Topic: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics

[prodromos]

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

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

Mailing Address of the Ecumenical Patriarchate:
Rum Patrikhanesi, 342 20 Fener- Haliç, Istanbul.

[Marc1152]

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

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

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

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

[truth]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ozgeorge]

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

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

[wynd]

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

Someone should do the same for the St. Ireneaus "convenire ad" quote.

[ozgeorge]

Someone should do the same for the St. Ireneaus "convenire ad" quote.

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

That Irenaeus quote
and
The St. Maximos Quote

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

[Marc1152]

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

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

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

<<

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

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

[Marc1152]

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

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

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

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

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

[truth]

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

That Irenaeus quote
and
The St. Maximos Quote

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

Thank you, I'll read those.

[truth]

<<

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

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

The quotes refer to the See of Rome, not the pope only. The quotes clearly state what they do. But let me read what ozgeorge posted to me.

[truth]

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

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

The position of RC is that the church evolves. In the early church there were not bishops at all. So why do you have them?

[Marc1152]

The position of RC is that the church evolves. In the early church there were not bishops at all. So why do you have them?

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

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

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

[truth]

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

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

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

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

Are you saying that having the See of Rome supreme is a change of Church Governance or Faith?

[truth]

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

That Irenaeus quote
and
The St. Maximos Quote

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

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

And most of the others I read didnt contribute anything meaningful. They just try to spin words that clearly say what they say. 

[Αριστοκλής]

Wow, a whole dozen posts out of 1400+. 
Seems you just want to spout off here and not 'talk' at all if you won't read what we've done here before. And those two tagged lines are but two of many more relating to this topic.

[truth]

Wow, a whole dozen posts out of 1400+. 
Seems you just want to spout off here and not 'talk' at all if you won't read what we've done here before. And those two tagged lines are but two of many more relating to this topic.

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

The see of Rome was special until it went heretical.

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

Well, they were wrong.

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

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

I think St Maximus is not hard to understand here:

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

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

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

[truth]

Wow, a whole dozen posts out of 1400+. 
Seems you just want to spout off here and not 'talk' at all if you won't read what we've done here before. And those two tagged lines are but two of many more relating to this topic.

At this point I want to tone it down and just ask for the OC views of certain episodes that seem to support the RC views. I have no intention to ask you guys for responses to early church father sayings. I'll let that case rest. Thanks for motivating me to learn.

[Αριστοκλής]

At this point I want to tone it down and just ask for the OC views of certain episodes that seem to support the RC views. I have no intention to ask you guys for responses to early church father sayings. I'll let that case rest. Thanks for motivating me to learn.

Fair enough.

[truth]

Fair enough.

It has occured to me that it really doesnt matter what I bring up, you'll just say that they or whoever was wrong...period. So first, I should ask, under what condition could your mind be changed regarding your opinions? Because I get the feeling that nothing would. And this question goes to everyone here.

[ialmisry]

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

The see of Rome was special until it went heretical.

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

Well, they were wrong.

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

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

I think St Maximus is not hard to understand here:

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

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

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

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

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

[truth]

My main question now is what would change your mind? If everything can be explained away, how could you guys ever alter your opinions. This seems like a critical question. Why were so many people confused, like St Maximos?...if your position was so clear in the early church by easterners?

[truth]

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

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

It is a very common error, even when it is pointed out to the Orthodox church members, that they think that the  pope by himself is infallible. But this is not what the see of Rome teaches. You are setting up a straw man. Only when the pope teaches along side the see of Rome about morals etc is when he is speaking infallibly. Okay?

[ialmisry]

It is a very common error, even when it is pointed out to the Orthodox church members, that they think that the  pope by himself is infallible. But this is not what the see of Rome teaches. You are setting up a straw man. Only when the pope teaches along side the see of Rome about morals etc is when he is speaking infallibly. Okay?

Actually, no.

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

[truth]

Actually, no.

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

Why do you think this?

[minasoliman]

Dear Truth,

The post I gave you here:

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

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

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

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

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

God bless.

[truth]

Dear Truth,

The post I gave you here:

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

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

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

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

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

God bless.

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

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

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

St Maximos regarding the See of Rome:

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

[Αριστοκλής]

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

[truth]

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

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

So how can you blame anyone who researches history and comes to the church father's conclusions? Also, I was still wondering what would change your mind?

[Αριστοκλής]

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

And so it goes around again...
Some church fathers (maybe- big maybe) do not constitute ALL the church fathers. And you still persist in pointless repetition that your interpretation of these words, disembodied from their full sources and the circumstances of the day, are correct.

So how can you blame anyone who researches history and comes to the church father's conclusions? Also, I was still wondering what would change your mind?

Easy, you speak but don't listen to response. What would change my mind? Nothing...ever.

[ozgeorge]

 
How many times do we have to go through this?
Dear 'truth',
No one is saying that Old Rome was not once first in honour among the Patriarchates. The point is that the Holy and Oecumenical 4th Synod gave equal status (isa presvia) to Constantinople, the New Rome. So when (from our perspective) the Old Rome fell into heresy, primacy of honour goes to the Patriarchate Great Church of New Rome.

[truth]

No one is saying that Old Rome was not once first in honour among the Patriarchates.

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

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

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

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

[ozgeorge]

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

When you come up with a Church Father who says that the Bishops of Old Rome must be obeyed even when teaching heresy bareheaded and anathemised by the Church, you might have a case.

[truth]

When you come up with a Church Father who says that the Bishops of Old Rome must be obeyed even when teaching heresy bareheaded and anathemised by the Church, you might have a case.

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

I must add here again that a pope who has a heretical view in his private opinions in a private letter but does not openly teach it officially along side the See of Rome, does not count as the entire see being heretical. The See of Rome does not teach that the pope is perfect. (It is hard to believe how many times this has to be pointed out.) In contrast, many of the eastern sees openly and officially taught heresies.

[wynd]

It has occured to me that it really doesnt matter what I bring up, you'll just say that they or whoever was wrong...period. So first, I should ask, under what condition could your mind be changed regarding your opinions? Because I get the feeling that nothing would. And this question goes to everyone here.

We could ask you this same thing. Did you come here to learn or to teach? Be honest with yourself.

[ozgeorge]

Again, it is not the pope by himself that must be obeyed, but the See of Rome  with the pope as its head.

Please read what I wrote above. The "Bishops of Old Rome" is plural and refers to the See of Rome- which we consider to be in heresy.

And the same church fathers say that the See of Rome shall never be prevailed against by the gates of Hell. (by guess who?...St Maximos!)

Spiffing. Here's what the 28th Canon of the Holy and Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon says (which slightly outranks St. Maximos or any other Church Father):

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

[truth]

We could ask you this same thing. Did you come here to learn or to teach? Be honest with yourself.

I wrote what I wrote becuase that is what I have witnessed. People here either say that St Maximos is interpreted wrong or that he was in error. The same could be said for the the other church fathers who state what St Maximos states. What do these actions indicate? That no matter what, church father will be exlpained away one way or another. So I ask you again, what would change your mind?

[ozgeorge]

what would change your mind?

Two things:
1) An Oecumenical Council which over rules the Council of Chalcedon, or
2) Old Rome renouncing it's heresies and returning to the Church.

[truth]

What does this mean:

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

[ozgeorge]

What does this mean:

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

In Ecclesiatical matters, New Rome has the same power as Old Rome (in fact, the Canon gives her more, since only New Rome can consecrate Bishops in the Barbarian Lands), and New Rome ranks second in honour after Old Rome among the Patriarchates.

[Αριστοκλής]

^ and once, again, past tense.


As I suspected, shoddy scholarship coupled with proof-texting at its worst results in needless debate. St Maximus was referring to a heretical patriarch of Constantinople (Pyrrhus, accused of monotheletism) in this letter. As was proper appeal to Rome was this bishop's only recourse because he, as the bishop of Constantinople, and could not hear his own case despite that seat having authority via Chalcedon to do so otherwise.
Such rights are now held by the Patriarch of Constantinople as the popes of Rome are in schism from the Church.

[truth]

Please read what I wrote above. The "Bishops of Old Rome" is plural and refers to the See of Rome- which we consider to be in heresy.
Spiffing. Here's what the 28th Canon of the Holy and Oecumenical Council of Chalcedon says (which slightly outranks St. Maximos or any other Church Father):

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

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

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

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

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

[ialmisry]

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

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

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

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

Yes, Leo disputed the 28th canon.

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

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

[truth]

Also found this at New Advent:

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

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

Even the Byzantines at Chalcedon never attempted to accord Constantinople equality with Rome, as evinced by its 28th Canon which says New Rome "should be second after her [Old Rome]"  "Second after" does not equal the "equality" which you claim the Empire offered.

[truth]

Yes, Leo disputed the 28th canon.

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

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

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

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

[minasoliman]

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

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

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

St Maximos regarding the See of Rome:

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

Dear Truth,

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

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

God bless.

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