Author Topic: Supremacy of Peter  (Read 75551 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Heracleides

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
  • Kona-Kai
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #270 on: May 26, 2008, 02:14:34 PM »
If you want  serious dialogue you can PM me.

Or not.  ::)
.
"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #271 on: May 26, 2008, 02:28:07 PM »
What difference does it make?
Actually, skippy, it makes quite a lot of difference in this discussion. If you recall, you said:
Eastern liturgies even today refer to the popes as the leader of the bishops.
to which LBK asked:
Skippy, could you please provide examples of this? As in actual liturgical texts used by the Orthodox Church.
And Aristokles replied:
Probably only seen "Eastern Catholic" liturgies.

If the only Eastern Liturgies you attend are Eastern Catholic ones, then of course they will commemorate the Pope.

The Orthodox practice is (and has always been) to commemorate the local Bishop. For example, I fall under the juridiction of the Oecumenical Patriarch, however in our Liturgies, we do not commemorate the Patriarch, but our Local bishop. Only when our Archbishop Liturgizes does he commemorate the Oecumenical Patriarch, and when the Patriarch Liturgizes, he commemorates the other Patriarchs and First Heirarchs of the Autonomous and Autocephalous Churches. There has never been a practice in the Orthodox Church of everyone commemorating one "Supreme" Bishop.
This practice was forced By Rome on those Eastern Churches after the Schism which sought union with Rome.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 02:31:04 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #272 on: May 26, 2008, 02:41:31 PM »
The patriarch is getting all bent out of shape over the Estionians and the patriarch's [ of Constantinople] role as leader of the Orthodox. He wants that role for himself.
He has yet to comment on the substance of Ravenna.

That's just it, there's none to comment on.
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #273 on: May 26, 2008, 02:58:10 PM »
Have no idea what you are referring to

Painfully obvious.

Quote
I never even hinted  that the popes are commemorated at each EO liturgy.

Are you admitting that they weren't the first thousand years?

Quote
no idea what you are referring to.

again obvious.

Quote
so?!! Peter was lax in in observance of what he preached. Paul rebuked him. so what?

So how are you so sure St. John would have obeyed, as you asserted?

Quote
I didn't skip over them. There is no problem.


Denial always words so well.

Quote
Oh but they did. They didn't have to be present. They usually sent delegates who were heard. The popes had to approve the final outcome. The popes often exercised a line veto and dismissed  canons


Didn't say they had to, nor made much of the fact that they didn't attend any (even Pope Vigilius, who was in town).  Yes, popes dismissed canons, and the Church dismissed the dismissals (the Church Constantinople being next to Rome since Constantinople I being one, although Rome refused to accept it until the nearly a millenium later).  The final outcome in the case of Vigilius was forced on him, and the approval of Constantinople II entailed condemning Pope Honorius.


Quote
what is to explain? He was discussed at length in Vatican I before infallibility was pronounced.

Yes, as we have shown before, Latin catechisms exist from 1870 who condemn infallibility as a Protestant lie, and admit a Pope can err like Honorios.
 
Quote
So what ? Disgruntled employees. No one said that the others fall into line just the popes have the authority. There have always been renegades like Judas.

and despots like Herod.  You stated that the popes claiming supreme power means they had it.  I merely showed that just because they asserted it, did not mean they had it, as their admission that they were not followed shows.

Quote
St Francis also rebuked the pope. so what? Again you are confusing impeccability with infallibility.

You made the broad generalization: "At that time,no one ever argued that the popes didn't have the authority nor did they ever argue that the pope was overstepping his role as bishop of Rome when they made universal calls."

and I was merely pointing out that yes, they did argue he didn't have the authority, did argue he was overstepping his role when he asserted universal claims.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 05:37:37 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #274 on: May 26, 2008, 02:58:58 PM »
No one forced you to join the no-holds barred private forum.

Just a troll squeezing sour grapes of failed arguments into whine.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 03:00:51 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #275 on: May 26, 2008, 03:22:53 PM »
Have no idea what you are referring to

Quote
no idea what you are referring to.
Repeat this often enough and we'll believe you.


Quote
Oh but they did. They didn't have to be present. They usually sent delegates who were heard. The popes had to approve the final outcome. The popes often exercised a line veto and dismissed  canons

Quote
what is to explain? He was discussed at length in Vatican I before infallibility was pronounced.
Saying so don't make it so, even if you repeat these assertions ad nauseum.  Ya got any proof for these statements, or are you just going to give us more whine to go with the cheese you've been feeding us?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 03:23:22 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,460
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #276 on: May 26, 2008, 05:07:09 PM »
(the Church Constantinople next to Rome since Constantinople one, although Rome refused until the nearly a millenium later).

Really? Not until the 14th century?

:)
- Peter Jericho

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,460
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #277 on: May 26, 2008, 05:09:21 PM »
Said the black pot to the black kettle. :laugh:

Me thinks you give yourself and fellow Orthodox too little credit. (Or, taking the comparison the other way around, you give Skippy too much credit.)
- Peter Jericho

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,485
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #278 on: May 26, 2008, 05:22:35 PM »
Why do I get the impression skippy is simply Euthymios writing under another name to get around his moderated status?
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #279 on: May 26, 2008, 05:41:58 PM »
Really? Not until the 14th century?

:)

Not quite, but close.  1215, Lateran IV, canon V.  Of course, at the time the Crusaders had sacked Constantinople and put a Latin on her throne.
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

Offline Heracleides

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 390
  • Kona-Kai
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #280 on: May 26, 2008, 06:02:20 PM »
Why do I get the impression skippy is simply Euthymios writing under another name to get around his moderated status?

Lol - I was thinking the exact same thing.  ;D
.
"And having found Heracleides there again, we instructed him to proclaim the Gospel of God..."  ~Acts of Barnabas

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #281 on: May 26, 2008, 06:37:48 PM »
Why do I get the impression skippy is simply Euthymios writing under another name to get around his moderated status?
Nah, not quite.  If you read skippy's profile, you see that he is at least honest about his church affiliation.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,460
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #282 on: May 26, 2008, 06:58:49 PM »
Not quite, but close.  1215, Lateran IV, canon V.  Of course, at the time the Crusaders had sacked Constantinople and put a Latin on her throne.

Oh.

I thought perhaps you had meant "century" but said "millenium" by mistake.
- Peter Jericho

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #283 on: May 26, 2008, 07:02:26 PM »
can you defend the substance of what His Holiness said when he stated, "I AM TRADITION!" ?
Yes!
All that he does and says is based on tradition and he follows tradition.
you can read all kinds of sinister plots into it if you want.

PS I am not Euthymios. I just like the sources he cites.

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #284 on: May 26, 2008, 07:06:16 PM »
Are you admitting that they weren't the first thousand years?
Don't know- don't care. I was not referring to that. I was referring to prayers such as kontakia etc.

Quote
You made the broad generalization: "At that time,no one ever argued that the popes didn't have the authority nor did they ever argue that the pope was overstepping his role as bishop of Rome when they made universal calls."
Yes I did and I stand by it. They may not have agreed with him but they knew he had the authority.


Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,485
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #285 on: May 26, 2008, 07:12:13 PM »
Quote
As for the liturgies acknowledging the role of the popes as leader I am referring  not just to the feast of Peter and Paul


and

Quote
Don't know- don't care. I was not referring to that. I was referring to prayers such as kontakia etc.

and

Quote
Eastern liturgies even today refer to the popes as the leader of the bishops.

Having posted some three-quarters of the Orthodox Vigil text for Apostles Peter and Paul which clearly shows both apostles being given equal honour, how does this square up with your observation of "eastern liturgies" giving supremacy to Peter alone? Can we, or should we, really take you seriously?



« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 07:12:43 PM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #286 on: May 26, 2008, 07:13:45 PM »
Repeat this often enough and we'll believe you.

Saying so don't make it so, even if you repeat these assertions ad nauseum.  Ya got any proof for these statements, or are you just going to give us more whine to go with the cheese you've been feeding us?
You haven't said what Honorius did or said (nor the other popes that you mentioned Zozimus and Vigilius) that was wrong. I am not going to second guess you.
I just stated that he was fully dealt with and considered before making the statement about infallibility at Vatican I.
You hinted at Honorius being condemned. 
Show me. I'm from Missouri.
Condemned ! to death? Explain please.
Be specific because the actual statements are important and their order and context are important.

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #287 on: May 26, 2008, 07:20:32 PM »
Having posted some three-quarters of the Orthodox Vigil text for Apostles Peter and Paul which clearly shows both apostles being given equal honour, how does this square up with your observation of "eastern liturgies" giving supremacy to Peter alone? Can we, or should we, really take you seriously?
Very commendable on your part. I hope your fingers aren't tired from cutting and pasting.  But you seemed to ignore what I said. I wasn't just referring to the feast of Peter and Paul. Look at the feast of Leo and Gregory too.


Hey guys,[ not you this time, lbk] when you quote put enough in the quote so I can tell what you are talking about. 

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #288 on: May 26, 2008, 07:22:10 PM »

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #289 on: May 26, 2008, 07:40:29 PM »
I wasn't just referring to the feast of Peter and Paul. Look at the feast of Leo and Gregory too.
Skippy, this is not how people dialogue about and debate an issue. You don't send other people off to do your homework for you.  Wouldn't it be simpler if you just gave us the quotes from the Liturgy which defend your argument? No one's going to bother with a wild goose chase, just give us the relevant kontakion, troparion or whatever.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 07:52:10 PM by ozgeorge »
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #290 on: May 26, 2008, 07:52:16 PM »
All that he does and says is based on tradition and he follows tradition.
Ya got any source documents to back this up?


You haven't said what Honorius did or said (nor the other popes that you mentioned Zozimus and Vigilius) that was wrong. I am not going to second guess you.
I just stated that he was fully dealt with and considered before making the statement about infallibility at Vatican I.
You hinted at Honorius being condemned. 
Show me. I'm from Missouri.
Condemned ! to death? Explain please.
Be specific because the actual statements are important and their order and context are important.

You must mistake me for someone else here, for I said nothing of the above.  I'm just here to encourage you to give substance (i.e., documented proof) to all your so-far baseless theses.  I'm not about to let you get away with the tactic, "I'm right until someone can prove me wrong."  You want us to believe you?  Then prove yourself correct without asking us to do your homework for you.


Yes I did and I stand by it.
That's nice. ::)

Quote
They may not have agreed with him but they knew he had the authority.
How many times have you said this, yet not given us any evidence to prove it?  Forceful repetition is not proof of anything.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 08:02:05 PM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline ozgeorge

  • I'll take you for who you are if you take me for everything.
  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 16,379
  • My plans for retirement.
    • Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Australia
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #291 on: May 26, 2008, 08:25:16 PM »
You haven't said what Honorius did or said (nor the other popes that you mentioned Zozimus and Vigilius) that was wrong.
Honorius was a Monothelite. See http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1/Page_174.html
If you're living a happy life as a Christian, you're doing something wrong.

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #292 on: May 26, 2008, 08:25:56 PM »
You haven't said what Honorius did or said (nor the other popes that you mentioned Zozimus and Vigilius) that was wrong. I am not going to second guess you.
I just stated that he was fully dealt with and considered before making the statement about infallibility at Vatican I.
You hinted at Honorius being condemned. 
Show me. I'm from Missouri.
Condemned ! to death? Explain please.
Be specific because the actual statements are important and their order and context are important.

Look up the definitons of the Sixth Council, Constantinople III for Honorios.

Very commendable on your part. I hope your fingers aren't tired from cutting and pasting.  But you seemed to ignore what I said. I wasn't just referring to the feast of Peter and Paul. Look at the feast of Leo and Gregory too.


Hey guys,[ not you this time, lbk] when you quote put enough in the quote so I can tell what you are talking about. 


Why don't you look at the feast of Leo and Gregory, and cut and paste, so you can tell us what you are talking about?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 08:27:58 PM by ialmisry »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #293 on: May 26, 2008, 08:33:55 PM »
Don't know-

Truer words were never written.

Quote
don't care.


that's my liine.

Quote
I was not referring to that.

Do you know what you were refering to?

Quote
I was referring to prayers such as kontakia etc.

Kontakia for a living hierarch?  Never heard one yet.

Quote
Yes I did and I stand by it. They may not have agreed with him but they knew he had the authority.

Evidently not,  because they told him that he didn't: and  backed that up with action.

Try arguing that Henry VIII REALLY knew that the pope had authority.  You'll have better luck.
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

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,460
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #294 on: May 26, 2008, 08:52:34 PM »
can you defend the substance of what His Holiness said when he stated, "I AM TRADITION!" ?
Yes!
All that he does and says is based on tradition and he follows tradition.
you can read all kinds of sinister plots into it if you want.

Skippy,

I can't be absolutely certain, but I think this is the very first time I've heard someone say that. You've really made this a memorable Memorial Day.

Would you mind if I quote you on my website (assuming I ever decide to have a section devoted to that sort of thing)?
- Peter Jericho

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,460
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #295 on: May 26, 2008, 08:55:45 PM »
Can we, or should we, really take you seriously?

Can you? Yes.

Should you? Well, if you have to ask ... ;)
- Peter Jericho

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #296 on: May 26, 2008, 09:06:23 PM »
Can you? Yes.

Should you? Well, if you have to ask ... ;)
Well, I guess we CAN take ANYONE seriously.  Now, is it wise? ... ;)
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Marc1152

  • Hoplitarches
  • *************
  • Posts: 14,838
  • Probiotic .. Antibiotic
  • Jurisdiction: Rocor
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #297 on: May 26, 2008, 09:08:08 PM »
Ya know what, Skippy, it's usually considered rather bad form to come to an Orthodox Christian discussion forum and call their understanding of history "EO mythology" or a comic book version of Church history.  Such base ad hominems will not win you any debate points.
Then what of Pope Pius IX (pope during Vatican I) who is reputed to have bellowed, "I AM TRADITION!"?

LOL..The Truth is that  Roman claims to Papal "superiority" don't hold up very well when real scholars get involved. Most of us here already know that as we have seen the Roman postion defeated time and again on these boards and on others. Ad homenimum comments are a sure sign of a weak postion...  Yawn
Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #298 on: May 26, 2008, 11:05:52 PM »
Actually, skippy, it makes quite a lot of difference in this discussion. If you recall, you said:to which LBK asked:And Aristokles replied:
If the only Eastern Liturgies you attend are Eastern Catholic ones, then of course they will commemorate the Pope.

The Orthodox practice is (and has always been) to commemorate the local Bishop. For example, I fall under the juridiction of the Oecumenical Patriarch, however in our Liturgies, we do not commemorate the Patriarch, but our Local bishop. Only when our Archbishop Liturgizes does he commemorate the Oecumenical Patriarch, and when the Patriarch Liturgizes, he commemorates the other Patriarchs and First Heirarchs of the Autonomous and Autocephalous Churches. There has never been a practice in the Orthodox Church of everyone commemorating one "Supreme" Bishop.
This practice was forced By Rome on those Eastern Churches after the Schism which sought union with Rome.
For the umpteenth time I am not talking about commemorations but the prayers of the liturgy of the day.
It makes no difference what I have seen or attended. I wasn't at the council of Nicea either but I know what it said. Another diversion. I never mentioned commemorations.

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #299 on: May 26, 2008, 11:08:39 PM »
The patriarch is getting all bent out of shape over the Estionians and the patriarch's [ of Constantinople] role as leader of the Orthodox. He wants that role for himself.
He has yet to comment on the substance of Ravenna.

That's just it, there's none to comment on.
That's just it, there's none to comment on.
Admitting primacy is a big deal. Now what that primacy means and meant is another matter to work out.

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #300 on: May 26, 2008, 11:11:36 PM »
LOL..The Truth is that  Roman claims to Papal "superiority" don't hold up very well when real scholars get involved. Most of us here already know that as we have seen the Roman postion defeated time and again on these boards and on others. Ad homenimum comments are a sure sign of a weak postion...  Yawn
You guys started all the ad hominem (towards the man) remarks. Yawn.

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #301 on: May 26, 2008, 11:19:08 PM »
Look up the definitions of the Sixth Council, Constantinople III for Honorius.
I know what they say. And there is nothing there that makes Honorius a heretic nor monothelite. He was opposed to the whole idea.  He didn't want to say one or two wills. He didn't attack the culprits strong enough. That doesn't make him a heretic. Show me where he actually said or wrote anything heretical.

Many popes after him (before 1054) have stated over and over that there never was a pope who was in heresy.
The link http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1/Page_174.html supplied is not a source but  a commentary. It is inaccurate.
Vatican I dealt with Honorius ad nauseam before making the infallibility statement.


« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 11:21:55 PM by skippy »

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #302 on: May 26, 2008, 11:32:50 PM »
You must mistake me for someone else here, for I said nothing of the above.
I sometimes combine comments to limit the number of responses.  Sorry for not making it clear.
Quote
They may not have agreed with him but they knew he had the authority.
How many times have you said this, yet not given us any evidence to prove it?  Forceful repetition is not proof of anything.
you guys have contended that there was no authority with the primacy. Yet you don't back it up. Show me where the bishops or fathers [before the split] say that Peter was not the leader that the pope/Peter didn't have primacy [before the split] Never happened.  Yet over and over the popes claimed it and the bishops [east and west]  always say " Peter has spoken" and we agree. [this part is a paraphrase]

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #303 on: May 26, 2008, 11:44:09 PM »
Yes!
All that he does and says is based on tradition and he follows tradition.
You can read all kinds of sinister plots into it if you want.

Skippy,

I can't be absolutely certain, but I think this is the very first time I've heard someone say that. You've really made this a memorable Memorial Day.
Quote
I was asked for a defense of the quote. It was without context.
Would you mind if I quote you on my website (assuming I ever decide to have a section devoted to that sort of thing)?
Depends on how you use it.  innocent quotes can be arranged to be not so innocent.
BTW speaking of your site. I stopped by and enjoyed the part about the Assyrians and Chaldeans reunion precisely over the primacy issue. The primacy was defended by the Assyrian bishop. The clergy and 3000 Assyrians of the Assyrian diocese joined the  Roman Catholic Chaldean diocese(eparchy) in El Cajon, California just outside of San Diego.  I have attended the Chaldean rite liturgy in the Aramaic language  that Jesus spoke. Very inspiring. Even in Aramaic it is not hard to follow the liturgy It is not Byzantine but very similar.
« Last Edit: May 26, 2008, 11:45:54 PM by skippy »

Offline LBK

  • No Reporting Allowed
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,485
  • Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!
  • Faith: Orthodox
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #304 on: May 27, 2008, 12:04:41 AM »
Quote
Show me where the bishops or fathers [before the split] say that Peter was not the leader that the pope/Peter didn't have primacy [before the split] Never happened. 


1. The liturgical tradition of the Orthodox Church represents the consensus patrum of the Church. The liturgical texts proclaim what the whole Orthodox Church teaches.

2. The Vigil text which I have reproduced at length, makes it quite clear that both Peter and Paul are held in equally high regard.

3. The bulk of the Vigil text was written by Sts John of Damascus and Andrew of Crete, both of whom lived in the late 7th to early 8thC, some centuries before the Great Schism.

4. Both these Fathers knew their scripture and their patristics exceedingly well. St Andrew of Crete's epic Great Canon, sung in the first week of Great Lent, is a masterpiece of synthesis of scripture to the themes of the Fall, sin, and repentance. St John draws extensively from the writings of the apostles and the early Fathers in his treatise defending icons, as well as being a prolific hymnographer.

I also add my voice to those who have asked for you to provide the liturgical material (not just a troparion or kontakion) of the Vigil (Vespers and Matins) for popes Leo and gregory, which you keep referring to to back your cause. I, at least, have been honest enough to provide the service to Apostles Peter and Paul, which you have comprehensively ignored. If you expect us to take you seriously, do the homework, and post the texts. We're waiting....
« Last Edit: May 27, 2008, 05:06:24 AM by LBK »
Am I posting? Or is it Schroedinger's Cat?

Offline Peter J

  • still a CAF poster
  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 6,460
  • Faith: Christian
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #305 on: May 27, 2008, 12:14:57 AM »
Depends on how you use it.  innocent quotes can be arranged to be not so innocent.

I'm sending you a pm with a link to it. I strongly doubt that anyone can claim that it represents your statements or takes it out of context.

Hmm ... once again, that troublesome word "can".
- Peter Jericho

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #306 on: May 27, 2008, 12:27:43 AM »
For the umpteenth time I am not talking about commemorations but the prayers of the liturgy of the day.

care to be more specific?  It's a long liturgy.

Btw, the office for Pope St. Leo II used to have a condemnation of Pope Honorius in it, as did the papal oath.

Quote
It makes no difference what I have seen or attended. I wasn't at the council of Nicea either but I know what it said.

Not if you say "and the Son" you don't.

Quote
Another diversion. I never mentioned commemorations.

You haven't mentioned what exactly you are claiming at all.  At least not with consistency.

I know what they say. And there is nothing there that makes Honorius a heretic nor monothelite. He was opposed to the whole idea.  He didn't want to say one or two wills. He didn't attack the culprits strong enough. That doesn't make him a heretic. Show me where he actually said or wrote anything heretical.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xiii.html

Quote
Many popes after him (before 1054) have stated over and over that there never was a pope who was in heresy.


The Sixth council (and Popes Agatho and Leo) thought otherwise.  See above.

Quote
The link http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds1/Page_174.html supplied is not a source but  a commentary. It is inaccurate.

Try this
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.viii.html
and this
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.x.html
It's the source.  It's infallible.

Quote
Vatican I dealt with Honorius ad nauseam before making the infallibility statement.
Evidently not, because they (actually he) went on to make the statement anyway.

Sorry for not making it clear.you guys have contended that there was no authority with the primacy. Yet you don't back it up.

We have, several times.

Quote
Show me where the bishops or fathers [before the split] say that Peter was not the leader that the pope/Peter didn't have primacy [before the split] Never happened.
 

First Peter does not equal Pope (yes, I know you have difficulty grasping that).

Second, you confuse primacy with supremacy (don't worry, your supreme pontiff does it too). The former existed from the Early Church, the latter was invented later.


Quote
Yet over and over the popes claimed it and the bishops [east and west]  always say " Peter has spoken" and we agree.

That was at Chalcedon, and it was after Leo's tome had been examined for its Orthodoxy (i.e. they didn't just accept it because Leo was claiming to speak ex cathedra).  At Ephesus they called Pope Celestine a new Paul, but he had to share the honors with Pope Cyril of Alexandria.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xiv.html

Quote
[this part is a paraphrase]
besides a stretch.

I also add my voice to those who have asked for you to provide the liturgical material (not just a troparion or kontakion) of the Vigil (Vespers and Matins) for popes Leo and gregory, which you keep referring to to back your cause. I, at least, have been honest enough to provide the service to Apostles Peter and Paul, which you have comprehensively ignored. If you expect us to take you seriously, do the homework, and post the texts. We're waiting....

But we're not holding our breath.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2008, 12:56:48 AM by ialmisry »
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

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,195
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #307 on: May 27, 2008, 12:30:51 AM »
The patriarch is getting all bent out of shape over the Estionians and the patriarch's [ of Constantinople] role as leader of the Orthodox. He wants that role for himself.
The patriarch is bent out of shape over Constantinople's interference in Moscow's internal affairs, over which the EP has no jurisdiction whatsoever.

Quote
He has yet to comment on the substance of Ravenna.

That's just it, there's none to comment on.Admitting primacy is a big deal. Now what that primacy means and meant is another matter to work out.
We're not as obsessed with it.  Certainly not to the point of dogma.
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

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #308 on: May 27, 2008, 01:27:19 AM »
Excursus on the Condemnation of Pope Honorius.

To this decree attaches not only the necessary importance and interest which belongs to any ecumenical decision upon a disputed doctrinal question with regard to the incarnation of the Son of God, but an altogether accidental interest, arising from the fact that by this decree a Pope of Rome is stricken with anathema in the person of Honorius.  I need hardly remind the reader how many interesting and difficult questions in theology such an action on the part of an Ecumenical Council raises, and how all important, not to say vital, to such as accept the ruling of the recent Vatican Council, it is that some explanation of this fact should be arrived at which will be satisfactory.  It would be highly improper for me in these pages to discuss the matter theologically.  Volumes on each side have been written on this subject, and to these I must refer the reader, but in doing so I hope I may be pardoned if I add a word of counsel—to read both sides.  If one’s knowledge is derived only from modern Eastern, Anglican or Protestant writers, such as “Janus and the Council,” the Père Gratry’s “Letters,” or Littledale’s controversial books against Rome, one is apt to be as much one-sided as if he took his information from Cardinal Baronius, Cardinal Bellarmine, Rohrbacher’s History, or from the recent work on the subject by Pennacchi.  Perhaps the average reader will hardly find a more satisfactory treatment than that by Bossuet in the Defensio.  (Liber VII., cap. xxi., etc.)

It will be sufficient for the purposes of this volume to state that Roman Catholic Curialist writers are not at one as to how the matter is to be treated.  Pennacchi, in his work referred to above, is of opinion that Honorius’s letters were strictly speaking Papal decrees, set forth auctoritate apostolica, and therefore irreformable, but he declares, contrary to the opinion of almost all theologians and to the decree of this Council, that they are orthodox, and that the Council erred in condemning them; as he expresses it, the decree rests upon an error in facto dogmatico.  To save an Ecumenical Synod from error, he thinks the synod ceased to be ecumenical before it took this action, and was at that time only a synod of a number of Orientals!  Cardinal Baronius has another way out of the difficulty.  He says that the name of Honorius was forged and put in the decree by an erasure in the place of the name of Theodore, the quondam Patriarch, who soon after the Council got himself restored to the Patriarchal position.  Baronius moreover holds that Honorius’s letters have been corrupted, that the Acts of the Council have been corrupted, and, in short, that everything which declares or proves that Honorius was a heretic or was condemned by an Ecumenical Council as such, is untrustworthy and false.  The groundlessness, not to say absurdity, of Baronius’s view has been often exposed by those of his own communion, a brief but sufficient summary of the refutation will be found in Hefele, who while taking a very halting and unsatisfactory position himself, yet is perfectly clear that Baronius’s contention is utterly indefensible.

Most Roman controversialists of recent years have admitted both the fact of Pope Honorius’s condemnation (which Baronius denies), and the monothelite (and therefore heretical) character of his epistles, but they are of opinion that these letters were not his ex cathedrâ utterances as Doctor Universalis, but mere expressions of the private opinion of the Pontiff as a theologian.  With this matter we have no concern in this connexion.

I shall therefore say nothing further on this point but shall simply supply the leading proofs that Honorius was as a matter of fact condemned by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

1.  His condemnation is found in the Acts in the xiiith Session, near the beginning.

2.  His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same session.

3.  In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”

4.  In the decree of faith published at the xviijth Session it is stated that “the originator of all evil…found a fit tool for his will in…Honorius, Pope of Old Rome, etc.”

5.  The report of the Council to the Emperor says that “Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome” they had “punished with exclusion and anathema” because he followed the monothelites.

6.  In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it “has slain with anathema Honorius.”

7.  The imperial decree speaks of the “unholy priests who infected the Church and falsely governed” and mentions among them “Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself.”  The Emperor goes on to anathematize “Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy.”

8.  Pope Leo II. confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.

9.  That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is mentioned in the Trullan Canons (No. j.).

10.  So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11.  Honorius’s name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts.  This is evident from Anastasius’s life of Leo II.  (Vita Leonis II.)

12.  The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh century, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II., “smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, etc., together with Honorius, because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics.”

13.  In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod.  Upon this we may well hear Bossuet:  “They suppress as far as they can, the Liber Diurnus:  they have erased this from the Roman Breviary.  Have they therefore hidden it?  Truth breaks out from all sides, and these things become so much the more evident, as they are the more studiously put out of sight.”

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.


http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.xiii.html
« Last Edit: May 27, 2008, 01:46:28 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #309 on: May 27, 2008, 02:05:35 AM »
From The Truth About Pope Honorius (http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp)

Quote
That is true, but, even more to the point, a look at Honorius' exact words shows that while he did use a formula--"one will"--that was later declared heretical, he used it in a sense that implied the orthodox belief.

This was picked up as early as 640 by Pope John IV, Honorius' successor, who pointed out that Sergius had asked only about the presence of two opposing wills. Honorius had answered accordingly, speaking, says Pope John, "only of the human and not also of the divine nature." Pope John was right. Honorius assumed the existence of a human will in Christ by saying that his nature is like humanity's before the Fall. No one would claim that before the Fall Adam had no will. Thus Honorius's speaking of Christ's assumption of a "faultless" human nature shows that he really did believe in the orthodox formula of two wills in Christ: one divine, one human, in perfect agreement.

Skippy, can you tell us exactly what Pope Honorius I said and why we should consider this as truly representative of orthodox faith in Christ, as Robert Spencer declared in the essay I quoted above?
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #310 on: May 27, 2008, 02:35:22 AM »
I know what they say. And there is nothing there that makes Honorius a heretic nor monothelite. He was opposed to the whole idea.  He didn't want to say one or two wills. He didn't attack the culprits strong enough. That doesn't make him a heretic. Show me where he actually said or wrote anything heretical.
Wouldn't you agree, though, that those who through neglect of their pastoral duties aid in the spread of a heresy can be considered heretics themselves, in accordance with a looser definition of the term "heretic" often used in the Church?
« Last Edit: May 27, 2008, 02:43:29 AM by PeterTheAleut »
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #311 on: May 27, 2008, 02:19:01 PM »
Wouldn't you agree, though, that those who through neglect of their pastoral duties aid in the spread of a heresy can be considered heretics themselves, in accordance with a looser definition of the term "heretic" often used in the Church?
The fathers of the council agreed that Honorius should be chastised for not speaking out strong enough. But he was not a formal heretic nor was he condemned as one.
I wouldn't say that he neglected his pastoral duties. He was trying to deal with the situation. With hindsight, we can see that he didn't handle it well.

Offline skippy

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 94
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #312 on: May 27, 2008, 02:36:10 PM »
Excursus on the Condemnation of Pope Honorius.

3.  In the xvith Session the bishops exclaimed “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, etc.”

This "quote" is certainly fragmentary and distorted.
Remember this was 42 years after Honorius died!! So he didn't have  a proper chance to explain himself.
Sergius didn't like the two will idea because he thought that that would lead to th two wills being opposed to each other.
Honorius using the "one will" phrase to  state that the two wills of Christ act as one will and are never opposed.

 The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because "he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted." [Carroll, 254]


Offline PeterTheAleut

  • The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
  • Hypatos
  • *****************
  • Posts: 37,280
  • Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #313 on: May 27, 2008, 02:43:36 PM »
This "quote" is certainly fragmentary and distorted.
Remember this was 42 years after Honorius died!! So he didn't have  a proper chance to explain himself.
Sergius didn't like the two will idea because he thought that that would lead to th two wills being opposed to each other.
Honorius using the "one will" phrase to  state that the two wills of Christ act as one will and are never opposed.

 The reigning Pontiff, Leo II, did not agree to the condemnation of his predecessor for heresy; he said Honorius should be condemned because "he permitted the immaculate faith to be subverted." [Carroll, 254]


I offered reliable documentation to support my argument that Pope Honorius I was formally condemned for heresy.  Can you do the same to counter?  You haven't yet.  You're obviously not an authority on this, so you need to cite those who are.
Not all who wander are lost.

Offline Fr. George

  • formerly "Cleveland"
  • Administrator
  • Stratopedarches
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,053
  • May the Lord bless you and keep you always!
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Re: Supremacy of Peter
« Reply #314 on: May 27, 2008, 02:45:33 PM »
The fathers of the council agreed that Honorius should be chastised for not speaking out strong enough. But he was not a formal heretic nor was he condemned as one. 

Really?  Maybe you should do a bit more reading...

Session 13 of the 6th Ecumenical Council
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.viii.html

Session 16 of the 6th Ecumenical Council
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiii.ix.html

Canon 1 of the Quintisext Council
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.iii.i.html
I don't typically presume to speak for Mor
You can presume to speak for Mor.  

How in Mor's good name
one hundred fifty four posts
No Rachel Weisz pic

Selam