Author Topic: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics  (Read 63168 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,737
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #405 on: July 12, 2008, 01:32:31 AM »
^ Give Peter the benefit of the doubt.   ;)
Actually, in this sense, truth is right.  I can't be both opponent and judge. ;)  Besides, my job as a moderator doesn't require me to judge the winners and losers of debates so much as it requires me to keep debates civil and on topic.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2008, 01:35:13 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,142
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #406 on: July 12, 2008, 01:40:27 AM »
Actually, in this sense, truth is right.  I can't be both opponent and judge. ;)  Besides, my job as a moderator doesn't require me to judge the winners and losers of debates so much as it requires me to keep debates civil and on topic.

If this were a debating contest, Friul, who moderates this forum, would probably have a final word in who won the debate.   ;D

Civility and on topic ness is excellent by all participants.   ;)

Carry on.   :laugh:

Offline Marc1152

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,696
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #407 on: July 12, 2008, 12:21:20 PM »
I have no idea of the quantity of forgeries you are referring to.  ??? What does "many" mean?

And no, there are not mountains of them. You cannot just pawn off quotes you don't like because you found some forgeries. I already gave you an example of finding a forgery that had you misrepresented. It does not follow that everything you posted here is automatically a forgery based on the one forgery.

If you want to give me a ratio, we can get a better idea of what you are getting at.

So...botton line: out of the quotes we have in total, how many are forgeries?

Many means that there are so many of them that we often run into them in these discussions. Many means that the Monks on Athos began to refer to Rome as "The Home of Forgery".. Look up the "Decrees of Damisus" for a start....

My own experience in reading this debate topic about a dozen times on line is that the most direct quotes used by Roman apologists never seem to hold up. They are either tweaked or out of context or  could be referring of Primacy of Honor as easily as Rulership or they turn out to be out right fakes.

So once again, why make any forgeries at all much less so many  that  they have become common fare in these discussions? Why even one or two? If the Roman case has so many genuine quotes that any reasonable person would be persuaded, there would have been no need. Surely my question is clear to you at this point. Why ae there any forgeries at all?

In my opinion there is nearly a total absence of direct and convincing passages from the Fathers as Roman Supremacy was simple not an historical fact. Rome churned out forgeries to back fill the empty space...
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline Tzimis

  • Site Supporter
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,425
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #408 on: July 12, 2008, 12:21:30 PM »
Truth, still hasn't given an ample excuse as to why Pope Liberius in his infaliblity was unfrocked. ;)
Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,495
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #409 on: July 12, 2008, 12:23:08 PM »
If this were a debating contest, Friul, who moderates this forum, would probably have a final word in who won the debate.   ;D

Civility and on topic ness is excellent by all participants.   ;)

Carry on.   :laugh:

This thread has hit 10 pages, and the debate it beginning to dwindle and many just seem to be repeating themselves or that which has already been mentioned earlier in the thread.  There are two paths down which this thread my head. 

Firstly, PtA has provided statements from the Third Council of Constantinople outlining the anathematisation of Pope Honorius due to his impious teachings.  Now, since I was a Roman Catholic, I do understand Honorius was hotly debated at Vatican I, with members taking up both sides.  Some saying Honorius was teaching heretical doctrine and this was why infallibility should not be defined, while others saying his will was as weak as his leadership, and no heresy took place.  Now, it is up to truth , as many Roman Catholics have done before him, to try to prove that anathematisation of Pope Honorius did not specifically mean he was heretical.  What was Pope Honorius?  Well, that argument is solely up to truth to formulate and debate.  Please provide your argument and its support by 23:59 EST, 18 July 2008, otherwise option 2 will come into effect.  I believe other questions have gone unanswered, but this is the tangent we shall follow for now.

Secondly, if this debate continues to dry up and falter, I will have no choice but to lock this thread.  Any significant tangents can be debated in their own threads, if required, in an attempt to stimulate meaningful debate.

Friul locuta est, causa finita est.   :P
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 07:04:03 PM by FrChris »
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Offline Schultz

  • Christian. Guitarist. Scooterist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,532
  • Scion of the McKeesport Becks.
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #410 on: July 12, 2008, 12:43:15 PM »
One day you have a mass entirely in her name and than ceased to venerate Saint Barbara the following year. We see this as a removal. You are free to believe whatever you like too.

Again, there was no ceasing of veneration of St. Barbara, otherwise there would not be churches in her name.  I see what you're saying, but I've been to Orthodox churches where not every saint whose feast day it was had his or her name announced during the ambon prayer.  I've also been to Orthodox churches where the priest most assuredly said every saint-of-the-day's name. 

The simple fact remains is that you are wrong in asserting that St. Barbara and others were "removed" from the Roman Catholic Martyrology.  While priests have the freedom to not commemorate an "optional" saint on any given day, in practice, at least in my experience of both attending and serving for the first 25 years of my life, most priests commemorate all the saints on any given day at some point in the Mass.  Those that don't are clearly exercising their freedom to not do so in this matter but their decision does not mean that the entire Roman Catholic Church does not venerate St. Barbara or has removed her from veneration.

Fact is fact, and until you offer data from a scientific poll, for example, that the veneration of St. Barbara never happens among Roman Catholics (and thus "removed" from veneration), you are simply wrong and spreading falsehood for the sake of a misguided attempt to argue against the primacy of Rome.  All you're doing is discrediting your own arguments and I hate to see it when people do that. 

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen

Offline SolEX01

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,142
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Metropolis of New Jersey
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #411 on: July 12, 2008, 04:01:56 PM »
^^ The moderator of the debate has spoken.   ;)

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #412 on: July 13, 2008, 01:12:00 AM »
Quote
Many means that there are so many of them...

This is too vague. A ratio please.

Quote
Why are there any forgeries at all?

Human sin. Some may have been accidental; some on purpose. There have been much greater crimes.

Quote
In my opinion there is nearly a total absence of direct and convincing passages from the Fathers as Roman Supremacy was simple not an historical fact.


You forgot the obvious St Maximos one. It cannot get anymore direct than this:

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

Remember? You were suppose to prove this a forgery.  ;D  What a minute, you just threw out right?...because you dont like it?
« Last Edit: July 13, 2008, 02:00:00 AM by truth »

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #413 on: July 13, 2008, 01:27:18 AM »
Truth, still hasn't given an ample excuse as to why Pope Liberius in his infaliblity was unfrocked. ;)

I did in reply 333 and 340

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #414 on: July 13, 2008, 01:39:40 AM »
Quote
Firstly, PtA has provided statements from the Third Council of Constantinople outlining the anathematisation of Pope Honorius due to his impious teachings. 


The point I made, as well as the popes at the time, as well as modern apologist, is that he was not teaching heresy openly. What the said council indicates was that he was condemned from a letter addressed to Segiuis; not to the entire church or universal. This explains why there was no open heresy to be found in the See of Rome, and in fact the letter has him saying to be silent.

Quote
...as many Roman Catholics have done before him, to try to prove that anathematisation of Pope Honorius did not specifically mean he was heretical.

Every RC source I have read regarding him has him condemned as heretical, just not openly teaching it. Please show me where in the said council it says this! The council mentions a private letter, not an encyclical addressed to the entire church as you would have it.  :o

Quote
What was Pope Honorius? 


Heretical. That was easy.

Quote
Well, that argument is solely up to truth to formulate and debate. 


Not if he was condemned by an ecunmenical council, which he was.

Quote
Please provide your argument and its support by 23:59 EST, 18 July 2008, otherwise option 2 will come into effect.  I believe other questions have gone unanswered, but this is the tangent we shall follow for now.

Please provide where in the said council that he was condemned for openly teaching heresy. Until then, what am I suppose to prove?...a negation? A negation means it was absent, which is what I am saying.

Quote
Secondly, if this debate continues to dry up and falter, I will have no choice but to lock this thread.  Any significant tangents can be debated in their own threads, if required, in an attempt to stimulate meaningful debate.

You should dry it up, because no one is providing any evidence for their case. They say that he was openly teaching heresy; yet the council says that he was condemned by a private letter.

Keep in mind this private letter is the best case you have against Rome in the pre-schism hereies. This pales in comparison to the openly taught heresies in the east, and in doing so killed St Maximos in the process.

I am begging anybody here: please show me where your claim that he openly taught the said heresy from the from the said council. I know the council said that he was condemned for his views confirmed in the private letter. This is not the same.
« Last Edit: July 13, 2008, 01:50:08 AM by truth »

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,737
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #415 on: July 13, 2008, 02:24:34 AM »
The point I made, as well as the popes at the time, as well as modern apologist, is that he was not teaching heresy openly.

...

Every RC source I have read regarding him has him condemned as heretical, just not openly teaching it.
There's your problem.  You've been reading the wrong sources.  Popes seeking to defend their authority and modern day RC apologists seeking to defend his infallibility can be among the least objective of witnesses.  You need to balance this by reading sources from an Orthodox point of view, or at least from an historian's point of view not "tainted" by any affiliation with a dogmatic Christian tradition.

Quote
Please show me where in the said council it says this!
I already did.  If the pertinent words of the Sixth Ecumenical Council with no more interpretation than a little highlighting is not enough for you, then I'm afraid nothing will convince you.

Quote
The council mentions a private letter, not an encyclical addressed to the entire church as you would have it.  :o
Modern condition that you're trying to enforce upon a council that occurred over a thousand years ago--a bit anachronistic if you ask me.  What is really important is what the council considered to be the active teaching of heresy, and, apparently, these holy fathers didn't need to see an official papal encyclical to believe that Pope Honorius was actively teaching heresy.

Quote
Please provide where in the said council that he was condemned for openly teaching heresy. Until then, what am I suppose to prove?...a negation? A negation means it was absent, which is what I am saying.
Well, you told us that both Pope Leo II and St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius in their belief that he did not actively teach heresy, but you haven't provided any primary source documentation to prove THIS.  Maybe you can't prove a negation, but your declaration that St. Maximos and Pope Leo II agree with you is a positive assertion that therefore does require proof, and, per the request of this section's moderator, you have less than seven days to provide this proof.

Quote
I am begging anybody here: please show me where your claim that he openly taught the said heresy from the from the said council. I know the council said that he was condemned for his views confirmed in the private letter. This is not the same.
I already did all that needs to be done to show you.  If you can't see this for yourself in the record of the council, then that's your problem.  Besides...  TAG!  You're IT! ;D  And you have until the time Friul gave you to provide primary sources in defense of your thesis.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #416 on: July 13, 2008, 02:37:26 AM »
And you have until the time Friul gave you to provide primary sources in defense of your thesis.
Which I am in full agreement with.
Please come back when you are ready to fulfill this request from the Section Moderator in accordance with this forum rule: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,13455.msg220111.html#msg220111
Thanks,
George
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #417 on: July 13, 2008, 02:49:21 AM »
Quote
Well, you told us that both Pope Leo II and St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius in their belief that he did not actively teach heresy, but you haven't provided any primary source documentation to prove THIS.  Maybe you can't prove a negation, but your declaration that St. Maximos and Pope Leo II agree with you is a positive assertion that therefore does require proof...

You make a good point. I will try...out of town at the moment.

Everything else in your post does not satisfy me a bit.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #418 on: July 15, 2008, 11:50:11 AM »
What's wrong with the St Maximos citation btw?

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #419 on: July 15, 2008, 11:10:30 PM »
Quote
Well, you told us that both Pope Leo II and St. Maximos defended Pope Honorius in their belief that he did not actively teach heresy, but you haven't provided any primary source documentation to prove THIS. 


Here is the citation for the St Maximos quote:

Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692

If this is not acceptable, I need to know why.


Here is the one for Pope Leo:

Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352

Again, why are these unacceptable?

« Last Edit: July 15, 2008, 11:13:18 PM by truth »

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,737
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #420 on: July 15, 2008, 11:34:57 PM »


Here is the citation for the St Maximos quote:

Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692

If this is not acceptable, I need to know why.


Here is the one for Pope Leo:

Leonis II ad. Constantinum. Imp. as quoted in NPNF, vol. 14, 352

Again, why are these unacceptable?


Well....  What do they say?  I've seen these references in the articles you posted, but I've not yet seen you or these articles actually quote these sources.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Αριστοκλής

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 10,026
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #421 on: July 16, 2008, 08:16:09 AM »
I guess we need a theme tune for this, our own OC.net soap opera...like the TV versions, this never ends.
"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,382
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #422 on: July 16, 2008, 07:33:20 PM »
I guess we need a theme tune for this, our own OC.net soap opera...like the TV versions, this never ends.

"Like sands through the hourglass
This is the waste of our lives......."
« Last Edit: July 16, 2008, 07:33:43 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #423 on: July 17, 2008, 10:57:37 AM »
Well....  What do they say?  I've seen these references in the articles you posted, but I've not yet seen you or these articles actually quote these sources.

Sorry, I dont undertsand you. You are acknowledging that these are references, but not references?

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,495
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #424 on: July 17, 2008, 12:03:17 PM »
Sorry, I dont undertsand you. You are acknowledging that these are references, but not references?

PtA is saying that yes, you are referring to an external source, but without a copy of that specific letter and without a copy of the 14th volume of Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, we cannot a) verify the reference, b) read the reference in context, and c) comment on them properly.  If you can quote a significant part of (or all of) the letter or the pages in question in NPNF, then it would be a proper reference.
As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,737
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #425 on: July 17, 2008, 03:21:55 PM »
PtA is saying that yes, you are referring to an external source, but without a copy of that specific letter and without a copy of the 14th volume of Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers, we cannot a) verify the reference, b) read the reference in context, and c) comment on them properly.  If you can quote a significant part of (or all of) the letter or the pages in question in NPNF, then it would be a proper reference.
For example, my Reply #397...  I didn't just post Sections __ from the Proceedings of the Third Council of Constantinople and leave it at that with the expectation that you would do a Google search for the reference and find its text online for yourself.  Nor did I paraphrase the text of the source in my own words.  What I did was paste a significant portion of the text directly into my post to make it easy for you to read the citation for yourself.  This is what I hope to see from you.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 20,188
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #426 on: July 17, 2008, 04:46:43 PM »
I guess we need a theme tune for this, our own OC.net soap opera...like the TV versions, this never ends.

"This is the thread that never ends,
yes it goes on and on, my friends,
Some people started replying it
not knowing what they're talking about,
and they'll continue posting it forever just because...."
« Last Edit: July 17, 2008, 04:47:02 PM by cleveland »
"O Cross of Christ, all-holy, thrice-blessed, and life-giving, instrument of the mystical rites of Zion, the holy Altar for the service of our Great Archpriest, the blessing - the weapon - the strength of priests, our pride, our consolation, the light in our hearts, our mind, and our steps"
Met. Meletios of Nikopolis & Preveza, from his ordination.

Offline Marc1152

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,696
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #427 on: July 17, 2008, 09:59:34 PM »
"This is the thread that never ends,
yes it goes on and on, my friends,
Some people started replying it
not knowing what they're talking about,
and they'll continue posting it forever just because...."

Memory Eternal: Shari Lewis and Lamb Chop
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline truth

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 167
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #428 on: July 18, 2008, 12:24:19 AM »
This thread has hit 10 pages, and the debate it beginning to dwindle and many just seem to be repeating themselves or that which has already been mentioned earlier in the thread.  There are two paths down which this thread my head. 

Firstly, PtA has provided statements from the Third Council of Constantinople outlining the anathematisation of Pope Honorius due to his impious teachings.  Now, since I was a Roman Catholic, I do understand Honorius was hotly debated at Vatican I, with members taking up both sides.  Some saying Honorius was teaching heretical doctrine and this was why infallibility should not be defined, while others saying his will was as weak as his leadership, and no heresy took place.  Now, it is up to truth , as many Roman Catholics have done before him, to try to prove that anathematisation of Pope Honorius did not specifically mean he was heretical.  What was Pope Honorius?  Well, that argument is solely up to truth to formulate and debate.  Please provide your argument and its support by 23:59 EST, 18 July 2008, otherwise option 2 will come into effect.  I believe other questions have gone unanswered, but this is the tangent we shall follow for now.

Secondly, if this debate continues to dry up and falter, I will have no choice but to lock this thread.  Any significant tangents can be debated in their own threads, if required, in an attempt to stimulate meaningful debate.

Friul locuta est, causa finita est.   :P


Sorry...been working a lot and traveling. It might not be until next week.

Offline _Seraphim_

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 657
  • May Orthodoxy become our orthopraxis
    • OrthodoxMysteries
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #429 on: July 18, 2008, 09:52:04 AM »
"This is the thread that never ends,
yes it goes on and on, my friends,
Some people started replying it
not knowing what they're talking about,
and they'll continue posting it forever just because...."

 :laugh: ;D
"Disputes merely about words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike."
-St. Athanasius (†444)

Pray for Orthodox Unity

"Behold the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology"
http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state04.html

Offline Entscheidungsproblem

  • Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
  • Protokentarchos
  • *********
  • Posts: 4,495
    • Amsterdam Declaration 2002
Re: Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics
« Reply #430 on: July 19, 2008, 12:02:32 AM »
Since this conversation appears to have run its course, it has been locked.

truth, if/when you are able to provide the sources you were to post, PM me and I will decide whether to unlock this thread or just to start a new one.

Thank you.

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