OrthodoxChristianity.net
November 21, 2014, 04:44:17 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: St. John Chrysostom: Supporter of modern (Vatican I) Papal Primacy?  (Read 12360 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


« 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: 12,358


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

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
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: 32,898


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: 32,898


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: 32,898


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: 37,963



« 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: 32,898


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
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,239



« 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 0.107 seconds with 58 queries.