OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 22, 2014, 08:04:26 PM *
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 60449 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #90 on: June 30, 2008, 04:47:32 PM »

Keep in my that my main point is not that Rome is supreme because there was never a schism. Of course there have been times when there was wide spread heresy in the east. This does not refute Rome's supremacy.
Nor support it either.
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: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #91 on: June 30, 2008, 06:10:43 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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: 12,674


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


« Reply #92 on: June 30, 2008, 06:22:16 PM »

In addition, for the benefit of EO's, Pope Vigilius' support of the Three Chapters were violently protested against by the East and by the Emperor especially in the second council of Constantinople 553 as Buzuxi earlier alluded.  Instead of asking Rome for approval, quite the opposite happened.  The Council forced Rome to choose against the Three Chapters.  That says a lot about Rome's real power in the past, that even if she thought she had it, it never really existed in the East.

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

Plus, I believe that there is a difference between primacy of honor and temporal or dogmatic primacy.  It is the honor that the East seems to recognize in the past, not the temporal and dogmatic primacy that you seem to think we recognized.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 06:23:55 PM by minasoliman » 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 #93 on: June 30, 2008, 08:36:47 PM »

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

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

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



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

I will look into the council you brought up.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 08:37:32 PM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #94 on: June 30, 2008, 08:58:49 PM »

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

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

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



I have read some info on the Ephesus II. My question to you now is why preciesly was pope Leo's letter ignored?
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #95 on: June 30, 2008, 09:10:45 PM »

My main point is that the east sought Rome for approval. Are you saying that this never happened in your church's history?

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


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

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

Logged

Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #96 on: June 30, 2008, 09:32:55 PM »

I have read some info on the Ephesus II. My question to you now is why preciesly was pope Leo's letter ignored?

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

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

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

truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #97 on: June 30, 2008, 09:35:11 PM »

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


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

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



I need to look into these matters.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #98 on: June 30, 2008, 09:40:19 PM »

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

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

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

If Rome had no superiority in the east, what was the fuction of the See of Rome?
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #99 on: June 30, 2008, 09:45:46 PM »

I understand your point now. From your example, it seems clear to me that the See of Rome was totally disrepected. Point taken. But are you saying now that the See of Rome was never appealed to from the eastern sees for guidence of the church? Although you brought up an exception to this rule, I think I can provide many examples when the opposite occured.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 10:07:48 PM by truth » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #100 on: June 30, 2008, 09:56:09 PM »

If Rome had no superiority in the east, what was the fuction of the See of Rome?

I dunno.  I guess it was to tell the Romans what to do.   Smiley
Logged

truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #101 on: June 30, 2008, 10:11:13 PM »

I dunno.  I guess it was to tell the Romans what to do.   Smiley

From reading the different schism, I can see the See of rome being disrepected by the east at times. I will provide some post where Rome is treated as if superior and see how you respond. Until then, may I ask you why the east put up with a see who thought it superior to all of the eastern sees?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 10:12:31 PM by truth » Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #102 on: June 30, 2008, 10:14:29 PM »

Again, as an Oriental Orthodox, I can only tell you that we didn't put up with it for very long.   Smiley
Logged

truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #103 on: June 30, 2008, 10:18:08 PM »

Again, as an Oriental Orthodox, I can only tell you that we didn't put up with it for very long.   Smiley

Why did you put up with it at all?
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #104 on: June 30, 2008, 10:36:31 PM »

Actually, we didn't.  Hence Pope Dioscoros being persecuted, deposed and exiled.
Logged

truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #105 on: June 30, 2008, 10:38:36 PM »

Again, as an Oriental Orthodox, I can only tell you that we didn't put up with it for very long.   Smiley

I have done some research on the OO, and realize that my case pertains to more the OC position. I was not aware of the differences between the OO and RC until meeting you. Thanks for motivating me to learn something new. After some quick reading, it seems to me that the division between you and the OC are theological.
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #106 on: June 30, 2008, 10:55:47 PM »

By OC do you mean the Eastern Orthodox?  Usually we abbreviate them EO.

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

We have more theological differences with the Catholics.  Right now, however, my Church, the Armenian Church, has very warm relations with your Church, despite the differences.  We just don't like other people telling us what to do.    Smiley
« Last Edit: June 30, 2008, 11:07:59 PM by Salpy » Logged

truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #107 on: June 30, 2008, 11:03:03 PM »

By OC do you mean the Eastern Orthodox?  Usually we abbreviate them EO.

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

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

The OO caught me off guard, but now I know to study them!
Logged
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,820


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #108 on: June 30, 2008, 11:10:44 PM »

The OO caught me off guard

We like doing that to people.   Grin

Thank you for taking it so well, and thank you for deciding to study about us.  So few people do that.   Smiley
Logged

truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #109 on: July 01, 2008, 10:55:49 AM »

In addition, for the benefit of EO's, Pope Vigilius' support of the Three Chapters were violently protested against by the East and by the Emperor especially in the second council of Constantinople 553 as Buzuxi earlier alluded.  Instead of asking Rome for approval, quite the opposite happened.  The Council forced Rome to choose against the Three Chapters.  That says a lot about Rome's real power in the past, that even if she thought she had it, it never really existed in the East.

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

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

After some research, I agree that the treatment of pope Pope Vigilius is another good example of the east disrepecting the the See of Rome. The east may have been under the influence of the Eastern emperor, Justinian. The question I now have is: was this fair treatmeant. But that was not your point. And I believe your point was to show some examples of the east totally not repecting the See of Rome, which you have succeeded in doing. The question now is, why did the east at times disrespect Rome, but at other times act as if Rome was superior? (Of course this challenge is exempt for the OO.)
« Last Edit: July 01, 2008, 11:03:31 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #110 on: July 01, 2008, 10:58:03 AM »

Nor support it either.

Right, but why did the east treat Rome as if she was superior at times? Why did the east commune with the See of Rome that thought herself superior at all?
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #111 on: July 01, 2008, 11:34:26 AM »

After some research, I agree that the treatment of pope Pope Vigilius is another good example of the east disrepecting the the See of Rome. The east may have been under the influence of the Eastern emperor, Justinian. The question I now have is: was this fair treatmeant. But that was not your point. And I believe your point was to show some examples of the east totally not repecting the See of Rome, which you have succeeded in doing. The question now is, why did the east at times disrespect Rome, but at other times act as if Rome was superior? (Of course this challenge is exempt for the OO.)

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

« Last Edit: July 01, 2008, 11:36:06 AM by minasoliman » 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 #112 on: July 01, 2008, 11:50:35 AM »

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



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

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

And there are examples of Rome making decisions without needing eastern sees approval to which the east abided. How can that happen if what you claim is true?
« Last Edit: July 01, 2008, 11:52:09 AM by truth » 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: 12,674


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


« Reply #113 on: July 01, 2008, 02:07:39 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless.
« Last Edit: July 01, 2008, 02:10:47 PM by minasoliman » 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.
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #114 on: July 01, 2008, 03:20:18 PM »

Right, but why did the east treat Rome as if she was superior at times? Why did the east commune with the See of Rome that thought herself superior at all?

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

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

Posts: 167


« Reply #115 on: July 02, 2008, 10:46:57 AM »

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

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

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


« Reply #116 on: July 02, 2008, 01:44:47 PM »

Before I post some evidence supporting Rome's position, can I just ask why if Rome had an erroneous view of herself being superior, and the east knew this, why did not the east point this out early? When I read the quotes of the church fathers, they seem to be involved in this supposed confusion as well.
The question is entirely moot as Rome departed Orthodoxy with the Frankish usurpation of the Roman See.
Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #117 on: July 02, 2008, 03:14:42 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So before you send any "proof" or "evidence" think of it this way:  Can you quotes be interpreted not as literal temporal supremacy that you seem to think there existed, but an amplified honor by bishops who merely wanted to show love and brotherhood?
« Last Edit: July 02, 2008, 03:17:23 PM by minasoliman » 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 #118 on: July 02, 2008, 04:34:06 PM »

The question is entirely moot as Rome departed Orthodoxy with the Frankish usurpation of the Roman See.

The question cannot be answered then? Seems suspicious.
Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #119 on: July 02, 2008, 04:35:24 PM »

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

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

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

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

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

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

So if I understand you right, all you saying that all of the quotes were all meant to be exaggerations?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #120 on: July 02, 2008, 05:22:14 PM »

The question cannot be answered then? Seems suspicious.

Only the specious claims of the Frankish are "suspicious". Point stands...the bishops of Rome are no longer in the "Catholic Church".
Logged

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

Posts: 167


« Reply #121 on: July 02, 2008, 08:34:47 PM »

Only the specious claims of the Frankish are "suspicious". Point stands...the bishops of Rome are no longer in the "Catholic Church".

You are not addressing the question:

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

If you think that you cannot answer, then thats fine.
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #122 on: July 02, 2008, 08:44:59 PM »

You are not addressing the question:

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

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

Why is the moon not made of cheese? I can't answer that one either.
So much for this latest revival of this long batter topic bereft of any meaning to Orthodox Catholics...
Logged

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

Posts: 167


« Reply #123 on: July 02, 2008, 08:52:13 PM »

Why is the moon not made of cheese? I can't answer that one either.
So much for this latest revival of this long batter topic bereft of any meaning to Orthodox Catholics...

Okay...thank you for your participation.
Logged
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,287


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #124 on: July 02, 2008, 09:33:39 PM »

If Rome had no superiority in the east, what was the fuction of the See of Rome?

Mediate disputes, tend to their own jurisdiction, ceremonial functions...etc.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 13,287


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #125 on: July 02, 2008, 09:45:37 PM »

You are not addressing the question:

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

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

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

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

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #126 on: July 02, 2008, 10:23:57 PM »

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

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

What if there was a quote that had no evidence of being a forgery and supported the RC position in a way that had no other interpretation? Would you just dismis it because it did not support your position?
Logged
Αριστοκλής
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

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


« Reply #127 on: July 03, 2008, 01:56:07 AM »

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

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

Posts: 167


« Reply #128 on: July 03, 2008, 02:16:56 AM »

Apparently what we are attempting to get through to you - that the Orthodox Latin bishops of Rome of the first 1000 years and the Frankish heterodox ones of the second 1000 - renders any quote war (cut & paste fest) you could deliver meaningless to us.
For over 5 years this topic has been defined, parced, and argued here (to the probable ranking of our #2 rank in 'popularity' - just behind 'gay' topics) and all to no avail or closure because your premises are faulty {primacy=supremacy; today's papacy is the same as the Latin ones}.
Again, it's a moot and boring topic holding little interest here. And that's the truth, "truth".

I dont think I understand how this pertains to the question I had for you. Anyway, moving along, I'll post some episodes and have you guys interpret them soon.
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: 12,674


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


« Reply #129 on: July 03, 2008, 02:46:30 AM »

Marc said it best here:

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

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

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

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

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

God bless.
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 #130 on: July 03, 2008, 03:05:54 AM »

Marc said it best here:

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

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

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

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

God bless.

I will. But it just occured to me that you may have quotes that see the eastern sees as Rome. If there were eastern sees that had quotes similiar to those attributed to Rome, lets see them. (From the early church that is...say before 400 AD.) Thank you.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 03:07:18 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #131 on: July 03, 2008, 03:09:34 AM »

Marc said it best here:

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

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

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

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

God bless.

How about this one I took from elsewhere:

Pope St. Gelasius (d. 496):

"Yet we do not hesitate to mention that which is known to the Universal Church, namely, that as the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle has the right to loose what has been bound by the judgments of any bishops, whatsoever, and since it has jurisdiction over every church, so that no one may pass judgment on its verdict, the canons providing that an appeal should be to it from any part of the world, no one is permitted to appeal against its judgment." (Thiel, Ep. 26)
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 03:25:46 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #132 on: July 03, 2008, 03:13:45 AM »

Marc said it best here:

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

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

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

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

God bless.

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

Irenaeus

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 03:14:36 AM by truth » Logged
truth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 167


« Reply #133 on: July 03, 2008, 03:18:35 AM »

Marc said it best here:

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

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

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

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

God bless.

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

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

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

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

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

If you have similiar quotes attributed to any of the eastern sees during the time period of the early church as the above, I'd love to see them.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 03:26:49 AM by truth » Logged
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 #134 on: July 03, 2008, 04:05:19 AM »

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)
A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, ...
.......Church of the Romans....... (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

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

Translation:
"I am a Roman, a title conferred on me by King Constantine.
You got the name "Roman" as a form of derision from the Protestants."
« Last Edit: July 03, 2008, 04:13:45 AM by ozgeorge » Logged

If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.
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 0.15 seconds with 72 queries.