Topic: Who here can answer this? Bishop of Rome has all the power

[Kaste]

Ok folks, here it is:  the clearest quote from a Father that implies Rome has all the power of the other bishops, in itself:

"[“Men and brethren,” etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He [Peter] did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively."

St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.
Please no replies stating Peter's unique authority stopped after his death.  As if Christ thought only the first generation apostles would need a visible head with unique authority.  There are too many quotes by Fathers that link the Bishop of Rome and his authority (whatever exactly that might be) with Peter.  (Met. Kallistos (Ware)'s "The Orthodox Church" and Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" at least makes this much evident).

K

[Shlomlokh]

Ok folks, here it is:  the clearest quote from a Father that implies Rome has all the power of the other bishops, in itself:

"[“Men and brethren,” etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He [Peter] did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively."

St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.
Please no replies stating Peter's unique authority stopped after his death.  As if Christ thought only the first generation apostles would need a visible head with unique authority.  There are too many quotes by Fathers that link the Bishop of Rome and his authority (whatever exactly that might be) with Peter.  (Met. Kallistos (Ware)'s "The Orthodox Church" and Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" at least makes this much evident).

K

Yup, you got us! The Orthodox are hopelessly lost without Rome! It's so great that you could remove the scales from our eyes by proof-texting. Wait, a minute, don't do the Protestants proof-texting?

If you really wanted to get us, why do you think quoting from a Catholic source would automatically convince us?

In Christ,
Andrew

[HandmaidenofGod]

What exactly is the point of this thread? 

[Irish Hermit]

Ok folks, here it is:  the clearest quote from a Father that implies Rome has all the power of the other bishops, in itself:

"[“Men and brethren,” etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He [Peter] did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively."

St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.
Please no replies stating Peter's unique authority stopped after his death.  As if Christ thought only the first generation apostles would need a visible head with unique authority.  There are too many quotes by Fathers that link the Bishop of Rome and his authority (whatever exactly that might be) with Peter.  (Met. Kallistos (Ware)'s "The Orthodox Church" and Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" at least makes this much evident).

How shocked Chrysostom would be to learn that the Pope of Rome has so far succumbed to pride and diabolical temptation as to claim that no bishop may be ordained without his approval.  It would not matter if 10 bishops gathered to perform the service - it is illicit without the prior approval of the Pope.

[Irish Hermit]

Kaste, you give a quote from Chrysostom and you ask: who can answer this?

The answer is that the Pope himself can answer it. 

Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed that he shared the power
equally - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

Pope Gregory the Great  teaches that the three Patriarchates which
existed in his time -Rome, Alexandria and Antioch-  founded by Peter,
were equal in power and authority.   This Triptarchy existed prior
to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it seems to be connected with a
belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.


Note well what the Pope says here in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

-oOo-

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about
the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he
himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand.
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi.
17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to
rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to
which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself
established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for
seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See,
over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever
good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

 (Book VII, Epistle XL)

[ialmisry]

Ok folks, here it is:  the clearest quote from a Father that implies Rome has all the power of the other bishops, in itself:

"[“Men and brethren,” etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He [Peter] did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively."

St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.
Please no replies stating Peter's unique authority stopped after his death.  As if Christ thought only the first generation apostles would need a visible head with unique authority. 

You mean Christ?

There are too many quotes by Fathers that link the Bishop of Rome and his authority (whatever exactly that might be) with Peter.  (Met. Kallistos (Ware)'s "The Orthodox Church" and Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" at least makes this much evident).

K

Then I guess your first question should be why St. John spurned the authority of that all-powerful pontiff and accepted ordination from someone (St. Meletius) that the Pope of Rome said was a schismatic and heretic, and supported a rival patriarch of Antioch.

You (or your quote factory) ought to read these things better:
St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:

Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him, and no longer dispute with each other. For that Church was as it were in heaven: having nothing to do with this world’s affairs: and resplendent not with wails, no, nor with numbers, but with the zeal of them that formed the assembly.

Homily 18 on Acts

Why had not these received the Holy Ghost, when baptized? Either because Philip kept this honor for the Apostles; or, because he had not this gift (to impart); or, he was one of the Seven: which is rather to be said. Whence, I take it, this Philip was one of the Apostles...But observe; those went not forth: it was Providentially ordered that these should go forth and those be lacking, because of the Holy Ghost: for they had received power to work miracles, but not also to impart the Spirit to others: this was the prerogative of the Apostles. And observe (how they sent) the chief ones: not any others, but Peter [and John]

"They sent."  Verily, verily, I say unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord; neither he that is sent greater than he that sent him. John 13:16.
Homily 23

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, “In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” (Deut. xvii. 6; Matt. xviii. 16.) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old.  For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.  (b) “Men and brethren,” he says, “hearken unto me.” Great is the moderation of the man. His also is a more complete oration, as indeed it puts the completion to the matter under discussion. (a) “Symeon,” he says, “declared:” (namely,) in Luke, in that he prophesied, “Which Thou hast prepared before the face of all nations, a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Thy people Israel....Then, what makes his word authoritative—“Saith the Lord, which doeth all these things:” and, for that this is no new thing, but all was planned from the beginning, “Known unto God are all His works from everlasting." And then again his authority (καὶ τὸ ἀξίωμα πάλιν) (as Bishop): “Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from among the Gentiles are turned to God: but that we write unto them, that they abstain from pollution of idols, and from fornication, and from things strangled, and from blood. For Moses of old time hath in every city them that preach him, being read in the synagogues every sabbath day.”....Then the decree is made in common. “Then pleased it the Apostles and elders, together with the whole Church, to choose men of their own company”—do you observe they do not merely enact these matters, and nothing more?—“and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas: namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: and they wrote letters by them after this manner.” (v. 22.) And observe, the more to authenticate the decree, they send men of their own, that there may be no room for regarding Paul and his company with suspicion. “The Apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia.” ...(Recapitulation.) “Then all the multitude kept silence,” etc. (v. 12.) There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up.  (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. “And after that they had held their peace, James answered,” etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html

[Irish Hermit]

Ialmisry has a good point!

Saint John Chrysostom was ordained a deacon by a bishop who was out of communion with Rome and then he was ordained a priest by bishops out of communion with Rome.

When you count up the years of his ministry he actually spent more years out of communion with Rome than in communion.     It did not bother him.

[DavidH]

Double slam dunk by Irish Hermit and ialmistry! It is always good when confronted with a patristic quote which seems to contradict Orthodoxy to see what else the same Father said on the same subject in his other writings (much as we do with the Bible). Whenever a RC brings a patristic quote claiming Petrine primacy to me, I like to crosscheck that Father's other statements in Abbe Guettee's "The Papacy". Context will keep you from getting conned.

[Kaste]

Irish Hermit,

It seems the Pope in your quote is responding in kind to a letter from the Patriarch of Alexandria which seemed to point out the Bishop of Rome's unique authority.  Do we have the letter of the Patriarch of Alexandria to confirm or deny this? 

The Pope also agrees with the Patriarch that Peter's successor in the bishop of Rome has that unique authority, but then he kindly reminds him that Peter also tapped successors in Antioch and sat himself on the seat of Alexandria at one point.

His mention that all 3 bishops preside over the one See, cannot mean all are equal, just that they preside.  Since in the previous paragraph Pope Gregory clearly tells the Patriarch that:

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one."

I'll admit it's confusing language, and that in some way the sees are really one, but not literally.  Figuratively in a nice way, or one in the sense they are one from Peter. 

Further I don't think it's convincing argument to point to a defector to make one's case.  Such with Polycarp, Polycrates, Cyprian, Chrysostom (as Ialmisry pointed out, though perhaps not in direct violation of a direct papal order?), Photius...these all disobeyed Rome one way or another.  I'm not saying they were wrong to do so, but it seems similar to pointing to Robert E Lee to make one's case for States Rights. 

If the Bishop of Rome did have that power, and these gentlement all at first agreed it did, until Rome decided against their case, it seems weak to use them as examples. 

I'd really like us to try to figure what Chrysostom was saying when he says, "and yet he [Peter] had the same power to ordain as they did collectively."

That means the Bishop of Rome has the power to decide who should be ordained, and hence translates into juridictional authority does it not?

K

[John of the North]

What exactly is the point of this thread? 

Kaste needs to ask every question possible.

[witega]

I'd really like us to try to figure what Chrysostom was saying when he says, "and yet he [Peter] had the same power to ordain as they did collectively."

That means the Bishop of Rome has the power to decide who should be ordained, and hence translates into juridictional authority does it not?

You are continuing to make an assumption that you have failed to support in your identification of Peter with the Pope of Rome. Yes, some Fathers (particularly in the West and particularly when they occupied the seat themselves) seem to have seen a unique connection between Peter and the Roman See, although many of the supposed proof-texts are hard to distinguish from the high-flown Byzantine rhetorical tradition which also produced such results as the Patriarch of Alexandria being 'the Judge of the World' or Pope Celestine being called "a new Paul" at the Council of Ephesus. But for every such Father/proof-text, one can find another Patristic quote identifying the Petrine office in its successors at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch or that sees the Petrine office as spread among all the successors to the Apostles.

In order to establish that St. John's quote has any relevance to the Roman See, you would first need to demonstrate that St. John was among those that though Peter=Rome. If he was one of the (far more common) Eastern Fathers who thought Peter=the episcopacy, then his statement that St. Peter possessed the same authority as they [the apostles acting together] did collectively is only about St. Peter's own humility and example in how to handle power, rather than having anything to do with Roman claims at all.

[ialmisry]

Irish Hermit,

It seems the Pope in your quote is responding in kind to a letter from the Patriarch of Alexandria which seemed to point out the Bishop of Rome's unique authority.  Do we have the letter of the Patriarch of Alexandria to confirm or deny this? 

The Pope also agrees with the Patriarch that Peter's successor in the bishop of Rome has that unique authority, but then he kindly reminds him that Peter also tapped successors in Antioch and sat himself on the seat of Alexandria at one point.

His mention that all 3 bishops preside over the one See, cannot mean all are equal, just that they preside.  Since in the previous paragraph Pope Gregory clearly tells the Patriarch that:

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the
principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has
grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one."

I'll admit it's confusing language, and that in some way the sees are really one, but not literally.  Figuratively in a nice way, or one in the sense they are one from Peter. 

Further I don't think it's convincing argument to point to a defector to make one's case.  Such with Polycarp, Polycrates, Cyprian, Chrysostom (as Ialmisry pointed out, though perhaps not in direct violation of a direct papal order?), Photius...these all disobeyed Rome one way or another.  I'm not saying they were wrong to do so, but it seems similar to pointing to Robert E Lee to make one's case for States Rights. 

If the Bishop of Rome did have that power, and these gentlement all at first agreed it did, until Rome decided against their case, it seems weak to use them as examples. 

I'd really like us to try to figure what Chrysostom was saying when he says, "and yet he [Peter] had the same power to ordain as they did collectively."

That means the Bishop of Rome has the power to decide who should be ordained, and hence translates into juridictional authority does it not?

Evidently St. John didn't think so, as he was ordained by those the Bishop of Rome disapproved of.  Once Rome and New Rome were reconciled, St. John still praised Patriarch St. Meletios (who opened the second Ecumenical Council, filled by those not in communon with Rome who wrote the Creed).  Eventually Rome saw the light, adopted the Creed, and now all four patriarchs the Vatican has for Antioch all claim their line through St. Meletios, who is also on the Vatican's calendar of saints.  And yes, it was in direct violation of a "papal" order, which excommunicated St. Meletius.  The contrast with St. Jerome couldn't make that clearer.

Odd that you insist that Pope Gregory was being kind, but insist that Pope Eulogius (btw, you are aware the the title was originally, and still, conferred on  Alexandria, Rome only taking it centuries later) really meant what you think he said.  If it was as you portray it, then Alexandria should have been behind Antioch, as St. Peter first sat in Antioch and never sat in Alexandria, only his disciple St. Mark the Evangelist.

How about the case of St. Irenaeus, who talked Pope Victor into reason when "ALL THE CHURCH REBUKED" Victor.

I note how, in addition to not dealing with St. John's ordinations, you haven't addressed how St. John also singles out St. James in the same sermon you quote, and what he further says on St. James realtionship with St. Peter in the same series of homilies.

btw, if you had looked at ccel instead of Catholic Answers, you would see that this is dealt with:

Καίτοιγε ἰσότυπον ἅπασιν εἶχε τὴν κατάστασιν, which Erasm. justly renders, Quanquam habebat jus constituendi por omnibus: i.e. the ordination by St. Peter singly, would have been as valid as the ordination by the whole body. D. F. have καίτοι οὐδὲ, i.e. and yet he possessed a power of ordaining, in which they were not all upon a par with him: which reading is accepted by Morel. Sav. and Ben., and is rendered by the last, Quanquam non pari forma apud omnes ejus vigebat auctoritas. This reading originated in a mistake as to the meaning of the other, as if that asserted only that St. Peter had the same power of ordaining as any of the rest.

[ialmisry]

I'd really like us to try to figure what Chrysostom was saying when he says, "and yet he [Peter] had the same power to ordain as they did collectively."

That means the Bishop of Rome has the power to decide who should be ordained, and hence translates into juridictional authority does it not?

You are continuing to make an assumption that you have failed to support in your identification of Peter with the Pope of Rome. Yes, some Fathers (particularly in the West and particularly when they occupied the seat themselves) seem to have seen a unique connection between Peter and the Roman See, although many of the supposed proof-texts are hard to distinguish from the high-flown Byzantine rhetorical tradition which also produced such results as the Patriarch of Alexandria being 'the Judge of the World' or Pope Celestine being called "a new Paul" at the Council of Ephesus. But for every such Father/proof-text, one can find another Patristic quote identifying the Petrine office in its successors at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch or that sees the Petrine office as spread among all the successors to the Apostles.

In order to establish that St. John's quote has any relevance to the Roman See, you would first need to demonstrate that St. John was among those that though Peter=Rome. If he was one of the (far more common) Eastern Fathers who thought Peter=the episcopacy, then his statement that St. Peter possessed the same authority as they [the apostles acting together] did collectively is only about St. Peter's own humility and example in how to handle power, rather than having anything to do with Roman claims at all.

The part Kaste leaves out, immediately after her quote:

But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in this fashion now; nay, quite the contrary.—For observe, they were an hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body: with good right, as having been put in charge of them: for to him had Christ said, “And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren.” (Luke xxii. 32, Ben.)

[BoredMeeting]

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.

So you are saying that Peter voluntarily restrained his authority but his successors demanded they be given what Peter rejected?

[BoredMeeting]

I'd really like us to try to figure what Chrysostom was saying when he says, "and yet he [Peter] had the same power to ordain as they did collectively."

That means the Bishop of Rome has the power to decide who should be ordained, and hence translates into juridictional authority does it not?

Not for Peter, no.

The authority of the Bishop of Rome is the same as any other Patriarch.

[Kaste]

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.

So you are saying that Peter voluntarily restrained his authority but his successors demanded they be given what Peter rejected?

Exactly BoredMeeting, that is precisely what I am saying. 

I submit to everyone here my original question has not yet been sufficiently answered.  Chrysostom says Peter had by himself all the power of the apostles to ordain another apostle.  Does this not imply Papal jurisdictional power if it can be established that the Bishop of Rome is indeed uniquely and solely the true successor of Peter?  (For a side thought, why would such an arrangment with Peter having the headship and authority of all the other apostles by himself, end with his death?)

K

[ialmisry]

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.

So you are saying that Peter voluntarily restrained his authority but his successors demanded they be given what Peter rejected?

Exactly BoredMeeting, that is precisely what I am saying. 

I submit to everyone here my original question has not yet been sufficiently answered. 

I'm sorry, but until you address, rather than ignoring,  the issue of St. John Chrysostom himself seeking his ordination from someone that Rome condemned as outside the Church, I do not think you are in a position to judge any answer to the question.

Chrysostom says Peter had by himself all the power of the apostles to ordain another apostle. 

And St. Paul stated he was an Apostle "not from men nor through men." Gal. 1:1. And again, unless you are a Mormon, you don't "ordain another apostle."

Does this not imply Papal jurisdictional power if it can be established that the Bishop of Rome is indeed uniquely and solely the true successor of Peter? 

Evidently not, because St. John ignored such "papal jurisdictional power" himself.

(For a side thought, why would such an arrangment with Peter having the headship and authority of all the other apostles by himself, end with his death?)

Uh, because he didn't have in his lifetime, there was no need for it after his death.  Gal. 2:11. Acts 15:19.

[Fr. George]

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.

So you are saying that Peter voluntarily restrained his authority but his successors demanded they be given what Peter rejected?

Exactly BoredMeeting, that is precisely what I am saying. 

I submit to everyone here my original question has not yet been sufficiently answered.  Chrysostom says Peter had by himself all the power of the apostles to ordain another apostle.  Does this not imply Papal jurisdictional power if it can be established that the Bishop of Rome is indeed uniquely and solely the true successor of Peter?  (For a side thought, why would such an arrangment with Peter having the headship and authority of all the other apostles by himself, end with his death?)

I submit that you're missing the idea of dialogue.

You made a point. (St. John Chrysostom said X which means Y)

Someone made a counter-point. (St. John didn't mean Y when he said X, because he didn't follow Y while he lived)

You're supposed to counter that counter-point (St. John said Z which indicates he meant Y, or something like that) or concede to it (Oh, ok, St. John didn't mean Y when he said X), not say "no one has countered my point" without having addressed it.

[Kaste]

Ialmisry and Fr. George:

1) Maybe you're making too much of that controversy:

"...there is no evidence that St. Chrysostom himself was ever out of communion with Rome. The bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch for the most part recognized St. Meletius and his successor St. Flavian as rightful patriarchs, while Rome and Alexandria (that is, St. Athanasius and his successors) thought that their rival Paulinus had the better title. But the rest of the East sides with Meletius, though remaining in full communion with Alexandria, Rome and the West. It is certain that neither St. Meletius nor St. Flavian was ever formally excommunicated by the Apostolic See. It is still more certain that their adherents -- whether the bishops within the patriarchate, or the priests (including St. Chrysostom) and people within the city -- were never excommunicated."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

2) But then again if there was more to it than that, maybe St. Chrysostom should have obeyed Rome.  Simple as that.

In either case though, I don't see how your argument sufficiently answers Chrysostom's quote that Peter had all of the power to ordain himself as the Apostles did collectively. 

K

[John of the North]

[ignatius]

Grace and Peace be with you all this Advent Season as we all await the Coming of the Lord! Amen.

It is always a little painful for me to witness debates such as these. Only if the matter were so simple... unity would be within our grasp but alas this affair is 'anything' but simple and it stretches deep into our collective past as one Church, one Faith, one Baptism.

When I see such hubris on either side of this divide I pray for silence. For only in the quiet silence of one's heart will we find that this is not a debate that will be won by scraps of historical precedence but through hearts open to God's Graces serving one another in charity. And so I sit in silence and wait for that day when we once again are joined in brotherhood. I see no reason to debate anymore nor be troubled by our divisions. When I come before our Lord to give account of my life... I will ask for mercy... for could not see the truth of these matters. I could not see... for I am blind. I am blind by a 1000 years of schism, pride, hatred and all manner of human effort to win the matter that the truth is no longer clear. Those whom might have a claim have lost it through their devious labors and those whom grasp in the filth of history look like angry beggars fighting over scraps.

For me our faith is dead when the only measure of truth is found through such means. Truly we are poorer for the effort.

[Fr. George]

In either case though, I don't see how your argument sufficiently answers Chrysostom's quote that Peter had all of the power to ordain himself as the Apostles did collectively.  

No one is looking to denigrate the quote or St. John. But your assumption that flows from the quote needs to be proved before assumed.

Here's your logic, as I (and I think others) see it.

St. John has stated X about the authority of St. Peter.  You have stated Y: that the Pope has X that was ascribed to St. Peter by St. John Chrysostom.  Forget the fact that you're assumption about the nature of X is faulty (at least to my estimation); you still haven't demonstrated why Y is (a) logical, (b) necessary, and (c) supported.  Isa's point (which you may or may not have understood) is that St. John's own actions & communion history indicate that he didn't care about Y.  Even if you dispute how much St. John's personal history indicates this, you still haven't demonstrated Y, so we can't even get to X.  Why should I tell you about what your sandwich tastes like if you've slathered spoiled ketchup on it?

I'm not looking to contradict/downplay/etc. X.  I'm challenging Y, your assumption that is tied to X (and which you see as naturally flowing from X - something that also must be proven, not assumed).  Once we get past Y, then we can discuss if/how you are misinterpreting X.

[ialmisry]

Ialmisry and Fr. George:

1) Maybe you're making too much of that controversy:

"...there is no evidence that St. Chrysostom himself was ever out of communion with Rome. The bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch for the most part recognized St. Meletius and his successor St. Flavian as rightful patriarchs, while Rome and Alexandria (that is, St. Athanasius and his successors) thought that their rival Paulinus had the better title. But the rest of the East sides with Meletius, though remaining in full communion with Alexandria, Rome and the West. It is certain that neither St. Meletius nor St. Flavian was ever formally excommunicated by the Apostolic See. It is still more certain that their adherents -- whether the bishops within the patriarchate, or the priests (including St. Chrysostom) and people within the city -- were never excommunicated."
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

I came across this site via Bonacore.  Ah Bonacore.  Talk about a blast from the past.  I will remember him as the one behind the silly time line I once went through the trouble to refute (not very hard).
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20118.0.html

I think it also has (acutally reprints) a silly article on canon 6 of Nicea I, with the usual patronizing and cavalier attitude to the facts.

Again, St. Jerome whinning in his letter shows that I am not making any more of the controversy than those at the time did:

Then he should have the authority to say who was the rightful Patriarch of Antioch.  St. John directly disobeyed Rome's choice (as did the Second Ecumenical Council).  Contrast St. Jerome's whinny letter:

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

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3001015.htm

Comparing St. Meletius to Antichrist. Hmmmm.

St. Flavian was appointed by the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council in DIRECT confrontation with Rome.  Catholic Answers is more honest about that:

Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

St. John was never out of communion with the Patriarchate of Constantinople.

2) But then again if there was more to it than that, maybe St. Chrysostom should have obeyed Rome.  Simple as that.

So we should simply ignore the disobedient.  Including what he "says" about St. Peter's jurisdiction/authority.

In either case though, I don't see

...I'm sure you don't, being in the invisible church and all...

how your argument sufficiently answers Chrysostom's quote that Peter had all of the power to ordain himself as the Apostles did collectively. 

practice what you preach, if indeed he preached that.

[witega]

I submit to everyone here my original question has not yet been sufficiently answered. Chrysostom says Peter had by himself all the power of the apostles to ordain another apostle.  Does this not imply Papal jurisdictional power if it can be established that the Bishop of Rome is indeed uniquely and solely the true successor of Peter? 

And I submit that you have yet to ask a reasonable question. What you kept repeating is "St. John said that hemp is a useful resource for cloth fiber. So shouldn't we all smoke pot?". Hemp fiber and pot in a pipe are obviously related, just as the Roman episcopacy and St. Peter are obviously related. But they are not the same the thing and so long as you insist they are you make it impossible to hold a coherent conversation.

(For a side thought, why would such an arrangment with Peter having the headship and authority of all the other apostles by himself, end with his death?)

................ because he was dead?

The obverse of St. John's quote that Peter "had the same power to ordain as they all collectively" is that "they all collectively had the same power to ordain as Peter." The individual passes away but the 'they all' continued and continue, holding the same power to ordain.

[ialmisry]

I submit to everyone here my original question has not yet been sufficiently answered. Chrysostom says Peter had by himself all the power of the apostles to ordain another apostle.  Does this not imply Papal jurisdictional power if it can be established that the Bishop of Rome is indeed uniquely and solely the true successor of Peter? 

And I submit that you have yet to ask a reasonable question. What you kept repeating is "St. John said that hemp is a useful resource for cloth fiber. So shouldn't we all smoke pot?". Hemp fiber and pot in a pipe are obviously related, just as the Roman episcopacy and St. Peter are obviously related. But they are not the same the thing and so long as you insist they are you make it impossible to hold a coherent conversation.

LOL. I was going to go get some  coffee before I read this. Thank God I didn't.

(For a side thought, why would such an arrangment with Peter having the headship and authority of all the other apostles by himself, end with his death?)

................ because he was dead?

The obverse of St. John's quote that Peter "had the same power to ordain as they all collectively" is that "they all collectively had the same power to ordain as Peter." The individual passes away but the 'they all' continued and continue, holding the same power to ordain.

Hence the ontological whole of the episcopacy.

[BoredMeeting]

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.

So you are saying that Peter voluntarily restrained his authority but his successors demanded they be given what Peter rejected?

Exactly BoredMeeting, that is precisely what I am saying.

So the Roman Church is going against Peter, according to you.

Interesting, very interesting.

[BoredMeeting]

Does this not imply Papal jurisdictional power if it can be established that the Bishop of Rome is indeed uniquely and solely the true successor of Peter?

No, not at all.

For one thing, history establishes the opposite, making the implication nonsensical.

[Papist]

Grace and Peace be with you all this Advent Season as we all await the Coming of the Lord! Amen.

It is always a little painful for me to witness debates such as these. Only if the matter were so simple... unity would be within our grasp but alas this affair is 'anything' but simple and it stretches deep into our collective past as one Church, one Faith, one Baptism.

When I see such hubris on either side of this divide I pray for silence. For only in the quiet silence of one's heart will we find that this is not a debate that will be won by scraps of historical precedence but through hearts open to God's Graces serving one another in charity. And so I sit in silence and wait for that day when we once again are joined in brotherhood. I see no reason to debate anymore nor be troubled by our divisions. When I come before our Lord to give account of my life... I will ask for mercy... for could not see the truth of these matters. I could not see... for I am blind. I am blind by a 1000 years of schism, pride, hatred and all manner of human effort to win the matter that the truth is no longer clear. Those whom might have a claim have lost it through their devious labors and those whom grasp in the filth of history look like angry beggars fighting over scraps.

For me our faith is dead when the only measure of truth is found through such means. Truly we are poorer for the effort.

Wisdom

[John Larocque]

I'm not interested in the back and forth on this thread, but I really don't like the title "has all the power." I like this quote from
Pope Benedict:

This ministry should not be interpreted in the perspective of power, but within an ecclesiology of communion, as a service to unity in truth and charity. The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity (Saint Ignatius of Antioch), is understood to be the Servus Servorum Dei (Saint Gregory the Great)... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognized by one and all.

[Ortho_cat]

Grace and Peace be with you all this Advent Season as we all await the Coming of the Lord! Amen.

It is always a little painful for me to witness debates such as these. Only if the matter were so simple... unity would be within our grasp but alas this affair is 'anything' but simple and it stretches deep into our collective past as one Church, one Faith, one Baptism.

When I see such hubris on either side of this divide I pray for silence. For only in the quiet silence of one's heart will we find that this is not a debate that will be won by scraps of historical precedence but through hearts open to God's Graces serving one another in charity. And so I sit in silence and wait for that day when we once again are joined in brotherhood. I see no reason to debate anymore nor be troubled by our divisions. When I come before our Lord to give account of my life... I will ask for mercy... for could not see the truth of these matters. I could not see... for I am blind. I am blind by a 1000 years of schism, pride, hatred and all manner of human effort to win the matter that the truth is no longer clear. Those whom might have a claim have lost it through their devious labors and those whom grasp in the filth of history look like angry beggars fighting over scraps.

For me our faith is dead when the only measure of truth is found through such means. Truly we are poorer for the effort.

Wisdom

Let us attend!

[Irish Hermit]

I really don't like the title "has all the power."

The supremacy of the Pope's power is emphasised again and again in canon law.

 For example: 

Canon 333.1 By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only has power over the universal Church, but also has pre-eminent ordinary power over all particular Churches and their groupings

The Bishop of the Church of Rome, which presides in charity (Saint Ignatius of Antioch), is understood to be the Servus Servorum Dei (Saint Gregory the Great)... It is a question of seeking together, inspired by the model of the first millennium, the forms in which the ministry of the Bishop of Rome may accomplish a service of love recognized by one and all.

The role of servus servorum must be balanced against the Pope's utter monarchy, greater than any emperor's or king's.

Canon 331.3 There is neither appeal nor recourse against a judgement or a decree of the Roman Pontiff.

[John Larocque]

Well, I'm not keen on the cited Canon Laws either...

[ialmisry]

Well, I'm not keen on the cited Canon Laws either...

http://images9.cafepress.com/product/22735679v1_240x240_Front.jpg

[Irish Hermit]

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power,...

The liturgical texts and the Church Fathers use the same language about all of the Apostles, and not just Saint Peter.

Here are some quotes from St. John Chrysostom which we could present to show that Saint John is the prince of all the Apostles.

We could deduce the following about Saint John:

1. the pillar of all the Churches

2. the holder of the Keys

3. the earthly mouthpiece of the Almighty

4. infallible !!

5. the Rock

6. supreme pastor, not subject to anyone


“For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master's bosom with much confidence, this man comes forward to us now…. By this Apostle stand the powers from above, marveling at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and the bloom of that virtue by which he drew unto him Christ Himself, and obtained the grace of the Spirit. For he hath made ready his soul, as some well-fashioned and jeweled lyre with strings of gold, and yielded it for the utterance of something great and sublime to the Spirit”

~St. John Chrysostom, First Homily on the Gospel of St. John

“Were John about to converse with us, and to say to us words of his own, we needs must describe his family, his country, and his education. But since it is not he, but God by him, that speaks to mankind, it seems to me superfluous and distracting to enquire into these matters. And yet even thus it is not superfluous, but even very necessary. For when you have learned who he was, and from whence, who his parents, and what his character, and then hear his voice and all his heavenly wisdom, then you shall know right well that these (doctrines) belong not to him, but to the Divine power stirring his soul…. Not so this fisherman; for all he saith is infallible; and standing as it were upon a rock, he never shifts his ground. For since he has been thought worthy to be in the most secret places, and has the Lord of all speaking within him, he is subject to nothing that is human”

~St. John Chrysostom, Second Homily on the Gospel of St. John

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

Dear Kaste,
I think you are putting too much interpretation both on John Chrysostom's words and on the powers of the Roman Pontiff.
The fact that the Pope by canon law is the ultimate authority in validating episcopal consecrations is specifically due to the fact that, historically and until recent times, the Pope has been Patriarch of the West. In such sense, since the Catholic Church has coincided entirely with the Western Patriarchate up to the times of Uniatism, the Pope as patriarch over his entire communion had the legitimate power to confirm the episcopal consecrations. When uniatism intervened, the Catholic Church had the Pope administer ad interim the powers of the other Patriarchates. If we see the decisions of the Council of Florence, and also that of the Second Vatican Council (specifically, the constitution Orientalium Ecclesiarum) the Eastern sui iuris churches work as if they were autocephalous in the Orthodox sense.
If your claims that according to Chrysostom and the Catholic Church the Pope is the only one who can confirm an ordination would be true, why does the Catholic Church affirm the continuation of a valid apostolic succession in the Orthodox Church? All Orthodox bishops are ordered outside of the communion with Rome, yet they are true bishops performing valid sacraments. As usual, you can't distinguish between valid (=sacramentally effective) and licit (i.e. recognized by the Pope). For example, the Eucharist performed by the Orthodox is effectively transforming the gifts in Christ's body, but a Catholic can't partake in it as if he were in a Catholic parish. That's easy, don't you think?

In Christ

[Jakub]

A rather amusing and old and dull thread topic...

[Irish Hermit]

A rather amusing and old and dull thread topic...

Dear Jakub,

I noticed that on this Forum people preferr to go back and use old threads on a topic instead of commencing new ones.

For example, there is the thread on "Masonry is Okay with the Orthodox?" whch was started back in July 2006, and there are lots of threads like that, ones that have been running for literally years and years.

[Mardukm]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Ialmisry has a good point!

Saint John Chrysostom was ordained a deacon by a bishop who was out of communion with Rome and then he was ordained a priest by bishops out of communion with Rome.

When you count up the years of his ministry he actually spent more years out of communion with Rome than in communion.     It did not bother him.

Brother Isa is misinformed.

Though the Paulinists were separated from the Meletians since 362 (?), Rome herself did not accept Paulinus until 373 through the efforts of St. Evagrius, who won over St. Jerome, who then won over Pope St. Damasus. Rome and the Meletian Party could not have been separated before that time because in 371, Meletius was still sending legates to Rome to negotiate on the issue of Paulinus. By 377, the Meletian party - through their priests Dorotheus and Sanctissimus - was sending questions of doctrine to Rome for clarification. Rome's positive response to the questions was advertised by St. Basil immediately as a sign that the Meletian party and Rome were reconciled. Rome attempted to mitigate a just solution between the parties at the 382 Council of Constantinople, wherein the fathers of the 381 Council submitted their acts to Rome for approval. So Rome was actually only separated from the Meletian Party at most 4 years, perhaps even less, assuming that communion was already known to exist for the Meletians to send doctrinal questions to Rome. It is simply not true that St. Meletius was separated from Rome when he presided over the 381 Council of Constantinople.

Humbly,
Marduk

[Mardukm]

And, btw, the doctrinal questions for which the Meletians asked clarification from Pope St. Damasus became a partial basis for the doctrinal matters that were decided at the 381 Council of Constantinople.  I often read from EO that Rome had nothing to do with the 381 Council, which is totally false.

[Anastasios]

A rather amusing and old and dull thread topic...

Dear Jakub,

I noticed that on this Forum people preferr to go back and use old threads on a topic instead of commencing new ones.

For example, there is the thread on "Masonry is Okay with the Orthodox?" whch was started back in July 2006, and there are lots of threads like that, ones that have been running for literally years and years.

Yes, we encourage people to reopen old threads if possible rather than opening a new thread and asking the same question, requiring posters to rehash things and spend lots of time doing it. The only time it gets awkward is when someone starts talking to a poster who is no longer active.

[ialmisry]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Ialmisry has a good point!

Saint John Chrysostom was ordained a deacon by a bishop who was out of communion with Rome and then he was ordained a priest by bishops out of communion with Rome.

When you count up the years of his ministry he actually spent more years out of communion with Rome than in communion.     It did not bother him.

Brother Isa is misinformed.

Though the Paulinists were separated from the Meletians since 362 (?), Rome herself did not accept Paulinus until 373 through the efforts of St. Evagrius, who won over St. Jerome, who then won over Pope St. Damasus. Rome and the Meletian Party could not have been separated before that time because in 371, Meletius was still sending legates to Rome to negotiate on the issue of Paulinus. By 377, the Meletian party - through their priests Dorotheus and Sanctissimus - was sending questions of doctrine to Rome for clarification. Rome's positive response to the questions was advertised by St. Basil immediately as a sign that the Meletian party and Rome were reconciled. Rome attempted to mitigate a just solution between the parties at the 382 Council of Constantinople, wherein the fathers of the 381 Council submitted their acts to Rome for approval. So Rome was actually only separated from the Meletian Party at most 4 years, perhaps even less, assuming that communion was already known to exist for the Meletians to send doctrinal questions to Rome. It is simply not true that St. Meletius was separated from Rome when he presided over the 381 Council of Constantinople.

Humbly,
Marduk

I was going to repost the documentation on the situation, but to make it simple, I'll save myself the trouble to repost this:

Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch [of Constantinople] in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

381 falls between 343 and 398, and the Council of Constantinople I was held in Constantinople

I do believe that I have now posted the sources (i.e. documents, not just my interpretation) on this matter here, at Catholic Answers, and Byzantine Catholic. I do not recall anything but your own read on things.

[ialmisry]

And, btw, the doctrinal questions for which the Meletians asked clarification from Pope St. Damasus became a partial basis for the doctrinal matters that were decided at the 381 Council of Constantinople.  I often read from EO that Rome had nothing to do with the 381 Council, which is totally false.

Your Popes et alia claim that Rome had no knowledge of Canon 3, that no one was there, that it was wasn't approved as Ecumenical until 450 etc. blah, blah blah all depending on what square peg they want to shove in what round hole at the time.  Rome wasn't represted at Constantinople I, had no hand in composing the Creed, and its decisions partly (e.g. the appointment of Flavian to succeed St. Meletios) in defiance of Rome.

Defiance, mind you. Not disobedience.

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Your quotations from that source have no meaning to me.  I scoured diligently through St. Basil's letters on my journey to the Catholic Church, and my comments are based on that patristic source, not some second-or third-hand account.  I have personally sent correspondences to the Catholic Answers website on their misrepresentation of history - TWICE - and they have not responded to me (I did this early last year).  I suggest you spend more time reading the sources, brother.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Ialmisry has a good point!

Saint John Chrysostom was ordained a deacon by a bishop who was out of communion with Rome and then he was ordained a priest by bishops out of communion with Rome.

When you count up the years of his ministry he actually spent more years out of communion with Rome than in communion.     It did not bother him.

Brother Isa is misinformed.

Though the Paulinists were separated from the Meletians since 362 (?), Rome herself did not accept Paulinus until 373 through the efforts of St. Evagrius, who won over St. Jerome, who then won over Pope St. Damasus. Rome and the Meletian Party could not have been separated before that time because in 371, Meletius was still sending legates to Rome to negotiate on the issue of Paulinus. By 377, the Meletian party - through their priests Dorotheus and Sanctissimus - was sending questions of doctrine to Rome for clarification. Rome's positive response to the questions was advertised by St. Basil immediately as a sign that the Meletian party and Rome were reconciled. Rome attempted to mitigate a just solution between the parties at the 382 Council of Constantinople, wherein the fathers of the 381 Council submitted their acts to Rome for approval. So Rome was actually only separated from the Meletian Party at most 4 years, perhaps even less, assuming that communion was already known to exist for the Meletians to send doctrinal questions to Rome. It is simply not true that St. Meletius was separated from Rome when he presided over the 381 Council of Constantinople.

Humbly,
Marduk

I was going to repost the documentation on the situation, but to make it simple, I'll save myself the trouble to repost this:

Pope Julian excommunicated the patriarch [of Constantinople] in 343, and Constantinople remained in schism until John Chrysostom assumed the patriarchate in 398.

NIHIL OBSTAT: I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004

IMPRIMATUR: In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004

http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp

381 falls between 343 and 398, and the Council of Constantinople I was held in Constantinople

I do believe that I have now posted the sources (i.e. documents, not just my interpretation) on this matter here, at Catholic Answers, and Byzantine Catholic. I do not recall anything but your own read on things.

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

You haven't even touched my comments.  I did not claim that Rome was represented at Constantinople I.  But it is false to claim that Rome had nothing to do with the doctrinal decisions of that Council. Again, I ask you to read St. Basil's letters.  The original sources will give you something your second- or third- hand documents may not have.

Blessings,
Marduk

And, btw, the doctrinal questions for which the Meletians asked clarification from Pope St. Damasus became a partial basis for the doctrinal matters that were decided at the 381 Council of Constantinople.  I often read from EO that Rome had nothing to do with the 381 Council, which is totally false.

Your Popes et alia claim that Rome had no knowledge of Canon 3, that no one was there, that it was wasn't approved as Ecumenical until 450 etc. blah, blah blah all depending on what square peg they want to shove in what round hole at the time.  Rome wasn't represted at Constantinople I, had no hand in composing the Creed, and its decisions partly (e.g. the appointment of Flavian to succeed St. Meletios) in defiance of Rome.

Defiance, mind you. Not disobedience.

[deusveritasest]

Ok folks, here it is:  the clearest quote from a Father that implies Rome has all the power of the other bishops, in itself:

"[“Men and brethren,” etc.] Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He [Peter] did not say, 'We are sufficient.' So far was he beyond all vain-glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively."

St. Chrysostom.  Homily 3 on Acts:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/210103.htm

Chrysostom here describes how although Peter had all the power, he was polite and wise enough to work through a council.
Please no replies stating Peter's unique authority stopped after his death.  As if Christ thought only the first generation apostles would need a visible head with unique authority.  There are too many quotes by Fathers that link the Bishop of Rome and his authority (whatever exactly that might be) with Peter.  (Met. Kallistos (Ware)'s "The Orthodox Church" and Stephen Ray's "Upon this Rock" at least makes this much evident).

K

Are you a troll?