OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 07:35:40 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 12426 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,235


Scheherazade


« 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,174



« 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: 33,141


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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,235


Scheherazade


« 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
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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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: 6,174



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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: 33,141


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: 6,174



« 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
Moderated
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: 38,135



« 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
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 0.159 seconds with 72 queries.