OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 01, 2014, 12:02:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: St. John Chrysostom: Supporter of modern (Vatican I) Papal Primacy?  (Read 12133 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« on: November 12, 2007, 10:12:58 PM »

Split from:  http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,12957.msg

This thread is to focus exclusively on Saint John Chrysostom and the modern RC view of Papal Primacy/Supremacy.  Hopefully the other thread can now advance beyond this one Church Father.  Smiley

-- Friul


Hello,

One Catholic argued that Peter is 'set aside' from the others by being mentioned separately.
That is how Saint John Chrysostom viewed that verse:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220121.htm

"Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Observe his skilfulness. The leader of the choir stands last in his arrangement: since that is the time for laying down the strongest of all one's topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the foremost champion and in him who was entrusted with the keys of heaven. But neither does he mention Peter alone, but all of them: as if he had said, Whether you seek the inferior sort or the more eminent, in all you find patterns of this sort.



Given that, this verse is not by itself a proof for the Papacy, nor is it even key or vital. It is merely one brick in the foundation for the Papacy. But I would question the strategy of someone presenting this as a main thrust of a proof.
« Last Edit: January 13, 2008, 12:59:32 AM by Friul » Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2007, 08:16:51 AM »

Hello,
That is how Saint John Chrysostom viewed that verse:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220121.htm

"Have we no right to lead about a wife that is a believer, even as the rest of the Apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas?" Observe his skilfulness. The leader of the choir stands last in his arrangement: since that is the time for laying down the strongest of all one's topics. Nor was it so wonderful for one to be able to point out examples of this conduct in the rest, as in the foremost champion and in him who was entrusted with the keys of heaven. But neither does he mention Peter alone, but all of them: as if he had said, Whether you seek the inferior sort or the more eminent, in all you find patterns of this sort.



Given that, this verse is not by itself a proof for the Papacy, nor is it even key or vital. It is merely one brick in the foundation for the Papacy. But I would question the strategy of someone presenting this as a main thrust of a proof.

My deepest apologies for the lateness of this response. I don't get to this forum all that often and so easily lose touch of posts.

The leader of the choir comes up a bit. Can I refer you to a Protestant sitehttp://www.christiantruth.com/stephenray.html?

Choir leader (coryphaei) is used in the plural.
”He took the coryphaei and led them up into a high mountain apart...Why does He take these three alone? Because they excelled the others. Peter showed his excellence by his great love of Him, John by being greatly loved, James by the answer...’We are able to drink the chalice.’”
-Saint John Chrysostom “Homilies on the Gospel of Saint Matthew, Homily 56.2”

...
”For he who then did not dare to question Jesus, but committed the office to another, was even entrusted with the chief authority over the brethren”

- Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2”

This would seem to indicate that Chrysostom taught that Peter was the supreme ruler of the Church. However in the passage cited above Chrysostom speaks of the apostle John as also receiving the charge of the whole world and the keys equally with Peter:
”And this He did to withdraw them (Peter and John) from their unseasonable sympathy for each other; for since they were about to receive the charge of the world, it was necessary that they should no longer be closely associated together
-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 88.1-2”

”Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod”
-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI”

He goes on to speak of Paul as being on an equal footing with Peter:

”Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love....I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it...Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!...what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38 )”
-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32, Ver. 24”

Further, Chrysostom speaks of James, and not Peter, as possessing the chief rule and authority in Jerusalem and over the Jerusalem Council:

”This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last...There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.”
- Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily 33”

Even John is said to have 'the keys'...
”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now”
-Saint John Chrysostom, “Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1”

Thus in the context of his writings, John Chrysostomon does not lend support to the Papacy.

Add to this that he spent most of his liturgical life in with a Church that was not in communion with Rome and we see him less and less as a support for the Papacy (as Catholics would wish).

He was ordained by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome (which itself undermines the Catholic position)...

"The work of the Council of Constantinople was completed. Theologically, it had carried the logic of the Council of Nicea and cautiously applied that Council's reasoning about the Son's relation to the Father to the Holy Spirit, though confining its statement to biblical terminology. Administratively, the Council continued the eastern practice of accommodating the ecclesiastical organization to the civil organisation of the Empire, sowing the seeds for discord among the four great sees of East and West by raising the ecclesiastical status of Constantinople to correspond to its civil position as New Rome. All in all, it proved to be a remarkable Council. It was never intended to be an ecumenical council: the Bishop of Rome was not invited: only 150 Eastern bishops were present; only one by accident from the West. Only at the Council of Chalcedon of 451 did it begin to rank in the East with the Council of Nicea as more than a local council. Because of the schism at Antioch its first president, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria. Its second president, Gregory of Nazianzus, was not in western eyes the legitimate bishop of Constantinople. Strong doubts were later expressed about the authenticity of its creed. Its canons were rejected in the west for nine hundred years.
Davis L. D., (1990), "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology", (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), pp128-129.

This Orthodox saint (and doctor of the western church) was ordained a lector by St. Meletius, Patriarch of Antioch (370), and then to the diaconate (381). Later to the priesthood by Meletius' successor St. Flavian (386).
"Under Patriarchs Meletius and Flavian, Antioch and Rome were not in communion with each other. It must be emphasized that by receiving ordination at the hands of St. Flavian and St. Meletius, St. John unreservedly recognised them as genuine successors to the see of Antioch. By the very act of receiving ordination from these prelates, he was knowingly placing himself outside communion with Rome."
Whelton, M., (2006), "Popes and Patriarchs: An Orthodox Perspective on Roman Catholic Claims", (Concillar Press; Ben Lomond, CA), p110

John Chrysostomon wrote most of his works whilst not in communion with Rome.

Whelton then goes on to detail the reason for the schism; based on the loyalty towards St Meletius. Who interestingly enough was still elected president of a council of 150 bishops convened by the Emperor (The Second Ecumenical Council).

"Because of the schism at Antioch, its first president, Meletius, was not in communion with Rome and Alexandria."
Davis L. D., (1990), "The First Seven Ecumenical Councils (325-787) Their History and Theology", (Liturgical Press, Minnesota), p129

"It was presided over at first by St. Meletius, the bishop of Antioch who was bishop not in communion with Rome"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.ii.html?bcb=0

This site gives this footnote
E. B. Pusey. The Councils of the Church , a.d. 51–381, p. 306. Tillemont, Mémoires , xvj., 662, who says, “If none of those who die out of communion with Rome can merit the title of Saints and Confessors, Baronius should have the names of St. Meletius, St. Elias of Jerusalem and St. Daniel the Stylite stricken from the Martyrology.” Cf . F. W. Puller, The Primitive Saints and See of Rome , pp. 174 and 238. Many attempts have been made to explain this fact away, but without success. Not only was the president of the Council a persona non grata to the Pope, but the members of the Council were well aware of the fact, and much pleased that such was the case, and Hefele acknowledges that the reason the council determined to continue the Meletian Schism was because allowing Paulinus to succeed to Meletius would be “too great a concession to the Latins” (vol. III., p. 346).

This same quote is probably taken from another source...
"It was presided over at first by St. Meletius, the bishop of Antioch who was bishop not in communion with Rome"
Percival, H. R. (ed.), (1988) "The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church_, Vol XIV of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers", 2nd series, edd. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, (repr. Edinburgh: T&T Clark; Grand Rapids MI: Wm.B. Eerdmans)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const1.txt

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9801eaw.asp Says that the Pope sent Lucifer to Antioch with authority...
"Pope Liberius authorized Athanasius to convoke a council to resolve the schism in Antioch. He sent two legates (Eusebius and Lucifer) with jurisdiction and authority in the East to preside with Athanasius over a council in Alexandria. The synod at Alexandria accepted the regularity of Meletius’s ordination. It appointed an Episcopal commission, which included the papal legates, to reconcile the divided Catholics in Antioch."

What did he do...
"Lucifer goes to Antioch and consecrates Paulinus.

It was decided therefore that Lucifer should go to Antioch in Syria, and Eusebius to Alexandria, that by assembling a Synod in conjunction with Athanasius, they might confirm the doctrines of the church. Lucifer sent a deacon as his representative, by whom he pledged himself to assent to whatever the Synod might decree; but he himself went to Antioch, where he found the church in great disorder, the people not being agreed among themselves. For not only did the Arian heresy, which had been introduced by Euzoius, divide the church, but, as we before said, the followers of Meletius also, from attachment to their teacher, separated themselves from those with whom they agreed in sentiment. When therefore Lucifer had constituted Paulinus their bishop, he again departed."
Socrates Scholasticus
"The Ecclesiastical History" Book III.6

Thus the Papal person proclaimed Paulinus bishop in direct opposition to Meletius. Meletius continued with his own support in direct opposition to the decision of the Pope's man.
"Now recall that Paulinus is the Pope's man. Meletius continued to hold church services (outside the city walls) during this time. And the two continued in 'office'. One not being the Pope's choice. An arrangement was made that when one died, the other would succeed."
Socrates Scholasticus
"The Ecclesiastical History" Book V.5

Paulinus actually argued from canon law that there should not be a co-bishop!
And of John Chrysostomon; continually consecrated by Meletius, he later separated from him WITHOUT joining in communion with the Pope's man, Paulinus.
see Socrates Scholasticus
"The Ecclesiastical History"Book VI.3

"About this period Meletius, bishop of Antioch, fell sick and died: in whose praise Gregory, the brother of Basil, pronounced a funeral oration. The body of the deceased bishop was by his friends conveyed to Antioch; where those who had identified themselves with his interests again refused subjection to Paulinus, but caused Flavian to be substituted in the place of Meletius, and the people began to quarrel anew. Thus again the Antiochian church was divided into rival factions, not grounded on any difference of faith, but simply on a preference of bishops.
Socrates Scholasticus
"The Ecclesiastical History" Book V.9

And as noted John Chrysostomon took orders from Flavian (after Meletius' death). Flavian was not in favour with Alexandria nor Rome. Flavian then sent messengers to Alexandria AND Rome to work out peace.
see Socrates Scholasticus
"The Ecclesiastical History" Book V.15

At that time there were several and rival claimants to be the proper patriarch in Antioch. Paulinus was the man favoured by Rome and Alexandria. Meletius was favoured by others. Jerome accompanied Paulinus back to Rome in order to get more support for him.

Ambrose hoped that a general council would be called in support of his friend. He hoped that the Pope would be the influence to make this happen.

"Ambrose was agitating for a general council to bring matters to a head, and succeeded in persuading the western emperor, Gratian, to convoke one in Rome. A number of western metropolitans assembled there in the summer of 382, but the east declined to cooperate. In fact Theodosius had no wish to see the settlement he was establishing upset by western meddling, and had already re-convened the council of the previous year at Constantinople. When the belated western summons reached them, the eastern bishops gathered there sent a courteous but firm reply, excusing themselves from attending, apart from a token delegation of three, but not yielding an inch on the disputed issues."
Kelly, J. N. D., (1975), "Jerome: His life, writings and controversies", (Hendrickson Publishers; Peabody, MA), pp80-81.

Thus the eastern churches did not obey the Pope. John Chrysostomon (sometimes used by Catholic apologists as a pro-Papal writer) always recognised Meletius as the legitimate bishop; someone not in communion with Rome.

Thus he spent most of his life 'in schism'. Most of his writings were in this period.

This Catholic apologist web-site gives some clues to the case
"when St. Chrysostom wrote this treatise, he neither was nor ever had been in communion with the Church of Rome, and, in fact, he remained outside of that communion for at least seventeen more years, perhaps for as many as twenty-six." (Puller, Primitive Saints)
As he proceeds to prove this in 146 large octavo pages, together with about fifty pages of extra notes, I cannot reply to it here. It is only necessary at present to state that there is no evidence that St. Chrysostom himself was ever out of communion with Rome. The bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch for the most part recognized St. Meletius and his successor St. Flavian as rightful patriarchs, while Rome and Alexandria (that is, St. Athanasius and his successors) thought that their rival Paulinus had the better title. But the rest of the East sides with Meletius, though remaining in full communion with Alexandria, Rome and the West. It is certain that neither St. Meletius nor St. Flavian was ever formally excommunicated by the Apostolic See. It is still more certain that their adherents -- whether the bishops within the patriarchate, or the priests (including St. Chrysostom) and people within the city -- were never excommunicated.
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

They accept that Meletius was not Rome’s chosen man. They then pretend there’s no evidence about John’s schism; ignoring that he accepted ordination from the men Rome did not choose. Which is the point I made. And the point you wish to re-write. Rome wanted someone else. Rome didn't have any power. Rome was ignored. John accepted ordiantion from the men Rome didn't want.

Not being in 'communion' with is different from excommunication; it begs the point because Rome didn't have the power to excommunicate them anyway. That's the whole point. Despite Rome's wishes the East was happy with them being in the See of Antioch.

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #2 on: December 30, 2007, 03:07:46 AM »


I guess then we can all look at the various quotes and at the Bible itself to figure out what the Papacy is or should be, but really the quotes don't solve the issue since they can be interpreted differently.  The bare history itself tells me what I have believed all along - Rome was accorded its place of reverence and spiritual authority due to its seat as the first city of the Roman Empire and the dual martyrdom of the apostles Peter and Paul there.  I think the idea of the direct link of Peter to the bishops of Rome and the transmission of "keys" to them is both a misinterpretation of what is in the Bible and is just simple historically untenable.  Much it seems to me rests on this point.

It seems to me the Byzantine Church accepted primacy ( http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum=1355 ) but rejected universal jurisdiction, and that ultimately that is what the schism is about (the Filioque aside).  Muscovy actually probably developed its own distinct ecclesiology after departing from Byzantium.

In the end I think all sides need to rid themselves of their various imperial ecclesiologies.

Again that's to ignore history. People from the Papal side post quotes from John Chrysostomon, as but one example, as if he's a supporter of a Papal prince, yet in the reality of history he saw his own life as within the local Antiochian church which was not in communion with Rome.

You are the second person to both argue you can't tell things from quotes from ECF's but are sure you're right!  Huh
Logged

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

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Under the Green Pope
Posts: 1,239

Greek Orthodox


« Reply #3 on: December 30, 2007, 07:57:15 AM »

Again that's to ignore history. People from the Papal side post quotes from John Chrysostomon, as but one example, as if he's a supporter of a Papal prince, yet in the reality of history he saw his own life as within the local Antiochian church which was not in communion with Rome.

You are the second person to both argue you can't tell things from quotes from ECF's but are sure you're right!  Huh

Why was it not in communion?
Logged

The sins I don't commit are largely due to the weakness of my limbs.

1915-1923 Հայոց Ցեղասպանութիւն ,never again,
ܩܛܠܐ ܕܥܡܐ ܐܬܘܪܝܐ 1920-1914, never again,
השואה  1933-1945, never again,
(1914-1923) Ελληνική Γενοκτονία, never again
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #4 on: December 30, 2007, 09:50:46 AM »

Again that's to ignore history. People from the Papal side post quotes from John Chrysostomon, as but one example, as if he's a supporter of a Papal prince, yet in the reality of history he saw his own life as within the local Antiochian church which was not in communion with Rome.
As far as I can tell Saint John Chrysostom was in communion with the bishop of Rome when he was Patriarch of Constantinople. His home see was in communion with Rome from his birth in 349 AD. I am not sure what dates Antioch was out of communion with Rome or exactly what issues were at stake, perhaps you can tell us?
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2007, 04:56:49 PM »

As far as I can tell Saint John Chrysostom was in communion with the bishop of Rome when he was Patriarch of Constantinople. His home see was in communion with Rome from his birth in 349 AD. I am not sure what dates Antioch was out of communion with Rome or exactly what issues were at stake, perhaps you can tell us?

St. Meletius, patriarch of Antioch, was deposed in 361 for being associated with the semi-Arian Macedonians.  Rome (and Alexandria) backed another line (which died out).  St. Meletius was reconciled to Constantinople at the Second Council, which Meltius opened.  When he died during it, the council chose his successor (which Rome didn't approve).  Rome eventually got on board in 399, and the Meletian schism was healed in 415, when the group that Rome had backed was absorbed back.

On a related issue, who did St. Ephraim recognize as patriarch of Antioch?
« Last Edit: December 30, 2007, 05:26:31 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #6 on: December 30, 2007, 06:00:31 PM »

Hello,

I have never seen anything to suggest that Saint John Chrysostom was ever not in communion with Rome. In fact, when Saint John Chrysostom was deposed Rome cut off communion with Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople (where another was placed in Saint John's stead) in defense of the great Saint and Doctor.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #7 on: December 31, 2007, 01:24:35 AM »

Quoting Saint John Chrysostom on the primacy of the bishop of Rome is legetimate. I am not sure why montalban thinks that there's some historical problem with doing so. That being said, the information I found on the Meletian schism ...

Saint Meletius (died. 381), Catholic bishop, leader of the Meletian faction in the Antiochene schism. Meletius became (361) Catholic patriarch after the Arians deposed Eustathius. The Eustathians, however, opposed him for his Arian sponsorship and the Arians, who grew unhappy with him, secured his exile. A party of Meletians arose to defend him. Lucifer of Cagliari deepened the schism by uncanonically consecrating Paulinus from the Eustathian ranks, thereby giving Antioch two Catholic bishops. Meletius returned in 378, but Rome favored Paulinus, and the parties would not unite. Meletius died while presiding at the First Council of Constantinople, which sought to end the schism by electing Flavian of Antioch successor to his see. He was the teacher of St. John Chrysostom. Feast: Feb. 12. He is sometimes confused with his contemporary, Meletius of Lycopolis, who organized the widespread Meletian Schism in Egypt, which was aligned with the Arians. (taken from http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Meletius.html )
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #8 on: December 31, 2007, 04:52:07 AM »

Quoting Saint John Chrysostom on the primacy of the bishop of Rome is legetimate.
What? Because you say so?

 I am not sure why montalban thinks that there's some historical problem with doing so.
Because John Chrysostomon took offices of the church from the hands of those that were not in communion with Rome.

That being said, the information I found on the Meletian schism ...

Saint Meletius (died. 381), Catholic bishop, leader of the Meletian faction in the Antiochene schism. Meletius became (361) Catholic patriarch after the Arians deposed Eustathius. The Eustathians, however, opposed him for his Arian sponsorship and the Arians, who grew unhappy with him, secured his exile. A party of Meletians arose to defend him. Lucifer of Cagliari deepened the schism by uncanonically consecrating Paulinus from the Eustathian ranks, thereby giving Antioch two Catholic bishops. Meletius returned in 378, but Rome favored Paulinus, and the parties would not unite. Meletius died while presiding at the First Council of Constantinople, which sought to end the schism by electing Flavian of Antioch successor to his see. He was the teacher of St. John Chrysostom. Feast: Feb. 12. He is sometimes confused with his contemporary, Meletius of Lycopolis, who organized the widespread Meletian Schism in Egypt, which was aligned with the Arians. (taken from http://www.bartleby.com/65/me/Meletius.html )

When he presided he was not in communion with Rome! It seems I wasted a lot of research on people who simply want to try the ostrich approach to history; buring one's head in the sand.

I cited primary accounts and also secondary (AND CATHOLIC) evidence that backs what I said.

Yet you miss the point of your own source, too! It shows that Rome sent a representative who they championed as 'their man' in Antioch, Paulinus. Thus there were two patriarchs in Antioch, the Roman and the 'natural' Antiochian, Meletius. John Chrysostomon, during this time took ordination from Meletius. It (your source) says that they would not unite. Meletius then headed the Ecumenical Council as a person not in communion with Rome! Showing that the people of the east saw that this was no bar to him chairing that meeting!

Even if later on Antioch and Rome were reconcilled it doesn't retrospectively negate what John Chrysostomon did. IN fact that Rome would seek to reconcile with a man who had so shunned them would show you that they accepted his ordination as legitimate.

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #9 on: December 31, 2007, 04:56:11 AM »

Hello,

I have never seen anything to suggest that Saint John Chrysostom was ever not in communion with Rome.
Does this mean you didn't read my post where I gave evidence?

In fact, when Saint John Chrysostom was deposed Rome cut off communion with Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople (where another was placed in Saint John's stead) in defense of the great Saint and Doctor.

Even this misses the point. John Chrysostomon was indeed ousted by those in the east, and indeed Rome defened him. But, was he reinstated? No. Did he accept that he was deposed? Yes.

So the entire eastern world didn't go "Oh my God, the Pope's spoken, let's put him back in his See!"

And John Chrysostomon accepted this.

So Rome's defence was not enough to convince either those deposing or he who was deposed.

How's this support Rome's primacy? That they were ignored?  Tongue
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #10 on: December 31, 2007, 04:59:48 AM »

As far as I can tell Saint John Chrysostom was in communion with the bishop of Rome when he was Patriarch of Constantinople.
So what? When he accepted ordination, he was not. He knowingly accepted ordination from the hands of men who were not in communion with Rome.

That latter Roman and he were reconcilled is great, but it doesn't help your case.

His home see was in communion with Rome from his birth in 349 AD. I am not sure what dates Antioch was out of communion with Rome or exactly what issues were at stake, perhaps you can tell us?
I already did this in reply #34

Logged

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

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



« Reply #11 on: December 31, 2007, 11:49:15 AM »

montalban, I do not see the significance of pointing out that Antioch was a troubled diocese with two rival claimant bishops ordained by rival camps - one pro-arian and the other pro-nicene - in the church in that diocese. Saint John Chrysostom doesn't seem to have been implicated in the schism himself so exactly how does the situation in Antioch abrogate saint Chrysostom's views on the primacy of the bishop of Rome? Had saint Chrysostom intended to say that Rome didn't have primacy then he would not have said that it did.

I observed before that this topic when debated by citing the church fathers never gets very far because both sides have their shibboleths and they will not let them go.

PS: I have had the opportunity to reread your remarks with greater care from post #34 and I thank you for the information. What you've said montalban is useful and seems to make a good case for the situation in Antioch proceeding on its own terms quite independently from the expressed desire, commands, legates etc from Rome and from Alexandria. This does seem to provide a prima face case for independent decisions being made and accepted in the east regardless of the stated desire of the bishop of Rome. I am still not sure how this really makes citing saint Chrysostom about papal primacy inappropriate ...

PPS: I was not making a case for or against collegiate vs monarchical views of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
« Last Edit: December 31, 2007, 12:11:45 PM by Credo.InDeum » Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #12 on: December 31, 2007, 04:06:46 PM »

montalban, I do not see the significance of pointing out that Antioch was a troubled diocese with two rival claimant bishops ordained by rival camps - one pro-arian and the other pro-nicene - in the church in that diocese. Saint John Chrysostom doesn't seem to have been implicated in the schism himself so exactly how does the situation in Antioch abrogate saint Chrysostom's views on the primacy of the bishop of Rome? Had saint Chrysostom intended to say that Rome didn't have primacy then he would not have said that it did.

I observed before that this topic when debated by citing the church fathers never gets very far because both sides have their shibboleths and they will not let them go.

PS: I have had the opportunity to reread your remarks with greater care from post #34 and I thank you for the information. What you've said montalban is useful and seems to make a good case for the situation in Antioch proceeding on its own terms quite independently from the expressed desire, commands, legates etc from Rome and from Alexandria. This does seem to provide a prima face case for independent decisions being made and accepted in the east regardless of the stated desire of the bishop of Rome. I am still not sure how this really makes citing saint Chrysostom about papal primacy inappropriate ...

PPS: I was not making a case for or against collegiate vs monarchical views of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.

Not to be redundant, but to repeat what Montalban has already said:

Say instead of St. John, we have someone today who is ordained by the SSPX.  Said priest is elevated by the Lefevrists.

Now, are you going to invite said bishop to teach CCD or RCIA on the Primacy of the Petrine Papacy?  Would you accept their writings as authoritative expressions of the magisterium?  After all, he's a bishop.

Compare this with the whining of St. Jerome:
Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! Matthew 16:18 This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. Exodus 12:22 This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. Genesis 7:23 But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus [from whom he would later be ordained, but whose line died out]. He that gathers not with you scatters; Matthew 12:30 he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm

To throw something else out:

The Decretal Epistle of Pope Vigilius in Confirmation of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod.

Historical Note.

(Fleury.  Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)

At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren.  He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the example of Augustine.  He says, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation.  “We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defence of the three chapters.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.xi.html
« Last Edit: December 31, 2007, 04:24:44 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #13 on: December 31, 2007, 09:29:54 PM »

montalban, I do not see the significance of pointing out that Antioch was a troubled diocese with two rival claimant bishops ordained by rival camps - one pro-arian and the other pro-nicene - in the church in that diocese. Saint John Chrysostom doesn't seem to have been implicated in the schism himself so exactly how does the situation in Antioch abrogate saint Chrysostom's views on the primacy of the bishop of Rome? Had saint Chrysostom intended to say that Rome didn't have primacy then he would not have said that it did.
You can re-work this all you want. As Davis points out that Meletius was not in communion with Rome and Chrysostomon accepted ordination at his hands.
I observed before that this topic when debated by citing the church fathers never gets very far because both sides have their shibboleths and they will not let them go.
That's a non-point. Just because you re-work this into an 'arian' schism doesn't mean we can't know the truth of the matter; and yet you guys also want to have the other side by quoting John Chrysostomon as support for the Papacy
PS: I have had the opportunity to reread your remarks with greater care from post #34 and I thank you for the information. What you've said montalban is useful and seems to make a good case for the situation in Antioch proceeding on its own terms quite independently from the expressed desire, commands, legates etc from Rome and from Alexandria. This does seem to provide a prima face case for independent decisions being made and accepted in the east regardless of the stated desire of the bishop of Rome. I am still not sure how this really makes citing saint Chrysostom about papal primacy inappropriate ...
Only because you continue not to engage in the fact he accepted ordination from people not in communion with Rome. Sure, you want to re-work this as an Arian schism.
PPS: I was not making a case for or against collegiate vs monarchical views of the primacy of the bishop of Rome.
However the evidence does point to a collegiate model

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #14 on: December 31, 2007, 09:33:39 PM »

I am absolutely flabbergasted at the non-engagement of critical points.

John Chrysostomon accepted the tutorship and the ordination of men not in communion with Rome.

Later when he himself was in high office and he was set upon by enemies Rome came to his aid. He may have been happy for this aid, but it didn't help him as he was still ousted and he accepted that.

Somehow this is re-worked into either
a) we can't really know what he thought
or
b) he supported the Papacy!

It's simply a case of people with a preclusion then warping the events to fit that conclusion.

And this is aside the point that John Chrysostomon said others, other than Peter had the keys and that they were the 'choir-masters'.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #15 on: January 01, 2008, 07:11:05 AM »

ialmisry, I am not sure why an example from 20th and 21st century SSPX ordination and its relationship with current papal primacy has any relevance for 4th century writings. Understanding of the teaching of Christ matures with time, exactly how the bishops of the 4th century saw themselves and their interrelations is important but it cannot be determined by drawing examples from our own times and anachronistically applying them to a situation in the 4th century.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #16 on: January 01, 2008, 07:15:02 AM »

The advocates of papal sovereignty on this thread are a perfect example of what Anastasios warned about in reply#1. Thus we have perfect examples of what he meant.


Indeed.

So far: Catholics quote John Chrysostomon about the 'choir-master', then refute this themselves by saying one can't really know what he was thinking by simply looking at his quotes!  laugh

I cite a Catholic historian that shows that the Antiochian See was divided between Meletius and a man sponsored by the Pope. John Chrysostomon took ordinations from Meletius who was not in communion with the Pope. Catholics reply "I don't see the significance of this" or "I've never seen this"

Catholics site that John Chrysostomon got support latter on from the Pope. I replied by showing that he still accepted his ousting. He himself was oblivious to the 'power' of the Pope.

Logged

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

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



« Reply #17 on: January 01, 2008, 07:16:52 AM »

montalban, I read your posts with care and decided not to walk down the line of debate that you are proposing. Saint Chrysostom's writings have their context in history which does influence how we should read them today yet his words have meaning in themselves which the accidents of history do not abrogate. If the saint had intended to deny that the bishop of Rome had primacy then he would no doubt not have said that he did.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #18 on: January 01, 2008, 07:19:04 AM »

ialmisry, I am not sure why an example from 20th and 21st century SSPX ordination and its relationship with current papal primacy has any relevance for 4th century writings. Understanding of the teaching of Christ matures with time, exactly how the bishops of the 4th century saw themselves and their interrelations is important but it cannot be determined by drawing examples from our own times and anachronistically applying them to a situation in the 4th century.

Now, that's a novel rebuttal!  Shocked

So when John Chrysostomon accepted office from the hands of those not in communion with Rome, he had no idea about the significance of this, and/or perhaps thought that they were still in communion with Rome? He didn't just accept one rank from them. But moved on to be priest at their hands.

Do you have any evidence that the consecreation of someone outside of communion with Rome is still valid?

And, even after he was ousted and the Pope supported him and he still accepted that he was ousted, he thought that the Pope's word was 'law'?

What you're doing is in effect drawing a conclusion from no evidence...  Roll Eyes
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #19 on: January 01, 2008, 07:21:36 AM »

montalban, I read your posts with care and decided not to walk down the line of debate that you are proposing. Saint Chrysostom's writings have their context in history which does influence how we should read them today yet his words have meaning in themselves which the accidents of history do not abrogate.

That's amazing. His words just prove your position, despite any context from history!

Well that's an unbeatable position to have; believe in the Papacy and ignore any evidence that suggests otherwise!
If the saint had intended to deny that the bishop of Rome had primacy then he would no doubt not have said that he did.
There's too many negatives here for me to understand what it is you want to say.

That he attributed to others the leader of the choir, or that others had the keys has no meanign either?Huh  Huh
Logged

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

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



« Reply #20 on: January 01, 2008, 09:59:01 AM »

uh huh ....  Lips Sealed
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #21 on: January 02, 2008, 12:03:53 AM »

uh huh ....  Lips Sealed

Well it's you making up this sinuous route of reason;

Assuming
a) John Chrysostomon had no idea about the significance of accepting office from those outside of communion with Rome (Also; that there's some major difference between how people took ordination then, to how they do so now.)
b) that one quote where he speaks of Peter as head of the Choir is support for the Papacy (that all other references about choir masters we can't really know about the 'context' of any quote that doesn't agree with this because of a) )



In other words you can only be sure to the extent that he agrees with you. Anything else, and we can't tell!  laugh
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #22 on: January 02, 2008, 03:33:51 AM »

ialmisry, I am not sure why an example from 20th and 21st century SSPX ordination and its relationship with current papal primacy has any relevance for 4th century writings. Understanding of the teaching of Christ matures with time, exactly how the bishops of the 4th century saw themselves and their interrelations is important but it cannot be determined by drawing examples from our own times and anachronistically applying them to a situation in the 4th century.

The quote from Saint Jerome shows he understood the relevance.

When St. John was ordained the schism was over two decades old.  There was no secret where people stood.  Rome had condemned Meletius, not only as a schismatic but a heretic.

Rome and Meletius were no more in communion then B XVI and Ignatius IV. Or Lefebvre (hence the relevance).  And like Lebvre and B XVI, both insisted you take sides (look again at Jerome's dilemna).

It was not an issue an issue understanding the teaching of Christ (although you have been clearer about this claim then I hereto have seen.  I didn't understand before why the apologists of Rome were insisting that the council that deposed John Chrysostom was Arian.  Now I see where their confusion came from): Rome had condemned Meletius and ordained a replacement.  It was even more like the Latin patriarch set up by the Crusaders in Antioch, then the elevation of the Maronite, Melkite and Syrian patriarchs now: Rome went and picked Paulinus, not recognizing but actually ordaining him.

By the time of the Second Ecumenical Council, Meletius and Paulinus had reconciled, and had a personal understanding that the one would succeed the other at the death of either one.  Rome and Alexandria on the one hand had insisted on Paulinus (although Alexandria at Constantinople I had accepted Meletius who presided).  The Second Ecumenical Council INSISTED on someone else than Paulinus, whom Rome continued to support.

St. John's writing make clear which side he stood on, and it wasn't Rome's: he writes with obvious approval of the resistence in Antioch flocking to Meletius, who ordained him to the priesthood (hence the SSPX analogy).  He however conciliated, and managed to get Rome to finally recognize Flavian (and it would seem Meletios, who is now a saint on the Roman calendar).  But the faction that Rome had supported continued their separate existence for a couple decades.

As St. John is known for practicing what he preached (the reason why he got exiled), his wilful "disobedience" to Rome cannot be squared with a Vatican I understanding of his writings.

In other words you can only be sure to the extent that he
seems to
Quote
agrees with you. Anything else, and we can't tell!  laugh
« Last Edit: January 02, 2008, 03:39:45 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 921


Reframed


« Reply #23 on: January 03, 2008, 08:04:54 PM »

If the saint had intended to deny that the bishop of Rome had primacy then he would no doubt not have said that he did.
But primacy as Rome currently defines it didn't exist at the time. How can you interpret St John not condemning something that didn't exist as evidence he supported it?
« Last Edit: January 03, 2008, 08:05:41 PM by Paisius » Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #24 on: January 04, 2008, 05:27:46 AM »

But primacy as Rome currently defines it didn't exist at the time. How can you interpret St John not condemning something that didn't exist as evidence he supported it?

Well I do not claim that saint John Chrysostom had exactly the same view of the primacy of the bishop of Rome that a modern Catholic theologian has. And I do not believe that the saints of the first three or four centuries had exactly the same view of papal primacy as Catholics today have. I haven't at any time said that they did.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #25 on: January 04, 2008, 09:04:34 AM »

Well I do not claim that saint John Chrysostom had exactly the same view of the primacy of the bishop of Rome that a modern Catholic theologian has. And I do not believe that the saints of the first three or four centuries had exactly the same view of papal primacy as Catholics today have. I haven't at any time said that they did.

What evidence do you have that he suppored 'any' concept of the Papacy?

And what was the 'concept' then of the Papacy? Was it not that of a Papal Prince as it is now? angel
Logged

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

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



« Reply #26 on: January 04, 2008, 10:41:51 AM »

What evidence do you have that he suppored 'any' concept of the Papacy?

And what was the 'concept' then of the Papacy? Was it not that of a Papal Prince as it is now? angel

A Google for "Origin of the term Pope" yielded this
Quote
"...The word "pope" means father. In ancient Greek it was a child's term of affection but was borrowed by later Latin as honorific. Both Greek-speaking Eastern and Latin-speaking Western Christians then applied it to priests and bishops and patriarchs ('head of the family'); and still today priests of the Orthodox Churches of Greece, Russia and Serbia call their parish priests 'pope'. Gradually, however, Latin started to restrict its usage. At the beginning of the 3rd century, 'papa' was a term of respect for churchmen in high positions; by the 5th century, it was applied particularly to the bishop of Rome; and after the 8th, as far as the West was concerned, the title was exclusively his...."

Source:  Chronicle of the Popes, by P.G. Maxwell-Stuart

I am not sure what the earliest use of the term "pope" or its Latin or Greek equivalent is, but I am sure that further research on google would turn it up.

As for your questions about Chrysostom's concept of the papacy or the concept of the papacy that was current in his times I am sure that some patristic quotes can be found that would give a hint. I am not much interested in producing the quotes myself.

Cheers,
Phil
« Last Edit: January 04, 2008, 10:45:31 AM by Credo.InDeum » Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #27 on: January 04, 2008, 10:49:51 AM »

A Google for "Origin of the term Pope" yielded this
I am not sure what the earliest use of the term "pope" or its Latin or Greek equivalent is, but I am sure that further research on google would turn it up.

Cheers,
Phil

Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232-248) was the first to receive the title.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/W4O42BT6T7FQ
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07242a.htm

Rome didn't get it until later (though I think before John I, though perhaps not consistently).
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 921


Reframed


« Reply #28 on: January 04, 2008, 07:47:47 PM »

Well I do not claim that saint John Chrysostom had exactly the same view of the primacy of the bishop of Rome that a modern Catholic theologian has. And I do not believe that the saints of the first three or four centuries had exactly the same view of papal primacy as Catholics today have. I haven't at any time said that they did.
Well if you agree with me that St John, or for that matter many other Fathers almost certainly didn't have the same concept of the papacy that Catholics do today, then it is tenuous at best to use their statements to support the modern idea of papal primacy. No?

Yours in Christ
Paisius
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
Paisius
Warned
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 921


Reframed


« Reply #29 on: January 04, 2008, 09:21:21 PM »

Well I do not claim that saint John Chrysostom had exactly the same view of the primacy of the bishop of Rome that a modern Catholic theologian has. And I do not believe that the saints of the first three or four centuries had exactly the same view of papal primacy as Catholics today have. I haven't at any time said that they did.
I'll ask you the same question I've asked on other forums. Do you believe that if St John Chrysostom, St Basil or any of the other ECF's who are often cited as supporting Rome's definition of primacy were to read the acts of the First Vatican Council, that they would have no problem with it whatsoever?

Yours in Christ
Paisius
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #30 on: January 04, 2008, 11:19:55 PM »

I'll ask you the same question I've asked on other forums. Do you believe that if St John Chrysostom, St Basil or any of the other ECF's who are often cited as supporting Rome's definition of primacy were to read the acts of the First Vatican Council, that they would have no problem with it whatsoever?

Yours in Christ
Paisius

I wouldn't say that, no.

But on the other hand, I'm not sure that St. John, St. Basil, etc., would say that Rome has fallen into heresy, as modern Orthodox have said. After all, some of the early popes had strong view about papal authority, without being anathematized by the other patriarchs.

The main difference, it seems to me, is that those popes didn't claim their position to be a dogma of the faith, whereas we Catholics of today do claim that our position is a dogma of the faith.

Just my $0.02.
-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #31 on: January 04, 2008, 11:23:09 PM »

I wouldn't say that, no.

But on the other hand, I'm not sure that St. John, St. Basil, etc., would say that Rome has fallen into heresy, as modern Orthodox have said. After all, some of the early popes had strong view about papal authority, without being anathematized by the other patriarchs.

Hey, we lifted the anathemas. Wink
Logged

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

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



« Reply #32 on: January 05, 2008, 02:32:01 AM »

Well if you agree with me that St John, or for that matter many other Fathers almost certainly didn't have the same concept of the papacy that Catholics do today, then it is tenuous at best to use their statements to support the modern idea of papal primacy. No?

Yours in Christ
Paisius

I did not use their statements to support the current Catholic teaching on the primacy of the pope.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #33 on: January 05, 2008, 02:32:12 AM »

A Google for "Origin of the term Pope" yielded this
I am not sure what the earliest use of the term "pope" or its Latin or Greek equivalent is, but I am sure that further research on google would turn it up.

What's the title got to do with the concept of a bishop of bishops? There's a Pope in Alexandria too.

As for your questions about Chrysostom's concept of the papacy or the concept of the papacy that was current in his times I am sure that some patristic quotes can be found that would give a hint. I am not much interested in producing the quotes myself.

So in other words you continue to have no evidence.

That's the essence of your argument to date; you just believe that it is so. When pressed you give no proof
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #34 on: January 05, 2008, 02:32:57 AM »

Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232-248) was the first to receive the title.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/W4O42BT6T7FQ
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07242a.htm

Rome didn't get it until later (though I think before John I, though perhaps not consistently).

So far his 'concept' of a Papacy is simply that someone was called Pope!  Huh
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #35 on: January 05, 2008, 02:34:35 AM »

I wouldn't say that, no.

But on the other hand, I'm not sure that St. John, St. Basil, etc., would say that Rome has fallen into heresy, as modern Orthodox have said. After all, some of the early popes had strong view about papal authority, without being anathematized by the other patriarchs.
There was still a chance at re-newal with communion. John Chrysostomon lived in an age when the Pope, though not in communion with him always, often saught unity.
The main difference, it seems to me, is that those popes didn't claim their position to be a dogma of the faith, whereas we Catholics of today do claim that our position is a dogma of the faith.

What was their position, which was not then dogma?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #36 on: January 05, 2008, 02:36:45 AM »

I did not use their statements to support the current Catholic teaching on the primacy of the pope.
And when asked for ANY position (such as that previously held) you just go on with no evidence.

Oh, and a dictionary definition... even that you suggest I go research it (on Google) for you.

For several days you have been consistant in repeating claims with no evidence other than repeating claims.

You've not presented anything close to a convincing argument. laugh
Logged

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

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



« Reply #37 on: January 05, 2008, 02:39:38 AM »

I'll ask you the same question I've asked on other forums. Do you believe that if St John Chrysostom, St Basil or any of the other ECF's who are often cited as supporting Rome's definition of primacy were to read the acts of the First Vatican Council, that they would have no problem with it whatsoever?

Yours in Christ
Paisius

I do not know what saints Chrysostom & Basil or any other saints of the first few centuries would make of the proceedings of Vatican II. My guess is that they'd be rather confused by the whole process of theology in today's world. They'd very likely be confused by Orthodox and Catholic Churches and who knows what they'd make of Protestantism's denominations.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #38 on: January 05, 2008, 02:40:32 AM »

Going by Credo.InDeum's answers we can be sure that

a) Catholics believe Chrysostomon supported some as yet unknown position on the papacy
based on
b) a single quote where he calls Peter the head of the choir
though
c) we can't be sure about the context of any other quote cited herein by Chrysostomon nor
d) can we be sure about any historical context.

All we can be sure of is a), based on Credo.InDeum saying so, and telling me to go research the origins of the term, somewhere else!  Roll Eyes

I wonder if he would submit that as an essay! I would suggest you would only get 1 or 2 marks for spelling. But to actually construct a reasoned argument, no points forthcoming at all.

But please, don't let me discourage you; just keep posting that you believe it, and maybe it will become true.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #39 on: January 05, 2008, 02:41:11 AM »

I do not know what saints Chrysostom & Basil or any other saints of the first few centuries would make of the proceedings of Vatican II. My guess is that they'd be rather confused by the whole process of theology in today's world. They'd very likely be confused by Orthodox and Catholic Churches and who knows what they'd make of Protestantism's denominations.

Ah, more of your say-so!
Logged

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

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



« Reply #40 on: January 05, 2008, 02:43:22 AM »

So in other words you continue to have no evidence.

That's the essence of your argument to date; you just believe that it is so. When pressed you give no proof

Sorry montalban, I lost interest in interacting with the posts you've been putting up because their content is of diminishing interest to me as time passes.
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
Entscheidungsproblem
Formerly Friul & Nebelpfade
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 05, 2008, 02:46:16 AM »

What was their position, which was not then dogma?

Papal authority bordlerlining on supremacy.  Certain Popes of the 5th century, many will argue, were huge supporters of Papal supremacy over the entire Church.  Sts. Innocent, Boniface, Leo, & Gelasius, I believe are a few that are often mentioned.
Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #42 on: January 05, 2008, 03:34:51 AM »

Sorry montalban, I lost interest in interacting with the posts you've been putting up because their content is of diminishing interest to me as time passes.

The fact you won't even engage in anything more than your opinion speaks volumes

The Catholic stance seems to be; pontificate, followed by expected acceptance.

But even your post here is strange. You're in effect saying "I lost interest because I've been losing interest (over time) ". It shows that you're not even able to give a 'reason' here Smiley

Q:Why'd you lose interest?
A: Because I lost interest.

All your answers are based on such rationale
« Last Edit: January 05, 2008, 04:07:26 AM by montalban » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #43 on: January 05, 2008, 03:36:37 AM »

Papal authority bordlerlining on supremacy.  Certain Popes of the 5th century, many will argue, were huge supporters of Papal supremacy over the entire Church.  Sts. Innocent, Boniface, Leo, & Gelasius, I believe are a few that are often mentioned.

That's not quite the answer to the question I asked.

I was asking about John Chrysostomon's idea on the papacy, because Credo.InDeum says that the saint didn't support the modern concept, but another form of papacy.

'bordering supremacy' is an attempt to answer but gives me no details at all. Anything could be said to fit within that.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #44 on: January 05, 2008, 04:08:14 AM »

Pope Heraclas of Alexandria (232-248) was the first to receive the title.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/syltguides/fullview/W4O42BT6T7FQ
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07242a.htm

Rome didn't get it until later (though I think before John I, though perhaps not consistently).

The Papacy wasn't built in a day?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #45 on: January 05, 2008, 10:13:09 AM »

There was still a chance at re-newal with communion. John Chrysostomon lived in an age when the Pope, though not in communion with him always, often saught unity.

I'll grant you that that makes sense. But what I would like to point out is that Catholics can say pretty much the same thing: Pope Leo, etc., didn't anathematize the East or insist that they accept his ideas about the papacy, but that was because there was still a chance at re-newal with communion, etc.

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #46 on: January 05, 2008, 11:06:35 AM »

Papal authority bordlerlining on supremacy.  Certain Popes of the 5th century, many will argue, were huge supporters of Papal supremacy over the entire Church.  Sts. Innocent, Boniface, Leo, & Gelasius, I believe are a few that are often mentioned.

Don't forget Victor!

And the rap across the knuckes the whole Church gave him for his overreaching.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #47 on: January 05, 2008, 11:08:42 AM »



The Catholic stance seems to be; pontificate, followed by expected acceptance.

Well, his title is pontifex maximus, no? Tongue

But let's not be a marm about it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #48 on: January 05, 2008, 11:44:14 AM »

The Papacy wasn't built in a day?

he he.  No.  Culmulative error.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2008, 11:45:59 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #49 on: January 05, 2008, 11:48:05 AM »

I'll grant you that that makes sense. But what I would like to point out is that Catholics can say pretty much the same thing: Pope Leo, etc., didn't anathematize the East or insist that they accept his ideas about the papacy, but that was because there was still a chance at re-newal with communion, etc.

-Peter.

Only problem was he anathematized a significant chunk of the East, insisting on his ex cathedra tome.
Logged

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

Posts: 5,437



« Reply #50 on: January 05, 2008, 12:29:11 PM »

Only problem was he anathematized a significant chunk of the East, insisting on his ex cathedra tome.

And the Byzantines anathematized that same chunk.  Funny how the borders of heresy and orthodoxy happened to coincide so neatly with the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire. 
Logged
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #51 on: January 05, 2008, 02:41:48 PM »

Speaking about Saint Peter the apostle saint Chrysostom had this to say

Quote
In the Kingdom, therefore, the honours were not equal, nor were all the disciples equal, but the three [Peter, James, and John] were above the rest; and among these three again there was a great difference, for God is exact to the last degree; 'for one star differs from another star in glory.' And yet all were apostles, all will sit upon the twelve thrones, and all left their possessions, and all were with Christ. And yet he selected these three. And, again, among the three, He said that some must yield or excel. For, 'to sit on My right hand and on My left,' he said, 'is not Mine to give, but to them for whom it is prepared,' And He set Peter before them saying: 'Lovest thou Me more than these?' And John loved Him more than the rest. For of all there will be an exact examination; and if you excel your neighbour ever so little, God will not overlook it. (Hom 32, in Rom 4, vol IX, 672[750])

And speaking of saint Peter's precedence he had this to say "See the unanimity of the apostles," he says, on Acts 2:4: "they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach." "Hear how this same John, who now comes forward (to ask for a seat at Christ's right hand) in the Acts of the Apostles,  always gives up the first place to Peter both in preaching and in working miracles. Afterwards James and John were not thus. Everywhere they  gave up the first place to Peter, and in preaching they set him first, though he seemed of rougher manners than the others." Again, he remarks how saint Paul "gives up to Peter  the first place." (Hom 4 in Acta 3, vol IX, 46[37]; Hom 65[66] in Matt 4, vol VII, 622[648], ibid Hom 50[51], 506[515]; Hom 35 in 1 Cor 5, vol X, 303[329]; Hom 8 in Acta 1, vol IX, 71-72[64-65]).

Quote from: Saint Chrysostom writes this concerning Matthew 16

"[When Christ has asked: 'Whom say ye that I am?] What, then, does the mouth of the apostles, Peter, everywhere fervent, the Coryphaeus of the choir of the apostles? All are asked, and he replies. When Christ asked what were the opinions of the people, all answered; but when He asked for their own, Peter leaps forward, and is the first to speak: 'You are the Christ.' And what does Christ answer? 'Blessed are you,' etc. ... Why, then, said Christ: 'You are Simon, son of Jona, you shall be called Cephas' [John 1:42]? Because you have proclaimed My Father, I name your father, as though I said: 'As you are son of Jona, so am I son of My Father....And I say to you: You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, that is upon the faith of this confession.'

"Hence He shows that many will believe, and raises his thoughts higher, and makes him Shepherd. 'And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.' If they prevail not against it, much less against Me: so be not terrified when you shall hear 'I shall be betrayed and crucified.' And then he speaks of another honour: 'And I will give you the keys of the king of heaven.' What is this: 'And I will give you'? 'As the Father has given you to know Me, so will I give you'....Give what? The keys of heaven, in order that whatsoever you shall bind on earth may be bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall unbind on earth may be unbound in heaven.' Now, then, is it not His to give to sit upon His right hand and on his left, since He says: 'I will give you'? Do you see how He Himself leads Peter to a high consideration of Himself, and reveals Himself and shows Himself to be the Son of God by these two promises? For what is proper to God alone, that is, to forgive sins, and to make the Church in so great an onset of waves, and to cause a fisherman to be stronger than any rock, when the whole world wars against him, this He Himself promises to give; as the Father said, speaking to Jeremiah, that He would set him as a column of brass and as a wall; but Jeremiah to a single nation, Peter to the whole world.

"I would willingly ask those who wish to lessen the dignity of the Son: Which are the greater gifts, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? The Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son, but the Son gave to him to spread that of the Father and of Himself throughout the world, and to a mortal man He entrusted the power over all that is in heaven, in giving the keys to him who extended the Church throughout the world, and showed it stronger than the world." (Hom 54[55] in Matt VII, 531[546] seq)

In an extended discussion of the rock it seem that saint Chrysostom saw not only saint Peter's confession as a solid rock against the Arians but also saint Peter himself as a solid rock that is stronger than all the waves of doubt and unbelief that the world would bring against the Church. Saint Chrysostom does not appear to see two mutually exclusive ways of reading the passage; namely the rock is either saint Peter or the rock is saint Peter's confession of Christ instead saint Chrysostom sees the two ways of reading the passage as valid and mutually helpful.


Phil
« Last Edit: January 05, 2008, 02:46:04 PM by Credo.InDeum » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 921


Reframed


« Reply #52 on: January 05, 2008, 05:00:14 PM »

Speaking about Saint Peter the apostle saint Chrysostom had this to say

And speaking of saint Peter's precedence he had this to say "See the unanimity of the apostles," he says, on Acts 2:4: "they give up to Peter the office of preaching, for it would not do for all to preach." "Hear how this same John, who now comes forward (to ask for a seat at Christ's right hand) in the Acts of the Apostles,  always gives up the first place to Peter both in preaching and in working miracles. Afterwards James and John were not thus. Everywhere they  gave up the first place to Peter, and in preaching they set him first, though he seemed of rougher manners than the others." Again, he remarks how saint Paul "gives up to Peter  the first place." (Hom 4 in Acta 3, vol IX, 46[37]; Hom 65[66] in Matt 4, vol VII, 622[648], ibid Hom 50[51], 506[515]; Hom 35 in 1 Cor 5, vol X, 303[329]; Hom 8 in Acta 1, vol IX, 71-72[64-65]).

In an extended discussion of the rock it seem that saint Chrysostom saw not only saint Peter's confession as a solid rock against the Arians but also saint Peter himself as a solid rock that is stronger than all the waves of doubt and unbelief that the world would bring against the Church. Saint Chrysostom does not appear to see two mutually exclusive ways of reading the passage; namely the rock is either saint Peter or the rock is saint Peter's confession of Christ instead saint Chrysostom sees the two ways of reading the passage as valid and mutually helpful.


Phil
But the topic of this thread is "Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics" not what St John has to say about St Peter. It's already been shown that St John accepted ordination from a bishop who was not in communion with Rome and that he spent a significant portion of his clerical career outside communion with Rome.  It's also been conceded that almost certainly St John had no concept whatsoever of what the modern papacy would look like, with it's universal ordinary jurisdiction, temporal power, and infallibility. Considering these facts I fail to see how St John's quotes about St Peter have any bearing a whatsoever on the question of the modern papacy.

Yours in Christ
Paisius
Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #53 on: January 05, 2008, 05:51:25 PM »

Only problem was he anathematized a significant chunk of the East, insisting on his ex cathedra tome.

I don't think that's really a problem for what I'm saying. If anything, I'd say that supports my point.

Funny how the borders of heresy and orthodoxy happened to coincide so neatly with the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire. 

I think, Νεκτάριος, that you're getting a bit too off-topic.

-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #54 on: January 05, 2008, 07:03:17 PM »

But the topic of this thread is "Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics" not what St John has to say about St Peter. It's already been shown that St John accepted ordination from a bishop who was not in communion with Rome and that he spent a significant portion of his clerical career outside communion with Rome.  It's also been conceded that almost certainly St John had no concept whatsoever of what the modern papacy would look like, with it's universal ordinary jurisdiction, temporal power, and infallibility. Considering these facts I fail to see how St John's quotes about St Peter have any bearing a whatsoever on the question of the modern papacy.

Yours in Christ
Paisius

Yes you are correct to observe that saint Chrysostom does not speak about the pope who then occupied the chair of saint Peter in Rome in the quotes that I posted; but that he did recognise saint Peter as first among the apostles is clear from what he said. Saint Chrysostom also believed and taught apostolic succession so his remarks about saint Peter are not well interpreted if they are read as the saint's musing on "things past" apart from them being the basis for the "things present" in his own age through the faithful continuance of the apostles' teaching and office.

I have three additional quotes to help establish the saint's view on apostolic succession and saint Peter.

Quote from: Saint Chrysostom
"God has had great account of this city of Antioch, as He has shown in deed, especially in that he ordered Peter, the ruler of the whole world, to whom He entrusted the keys of heaven, to whom he committed the office of bringing all in [or to sweep the whole world of its plunder] to pass a long time here, so that our city stood to him in the place of the whole world. And in mentioning Peter, I have perceived that a fifth crown is woven from this, for Ignatius received the episcopate after him." (Hom in S. Ignat M 4, vol II, 591[597])

"In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me [that is, Saint Flavian, his bishop] our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus  of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself." (Hom in inscr Act II, 6, vol III, 86[70])

"They who were dragged hither and thither, who were despised and bound with fetters, and who suffered all those thousand torments, in their death are more honored than kings; and consider how this has come to pass: in the most regal city of Rome to the tomb of the fisherman and the tentmaker run emperors and consuls and generals." (c. Jud et Gent, 9, vol I, 825[570])


Phil
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #55 on: January 06, 2008, 01:22:26 AM »

I'll grant you that that makes sense. But what I would like to point out is that Catholics can say pretty much the same thing: Pope Leo, etc., didn't anathematize the East or insist that they accept his ideas about the papacy, but that was because there was still a chance at re-newal with communion, etc.

-Peter.

In the case of Rome and Antioch as evidenced by John Chrysostomon, what did they need to say?

The east went ahead and chose Meletius as head of the Ecumenical Council. They simply got on with their lives

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #56 on: January 06, 2008, 01:24:20 AM »

Speaking about Saint Peter the apostle saint Chrysostom had this to say
Phil

Vrooom! Power on ahead with the quote mines!
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #57 on: January 06, 2008, 01:25:33 AM »

Yes you are correct to observe that saint Chrysostom does not speak about the pope who then occupied the chair of saint Peter in Rome in the quotes that I posted; but that he did recognise saint Peter as first among the apostles is clear from what he said. Saint Chrysostom also believed and taught apostolic succession so his remarks about saint Peter are not well interpreted if they are read as the saint's musing on "things past" apart from them being the basis for the "things present" in his own age through the faithful continuance of the apostles' teaching and office.

I have three additional quotes to help establish the saint's view on apostolic succession and saint Peter.


Phil
Chrysostomon was in Antioch which is also a Chair of Peter.

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #58 on: January 06, 2008, 01:25:48 AM »

Yes you are correct to observe that saint Chrysostom does not speak about the pope who then occupied the chair of saint Peter in Rome in the quotes that I posted; but that he did recognise saint Peter as first among the apostles is clear from what he said. Saint Chrysostom also believed and taught apostolic succession so his remarks about saint Peter are not well interpreted if they are read as the saint's musing on "things past" apart from them being the basis for the "things present" in his own age through the faithful continuance of the apostles' teaching and office.
We Orthodox also recognize St. Peter as first among the apostles, and we also recognize the necessity of apostolic succession.  Therefore, we too can say that we follow St. John Chrysostom's view of the primacy of Peter and the continuation of his role within the Church.  However, I have yet to read in your posts an answer to the argument so many of your opponents have put before you.  How does St. John Chrysostom support the Vatican I definition of papal authority?
Logged
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #59 on: January 06, 2008, 06:33:47 AM »

We Orthodox also recognize St. Peter as first among the apostles, and we also recognize the necessity of apostolic succession.  Therefore, we too can say that we follow St. John Chrysostom's view of the primacy of Peter and the continuation of his role within the Church.  However, I have yet to read in your posts an answer to the argument so many of your opponents have put before you.  How does St. John Chrysostom support the Vatican I definition of papal authority?

I do not believe that saint John Chrysostom's statements match the statements produced during Vatican I on the papacy but they do provide one piece of evidence from the ancient Church that the bishop of Rome was regarded as successor of saint Peter and that the bishop of Rome had acknowledged primacy. Exactly what the primacy of the bishop of Rome meant in the later 4th and early 5th century and how the Church grew in her understanding of what that kind of primacy implied is what I am trying to work through.
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #60 on: January 06, 2008, 08:46:01 AM »

And the Byzantines anathematized that same chunk.  Funny how the borders of heresy and orthodoxy happened to coincide so neatly with the borders of the Eastern Roman Empire. 

Actually no.  Chalcedon had plenty of supporters throughout the empire, and so did its detractors.

One of the grievances of the opponents of Chalcedon was the failure to condemn the Three Chapters, which the Fifth Council solved.  The West was particularly tardy on this.

Yes you are correct to observe that saint Chrysostom does not speak about the pope who then occupied the chair of saint Peter in Rome in the quotes that I posted; but that he did recognise saint Peter as first among the apostles is clear from what he said. Saint Chrysostom also believed and taught apostolic succession so his remarks about saint Peter are not well interpreted if they are read as the saint's musing on "things past" apart from them being the basis for the "things present" in his own age through the faithful continuance of the apostles' teaching and office.

I have three additional quotes to help establish the saint's view on apostolic succession and saint Peter.

Yes, at Antioch, not Rome.  And of course, depending on date, at the time these were said perhaps Antioch wasn't incommunion with Rome.

"God has had great account of this city of Antioch, as He has shown in deed, especially in that he ordered Peter, the ruler of the whole world, to whom He entrusted the keys of heaven, to whom he committed the office of bringing all in [or to sweep the whole world of its plunder] to pass a long time here, so that our city stood to him in the place of the whole world. And in mentioning Peter, I have perceived that a fifth crown is woven from this, for Ignatius received the episcopate after him." (Hom in S. Ignat M 4, vol II, 591[597])

Talks about Antioch, not Rome, and Ignatius, not Clement of Rome, as receiving the episcopate (he's not denying Rome, however)

"In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me [that is, Saint Flavian, his bishop] our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus  of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself." (Hom in inscr Act II, 6, vol III, 86[70])

Note: St. Flavian was not recognized by Rome (he was elevated by the Second Council in direct opposition to Rome's candidate Paulinus) for two decades, so it would be interesting when this was written (Flavian also was ordained a priest by St. Meletius).  Yet he is another Peter, succeeding to the virtue of Peter, Peter's chair, etc.  And as long as Antioch retains Peter's confession (no mention of Peter of Rome) we have Peter at Antioch.  Note also the emphasis on the political status of Rome, also below.

"They who were dragged hither and thither, who were despised and bound with fetters, and who suffered all those thousand torments, in their death are more honored than kings; and consider how this has come to pass: in the most regal city of Rome to the tomb of the fisherman and the tentmaker run emperors and consuls and generals." (c. Jud et Gent, 9, vol I, 825[570])

I do not believe that saint John Chrysostom's statements match the statements produced during Vatican I on the papacy but they do provide one piece of evidence from the ancient Church that the bishop of Rome was regarded as successor of saint Peter and that the bishop of Rome had acknowledged primacy. Exactly what the primacy of the bishop of Rome meant in the later 4th and early 5th century and how the Church grew in her understanding of what that kind of primacy implied is what I am trying to work through.

I fail to see how the quotes are helping Vatican I claims.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2008, 09:14:21 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

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



« Reply #61 on: January 06, 2008, 12:32:10 PM »

Yes, at Antioch, not Rome.  And of course, depending on date, at the time these were said perhaps Antioch wasn't in communion with Rome

Antioch AND Rome is in the quote.

The issue of communion related to the two rival claimants to the office of bishop of Antioch. One faction had a claimant that was in communion with the bishop of Rome and the other faction had a claimant that was not in communion with the bishop of Rome.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2008, 12:35:29 PM by Credo.InDeum » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 921


Reframed


« Reply #62 on: January 06, 2008, 02:35:56 PM »

I do not believe that saint John Chrysostom's statements match the statements produced during Vatican I on the papacy but they do provide one piece of evidence from the ancient Church that the bishop of Rome was regarded as successor of saint Peter and that the bishop of Rome had acknowledged primacy. Exactly what the primacy of the bishop of Rome meant in the later 4th and early 5th century and how the Church grew in her understanding of what that kind of primacy implied is what I am trying to work through.

So in your mind the question isn't what the Church Fathers thought about the Bishop of Rome but rather is the papacy as it is currently constituted a legitimate development or not?

Yours in Christ
Paisius
« Last Edit: January 06, 2008, 02:37:23 PM by Paisius » Logged

"Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?" - Milton Friedman
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #63 on: January 06, 2008, 02:58:42 PM »

Note: St. Flavian was not recognized by Rome (he was elevated by the Second Council in direct opposition to Rome's candidate Paulinus) for two decades, so it would be interesting when this was written (Flavian also was ordained a priest by St. Meletius).  Yet he is another Peter, succeeding to the virtue of Peter, Peter's chair, etc.  And as long as Antioch retains Peter's confession (no mention of Peter of Rome) we have Peter at Antioch.  Note also the emphasis on the political status of Rome, also below.

I found this very brief summary of the issue you've raised.

Quote from: John Chapman's Studies on the Early Papacy
The bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch for the most part recognized St. Meletius and his successor St. Flavian as rightful patriarchs, while Rome and Alexandria (that is, St. Athanasius and his successors) thought that their rival Paulinus had the better title. But the rest of the East sides with Meletius, though remaining in full communion with Alexandria, Rome and the West. It is certain that neither St. Meletius nor St. Flavian was ever formally excommunicated by the Apostolic See. It is still more certain that their adherents -- whether the bishops within the patriarchate, or the priests (including St. Chrysostom) and people within the city -- were never excommunicated.

When St. Chrysostom became Bishop of Constantinople, he was consecrated as a matter of course by Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria. Paulinus was now dead, and Theophilus and Pope St. Siricius were induced by Chrysostom to recognize St. Flavian as patriarch of Antioch. The idea that there was any schism of the whole Church is absurd (I am perfectly aware that so short an account of the difficulty is inadequate). Still, we might expect St. Chrysostom to say little about Rome and Alexandria. As a fact, he is enthusiastic about Rome.
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #64 on: January 06, 2008, 05:57:51 PM »

Antioch AND Rome is in the quote.

So Rome's not so unique.

Quote
The issue of communion related to the two rival claimants to the office of bishop of Antioch. One faction had a claimant that was in communion with the bishop of Rome and the other faction had a claimant that was not in communion with the bishop of Rome.

Which one was St. John in communion with?

Which one did St. John  bring Rome into communion with?
Logged

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

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



« Reply #65 on: January 06, 2008, 06:34:46 PM »

So Rome's not so unique.

Of course Rome is unique and Antioch is unique but they are unique in their own unique ways.

Which one was St. John in communion with?

Which one did St. John  bring Rome into communion with?

Good question, it is clear that saint Chrysostom was in communion with saint Flavian. He was not out of communion with any Christian bishop as far as I know ... by which I mean that he was not excommunicated by any bishop as far as I know. Do you have any specific information to say that saint Chrysostom was excommunicated by some bishop?
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #66 on: January 06, 2008, 06:38:31 PM »

Of course Rome is unique and Antioch is unique but they are unique in their own unique ways.

Good question, it is clear that saint Chrysostom was in communion with saint Flavian. He was not out of communion with any Christian bishop as far as I know ... by which I mean that he was not excommunicated by any bishop as far as I know. Do you have any specific information to say that saint Chrysostom was excommunicated by some bishop?


Again, look at St. Jerome's letter on the matter, written from Antioch.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #67 on: January 07, 2008, 03:54:35 AM »

Of course Rome is unique and Antioch is unique but they are unique in their own unique ways.



Grin
« Last Edit: January 07, 2008, 03:54:52 AM by montalban » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #68 on: January 07, 2008, 07:22:53 AM »

Good question, it is clear that saint Chrysostom was in communion with saint Flavian. He was not out of communion with any Christian bishop as far as I know ... by which I mean that he was not excommunicated by any bishop as far as I know. Do you have any specific information to say that saint Chrysostom was excommunicated by some bishop?

and around we go!

Flavian was not in communion with Rome! And as noted John Chrysostomon took holy orders from Flavian (after Meletius' death). Flavian was not in favour with Alexandria nor Rome. Flavian then sent messengers to Alexandria AND Rome to work out peace.
see Socrates Scholasticus
"The Ecclesiastical History" Book V.15
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2008, 07:40:41 AM »

Much is often made of the Pope of Rome intervening on St. John Chrysostom's behalf.  Not much attention is given to the reaction in the East.  I came across a nice summary on the St. of the day, EP Atticus (Wikipedia):

Born at Sebaste in Armenia, he early embraced a monastic life, and received his education from some Macedonian monks near that place. Removing to Constantinople, he adopted the orthodox faith, was ordained presbyter, and soon became known as a rising man. He proved himself one of Chrysostom's most bitter adversaries. If not, as Palladius asserts (c. xi.), the architect of the whole cabal, he certainly took a very leading part in carrying it into execution. The organization of the synod of the Oak owed much to his practical skill (Phot. Cod. 59). The expulsion of Chrysostom took place June 10, 404. His successor, the aged Arsacius, died November 5, 405. Four months of intrigue ended in the selection of Atticus.

Vigorous measures were at once adopted by Atticus in conjunction with the other members of the triumvirate to which the Eastern church had been subjected, Theophilus of Alexandria, and Porphyry of Antioch, to crush the adherents of Chrysostom. An imperial rescript was obtained imposing the severest penalties on all who dared to reject the communion of the patriarchs. A large number of the bishops of the East persevered in the refusal, and suffered a cruel persecution; while even the inferior clergy and laity were compelled to keep themselves in concealment, or to fly the country. The small minority of Eastern bishops who for peace's sake deserted Chrysostom's cause were made to feel the guilt of having once supported it, being compelled to leave their sees and take other dioceses in the inhospitable regions of Thrace, where they might be more under Atticus's eye and hand (Socr. vii. 36; Niceph. xiii. 30; Palled. c. xx.).

Unity seemed hardly nearer when the death of Chrysostom (September 14, 407) removed the original ground of the schism. A large proportion of the Christian population of Constantinople still refused communion with the usurper, and continued to hold their religious assemblies, more numerously attended than the churches, in the open air in the suburbs of the city (Niceph. xiv. 23, 27), until Chrysostom's name took its place on the registers and in the public prayers of the church of Constantinople.

Atticus's endeavours were vigorously directed to the maintenance and enlargement of the authority of the see of Constantinople. He obtained a rescript from emperor Theodosius II subjecting to it the whole of Illyria and the "Provincia Orientalis." This gave great offence to Pope Boniface I and the emperor Honorius, and the decree was never put into execution. Another rescript declaring his right to decide on and approve of the election of all the bishops of the province was more effectual. Silvanus was named by him bishop of Philippolis, and afterwards removed to Alexandria Troas. He asserted the right to ordain in Bithynia, and put it in practice at Nicaea in 425, a year before he died (Socr. vii. 25, 28, 37).

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2008, 11:45:59 AM »

Hello,

I'm sorry to have been away so long - I've been battling a cold this past week. I would like to address some of the other issues (I'll hopefully get to it today), but I would like to start out with one right now:


If Saint John is as you say, then why is he commemorated on the Orthodox Calendar? Why would you want such a man to be considered a Saint, and a great Saint at that?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2008, 12:08:30 PM »

Hello,

I'm sorry to have been away so long - I've been battling a cold this past week. I would like to address some of the other issues (I'll hopefully get to it today), but I would like to start out with one right now:


If Saint John is as you say, then why is he commemorated on the Orthodox Calendar? Why would you want such a man to be considered a Saint, and a great Saint at that?

What's wrong with him?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2008, 04:30:09 PM »

Hello,

What's wrong with him?

You and montalban keep saying how he was a supporter of the Arians (i.e., Meletius and Flavian) and was out of Communion with Rome and Constantinople for a long time. And that even after being appointed Bishop of Constantinople which would have presumably placed him in communion with Constantinople he was still out of communion with Rome - which was at that time, according to Orthodox understanding, orthodox in teaching at that time. So to be out of communion with a Church that was at that time orthodox in teaching that would be, again according to the logic you've been using here, that he was on the Arian side of things. So why proclaim a man who you think to have erred so much toward the Arian side a Saint in your Church?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2008, 11:18:59 PM »

So to be out of communion with a Church that was at that time orthodox in teaching that would be, again according to the logic you've been using here, that he was on the Arian side of things.

Logic that who's been using?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #74 on: January 09, 2008, 12:39:06 AM »

Hello,

You and montalban keep saying how he was a supporter of the Arians (i.e., Meletius and Flavian) and was out of Communion with Rome and Constantinople for a long time. And that even after being appointed Bishop of Constantinople which would have presumably placed him in communion with Constantinople he was still out of communion with Rome - which was at that time, according to Orthodox understanding, orthodox in teaching at that time. So to be out of communion with a Church that was at that time orthodox in teaching that would be, again according to the logic you've been using here, that he was on the Arian side of things. So why proclaim a man who you think to have erred so much toward the Arian side a Saint in your Church?

As for as Meletius, the schism began in 361.  St. John was baptized in 368-73 (at age 19-24), and his connections (e.g. Diodore of Tarsus) was in the pro-Meletian camp, and so received ordination from him in 381.  In 379 Meletius was instrumental in getting St. Gregory of Nazianzus to take over the See of Constantinople.  From that date on at least, St. John would have been in communion with New Rome.  Prior to that for 40 years Constantinople was officially in the hands of the Arians (Meletius was semi-Arian).  St. Gregory presided from a house Church (his cousins), sort of a store front Church.

Meletius offered Paulinus (Rome, and Alexandria's, candidate in Antioch) by the time of the Second Council (which Meletius opened), an understanding that when one of them died, the other would succeed him to end the schism (sort of like a agreement rumored between the EO and OO patriarchs today).  Damasus and Jerome (who was ordaine by Paulinus) backed Paulinus' intracegenc.  Constantinple I made a point of NOT accepting Paulinus, and insisted on elevating Flavian.  As such, Nectarius (Gregory's successor, John's predecessor by the nomination of Flavan and Diodore ), Flavian and John would have been in communion.  Pope Damasus demanded a council on Gregory's successor.  Nectarius remained until his death.  Btw a 383 presided by him, and attended by the Pope of Alexandria and Flavian show that Constantinople's place as 2nd was accepted, and so too tentatively Flavian's place as Patriarch by Alexandria.  St. John would have been in the communion: only Alexandria was in full communion with Rome, which joined it at St. John's doing in 399.

So in a sense, St. John brought Rome into communion with the whole Church.

The question is not why is Meletius a saint on our calendar: why is he one on yours? (Sept 21)
http://vaby.net/saint-meletius-of-antioch.html

Meletius faults was that he was irenic to a fault, which had led him to compromise in places he shouldn't.  When confronted with his errors, he repented.  St. Gregory vouched for him enough to defer to him, and have him open the Ecumenical Council (at the time Constantinople metropolitan status had not been enacted).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #75 on: January 09, 2008, 12:42:45 AM »

Hello,

You and montalban keep saying how he was a supporter of the Arians (i.e., Meletius and Flavian) and was out of Communion with Rome and Constantinople for a long time. And that even after being appointed Bishop of Constantinople which would have presumably placed him in communion with Constantinople he was still out of communion with Rome - which was at that time, according to Orthodox understanding, orthodox in teaching at that time. So to be out of communion with a Church that was at that time orthodox in teaching that would be, again according to the logic you've been using here, that he was on the Arian side of things. So why proclaim a man who you think to have erred so much toward the Arian side a Saint in your Church?
1.  Where did you get any information that even suggests that Meletius and Flavian were Arians?  It is my understanding that Bishop Meletius died as President of the Second Ecumenical Council, so you really need to get your facts straight before you accuse him of being an Arian.
2.  St. John Chrysostom is also a saint in YOUR church.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #76 on: January 09, 2008, 05:02:28 AM »

Hello,

You and montalban keep saying how he was a supporter of the Arians (i.e., Meletius and Flavian) and was out of Communion with Rome and Constantinople for a long time. And that even after being appointed Bishop of Constantinople which would have presumably placed him in communion with Constantinople he was still out of communion with Rome - which was at that time, according to Orthodox understanding, orthodox in teaching at that time. So to be out of communion with a Church that was at that time orthodox in teaching that would be, again according to the logic you've been using here, that he was on the Arian side of things. So why proclaim a man who you think to have erred so much toward the Arian side a Saint in your Church?

I never said he was a supporter of Arians. You said Meltius was an Arian, based on one Catholic source.

If Meletius was an Arian, why was he selected head of an Ecumenical Council?

Whilst he was out of communion with Rome (and Alexandria) he was in communion with other churches, so they saw nothing wrong with him either.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,128



« Reply #77 on: January 09, 2008, 10:52:45 AM »

The question is not why is Meletius a saint on our calendar: why is he one on yours? (Sept 21)

That's just what I was thinking when I read Athanasios' last question.
-Peter.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #78 on: January 09, 2008, 12:40:21 PM »

Hello,

Prior to that for 40 years Constantinople was officially in the hands of the Arians (Meletius was semi-Arian).

1.  Where did you get any information that even suggests that Meletius and Flavian were Arians?  It is my understanding that Bishop Meletius died as President of the Second Ecumenical Council, so you really need to get your facts straight before you accuse him of being an Arian.

I never said he was a supporter of Arians. You said Meltius was an Arian, based on one Catholic source.

If Meletius was an Arian, why was he selected head of an Ecumenical Council?

It is definitely the idea that I am sensing in this thread, that Meletius and Flavian were Arians (Arians/Semi-Arians, is there that much difference?). Why exactly were they out of communion if not for their siding with Arians?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #79 on: January 09, 2008, 12:42:35 PM »

Hello,

2.  St. John Chrysostom is also a saint in YOUR church.

Of course he is - he is a Doctor of the Church. I'm not the one saying we shouldn't be listening to what Saint John has to say because he was ordained by Meletius and Flavian. I'm not the one casting into doubt his holiness. I'm not the one who brought up this nonsensical argument to begin with.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #80 on: January 09, 2008, 12:43:36 PM »

Hello,

So in a sense, St. John brought Rome into communion with the whole Church.

So are you saying that Rome was in the wrong during the Arian period???
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #81 on: January 09, 2008, 12:48:48 PM »

Hello,

The question is not why is Meletius a saint on our calendar: why is he one on yours? (Sept 21)
http://vaby.net/saint-meletius-of-antioch.html

He is also on the Orthodox Calendar - February 12 (February 25 for Old Calendarists).  I think he was proclaimed a Saint by popular acclamation. In a couple places, they list him as a martyr and confessor. Only one place said he was a martyr, but many that he was a confessor (a more plausible idea). It should be noted that his feast is not a universal Memorial. I have nothing against him being proclaimed a Saint - remember, I'm not the one who began questioning him via trying to downplay Saint John Chrysostom.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #82 on: January 09, 2008, 04:02:06 PM »

Hello,

Of course he is - he is a Doctor of the Church. I'm not the one saying we shouldn't be listening to what Saint John has to say because he was ordained by Meletius and Flavian. I'm not the one casting into doubt his holiness. I'm not the one who brought up this nonsensical argument to begin with.

I've got to agree with you here. Saint John Chrysostom is a saint in heaven, we have no doubt about him and we don't try to discount him because of who he was ordained by. The theme for this thread is patristics in relation to the primacy of the see of saint Peter the apostle at Rome. Saint Chrysostom does speak in support of the primacy of the bishop of Rome and even if there is some difficulty in determining exactly what he meant when he spoke of the primacy of Rome the fact remains that he did speak in favour of it.

There are of course many other early Church fathers who wrote of the primacy of Rome from which we can draw some picture of what primacy meant in each of the centuries leading up to the great schism.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2008, 12:17:46 AM by Credo.InDeum » Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #83 on: January 09, 2008, 04:55:50 PM »

Hello,

He is also on the Orthodox Calendar - February 12 (February 25 for Old Calendarists).  I think he was proclaimed a Saint by popular acclamation. In a couple places, they list him as a martyr and confessor. Only one place said he was a martyr, but many that he was a confessor (a more plausible idea). It should be noted that his feast is not a universal Memorial. I have nothing against him being proclaimed a Saint - remember, I'm not the one who began questioning him via trying to downplay Saint John Chrysostom.

It wasn't to downplay St. John.  Or what he says.

It was to downplay, or put in perspective, his quotes as support of the Vatican idea of papacy, for he means what Rome's apologists say, then he was not practicing what he preaced.  And St. John was quite known for practicing what he preached.

Basically this is a problem ONLY if you believe that Rome is the be all and end all of the Church.  St. John acknowleged the primacy of Rome.  Just not any infallibility, and still less any supremacy.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #84 on: January 10, 2008, 12:39:36 AM »

St. John acknowleged the primacy of Rome.  Just not any infallibility, and still less any supremacy.

When saint Chrysostom wrote there was no formal dogma about the infallibility of the bishop of Rome so there is no significant reason to expect him to have written about that subject, yet from the time of the gospels and letters of the new testament there was a promise of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the teaching of the bishops which is the bedrock upon which infallibility for Church councils and the bishop of Rome is built.

As for supremacy, I presume that you mean the primacy of jurisdiction that Vatican I defined, isn't this the subject of this thread and can't we expect that to understand this doctrine of the Catholic Church we'd need to examine both scripture and the teaching of the Church not only in the writings of the early church fathers but also in the prayer and practice of the whole Church. From a Western perspective the questions about primacy were debated and decided long before I was born but in the East the debate is still happening (if I am not mistaken).
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #85 on: January 11, 2008, 08:10:37 AM »

Hello,

Of course he is - he is a Doctor of the Church. I'm not the one saying we shouldn't be listening to what Saint John has to say because he was ordained by Meletius and Flavian. I'm not the one casting into doubt his holiness. I'm not the one who brought up this nonsensical argument to begin with.
No one's questions him being holy!
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #86 on: January 11, 2008, 08:15:55 AM »

When saint Chrysostom wrote there was no formal dogma about the infallibility of the bishop of Rome so there is no significant reason to expect him to have written about that subject, yet from the time of the gospels and letters of the new testament there was a promise of the presence of the Holy Spirit in the teaching of the bishops which is the bedrock upon which infallibility for Church councils and the bishop of Rome is built.
Yours is the church that says these dogmas were always believed! And in defending the dogma, yours is the church that draws upon commentary from earlier sources (including Church Fathers)
As for supremacy, I presume that you mean the primacy of jurisdiction that Vatican I defined, isn't this the subject of this thread and can't we expect that to understand this doctrine of the Catholic Church we'd need to examine both scripture and the teaching of the Church not only in the writings of the early church fathers but also in the prayer and practice of the whole Church. From a Western perspective the questions about primacy were debated and decided long before I was born but in the East the debate is still happening (if I am not mistaken).
We're not 'still debating it'. We never believed it!


Interestingly...
Saint Meletius of Antioch (Μελέτιος) (died 381) was the Christian bishop, or Patriarch of Antioch, from 360 until his death. His staunch support of the the Nicene faction of the church led to his exile three times under Arian emperors. One of his last acts was to preside over the First Council of Constantinople in 381.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meletius_of_Antioch
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #87 on: January 11, 2008, 08:17:59 AM »

Hello,

It is definitely the idea that I am sensing in this thread, that Meletius and Flavian were Arians (Arians/Semi-Arians, is there that much difference?). Why exactly were they out of communion if not for their siding with Arians?
There were in fact two anti-Arian factions, and he was the head of one of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meletius_of_Antioch
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #88 on: January 11, 2008, 08:23:11 AM »

There's no point to Credo.InDeum's posts. None at all!

He argues that the idea of Papacy at the time of John Chrysostomon was not the same as at Vatican I.

Therefore he's yet to show how John Chrysostomon supports that idea of Papacy OR ANY OTHER idea of papacy.

What value is there then for John Chrysostomon to his argument? None what-so-ever; only that he's sure that the great saint supported the Papacy!

 Roll Eyes

Although the Catholic Church IN DEFINING THE POWERS OF THE POPE AT VATICAN I argued that there was NO ADDITION to dogma, somehow saints such as John Chrysostomon were not aware of this papal power - according to Credo.InDeum', again totally undermining using his words as evidence for his stance.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #89 on: January 11, 2008, 05:29:32 PM »

Yours is the church that says these dogmas were always believed! And in defending the dogma, yours is the church that draws upon commentary from earlier sources (including Church Fathers)We're not 'still debating it'. We never believed it!

What is particularly significant is that apostolic Tradition is not limited to the body of writings left to us by early church fathers, many of their writings are not available to us anyway - having been lost. Tradition is particularly contained in the teaching of Christ handed down to us both in scripture and in the living teaching that the bishops receive through apostolic succession, particularly through the Spirit of Christ as he teaches them, using all the things that they hear and read and receive by example from their predecessors. So when we say that dogmas have always been believed we are affirming that Christ taught them, even though not every element of his teaching that we have in scripture and in the surviving writings of the church fathers is explicit, so we expect and we receive the enlightenment of Tradition progressively. As individuals we also receive God's teaching progressively as we grow in understanding of the revelation that God gives to us in scripture and in the teaching of the Church.

So those "never believed it" must have their reasons for not believing "it" but I cannot say what those reasons are all I can say is that I think those reasons are mistaken. I confess that I do believe it because the Church teaches it.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 09:37:11 PM by Credo.InDeum » Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #90 on: January 11, 2008, 07:24:38 PM »

Hello,

We're not 'still debating it'. We never believed it!

I think what he means is that the Orthodox will admit that the Bishop of Rome has primacy - but the debate is still raging as to what exactly this primacy entails.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #91 on: January 11, 2008, 07:30:03 PM »

Hello,

He argues that the idea of Papacy at the time of John Chrysostomon was not the same as at Vatican I.

That Saint John or any other Church Father didn't use a definition like full, supreme, universal, and ordinary jurisdiction is not surprising. Please show where the Ante-Nicene Fathers used the definitions of Light of Light, true God of true God; Jesus has two natures in a Hypostatic Union; and many more examples.

Just because a person doesn't express a belief in the exact same language and manner doesn't mean they didn't believe the same truth. It is obvious that Saint John and countless others believed the Bishop of Rome to have a primacy in the Church and that it was imperative to be in union and communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #92 on: January 11, 2008, 09:40:25 PM »

I think what he means is that the Orthodox will admit that the Bishop of Rome has primacy - but the debate is still raging as to what exactly this primacy entails.
That's right, I thought that was what I said  Wink
Logged

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

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



« Reply #93 on: January 11, 2008, 09:45:55 PM »

Why would Catholics expect one early church father to formulate the full dogma expressed in the "dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ" from Vatican I? Why would an Orthodox Christian expect a Catholic to have such an expectation?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #94 on: January 12, 2008, 07:57:11 AM »

Hello,

I think what he means is that the Orthodox will admit that the Bishop of Rome has primacy - but the debate is still raging as to what exactly this primacy entails.

That's not true. For the very reasons I stated earlier. We're not debating this.

What's odd is you don't even get the point that Credo's 'debating' this point - saying that the idea of the Pope has changed (when he says that John Chrysostomon's idea of papacy is not the same as that at Vatican I)

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #95 on: January 12, 2008, 07:58:35 AM »

“For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge…,"
Irenaeus - "Against Heresies" Book III.I.I
Why would Catholics expect one early church father to formulate the full dogma expressed in the "dogmatic constitution on the church of Christ" from Vatican I? Why would an Orthodox Christian expect a Catholic to have such an expectation?

Now you're arguing from lack of evidence.

There's no evidence for it, but it must have existed!

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #96 on: January 12, 2008, 07:59:56 AM »

That's right, I thought that was what I said 

You seem not to appreciate your own position; you've argued that the position of the Pope was not set until Vatican I - but you transfer the idea of 'debate' upon Orthodoxy.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #97 on: January 12, 2008, 08:08:45 AM »

Hello,

That Saint John or any other Church Father didn't use a definition like full, supreme, universal, and ordinary jurisdiction is not surprising. Please show where the Ante-Nicene Fathers used the definitions of Light of Light, true God of true God; Jesus has two natures in a Hypostatic Union; and many more examples.
Depends how 'exact' do you mean.

From your church's site...
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eternal_Sonship_of_Christ.asp

and
http://catholic-resources.org/John/Patristics-Logos.html

There's serveal Church Fathers who expressed the oneness of the Trinity. Unless you want to accept the Protestant argument that the (Catholic) Church really was founded at the time of Constantine - when Nicea had its Creed.

Just because a person doesn't express a belief in the exact same language and manner doesn't mean they didn't believe the same truth. It is obvious that Saint John and countless others believed the Bishop of Rome to have a primacy in the Church and that it was imperative to be in union and communion with the Bishop of Rome.

All you need to do is show that John Chyrsostomon believed this.

All I've seen from you and the other Catholic here is you repeating your suppositions that it must be that way. And if you don't have any evidence, you say, it still just must have been that way! laugh

You've yet to show any evidence (except one verse regarding "Choirs" - but when I show others you reel back saying you can't really know what he was meaning!)

So in summary...
Show me any evidence that John Chrysostomon understood any form of Papal Supremacy.

Your supposition doesn't count.

Saying that there's no evidence of him using certain words doesn't count either... as shown the Early Church Fathers believed that Jesus was true God.

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #98 on: January 12, 2008, 08:12:55 AM »

A history of the argument so far.

For John Chrysostomon, he said that Peter is head of the Choir. This supposedly means that he supported the idea of Papacy.

That he used the same words for others is laughably refuted that we can't really know what he meant by that!

In other words, we can only know what he means, when it supports the Papacy!

When I ask for any other evidence I'm told either
a) there is none - but that doesn't mean he didn't support the papacy!
or
b) he supported a different type of Papacy - yet Orthodox are supposedly 'in debate' over the Papacy  Huh

What type of Papacy did he support? Who knows. He just did!

When I point out evidence from the life of this saint, I'm told he was supporting an Arian... and he wasn't. This part of the debate seems to have been dropped. The historical evidence, inclduing from Catholic historians such as Davis seems to have got in the way of the supposition.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,192


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #99 on: January 12, 2008, 04:36:38 PM »

I guess no Christians believed in the Trinity either before Tertullian because there is a lack of evidence that they did.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #100 on: January 12, 2008, 05:53:37 PM »

I guess no Christians believed in the Trinity either before Tertullian because there is a lack of evidence that they did.


I just gave evidence about the god-hood of Jesus as known before Nicea.

Try and actually address evidence presented!

Worse still is that NO ONE disputes the Trinity. It's a poor example of thinking. If I were to take this line then I'd have to say anything can now be accepted as Christian! Chrisitans believe in unicorns as messengers from God - there's no evidence, but just 'cause there's no evidence, then it still must be a valid claim!


What's with the Catholic way of thinking? Lack of evidence means there must have been evidence?

No one disputes the Trinity. No one disputes that the Trinity was always understood. There's evidence for the Trinity in the Bible (that's stuff that pre-dates Tertulian).

What is disputed is the Papacy.

Credo says that the Papacy itself was not understood by Chrysostomon as we understand it. That's a different thing from saying something about the Trinity. The idea of the Trinity was not 'developed' in that it was always believed. Credo's saying that the idea of Papacy CHANGED.

Anyway, the argument from Catholics here is appalling. Selectivity.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #101 on: January 12, 2008, 10:11:46 PM »

It is obvious that Saint John and countless others believed the Bishop of Rome to have a primacy in the Church and that it was imperative to be in union and communion with the Bishop of Rome.
Now, wouldn't the clear disagreement you see on this thread be evidence that it is NOT obvious that St. John Chrysostom believed what you say he believed?  For instance, you have in your own posts acknowledged that, for a significant span of time, St. John was in fact NOT in communion with Rome.  How do you explain this if the same St. John believed it imperative to be in union and communion with Rome?  Either St. John Chrysostom was a hypocrite, or you're arguing a blatant non sequitur.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2008, 10:13:42 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #102 on: January 13, 2008, 04:47:11 AM »

Now, wouldn't the clear disagreement you see on this thread be evidence that it is NOT obvious that St. John Chrysostom believed what you say he believed?  For instance, you have in your own posts acknowledged that, for a significant span of time, St. John was in fact NOT in communion with Rome.  How do you explain this if the same St. John believed it imperative to be in union and communion with Rome?  Either St. John Chrysostom was a hypocrite, or you're arguing a blatant non sequitur.
Okay, let me eat a little crow here. Embarrassed  I wrongly attributed to Athanasios statements that, in fact, others made.  Having gone back and read Athanasios's posts on this thread, I see only that he acknowledged that others on this thread have asserted that St. John Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome and that he used these assertions as basis for argument.  Please forgive my misunderstanding.
Logged
Credo.InDeum
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #103 on: January 13, 2008, 04:52:15 AM »

So in your mind the question isn't what the Church Fathers thought about the Bishop of Rome but rather is the papacy as it is currently constituted a legitimate development or not?

Yours in Christ
Paisius
That is correct. The thinking of early church fathers is veiled by our remoteness from their context in time and culture so we moderns sometimes want to ask them questions that they did not think about - I think that the definition from Vatican I  on the primacy of the see of saint Peter is a question that we want an answer for but that the early church fathers didn't think about. The early church fathers wrote about the primacy of Rome and some of them appear to have taught a view that is consistent with Vatican I but I do not think that all of the issues that Vatican I addresses were explicit in the writings of the fathers.

In the ancient world we have the primacy of the bishop of Rome as it developed in the Latin speaking (and writing) West which appears to differ from the way that some (or a majority) of the Greek speaking East saw the same issue.

In modern times we have the West building her doctrine of Papal Primacy primarily on foundations of Western church fathers and doctors of the Church. For me, as a Catholic, the development of doctrine in the West is part of the unfolding of Tradition. For you in the East I cannot speak.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #104 on: January 13, 2008, 05:00:56 AM »

That is correct. The thinking of early church fathers is veiled by our remoteness from their context in time and culture so we moderns sometimes want to ask them questions that they did not think about - I think that the definition from Vatican I  on the primacy of the see of saint Peter is a question that we want an answer for but that the early church fathers didn't think about. The early church fathers wrote about the primacy of Rome and some of them appear to have taught a view that is consistent with Vatican I but I do not think that all of the issues that Vatican I addresses were explicit in the writings of the fathers.

In the ancient world we have the primacy of the bishop of Rome as it developed in the Latin speaking (and writing) West which appears to differ from the way that some (or a majority) of the Greek speaking East saw the same issue.

In modern times we have the West building her doctrine of Papal Primacy primarily on foundations of Western church fathers and doctors of the Church. For me, as a Catholic, the development of doctrine in the West is part of the unfolding of Tradition. For you in the East I cannot speak.
This is a great post for the more general thread, Primacy of Petrine Papacy proved through Patristics, but, in keeping with the specific matter of this thread, can you tell us where in the witness of St. John Chrysostom we can see anything remotely consistent with a Vatican I concept of Roman primacy?  That, I believe, is what THIS thread is about.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #105 on: January 13, 2008, 05:09:03 AM »

That is correct. The thinking of early church fathers is veiled by our remoteness from their context in time and culture so we moderns sometimes want to ask them questions that they did not think about - I think that the definition from Vatican I  on the primacy of the see of saint Peter is a question that we want an answer for but that the early church fathers didn't think about. The early church fathers wrote about the primacy of Rome and some of them appear to have taught a view that is consistent with Vatican I but I do not think that all of the issues that Vatican I addresses were explicit in the writings of the fathers.

In the ancient world we have the primacy of the bishop of Rome as it developed in the Latin speaking (and writing) West which appears to differ from the way that some (or a majority) of the Greek speaking East saw the same issue.

In modern times we have the West building her doctrine of Papal Primacy primarily on foundations of Western church fathers and doctors of the Church. For me, as a Catholic, the development of doctrine in the West is part of the unfolding of Tradition. For you in the East I cannot speak.

John Chrysostomon is not a 'western Church Father'
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #106 on: January 13, 2008, 05:32:30 AM »

What happened to the Catholics arguing here AGAINST the Trinity because it wasn't 'defined' at Council?
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,825



« Reply #107 on: January 13, 2008, 10:01:04 AM »

John Chrysostomon is not a 'western Church Father'


But they want him: the Pope of Rome declared him a doctor of their church.

That's OK, we can share.

Of course, that also means sharing Orthodox teaching. Grin
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #108 on: January 13, 2008, 11:18:50 AM »

Hello,

That's not true. For the very reasons I stated earlier. We're not debating this.

Maybe you aren't, but your Churches are. This has even played out in very recent events and dialogue. Even in these forums there is no consensus on the part of the Orthodox (other than the rejection of Vatican I).

Some say that the Pope only has a primacy of honor - though I have yet to meet anyone who can tell me what that means and entails.

Some say that the Pope has a primacy of judgeship, that he is the supreme court of the Church.

Some say that the Pope has a primacy like a Patriarch within his own Church.

Some say that the Pope has a primacy like a Patriarch of Patriarchs (this then goes into debates as to the role of the Patriarchs within their own Churches).

Some say that the Pope had a primacy (no definition as to what it means) but that after the schism it moved to Constantinople (a few even assert that it has now gone to Moscow).

Some say other things.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #109 on: January 13, 2008, 11:21:18 AM »

Hello,

John Chrysostomon is not a 'western Church Father'

He is a Doctor of the Catholic Church. We make the distinction of Greek or Latin Father only in terms of the language of that they primarily wrote in, not in terms of the Greek Fathers aren't are Fathers.

Question, do the Orthodox readily rely upon the writings of the Latin Fathers (i.e., Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, etc.)?
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #110 on: January 13, 2008, 11:25:52 AM »

Hello,

Okay, let me eat a little crow here. Embarrassed  I wrongly attributed to Athanasios statements that, in fact, others made.  Having gone back and read Athanasios's posts on this thread, I see only that he acknowledged that others on this thread have asserted that St. John Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome and that he used these assertions as basis for argument.  Please forgive my misunderstanding.

It's o.k. - Don't sweat the small stuff. 
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 32,325


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #111 on: January 13, 2008, 06:16:02 PM »

What happened to the Catholics arguing here AGAINST the Trinity because it wasn't 'defined' at Council?
It would have been moved to another thread.
Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek by desire; Antiochian by necessity
Posts: 6,040



« Reply #112 on: January 13, 2008, 07:16:49 PM »


Question, do the Orthodox readily rely upon the writings of the Latin Fathers (i.e., Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, etc.)?

I'm not sure what you mean by "readily."  Do you mean that we are ready to use them as bulwarks of the faith with the same frequency and love as we do with St. Gregory the Theologian, St. Basil the Great, St. John Chrysostom, etc.? 

There should be no doubt that St. Gregory the Great (whose Vesperal Liturgy we use all through Lent), Ambrose, Augustine and Jerome all are saints (I don't want to get into the whole idea of "blessed" or "venerable."), but it is true that they are probably "underdogs" (to borrow a phrase from Fr. Seraphim Rose) within Orthodoxy because anything that is "western"  or associated with "western" is unfortunately treated as something automatically bad.  Even if we do not subscribe to their theological opinions as strongly as we would to St. John Chrysostom, the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Maximos the Confessor, St. John Damascene or others, they were still holy men who lived their lives according to the Gospel and are saints for that purpose, not because they wrote down everything exactly and as formulaically as one would hope.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #113 on: January 14, 2008, 02:53:35 AM »

Hello,

He is a Doctor of the Catholic Church. We make the distinction of Greek or Latin Father only in terms of the language of that they primarily wrote in, not in terms of the Greek Fathers aren't are Fathers.
What language do you think someone in Antioch wrote in?
Question, do the Orthodox readily rely upon the writings of the Latin Fathers (i.e., Gregory the Great, Ambrose, Augustine, Jerome, etc.)?
I don't know.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #114 on: January 14, 2008, 02:54:09 AM »

It would have been moved to another thread.

I looked at the other threads and 'nada'
Logged

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

Faith: Machine God
Posts: 4,495



WWW
« Reply #115 on: January 14, 2008, 03:17:13 AM »

I looked at the other threads and 'nada'

No one responded directly to your points in that post.  The next post after yours on the Trinity was at 18:29:38, it was unrelated to your points, and the discussion followed it instead.  On top of that, the poster you refered to, Papist, has yet to post in this thread again since then.  I was planning on splitting it into a new thread, but since you tied in St. John Chrysostom, I left it here.

If you do wish to further discuss the Trinity and/or the 'Catholic way of thinking' as you put it, please start up a new thread for it  Smiley.

Thanks.
« Last Edit: January 14, 2008, 03:17:54 AM by Friul » Logged

As a result of a thousand million years of evolution, the universe is becoming conscious of itself, able to understand something of its past history and its possible future.
-- Sir Julian Sorell Huxley FRS
Athanasios
Latin Rite Catholic faithful to the Holy Father and the Magisterium
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Church Diocese of Youngstown
Posts: 1,800


The Divine Mercy


« Reply #116 on: January 14, 2008, 09:36:03 AM »

Hello,

What language do you think someone in Antioch wrote in?

You're right. I forgot about our Syriac Fathers. Forgive me.
Logged

Through the intercession of Our Lady of Mount Carmel, may Jesus Christ bless you abundantly.

Pray that we may be one, as Christ and His Father are one. (John 17:20ff)

A.K.A. - JMJ_coder
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #117 on: January 15, 2008, 02:22:39 AM »

Hello,

You're right. I forgot about our Syriac Fathers. Forgive me.

He probably also understood Greek (John Chrysostomon).
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
GiC
Resident Atheist
Site Supporter
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Mathematician
Posts: 9,490



« Reply #118 on: January 15, 2008, 02:31:54 AM »

He probably also understood Greek (John Chrysostomon).

Probably? He was a legendary Greek orator, it was probably his native tongue. Antioch was a major city of the Empire, while those in the country side very likely spoke a Syriac dialect those in the city would have generally spoken Greek.
Logged

"The liberties of people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them." -- Patrick Henry
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #119 on: January 16, 2008, 03:24:16 AM »

Probably? He was a legendary Greek orator, it was probably his native tongue. Antioch was a major city of the Empire, while those in the country side very likely spoke a Syriac dialect those in the city would have generally spoken Greek.

I was being sarcastic. The person I was responding to was trying to show John Chrysostomon as a western saint
Logged

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

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



« Reply #120 on: January 16, 2008, 08:47:08 AM »

Seems very strange to me to try to distinguish western from eastern saints since all of the saints are in heaven which as far as I am aware is neither west nor east. If you meant a Western church father then saint John Chrysostom was not from the West but in his day there wasn't much of an east-west schism was there. And folk who were in the Church in the late fourth and early fifth centuries kind of counted themselves as part of one holy, catholic, and apostolic Church and not as members of some schismatic east-church or west-church.

The simple fact is that saint John Chrysostom is received as a saint in the West and the East. He is part of the heritage of Christians in both the east and the west.
Logged

God does not simply rule by power ...His power is that of sharing in love and suffering ...God becomes small so that we can grasp his nature. - Benedict XVI
Tags:
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.372 seconds with 148 queries.