OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 26, 2014, 11:14:39 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics  (Read 60502 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #45 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...

-- Friul


Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Rite Archdiocese of Perth
Posts: 85



« Reply #46 on: January 12, 2008, 07:29:38 PM »

Post #6 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?
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #47 on: January 12, 2008, 08:40:12 PM »

Post #6 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?
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 08:44:23 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #48 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.
Logged
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Rite Archdiocese of Perth
Posts: 85



« Reply #49 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.
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Rite Archdiocese of Perth
Posts: 85



« Reply #50 on: January 12, 2008, 10:24:04 PM »

montalban, saint John Chrysostom is not the only early church father referenced in post #6.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 10:24:34 PM by Credo.InDeum » Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,925


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #51 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.
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).
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 04:52:37 AM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #52 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.


« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 11:18:44 PM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #53 on: January 12, 2008, 11:30:11 PM »

Post #6 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.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #54 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
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #55 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.   Smiley

Splits:

St. John Chrysostom: Supporter of modern (Vatican I) Papal Primacy?

Ecumenical Councils: Debate on Possible RC Historical Revisionism...


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.

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
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 01:40:50 AM by Friul » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Rite Archdiocese of Perth
Posts: 85



« Reply #56 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.
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #57 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
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 05:08:21 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Roman Rite Archdiocese of Perth
Posts: 85



« Reply #58 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? ....
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #59 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.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #60 on: 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.
Logged

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

Posts: 94


« Reply #61 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.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 01:23:59 AM by skippy » Logged
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #62 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.
« Last Edit: May 29, 2008, 06:05:03 PM by buzuxi » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #63 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?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,208


that is not the teaching of...


« Reply #64 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.
Logged
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #65 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).
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 03:52:13 AM by buzuxi » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #66 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?
Logged
Heracleides
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Patriarch of Jerusalem
Posts: 390


Kona-Kai


« Reply #67 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...  Roll Eyes
.
Logged

"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #68 on: June 29, 2008, 02:20:55 PM »

Umm... yes... the silence of the East in regards your heretical Pope Honorius I was resounding...  Roll Eyes
.

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.
Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 12,711


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


« Reply #69 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.
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.
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #70 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.
Logged
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #71 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.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #72 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?
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #73 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
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 04:00:39 PM by truth » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #74 on: June 29, 2008, 04:00:08 PM »

^ Missed by about 100 years...and has the wrong council.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #75 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?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 04:04:39 PM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #76 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.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #77 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.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #78 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.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2008, 07:13:05 PM by truth » Logged
buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #79 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.

« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 01:57:12 AM by buzuxi » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,835


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #80 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.
Logged

buzuxi
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: GREEK ORTHODOX
Jurisdiction: WORLD ORTHODOXY AGAINST ECUMENISM
Posts: 265


« Reply #81 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.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,835


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #82 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.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 03:08:53 AM by Salpy » Logged

truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #83 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.  Huh

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.


« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 10:35:12 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #84 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.

Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #85 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?  Huh

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?

« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 11:00:11 AM by truth » Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: American Carpatho-Russian Orthodox Diocese
Posts: 10,026


« Reply #86 on: June 30, 2008, 01:24:26 PM »

You've a flawed sense of 'supremacy'.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,835


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #87 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.
Logged

truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #88 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?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 04:25:23 PM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #89 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.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 08:31:35 PM by truth » Logged
Tags: Primacy of Peter Pope Leo Petrine Primacy Chalcedon cheval mort Flavian Ephesus II Tome of Leo The St. Maximos Quote That Irenaeus quote 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 »   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 0.149 seconds with 72 queries.