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

[Mardukm]

Dear brother deusveritasest,

I think Kaste is genuinely searching.  He also appears at the Catholic Answers website asking Catholics pointed questions ----- or maybe he is just a Protestant who is trolling.  I always like to give people the benefit of the doubt, though.

Blessings

[ialmisry]

Dear brother Isa,

You haven't even touched my comments.

I have. Several times.  I don't have time right now to repeat myself.

 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.  

I have.  Have you?

The original sources will give you something your second- or third- hand documents may not have.

That is why I have posted them here and elsewhere, as I stated, but you instead have told us third had your thoughts on the matter.  And unlike "Catholic Answers," your posts don't come with a Nihil obstat nor an Imprematur.

So post what St. Basil says, not what you claim he says, so all can see and judge your opinions for themselves.

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.

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.

LOL. I have. That's how I ended up in Orthodoxy.  You left it for the Vatican.

Perhaps CAF is more impressed by the episcopal titles.  But then again, on CAF you often leave your coreligionists scratching their heads about what in the world you are saying.

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]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

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.

I agree with my Catholic brother John Larocque.  I don't particularly like the word "power" and "jurisdiction." I think it is a carry-over from medieval times when caeseropapism gripped the Church (Catholic and Orthodox).  I don't like the word used with any bishop, be it Pope, Patriarch, archbishop, metropolitan or bishop.  I think this notion of "power" and "jurisdiction" needs to be changed in all the apostolic Churches.  It is certainly not apostolic, and is merely ecclesiastical, so it can change, and with that change, hopefully a better understanding between the Churches.

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.

AMEN!!!

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

Nothing surprising here.  This just seems to reflect the Sardican Canons that were confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Humbly,
Marduk

[Mardukm]

Dear brother Isa,

Let me recap this discussion before we continue:
Kaste quoted a statement from St. John Chrysostom.
You challenged it by saying that St. John Chrysostom disobeyed the bishop of Rome because he accepted ordination from St. Meletius who was supposedly excommunicated or declared a heretic by Rome
I responded by stating that you erred in stating that St. Meletius was excommunicated or declared a heretic by Pope St. Damasus. (After I read through the thread, I realized Father George asked Kaste to respond to your claim before making any other statements; I hope my assertion will serve to satisfy Fr. George's request in Kaste's stead)
You responded by quoting some Catholic source that Constantinople was out of communion with Rome from such date to such date.

That's where we're at.  Permit this initial response.  Your citation of the lack of communion between Constantinople and Rome has absolutely nothing to do with the main thesis - namely, the falsehood of your statement regarding St. Meletius.  I only need show that St. Meletius was not condemned by Rome as you claim.  If I can show that, then it will be proven that St. Chrysostom did not disobey the Pope by being ordained by him.

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to find my old notes to support my statements from St. Basil.  I will do so when I return in a week or so.

When I return, I will also bring forth further testimony from St. Chrysostom that demonstrated he believed in the headship of the bishop of Rome. However, I will say right now that I don't believe that proving the Pope was the head bishop of the Church demonstrates the monarchial papacy of the late middle ages. So I hope I don't get inundated with straw men arguments that I am claiming such a thing.

Blessings,
Marduk

[Irish Hermit]

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

Nothing surprising here.  This just seems to reflect the Sardican Canons that were confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Reflect?  In what way?   Don't the canons of Sardica merely say that if a bishop is unhappy with a judgement against him he may ask the Archbishop of Rome to ask the bishops of neighbouring priovinces to rehear his case and render a verdict?

Do you have examples of this happening?

[Mardukm]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Yes, there are examples.  St. Basil and St. Meletius repaired to Rome to settle the ecclesiastical chaos in Antioch.  The Third Ecumenical Council came about after Pope St. Cyril appealed to Rome over the matter and Pope St. Celestine gave Pope St. Cyril the presidency of the Council.  The opponents of St. Photius appealed to Rome to judge on the matter of the supposed unjust deposition of Patriarch Ignatius; there are many other instances. but these are the more conspicuous ones that I can think of without going into the research for which I have not time at present.

It should be noted that there are three canons in respect to the the right of appeal to the bishop of Rome from Sardica (Canons 3 - 5). Canon 4 does not require a synod to be called but depends on the sole judgment of the Pope of Rome.  Canon 5 actually contains two level of appeals, IIRC, and both levels involve a judgment by the Pope of Rome. There were also times, of course, when the cause of the bishop was accompanied by a doctrinal matter (such as occured during the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Council).  Finally, it should be noted that the canon in question (331.3) leaves open the question of how the Pope makes his judgment or decree.  There has been no instance in the history of the Church that I know of that the Pope has made use of such a prerogative (either before or after V1) in a non-collegial, monarchial manner.  It is difficult for non-Catholics (and even some Catholics) to understand that the structure of the Curia is ultimately collegial in nature - in other words, the Pope is not making a decision on his own, but with the aid of many bishops and cardinals.  It may not be an ideal structure in non-Latin eyes, but it is collegial nonetheless.

I hope that satisfies your inquiry for now.  I do wish I had the time to do research. Perhaps you can find holes in my facts above. Without research, that is very likely.  I hope to respond more completely and vigorously to any further questions from your discerning mind, Father, when I return.

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

Nothing surprising here.  This just seems to reflect the Sardican Canons that were confirmed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Reflect?  In what way?   Don't the canons of Sardica merely say that if a bishop is unhappy with a judgement against him he may ask the Archbishop of Rome to ask the bishops of neighbouring priovinces to rehear his case and render a verdict?

Do you have examples of this happening?

This is all I have time for.  I will see you in a week or so.

Humbly,
Marduk

[ialmisry]

Dear brother Isa,

Let me recap this discussion before we continue:
Kaste quoted a statement from St. John Chrysostom.
You challenged it by saying that St. John Chrysostom disobeyed the bishop of Rome because he accepted ordination from St. Meletius who was supposedly excommunicated or declared a heretic by Rome

You are skipping the part where I (and others) St. John was quoted (including the same sermon that he? she? quoted) where he says equally nice things about St. John and St. James, points out that Peter was sent (and as the Bible says, the sender is greater than the sent) by the Apostles to Samaria, James had the greater authority at the Council of Jerusalem, etc....

I do believe it was pointed out that St. Basil equally disobeyed the bishop of Rome and accepted ordination from Meletius.

I responded by stating that you erred in stating that St. Meletius was excommunicated or declared a heretic by Pope St. Damasus. (After I read through the thread, I realized Father George asked Kaste to respond to your claim before making any other statements; I hope my assertion will serve to satisfy Fr. George's request in Kaste's stead)

I quoted St. Jerome's whinny letter to the "Supreme Pontiff" on the matter.  And the FACT that St. Flavian was consecrated to succeed St. Meletius in defiance of the insistence of the Bishop of Rome that Paulinus be recognized.

You responded by quoting some Catholic source

Which, unlike your posts, has your "Magisterium" seal of approval and its A-OK.

You've yet to respond with any source, modern let alone ancient.

that Constantinople was out of communion with Rome from such date to such date.

That's where we're at.  Permit this initial response.  Your citation of the lack of communion between Constantinople and Rome has absolutely nothing to do with the main thesis - namely, the falsehood of your statement regarding St. Meletius.  I only need show that St. Meletius was not condemned by Rome as you claim.  If I can show that, then it will be proven that St. Chrysostom did not disobey the Pope by being ordained by him.

Unfortunately, I don't have time right now to find my old notes to support my statements from St. Basil.  I will do so when I return in a week or so.

Mardukm, you used that same excuse at byzcath six months ago.
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/325299/mardukm#Post325299
where at last you alluded to same citations, but we never got what quotations you were basing yourself on.

When I return, I will also bring forth further testimony from St. Chrysostom that demonstrated he believed in the headship of the bishop of Rome.

While you are at it, show me that he practiced what you allege he preached.

However, I will say right now that I don't believe that proving the Pope was the head bishop of the Church demonstrates the monarchial papacy of the late middle ages. So I hope I don't get inundated with straw men arguments that I am claiming such a thing.

You mean that staw man that your coreligionists revere as Supreme Pontiff, as opposed to that pope which, reading the responses of your coreligionists at CAF, seems to exist only in the ecclesiology of your petite eglise?

[ialmisry]

Dearest Father Ambrose,

Yes, there are examples.  St. Basil and St. Meletius repaired to Rome to settle the ecclesiastical chaos in Antioch.

St. Basil and St. Meletius and others "repaired" to a number of sees (e.g. Alexandria, where the only Pope, at the time, presided) to solve the schism.

 The Third Ecumenical Council came about after Pope St. Cyril appealed to Rome over the matter and Pope St. Celestine gave Pope St. Cyril the presidency of the Council.  

And the Council sat Nestorius, despite St. Celestine's express instructions on how to treat Nestorius (the Bishop of Rome wanted a rubber stamp by the council).

The opponents of St. Photius appealed to Rome to judge on the matter of the supposed unjust deposition of Patriarch Ignatius;

They did so over Pope Theophilos' unjust depostion of St. John Chyrsostom.  To no effect (Rome's man in the West, St. Jerome, fully supported the depositin).

there are many other instances. but these are the more conspicuous ones that I can think of without going into the research for which I have not time at present.

 

It should be noted that there are three canons in respect to the the right of appeal to the bishop of Rome from Sardica (Canons 3 - 5). Canon 4 does not require a synod to be called but depends on the sole judgment of the Pope of Rome.  Canon 5 actually contains two level of appeals, IIRC, and both levels involve a judgment by the Pope of Rome. There were also times, of course, when the cause of the bishop was accompanied by a doctrinal matter (such as occured during the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Council).  Finally, it should be noted that the canon in question (331.3) leaves open the question of how the Pope makes his judgment or decree.  There has been no instance in the history of the Church that I know of that the Pope has made use of such a prerogative (either before or after V1) in a non-collegial, monarchial manner.  It is difficult for non-Catholics (and even some Catholics) to understand that the structure of the Curia is ultimately collegial in nature - in other words, the Pope is not making a decision on his own, but with the aid of many bishops and cardinals.  It may not be an ideal structure in non-Latin eyes, but it is collegial nonetheless.

Your spin has never satified your coreligionists.  Why should we buy it. Btw, there are canons about appeal to Constantinople too (I'm just leaving for DL, so I'm not going to look it up just now.  Maybe an EP enthuisast will post. He makes the most of said canons.)

I hope that satisfies your inquiry for now.  I do wish I had the time to do research. Perhaps you can find holes in my facts above. Without research, that is very likely.  I hope to respond more completely and vigorously to any further questions from your discerning mind, Father, when I return.

[witega]

Mardukm--
The collection of St. Basil's letters which is most easily accessible to most people (since it's posted in English translation on the net) contains 366 letters. If it is your contention that there is something in there which supports your point, you really should identify which letter or letters you are talking about.

[BoredMeeting]

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

Are you a troll?

I think it is useful that he pointed out that the Romans demand a level of authority that Peter himself never claimed.

To me, their claiming such an authority for themselves separates them from Peter's lineage.

[ialmisry]

The other day I was doing the reading with my sons:
I Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado'cia, Asia, and Bithyn'ia.

And noticed that he is addressing Hebrews.  And I thought of Galations 2:7 I [Paul] had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Sounds like St. Peter's mission was limited to the Hebrews.

[AlexanderOfBergamo]

The other day I was doing the reading with my sons:
I Peter 1:1 Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, To the exiles of the Dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappado'cia, Asia, and Bithyn'ia.

And noticed that he is addressing Hebrews.  And I thought of Galations 2:7 I [Paul] had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised 8 (for he who worked through Peter for the mission to the circumcised worked through me also for the Gentiles), 9 and when they perceived the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised;

Sounds like St. Peter's mission was limited to the Hebrews.

That doesn't mean anything in practical terms. When Paul arrived in Rome, according to the book of Acts, he was the first one to give a testimony of the Gospel to Jews in the city, as well as Peter was the first apostle to convert a Roman centurion who clearly wasn't a Jew. The division of jurisdictions wasn't an impediment to preach to anybody they met in their lives. If you were a bishop, so to say, in the USA, and met a person from Africa who never heard the Gospel, wouldn't you preach the Gospel to him anyway? Or would you send him to the local bishop of his territory? I sincerely think a bishop will preach freely even outside of his own territory. Also, after the deaths of Peter and Paul, we don't find two communities in Rome but one community under the same bishop, which proves that the distinction between Jews and Gentiles was only functional to the needs of preaching, since Paul was more prepared in Hellenic and Roman cultures while Peter was a typical Galilean and thus more disposed to preach to the Jews.

I don't think the words of those two epistles can be used to disprove the Papal ministry... try it again!

In Christ,   Alex

[ialmisry]

Now that Kaste has reappeared and materialized, maybe s/he can pick up where s/he abandoned this thread. Ditto for Mardukm.

[BoredMeeting]

Now that Kaste has reappeared and materialized, maybe s/he can pick up where s/he abandoned this thread. Ditto for Mardukm.

Which means that s/he can begin repeating themselves or claiming that we have yet to disprove his/her distorted readings of Scripture?

We could have just scrolled up and started re-reading everything to accomplish the same.

[ialmisry]

Now that Kaste has reappeared and materialized, maybe s/he can pick up where s/he abandoned this thread. Ditto for Mardukm.

Which means that s/he can being repeating themselves or claiming that we have yet to disprove his/her distorted readings of Scripture?

We could have just scrolled up and started re-reading everything to accomplish the same.

Yeah, or go to other fora and see Mardukm doing the same. I understand being busy, but he always gets busy when he is pressed for actual citations, rather than what he thinks St. X said.