantinople. Please provide me one example of any saint or Pope basing the authority of the Roman See upon the presence of the Imperial Senate therein. 

As for the Code of Justinian, it is not Canon Law.  It may be of importance for historical record, but is not of any authority in the affairs of the Church. 
« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 10:11:06 PM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #76 on: January 17, 2007, 10:27:25 PM »

Quote
The real codification of the authority of the Imperial See came at Chalcedon where all the rights previously given to Old Rome were bestowed upon New Rome, which had by this time surpassed the former in glory.

Again, untrue.  Even given the legitimacy of the 28th Canon, (which was never accepted by the Roman See) the Canon specifically states that the dignity of the See of New Rome is to be "the second after her [Old Rome]", which is inconsistent with your assertion that "all the rights previously given to Old Rome were bestowed upon New Rome". 

Quote
Oh, and synods only become Oecumenical Retroactively, numerous Imperial synods declared themselves to be Oecumenical but were never accepted as such, so a self-declaration of Oecumenical status is irrelevant.

Yes, that is exactly my point.  Constantinople I never even declared itself Oecumenical.  It became so by papal approval. 

I would ask you what the criteria are for a Council's Oecumenicity.

Quote
Sounds like a version of Ecclesiastical monophysitism to me, accepting the spiritual decrees but rejecting the pragmatic decrees relating to Church discipline. Of course, the opinion of Rome on this matter is completely irrelevant; I don't believe the Synod ever gave Rome the option of a line item veto. Of course, Rome has a tendency to try and take things that arn't hers, but that's what got her excommunicated and kicked out of the Christian Church. The fact of the matter is that by this time Rome was a provincial backwater, Constantinople was the centre of the Empire and Constantinople, with the aid of our God-ordained Emperors, governed the Church.

The opinion of Rome is not irrelevant.  Before arguing this point I will give you a chance to actually read the acts of the Council of Chalcedon so you can get an idea of what the Council Fathers thought was necessary for their decisions to have legitimacy.

Quote
Interseting thing is that Antioch and Alexandria accepted the authority of Constantinople, it's only Rome that objected (and even then only for a short time, later the popish lateran synods, though heretical in nearly all matters of faith they discussed, did demonstrate that Rome eventually accepted the orderings of Constantinople I and Chalcedon...guess they thought the could hold the city indefinitely, kinda stupid to make such a political mistake then codify it in an 'oecumenical' synod...LOL)

Read what I wrote earlier.  Antioch & Alexandria at first would have none of Constantinople's pretensions, hence the demonstrations of Pope St. Leo the Great.

Quote
And yet she eventually did accept it, so we must conclude that those who initially rejected it where in error; even from the perspective of Rome.

This is untrue inasmuch as intra-ecclesial disciple is subject to change.  Rome rightly resisted the initial usurpations of Constantinople.  As these usurpations became habitual and ossified, Rome accepted them de facto as she often does in other such situations.  In according to Constantinople 2nd place she was in no way passing favourable judgment upon the inherent necessity or justifiability of the aforementioned Canons, especially within the contexts in which their promulgation was initially attempted.
Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #77 on: January 17, 2007, 10:28:33 PM »

That part in the parentheses was unnecessary.  You have some OO's (like myself) who would rather think it was of "joyous" memory.

God bless.

Mina

I am sorry Mina, that parenthesis was indeed very unnecessary, and I had forgotten the presence of Oriental Orthodox on this forum.  I was not intending to be offensive.
« Last Edit: January 17, 2007, 10:29:00 PM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #78 on: January 17, 2007, 10:30:03 PM »

Of course, Rome has a tendency to try and take things that arn't hers, but that's what got her excommunicated and kicked out of the Christian Church. The fact of the matter is that by this time Rome was a provincial backwater, Constantinople was the centre of the Empire and Constantinople, with the aid of our God-ordained Emperors, governed the Church.

I would be careful about having too much ethnic hubris. Where is Constantinople today?
Logged
Veniamin
Fire for Effect!
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA Diocese of the South
Posts: 3,372


St. Barbara, patroness of the Field Artillery


« Reply #79 on: January 17, 2007, 10:44:45 PM »

I would be careful about having too much ethnic hubris. Where is Constantinople today?

Bearing faithful Christian witness in the face of Turkish oppression (and sneering Latin derision like that comment, as well).
Logged

Artillery adds dignity to what would otherwise be a vulgar brawl. ~Frederick the Great
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #80 on: January 17, 2007, 11:11:40 PM »

Fool's argument about apostolicity?  I'm sorry to see you consider Pope St. Leo the Great's to be a fool's argument, who had these words to say to Emperor Marcian concerning the ambition of Bp. Anatolius:

Yes, a fool's argument...Leo is reaching, he sees the power his see once enjoyed slipping from his control and attempts to reassert it. The Empire, ever concerned with it's history and tradition (for example, until the fall of the Empire, and even afterwards in the Court of the Oecumenical Throne, it was not uncommon to see arguments based on the Twelve Tables) offered her Old Capital equality with the New Capital, yet Old Rome, ever greedy for power resisted; as a result she was marginalized amongst the other Churches, only able to increase it amongst the heathen barbarians of the west. In the end, Leo's arguments were mere rhetoric, they were never accepted, not even by Antioch and Alexandria, which he claimed to be defending.

Ultimately Leo's opinions on this matter had no force, following the synod of Chalcedon the authority of Constantinople was essentially undisputed amongst all the Churches save Old Rome, the opposition she did face in the east had been anathematized by said synod. In 458 Patriarch Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria was deposed by the Synod of Constantinople and his successor, Timothy Salophaciolus, was hand picked by the Oecumenical Patriarch and soon enthroned by the Synod of Alexandria. By 518 another substantial step was taken, not only was Severus of Antioch anathematized and deposed by the Synod of Constantinople, Patriarch Epiphanius of Constantinople personally traveled to Antioch to enthrone Paul of Antioch. In doing so, Constantinople had gained a position in the Church beyond which Rome had never enjoyed, an authority not only to depose Patirarchs of other Apostolic sees, but to elect and enthrone them as well...this practice would continue through the end of the fall of the Empire well into the turkokratia. Thus, when Rome was excommunicated by Constantinople, it was taken as granted by the other Ancient Sees that this was the right of the throne of Constantinople, and the authority of Constantinople in this matter was not questioned.

Quote
That Rome might have held the primacy because of its location as Imperial Capital makes no sense given that these statements of sainted pontiffs come after the translation of the capital to Constantinople. Please provide me one example of any saint or Pope basing the authority of the Roman See upon the presence of the Imperial Senate therein. 

That's the unfortunate thing about Rome's new codified code of canon law, even the popish canonists no longer bother to learn the actual canons of the Ancient Church...the Holy and Oecumenical Synod of Chalcedon established this fact as the basis of the authority of the patriarchates, for the 28th Canon states, 'And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges 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'...Rome's authority was on account of the presence of the Sovereign and the Senate, when the said Imperium moved to New Rome, that city gained the honour bestowed by their presence.

Quote
As for the Code of Justinian, it is not Canon Law.  It may be of importance for historical record, but is not of any authority in the affairs of the Church. 

It would be well advised to actually learn our canon law before commenting it. Since the time of Leo the Wise, canon and civil law are interchangeable...at first there were formal ratifications by the Church of civil law, and formal ratifications by the Emperor and Senate of canon law; though during the 13th century, this formality was dispensed with...Imperial decrees were automatically accepted by the Church, and Synodal decrees were automatically accepted by the Emperor and Senate. So the Code of Justinian, and even Imperial Legislation going back as far as the Twelve Tables, were accepted by the Church and they were actively used in canonical legislation and law.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #81 on: January 17, 2007, 11:41:28 PM »

Bearing faithful Christian witness in the face of Turkish oppression (and sneering Latin derision like that comment, as well).

No sneering derision at all from me. I grieve what has become of Constantinople. After discovering John Bellairs's The Trolley to Yesterday, I grew up reading all I could about the Byzantines---Runciman, Norwich, Geanakoplos, everybody. I memorized Yeats' "Sailing to Byzantium." I watched John Romer's fine documentary Byzantium: the Lost Empire when it debuted on the Learning Channel in 1997 and later bought it on DVD.* In my historical career, I might have become a Byzantinist had I a better aptitude for learning many languages. I dreamed of the splendor of Constantinople at the height of the reign of Basil the Bulgar-Slayer. I still do. I wish for a great return to glory.

*http://www.amazon.com/Byzantium-Empire-John-Romer-III/dp/B00004REVW

But that doesn't hide the fact that Constantinople's glory is long, long past. Any kind of triumphant crowing about the state of Rome in the wake of the barbarian invasions warranted a response.

It's the faith that endures, not cities or empires.
Logged
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #82 on: January 18, 2007, 12:17:26 AM »

Quote
Yes, a fool's argument

God forgive your impudence.

Quote
The Empire, ever concerned with it's history and tradition (for example, until the fall of the Empire, and even afterwards in the Court of the Oecumenical Throne, it was not uncommon to see arguments based on the Twelve Tables) offered her Old Capital equality with the New Capital, yet Old Rome, ever greedy for power resisted;

Are you speaking imperially or ecclesiastically?  If ecclesiastically, please provide one example where the Empire "offered her Old Capital equality with the New Capital".  If imperially, what's your point, given you haven't proved your caesaropapist perspective from sources we can both accept (such as the Holy Orthodox Fathers from the first 8 Centuries).

Quote
Leo's arguments were mere rhetoric, they were never accepted, not even by Antioch and Alexandria, which he claimed to be defending.

Are you really prepared to say that all which the sainted popes of the 5th & 6th Centuries said concerning the prerogatives of their see was mere 'rhetoric', never accepted? 

If neither Antioch nor Alexandria accepted the Old Rome's claims to the Apostolic Primacy, how are we to account for Patriarch Peter of Antioch, writing these words to Patriarch Ceralarius of Constantinople:

"Consider what would certainly happen if that great first and Apostolic See be divided from our holy Churches - wickedness would spread everywhere, and the whole world would be upset, the kingdoms of all the earth would be shaken, everywhere would be much woe, everywhere tears."

This, by the way, coming from a man who had next to no respect for Latins culturally.

Quote
Ultimately Leo's opinions on this matter had no force, following the synod of Chalcedon the authority of Constantinople was essentially undisputed amongst all the Churches save Old Rome, the opposition she did face in the east had been anathematized by said synod. In 458 Patriarch Timothy Aelurus of Alexandria was deposed by the Synod of Constantinople and his successor, Timothy Salophaciolus, was hand picked by the Oecumenical Patriarch and soon enthroned by the Synod of Alexandria. By 518 another substantial step was taken, not only was Severus of Antioch anathematized and deposed by the Synod of Constantinople, Patriarch Epiphanius of Constantinople personally traveled to Antioch to enthrone Paul of Antioch. In doing so, Constantinople had gained a position in the Church beyond which Rome had never enjoyed, an authority not only to depose Patirarchs of other Apostolic sees, but to elect and enthrone them as well...this practice would continue through the end of the fall of the Empire well into the turkokratia. Thus, when Rome was excommunicated by Constantinople, it was taken as granted by the other Ancient Sees that this was the right of the throne of Constantinople, and the authority of Constantinople in this matter was not questioned.

Yes, these are stark examples you mention of Constantinople's usurpation.  I ask you, what tradition of the Holy Fathers allows for such behaviour on the part of a non-apostolic See? 

You say Leo's opinion on this matter has no force.  In doing so you fail to take into account the constant voice proceeding from the See of Peter claiming preeminence of authority based on its Petrine prerogatives.  Are you aware of all the statements proceeding from the sainted popes of the 4th, 5th & 6th Centuries to this effect?  Is this prerogative ever denied by a single sainted Holy Father of the Church of the Seven Oecumenical Synods?

Also, in claiming that "following the synod of Chalcedon the authority of Constantinople was essentially undisputed amongst all the Churches save Old Rome" you have failed to interact with the evidence already presented concerning the Alexandrian Patriarch.

Quote
the Holy and Oecumenical Synod of Chalcedon established this fact as the basis of the authority of the patriarchates, for the 28th Canon states, 'And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges 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'

This Canon was never accepted by Rome.  It needed to be were it to possess Oecumenical status.  That is why the Fathers wrote a most respectful and even obsequious letter to the Pope asking for its recognition, which, of course, he refused to give.  Their words:

"you often spread out the Apostolic ray that shines in you even to the Church in Constantinople... Be pleased to accept what we ahve defined, to order ecclesiastical ranks and to remove all confusion, as being right and friendly and most convenient for good order, oh, most holy and blessed Father!  But the most holy bishops Paschasius and Lucentius, and the most reverend preist Boniface, who hold the place of your Holiness, have vehemently treid to withstand what we had ordered, doubtless wishing that this good arrangement should be begun by your own foresight.  Whereas we, considering the most pious and Christ-loving Emperors, who are delighted with what we have done, as also the illustrious Senate and indeed the whole Imperial city, have thought it wise to confirm its honour by a general council, and we have presumed to strenghten what was really, as it were, begun by your Holiness, inasmuch as you are always anxious to benefit us, and we know that whatever is well done by the sons belongs to the fathers, who look upon it as their own.   We beg you then to honour our decision with your decrees, so that just as we shall than add the consent of the Head, so your Highness may fulfil what your sons have don... So always will the pious Princes be pleased, who confirm as a law the decision of your Holiness."

The Fathers of the Chalcedonian Synod (and in no wise all of them, for the Illyrian Bishops & Metropolitan vigorously protested the Canon) to confirm their hoped-for gain, become supplicants, pure and simple.  They acknowledge Rome's Headship, a Headship in no wise based on Imperial preeminence, for that Old Rome no longer possessed.  This cannot be said of you.
Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
lubeltri
Latin Catholic layman
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Boston
Posts: 3,795



« Reply #83 on: January 18, 2007, 12:38:11 AM »

If neither Antioch nor Alexandria accepted the Old Rome's claims to the Apostolic Primacy, how are we to account for Patriarch Peter of Antioch, writing these words to Patriarch Ceralarius of Constantinople:

Justinian also referred to Rome as the "Apostolic See," as seen in a letter he wrote to Pope John II included in his Corpus Juris Civilis.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2007, 12:38:46 AM by lubeltri » Logged
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #84 on: January 18, 2007, 12:45:04 AM »

Again, untrue.  Even given the legitimacy of the 28th Canon, (which was never accepted by the Roman See) the Canon specifically states that the dignity of the See of New Rome is to be "the second after her [Old Rome]", which is inconsistent with your assertion that "all the rights previously given to Old Rome were bestowed upon New Rome". 

Again, Chalcedon never gave Rome a line item veto either...she had two choices, to ebrace the synod in full or to embrace the monophysitism it condemned and thus to be separated from the Orthodox Church. You ascribe authorities to Rome that were never given her. She was once a respected see, before she fell into heresy, and at the time she was given the honour as the Ancient Capital.

As for the wording of the canon, it says that Constantinople 'should be magnified also as [Old Rome] is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her.' So while Old Rome was given liturgical precedence, Old Rome has no more administrative authority in the Church than New Rome. Or to quote Balsamon, 'And, as we said in the preceding canons, that the matters defined with regard to the pope are not his privileges alone, so that all condemned bishops must from necessity go before the throne of Rome, but that this is understood in as certain sense as to Constantinople. These things we say yet again.' Constantinople is the New Rome and the New Jerusalem and as such inherets the rights and privileges of the Old Cities.

Quote
Yes, that is exactly my point.  Constantinople I never even declared itself Oecumenical.  It became so by papal approval. 

I would ask you what the criteria are for a Council's Oecumenicity.

It must be summoned by an Emperor, and thus be an Imperial Synod. It must then be accepted by the Church. Then it must be again declared an Oecumenical Synod by a subsequent Imperial Synod. This is why while the Orthodox are planning a Synod including the entire Church, none are so presumptuous as to call it Oecumenical; for while the Patriarch of Constantinople is the inheritor of the royal prerogatives, the Patriarch is not our God-Ordained Emperor, and thus cannot summon Imperial or Oecumenical Synods.

Quote
The opinion of Rome is not irrelevant.  Before arguing this point I will give you a chance to actually read the acts of the Council of Chalcedon so you can get an idea of what the Council Fathers thought was necessary for their decisions to have legitimacy.

Old Rome's opinion was, of course, respected...but insofar as that opinion disagreed with an Oecumenical Synod, it is irrelevant.

Quote
Read what I wrote earlier.  Antioch & Alexandria at first would have none of Constantinople's pretensions, hence the demonstrations of Pope St. Leo the Great.

Then at first they were in error...for several Imperial and Oecumenical Synods overturned their opinions.

Quote
This is untrue inasmuch as intra-ecclesial disciple is subject to change.  Rome rightly resisted the initial usurpations of Constantinople.  As these usurpations became habitual and ossified, Rome accepted them de facto as she often does in other such situations.  In according to Constantinople 2nd place she was in no way passing favourable judgment upon the inherent necessity or justifiability of the aforementioned Canons, especially within the contexts in which their promulgation was initially attempted.

Rome's blatant disrespect for the Imperial Authority aside, her resistance to the Oecumenical Throne was hardly out of good intentions, she felt threatened, she reacted out of fear and greed for power. If this isn't manifest to you then I fear that you are so deluded by your own preconceptions that nothing I say will be of any effect. To be fair, I understand where Rome was comming from, heck I would have done the same thing if I was in the same position as Leo...but today we should be intelligent enough to realize that it was mere propaganda (like most things most patriarchs said...lol)
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #85 on: January 18, 2007, 01:22:50 AM »

Quote
Again, Chalcedon never gave Rome a line item veto either...she had two choices, to ebrace the synod in full or to embrace the monophysitism it condemned and thus to be separated from the Orthodox Church.

False dichotomy.  The Canon Rome rightly rejected had nothing to do with Monophysitism, and moreover, if Rome in refusing that Canon "separated from the Orthodox Church", then why is Pope St. Leo the Great, who in your scenario would be a schismatic, esteemed a saint?

As for the line item veto, it was more the other way round.  Pope St. Leo wrote his Tomvs & instructed his legates to entertain no argument concerning it.  They were to accept it in full or not recieve his approval.

Quote
As for the wording of the canon, it says that Constantinople 'should be magnified also as [Old Rome] is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her.' So while Old Rome was given liturgical precedence, Old Rome has no more administrative authority in the Church than New Rome. Or to quote Balsamon, 'And, as we said in the preceding canons, that the matters defined with regard to the pope are not his privileges alone, so that all condemned bishops must from necessity go before the throne of Rome, but that this is understood in as certain sense as to Constantinople. These things we say yet again.' Constantinople is the New Rome and the New Jerusalem and as such inherets the rights and privileges of the Old Cities.

Excuse my ignorance, what is 'liturgical preference', and where do you see this idea present in the 28th Canon?

Earlier I invited you to "prove[] your caesaropapist perspective from sources we can both accept (such as the Holy Orthodox Fathers from the first 8 Centuries)".  A post-schism Byzantine canonist does not count.  Please give me patristic witness to your understanding of Canonical/Civil relation.

Quote
Old Rome's opinion was, of course, respected...but insofar as that opinion disagreed with an Oecumenical Synod, it is irrelevant.

If it was irrelevant insofar as it contradicted the decision of an Oecumenical Synod, then why did the Chalcedonian Fathers (or rather the Byzantine Chalcedonian Fathers) implore their Father's blessing upon their decision? 

Quote
Rome's blatant disrespect for the Imperial Authority aside, her resistance to the Oecumenical Throne was hardly out of good intentions, she felt threatened, she reacted out of fear and greed for power. If this isn't manifest to you then I fear that you are so deluded by your own preconceptions that nothing I say will be of any effect. To be fair, I understand where Rome was comming from, heck I would have done the same thing if I was in the same position as Leo...but today we should be intelligent enough to realize that it was mere propaganda (like most things most patriarchs said...lol)

You criticize the Successor of St. Peter for what you regard as "blatant disrespect for Imperial Authority" and then go on to show your own blatant disrespect for the Bishop of the Apostolic See.  To speak frankly, I have never debated with someone so self-avowedly Caesaropapist as you, and I am having a hard time finding ways to relate and reason.  Maybe my question will seem frivolous, but does it not seem right that the chief heirarch of the Church ought to be accorded more respect than a political leader?  Does not the realm of grace transcend that of nature?  What of the St. Athanasius, what of St. Basil?  They feared not the King; they feared Christ & are glorified on that account.  And to me it seems they would certainly not have passed off in such a flippant manner as you the claims of the Successor St. Peter. 
« Last Edit: January 18, 2007, 01:25:11 AM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #86 on: January 18, 2007, 01:24:39 AM »

God forgive your impudence.

I'll ask God for forgiveness when I think I need it, thank you very much.

Quote
Are you speaking imperially or ecclesiastically?  If ecclesiastically, please provide one example where the Empire "offered her Old Capital equality with the New Capital".  If imperially, what's your point, given you haven't proved your caesaropapist perspective from sources we can both accept (such as the Holy Orthodox Fathers from the first 8 Centuries).

I gave you an ecclesiastical source...Chalcedon. As far as a source we both accept about the authority of the Emperor, no, perhaps I haven't given you a source...and if I really wanted to I could dig up a few quotes from people we'd both regard as saints, I know exactly where I could find a few such sources, but it really wouldn't make a difference. You'd find some reason as to why their opinions dont matter. The reality of the matter is that the Empire and Church were one entity; your attempt to divide them demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of Imperial politics and the relationship between Church and State in the Empire. I've given you the imperial sources and well respected Orthodox Sources (esp. Balsamon, Zonaras, and Aristenos).

Quote
Are you really prepared to say that all which the sainted popes of the 5th & 6th Centuries said concerning the prerogatives of their see was mere 'rhetoric', never accepted? 

Ummm, the rhetoric was about the relationship between Constantinople and Alexandrian and Antioch I thought? Not about the relationship between Constantinople and Rome?...you betray your bias.

Quote
Yes, these are stark examples you mention of Constantinople's usurpation.  I ask you, what tradition of the Holy Fathers allows for such behaviour on the part of a non-apostolic See? 

This conduct was accepted by all the Sees, even Rome commemorated the Patriarchs enthroned by Constantinople...thus demonstrating acceptance. For all of Rome's rhetoric, she never offered any real resistance to Constantinople, she never broke communion, she never tried to have Constantinople condemned in a synod...ultimately she realized that Constantinople had the support of the Church, Rome could offer nothing but Rhetoric in defence of her ancient authority.

Quote
You say Leo's opinion on this matter has no force.  In doing so you fail to take into account the constant voice proceeding from the See of Peter claiming preeminence of authority based on its Petrine prerogatives.  Are you aware of all the statements proceeding from the sainted popes of the 4th, 5th & 6th Centuries to this effect?  Is this prerogative ever denied by a single sainted Holy Father of the Church of the Seven Oecumenical Synods?

Ummm, no it wasn't proclaimed by the Seven Synods...Chalcedon and Trullo both stated that Rome's traditional authority were a result of her being the first Imperial City...I dont know that the Oecumenical Synods ever even mentioned 'petrine perogatives' in spite of reliance of Rome on these arguments for propaganda purposes.

Quote
Also, in claiming that "following the synod of Chalcedon the authority of Constantinople was essentially undisputed amongst all the Churches save Old Rome" you have failed to interact with the evidence already presented concerning the Alexandrian Patriarch.

Almost prophetic, wasn't it, Rome did split form the Christian Church, and what was the result? Rome spread heresy and wickedness to all corners of the globe. Of course, I thought we were discussing the relationship of Constantinople to Alexandria and Antioch...not the wickedness of Rome?

Quote
This Canon was never accepted by Rome.  It needed to be were it to possess Oecumenical status.  That is why the Fathers wrote a most respectful and even obsequious letter to the Pope asking for its recognition, which, of course, he refused to give.  Their words:

The opinions of any See, so far as they are contrary to the decrees of an Imperial Synod, are irrelevant. Only an Imperial Synod may question an Imperial Synod...and even more so when the Imperial Synod has been decreed Oecumenical.

Quote
The Fathers of the Chalcedonian Synod (and in no wise all of them, for the Illyrian Bishops & Metropolitan vigorously protested the Canon) to confirm their hoped-for gain, become supplicants, pure and simple.  They acknowledge Rome's Headship, a Headship in no wise based on Imperial preeminence, for that Old Rome no longer possessed.  This cannot be said of you.

Rome only gained authority in the first place because she was the Imperial See. The same reason Antioch and Alexandria gained authority...if we were to go off apostolicity then Jerusalem would be the first See of Christendom...but she barely made fifth, for she was not of importance in the Empire. Heck, if we want to be purely apostolic, no bishopric would have authority above another. You can present all the 4th Century propaganda you want, but I'm not as stupid as you believe me to be, I know propaganda when I see it. Heck, I'll admit that many things that came out of Constantinople were also propaganda, but at least the propganada comming out of Constantinople had the support of the Imperial Authority.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 53


« Reply #87 on: January 18, 2007, 01:43:28 AM »

Quote
I gave you an ecclesiastical source...Chalcedon.

Even the rejected Chalcedonian Canon did not "offer the Old Capital equality with the New Capital".

Quote
if I really wanted to I could dig up a few quotes from people we'd both regard as saints, I know exactly where I could find a few such sources, but it really wouldn't make a difference. You'd find some reason as to why their opinions dont matter.

No, I should really like to see them.

Quote
This conduct was accepted by all the Sees, even Rome commemorated the Patriarchs enthroned by Constantinople...thus demonstrating acceptance

Rome's commemoration of the accession of Constantinopolitan Patriarchs is in no way equivalent to an endorsement of all those Patriarchs' subsequent abuses of power.  I would think that obvious, especially given what I have cited of Popes Ss. Leo & Gregory Dialogist.

Quote
Rome only gained authority in the first place because she was the Imperial See. The same reason Antioch and Alexandria gained authority...if we were to go off apostolicity then Jerusalem would be the first See of Christendom...but she barely made fifth, for she was not of importance in the Empire

The See of Jerusalem was not held by the Head of the Apostolic College.  Rome was.  Perhaps another and younger day we can proof-text.  For now I will reiterate my challenge and ask you to show me a single sainted Father of the first, let's say 5, Centuries which held the same understanding of episcopal primacy as you. 

Quote
For all of Rome's rhetoric, she never offered any real resistance to Constantinople, she never broke communion, she never tried to have Constantinople condemned in a synod...ultimately she realized that Constantinople had the support of the Church, Rome could offer nothing but Rhetoric in defence of her ancient authority.

You must be joking. 

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?

Goodnight for now.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2007, 01:46:07 AM by Bl. Leonid Feodorov » Logged

"Since the moment I gave myself to the Catholic Church my sole thought has been to bring back my country to that Church, which I believe is the only true Church."

- Bl. Leonid Feodorov
Pravoslavbob
Section Moderator
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 3,075


St. Sisoes the Great


« Reply #88 on: January 18, 2007, 03:25:05 AM »

Fool's argument about apostolicity?  I'm sorry to see you consider Pope St. Leo the Great's to be a fool's argument....

If you had done any research on the Orthodox position, you would know that the East has never accepted the so-called Decretium Gelasianum regarding primacy.  GIC is basically correct in his assessment of the Eastern position. 

Quote
Note that St. Gregory too relies upon the 'fool's argument' from apostolicity, hence his constant reference to Rome as the 'Apostolic See'.

Again, nowadays at least, this constant crowing about the "Apostolic See" is either offensive or somewhat amusing to the Orthodox, depending on the context in which it is used.  Since you are addressing Orthodox people on this forum, one could argue that it is both in this context.  Literally hundreds of sees in the East can legitimately argue that they are of apostolic foundation.  It's nice that Rome can claim to have been founded by an apostle, but we have several of our own "Apostolic Sees" here in the East, thank you, while the West has one.  You should really learn more about Orthodox approaches to ecclesiology before making posts like the ones you have made.  You're obviously a very erudite person, that shouldn't be difficult for you.  (I don't mean that sarcastically.)

In the same vein, I should tell you that the Orthodox regard all bishops as being, in a very real way, the successor of St. Peter, just as much as the bishop of Rome.

I tell you these things not to shame or insult you, but to remind you of where you are posting, and for you to remember that the whole world does not share Rome's points of reference. 

The very provocative name you chose for yourself and the equally provocative saying of Leonid Feodorov that you posted on your profile do little to endear yourself to the Orthodox.  I'm not a moderator, but I think you should remember that this is an Orthodox forum first and foremost.  Nevertheless, I am of the opinion that we should welcome Catholics of good faith here for discussion.  Fortunately, the moderators are of the same opinion.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2007, 03:45:46 AM by Pravoslavbob » Logged

Religion is a disease, and Orthodoxy is its cure.
cothrige
Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 133

OC.net


« Reply #89 on: January 18, 2007, 09:53:43 AM »

Of course, the opinion of Rome on this matter is completely irrelevant; I don't believe the Synod ever gave Rome the option of a line item veto. Of course, Rome has a tendency to try and take things that arn't hers, but that's what got her excommunicated and kicked out of the Christian Church. The fact of the matter is that by this time Rome was a provincial backwater, Constantinople was the centre of the Empire and Constantinople, with the aid of our God-ordained Emperors, governed the Church.

Please excuse me for intruding on this thread, but if I may be allowed one comment.  The above would not seem to be the opinion of Constantinople in that period, as the words of Anatolius of Constantinople would indicate.

Quote from: Anatolius of Constantinople
As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness.

Here we see no denial or attack on the Pope's authority either to confirm the acts, which contrarily Anatolius seems to recognize entirely, but instead are faced with what seems an apology about the entire canon itself.  He also seems to describe that canon as a bid for power by the local clergy, which sounds a lot like how some people actually want to see Rome's attitude.  But, in any case, it is clear that Constantinople herself had no qualms with the methods of "Old Rome" and so why should we?

Patrick
Logged
Tags: Ecumenical Pope roman catholic Primacy Pope Leo Petrine Primacy ecumenical councils That Irenaeus quote St. Athanasius Infallibility 
Pages: « 1 2 3 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.18 seconds with 74 queries.