Topic: St Peter's confession of faith

[Mickey]

My question is in reference to St John Chrysostom. I have read quotes where it is clear that he is saying that "the rock" is St Peter's confession of faith. 

What is the interpretation of the the following quote?


"Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed are thou, Simon Bar Jona, because because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in Heaven '; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed."
(Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit)

[Papist]

My question is in reference to St John Chrysostom. I have read quotes where it is clear that he is saying that "the rock" is St Peter's confession of faith. 

What is the interpretation of the the following quote?


"Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed are thou, Simon Bar Jona, because because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in Heaven '; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed."
(Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit)

Don't EOs see all bishops as successors of Peter in some way?

[Alonso_castillo]

My question is in reference to St John Chrysostom. I have read quotes where it is clear that he is saying that "the rock" is St Peter's confession of faith. 

What is the interpretation of the the following quote?


"Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed are thou, Simon Bar Jona, because because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in Heaven '; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed."
(Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit)

Matthaeum XVI:18-19

 Et ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam.
 Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum; et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum in caelis, et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum in caelis ”.

To me, the "Et ego dico tibi..." is something we must study deeper, because if the Lord Jesus was stablishing the fundation of faith on Peter's confession, he would have said "And I say to all of you..." but He didn't. He speaks to Peter despite the other 11 apostles that also were present in that moment, We can say that the Lord is calling to Peter to be firm in his faith, as firm as the Rock upon which He will build His Church. From my prospective, St John Chrisostomo, had understood this, St. Peter was being called to be the Rock in faith, to confirm the others as we can read in Luke.

Lucam XXII:31-32

31 Simon, Simon, ecce Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum;
32 ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua. Et tu, aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos ”.

The Lord is calling to Peter to confirm the others as the Rock he was called to be. Once more we can read that the Lord has used a singular call, "te" (you) in stead of "Vos" or "vobis" (you all).

This is part of the fundation of the "Primus of Peter" stablished in the church.

From my humble point of view.

[ialmisry]

My question is in reference to St John Chrysostom. I have read quotes where it is clear that he is saying that "the rock" is St Peter's confession of faith.  

What is the interpretation of the the following quote?


"Peter himself the chief of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received a revelation not from man, but from the Father, as the Lord bears witness to him, saying, 'Blessed are thou, Simon Bar Jona, because because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in Heaven '; this very Peter, - and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken rock, that firm foundation, the great Apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called and the first who obeyed."
(Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit)

Matthaeum XVI:18-19

 Et ego dico tibi: Tu es Petrus, et super hanc petram aedificabo Ecclesiam meam; et portae inferi non praevalebunt adversum eam.
 Tibi dabo claves regni caelorum; et quodcumque ligaveris super terram, erit ligatum in caelis, et quodcumque solveris super terram, erit solutum in caelis ”.

To me, the "Et ego dico tibi..." is something we must study deeper, because if the Lord Jesus was stablishing the fundation of faith on Peter's confession, he would have said "And I say to all of you..." but He didn't. He speaks to Peter despite the other 11 apostles that also were present in that moment, We can say that the Lord is calling to Peter to be firm in his faith, as firm as the Rock upon which He will build His Church. From my prospective, St John Chrisostomo, had understood this, St. Peter was being called to be the Rock in faith, to confirm the others as we can read in Luke.

Lucam XXII:31-32

31 Simon, Simon, ecce Satanas expetivit vos, ut cribraret sicut triticum;
32 ego autem rogavi pro te, ut non deficiat fides tua. Et tu, aliquando conversus, confirma fratres tuos ”.

The Lord is calling to Peter to confirm the others as the Rock he was called to be. Once more we can read that the Lord has used a singular call, "te" (you) in stead of "Vos" or "vobis" (you all).

This is part of the fundation of the "Primus of Peter" stablished in the church.

From my humble point of view.

Since Christ did not speak Latin, and Matthew did not write in Latin, and the NT was not put together in Latin, what you have posted does show the Vatican spin on things, but no more.

This has been dealt with a lot (including on St. Chrysostom's words on St. James and St. John, in addition to St. Peter). For an example:

Witega, you seem to say the Fathers often understood references to Peter as meaning the whole group of Apostles.  Does that apply here with Chrysostom's quote?

I found this quote, on the topic of it not only applying to the whole group of Apostles, but also to the lowly bishop of a rural town way down in the stix of Upper Egypt:

Due to the ongoing debate on the Fourth Council, I by chance was reaquainted with a text I thought appropriate here.  It is from the "Life of Shenoute" by his disciple St. Besa.  St. Shenoute's writings were the examplar of Coptic literature, but his chief claim to fame was cracking his staff over Nestorius' head at the Council of Ephesus.  In one episode, "One day," Besa says, "our father Shenoute and our Lord Jesus were sitting down talking together" (a very common occurance according to the Vita) and the Bishop of Shmin came wishing to meet the abbot.  When Shenoute sent word that he was too busy to come to the bishop, the bishop got angry and threatened to excommunicate him for disobedience:

The servant went to our father [Shenouti] and said to him what the bishop had told him.  But my father smiled graciously with laughter and said: "See what this man of flesh and blood has said! Behold, here sitting with me is he who created heaven and earth! I will not go while I am with him." But the Savior said to my father: "O Shenoute, arise and go out to the bishop, lest he excommunicate you. Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].  When my father heard these words of the Savior, he arose, went out to the bishop and greeted him.

 Besa, Life of Shenoute 70-72 (trans. Bell). On the context of this story see Behlmer 1998, esp. pp. 353-354. Gaddis, There is No Crime for those who have Christ, p. 296
http://books.google.com/books?id=JGEibDA8el4C

Now this dates not only before the schism of East-West, and the Schism of Chalcedon, but nearly the Schism of Ephesus.  Now Shmin is just a town in southern Egypt, and the bishop there just a suffragan of Alexandria.  So it would seem to be odd if the Vatican's interpretation of Matthew 16:19 were the ancient one why this would be applied to a bishop far from Rome, in a land where St. Peter never founded any Church.  But it makes perfect sense from the Orthodox interpretation of Matthew 16:19, and indeed, according to "the Catholic Encyclopedia," the overwhelming consensus of the Fathers.

[BoredMeeting]

Otherwise, I cannot let you enter [heaven] because of the covenant I made with Peter, saying 'What you will bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and what you will loose on earth will be loosed in heaven' [Matthew 16:19].

And in John, we see that Christ gave this to all of the Apostles at the same time, not just Peter.

[Alonso_castillo]

I don´t have to defend Latin as a language spoken by Jesus because it is pointless, the use of Latin is to clarify that in english "you" can be used in singular and in plural, but in latin ans many other languages it does not happen.

In any case your reduction is very simple, and little unespected from someone who seams to believe to be able to see as you do. My point was that  the Lord Jesus called one out of the apostoles to be the Rock, just as St. John Chrysostom focused.

But ¿what then with the other apostles?, the answer you know it, unless you are false, the rest of apostles were in communion with St Peter, whom we can see as the primus apostle.

Then all comes to be clearly explained, Ut unum sint, (May all be one) reffers to communion, communion one with each other, there is where the Primus of Peter has his place.

Now it is also pointless to try to explain you, way we Catholics are in Communion with St Peter, through History, Charism and Sacraments, anyway you will deny it as good scismatic you are. But that doesn't give you the bones of St Peter and St Paul.

And I feel quite confortable using latin texts because before the conversión of any gentil who spoke greek, Cornelius was roman and baptized by St. Peter himsef.

[Papist]

I don´t have to defend Latin as a language spoken by Jesus because it is pointless, the use of Latin is to clarify that in english "you" can be used in singular and in plural, but in latin ans many other languages it does not happen.

In any case your reduction is very simple, and little unespected from someone who seams to believe to be able to see as you do. My point was that  the Lord Jesus called one out of the apostoles to be the Rock, just as St. John Chrysostom focused.

But ¿what then with the other apostles?, the answer you know it, unless you are false, the rest of apostles were in communion with St Peter, whom we can see as the primus apostle.

Then all comes to be clearly explained, Ut unum sint, (May all be one) reffers to communion, communion one with each other, there is where the Primus of Peter has his place.

Now it is also pointless to try to explain you, way we Catholics are in Communion with St Peter, through History, Charism and Sacraments, anyway you will deny it as good scismatic you are. But that doesn't give you the bones of St Peter and St Paul.

And I feel quite confortable using latin texts because before the conversión of any gentil who spoke greek, Cornelius was roman and baptized by St. Peter himsef.

My dear brother, I don't think that calling our hosts "good schismatics" is a good way to our hosts in their own home.

[ozgeorge]

My dear brother, I don't think that calling our hosts "good schismatics" is a good way to our hosts in their own home.

Actually, he or she said "good scismatic" (whatever that is). And you haven't actually made any sense either- that isn't even a sentence.

[Alonso_castillo]

I am sorry, you may understand that I am not a native english speaker.

I want to clarify that I can see two different kinds of eastern Christian, those who are willing to accept a reunification between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches, and those who oppose it in any way.  The first I will always refer as orthodox, the others I will refer as schismatic, because the attitude they take classifies them, not because the status they hold.
I am an admirer of his beatitude Bartholomew I, because of his openness and his efforts to make closer Catholics and Orthodox, but I can say as well, that many low lay orthodox result more anticatholic than I ever expected, some of them even call antipatriarch to his beatitude Bartholomew I.
I really apologize if I offended anybody who is open to mutual understanding between Catholics and Orthodox and desires to achieve a reunion guided by Holly Spirit, prior to anathemize and condemn mutual differences. We can´t be splited ones from the others, we must pray for union to Holly Spirit. But if somebody desires to boycott any approach I won’t be shut.

[ialmisry]

I don´t have to defend Latin as a language spoken by Jesus because it is pointless,

because it's not true.

the use of Latin is to clarify that in english "you" can be used in singular and in plural, but in latin ans many other languages it does not happen.

Then why not post Greek (in which the NT was written) or Aramaic (which Christ spoke).  I don't know how familiar you are with the English versions, but the King James makes the same distinction.

In any case your reduction is very simple, and little unespected from someone who seams to believe to be able to see as you do. My point was that  the Lord Jesus called one out of the apostoles to be the Rock, just as St. John Chrysostom focused.

Follow the thread link.  St. John had lots to say, but on Matthew 16:18, he says this:

What then saith Christ? “Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.” “Thus since thou hast proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begat thee;” all but saying, “As thou art son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father.” Else it were superfluous to say, “Thou art Son of Jonas;” but since he had said, “Son of God,” to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begat Him, therefore He added this, “And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” “And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because thou art shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.”

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.iii.LII.html

But ¿what then with the other apostles?, the answer you know it, unless you are false, the rest of apostles were in communion with St Peter, whom we can see as the primus apostle.

Then, according to St. John, Christ is false then:

Then He mentions also another honor. “And I also will give thee the keys of the heavens.” But what is this, “And I also will give thee?” “As the Father hath given thee to know me, so will I also give thee.”

And He said not, “I will entreat the Father” (although the manifestation of His authority was great, and the largeness of the gift unspeakable), but, “I will give thee.” What dost Thou give? tell me. “The keys of the heavens, that whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in Heaven and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.” How then is it not “His to give to sit on His right hand, and on His left," when He saith, “I will give thee”?

Seest thou how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as “a brazen pillar, and as a wall;” but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.

I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. “For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away.”
How then is He less, who hath given such gifts, hath effected such things?

And these things I say, not dividing the works of Father and Son (“for all things are made by Him, and without Him was nothing made which was made”):
but bridling the shameless tongue of them that dare so to speak.

But see, throughout all, His authority: “I say unto thee, Thou art Peter; I will build the Church; I will give thee the keys of Heaven.” 4. And then, when He had so said, “He charged them that they should tell no man that He was the Christ.” And why did He charge them? That when the things which offend are taken out of the way, and the cross is accomplished, and the rest of His sufferings fulfilled, and when there is nothing any more to interrupt and disturb the faith of the people in Him, the right opinion concerning Him may be engraven pure and immovable in the mind of the hearers. For, in truth, His power had not yet clearly shone forth. Accordingly it was His will then to be preached by them, when both the plain truth of the facts, and the power of His deeds were pleading in support of the assertions of the apostles. For it was by no means the same thing to see Him in Palestine, now working miracles, and now insulted and persecuted (and especially when the very cross was presently to follow the miracles that were happening); and to behold him everywhere in the world, adored and believed, and no more suffering anything, such as He had suffered.

Therefore He bids them “tell no man.” For that which hath been once rooted and then plucked up, would hardly, if planted, again be retained among the many; but that which, once fixed, hath remained immovable, and hath suffered injury from no quarter, easily mounts up, and advances to a greater growth.

And if they who had enjoyed the benefit of many miracles, and had had part in so many unutterable mysteries, were offended by the mere hearing of it; or rather not these only, but even the leader (ὁ κορυφαο) of them all, Peter; consider what it was likely the common sort should feel, being first told that He is the Son of God, then seeing Him even crucified and spit upon, and that without knowledge of the secret of those mysteries, or participation in the gift of the Holy Ghost. For if to His disciples He said, “I have many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; much more would the rest of the people have utterly failed, had the chiefest of these mysteries been revealed to them before the proper time. Accordingly He forbids them to tell.

And to instruct thee how great a thing it was, their afterwards learning His doctrine complete, when the things that offend had passed by; learn it from this same leader of theirs. For this very Peter, he who after so many miracles proved so weak as even to deny Him, and to be in fear of a mean damsel; after the cross had come forth, and he had received the certain proofs of the resurrection, and there was nothing more to offend and trouble him, retained the teaching of the Spirit so immovable, that more vehemently than a lion he sprang upon the people of the Jews, for all the dangers and innumerable deaths which were threatened.

With reason then did He bid them not tell the many before the crucifixion, since not even to them that were to teach did He venture to commit all before the crucifixion. “For I have many things to say unto you,” saith He, “but ye cannot bear them now.”

And of the things too that He did say, they do not understand many, which He did not make plain before the crucifixion. At least when He was risen from the dead, then and not before they knew some of His sayings.

Then all comes to be clearly explained, Ut unum sint, (May all be one) reffers to communion, communion one with each other, there is where the Primus of Peter has his place.

St. Peter was not crucified for me, nor was I baptized in the name of Peter.

Now it is also pointless to try to explain you, way we Catholics are in Communion with St Peter,

No, we Catholics are.

through History, Charism and Sacraments,

Not with your revisionism of the first millenium, your reduction of the epsicopacy to one bishop, and the distortion of the Holy Mysteries both in form and intent.

anyway you will deny it as good scismatic you are. But that doesn't give you the bones of St Peter and St Paul.

No. We have the empty tomb of Christ. And the first throne of St. Peter.

And I feel quite confortable using latin texts because before the conversión of any gentil who spoke greek,

How about the Hebrews who spoke Greek?

Cornelius was roman and baptized by St. Peter himsef.

You are aware that Latin wasn't used by the Church at all in Rome until over a century after St. Peter's martyrdom?


[/quote]

[ialmisry]

I am sorry, you may understand that I am not a native english speaker.

I want to clarify that I can see two different kinds of eastern Christian, those who are willing to accept a reunification between the Catholic Church and the Eastern Churches, and those who oppose it in any way. 

The Eastern Orthodox Churches are the Catholic Church.

The first I will always refer as orthodox, the others I will refer as schismatic, because the attitude they take classifies them, not because the status they hold.
I am an admirer of his beatitude Bartholomew I, because of his openness and his efforts to make closer Catholics and Orthodox, but I can say as well, that many low lay orthodox result more anticatholic than I ever expected, some of them even call antipatriarch to his beatitude Bartholomew I.
I really apologize if I offended anybody who is open to mutual understanding between Catholics and Orthodox and desires to achieve a reunion guided by Holly Spirit, prior to anathemize and condemn mutual differences. We can´t be splited ones from the others, we must pray for union to Holly Spirit. But if somebody desires to boycott any approach I won’t be shut.

Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith and he will be first.

[Papist]

Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith and he will be first.

Silly guy... The Pope, along with the faithful Rome Catholics around the world have been professing the Orthodox Faith for 2000 years.

[BoredMeeting]

Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith and he will be first.

Silly guy... The Pope, along with the faithful Rome Catholics around the world have been professing the Orthodox Faith for 2000 years.

Oh, so you've dropped that filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the Infallible Pope with his ultimate authority?

GOOD TO HEAR!

[Papist]

Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith and he will be first.

Silly guy... The Pope, along with the faithful Rome Catholics around the world have been professing the Orthodox Faith for 2000 years.

Oh, so you've dropped that filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the Infallible Pope with his ultimate authority?

GOOD TO HEAR!

Nope, since the Fathers professed the Filioque, why would we drop it? haha

[ialmisry]

Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith and he will be first.

Silly guy... The Pope, along with the faithful Rome Catholics around the world have been professing the Orthodox Faith for 2000 years.

Honorius.

Toledo.

[ialmisry]

Let the Pope of Rome confess the Orthodox Faith and he will be first.

Silly guy... The Pope, along with the faithful Rome Catholics around the world have been professing the Orthodox Faith for 2000 years.

Oh, so you've dropped that filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the Infallible Pope with his ultimate authority?

GOOD TO HEAR!

Nope, since the Fathers professed the Filioque, why would we drop it? haha

Because the Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople professed no such thing when they wrote the Creed, without Rome's help.  But if you prefer your fathers at Toledo, you are welcome to them.

[Irish Hermit]

[Oh, so you've dropped that filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the Infallible Pope with his ultimate authority?

GOOD TO HEAR!

Nope, since the Fathers professed the Filioque, why would we drop it? haha

Good question!   Why *has* the Pope of Rome, both the current tulku and the previous one,  been dropping the Filioque more and more frequently?  

[ialmisry]

[Oh, so you've dropped that filioque, the Immaculate Conception, the Infallible Pope with his ultimate authority?

GOOD TO HEAR!

Nope, since the Fathers professed the Filioque, why would we drop it? haha

Good question!   Why *has* the Pope of Rome, both the current tulku and the previous one,  been dropping the Filioque more and more frequently?  

Maybe he's dropping a hint....

[BoredMeeting]

Nope, since the Fathers professed the Filioque, why would we drop it? haha

Because they didn't do any such thing, unless you are counting the Frankish kings as 'the Fathers'.

Which Pope had the Nicene Creed written on the doors of the Vatican without the filioque?

[BoredMeeting]

Good question!   Why *has* the Pope of Rome, both the current tulku and the previous one,  been dropping the Filioque more and more frequently?  

Because moving away from an error is the first step towards correcting it?

[Andrew21091]

Nope, since the Fathers professed the Filioque, why would we drop it? haha

Because they didn't do any such thing, unless you are counting the Frankish kings as 'the Fathers'.

Which Pope had the Nicene Creed written on the doors of the Vatican without the filioque?

Isn't the Pope supposed to be infallible? Hmm, I wonder why some of them included the filioque and others did not. So, would Catholics say that the Popes who confessed it without the filoque (after it was introduced) were in error? But that cannot be possible according to the doctrine of infallibility.

[Asteriktos]

Isn't the Pope supposed to be infallible?

Only in certain instances. I think the formula is something like "When speaking from the chair of Peter and intending to speak to the entire Catholic Church on a matter of doctrine or morals". Or, to quote Wiki, papal infallibility is when the Pope: "solemnly declares or promulgates to the universal Church a dogmatic teaching on faith or morals as being contained in divine revelation, or at least being intimately connected to divine revelation."  Now, as to what is and isn't an infallible teaching, (ironically) I don't think there is universal agreement on that in the Roman Catholic Church, though there are some lists floating around.

[ignatius]

Nope, since the Fathers professed the Filioque, why would we drop it? haha

Because they didn't do any such thing, unless you are counting the Frankish kings as 'the Fathers'.

Which Pope had the Nicene Creed written on the doors of the Vatican without the filioque?

The Creed 'with the filioque' was never intended to teach something not within the Greed 'without the filioque'. It was offered in the West to show equality between the Father and the Son.

The Blessed Basil the Great wrote of the filioque... as well as others. I am certain this was what Papist was speaking of.

[BoredMeeting]

The Creed 'with the filioque' was never intended to teach something not within the Greed 'without the filioque'.

Then why would it have been needed?

And how would that justify altering the decision of a Council without a Council?

[Papist]

Nope, since the Fathers professed the Filioque, why would we drop it? haha

Because they didn't do any such thing, unless you are counting the Frankish kings as 'the Fathers'.

Which Pope had the Nicene Creed written on the doors of the Vatican without the filioque?

The Creed 'with the filioque' was never intended to teach something not within the Greed 'without the filioque'. It was offered in the West to show equality between the Father and the Son.

The Blessed Basil the Great wrote of the filioque... as well as others. I am certain this was what Papist was speaking of.

Yes, this is what I am speaking of. Thanks.

[ignatius]

The Creed 'with the filioque' was never intended to teach something not within the Greed 'without the filioque'.

Then why would it have been needed?

And how would that justify altering the decision of a Council without a Council?

As I understand it there was a Synod in the West for this amendment. In Spain as I recall.

[ChristusDominus]

Because the Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople professed no such thing when they wrote the Creed, without Rome's help.  But if you prefer your fathers at Toledo, you are welcome to them.

Wasn't this an Ecumenical Council? Meaning that all bishops had to be in agreement, which included the Bishop of Rome (present at council or not)?

Interestingly enough, I came across  this while reading the Canons of the first Council of Constantinople:

Canon III:
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.

[BoredMeeting]

The Creed 'with the filioque' was never intended to teach something not within the Greed 'without the filioque'.

Then why would it have been needed?

And how would that justify altering the decision of a Council without a Council?

As I understand it there was a Synod in the West for this amendment. In Spain as I recall.

And when did a Council approve the idea that its decisions could be altered by a Synod?

Weren't Synod decisions subsequently approved or denied by a Council?

[Fr. George]

Wasn't this an Ecumenical Council? Meaning that all bishops had to be in agreement, which included the Bishop of Rome (present at council or not)?

Ecumenical means different things for us now than then; universal agreement of hierarchs wasn't a requirement then.

Interestingly enough, I came across  this while reading the Canons of the first Council of Constantinople:

Canon III:
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.

*Yawn* Read a few more councils that come later (like Chalcedon).

[ignatius]

I think ultimately Orthodox are arguing from an Imperial Historical perspective that simply died out in the west under the abuses of secular power.

If Church Authority is above secular/Imperial Authority, then Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops are above the authority of of the ruling class. In the West, this ultimately meant that the Pope was 'the Man'.

[Papist]

I think ultimately Orthodox are arguing from an Imperial Historical perspective that simply died out in the west under the abuses of secular power.

If Church Authority is above secular/Imperial Authority, then Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops are above the authority of of the ruling class. In the West, this ultimately meant that the Pope was 'the Man'.

That's right. The Pope is THE MAN! LOL

[ialmisry]

Because the Fathers of Nicea and Constantinople professed no such thing when they wrote the Creed, without Rome's help.  But if you prefer your fathers at Toledo, you are welcome to them.

Wasn't this an Ecumenical Council? Meaning that all bishops had to be in agreement, which included the Bishop of Rome (present at council or not)?

Interestingly enough, I came across  this while reading the Canons of the first Council of Constantinople:

Canon III:
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.

The canon wasn't aimed at Rome, but Heracleia.  Constantinople had been its suffragan (to this day the bishop of Herakleia invests the EP).  Chalcedon dealt with the issue of Rome.

[BoredMeeting]

I think ultimately Orthodox are arguing from an Imperial Historical perspective that simply died out in the west under the abuses of secular power.

If Church Authority is above secular/Imperial Authority, then Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops are above the authority of of the ruling class. In the West, this ultimately meant that the Pope was 'the Man'.

That's right. The Pope is THE MAN! LOL

And Jesus is THE LORD.

Pick which one to follow 'cause THE MAN's off on his own direction.

[Papist]

And Jesus is THE LORD.

Duh!

Pick which one to follow 'cause THE MAN's off on his own direction.

I could say the same thing about your bishops.

[BoredMeeting]

Pick which one to follow 'cause THE MAN's off on his own direction.

I could say the same thing about your bishops.

And you'd be as wrong about that as you are about the concept of universal authority being in the hands of one Apostle.

[Papist]

Pick which one to follow 'cause THE MAN's off on his own direction.

I could say the same thing about your bishops.

And you'd be as wrong about that as you are about the concept of universal authority being in the hands of one Apostle.

Papist: No I would be right.
BoardMeeting: No you would be wrong.
Papist: right
BoardMeeting: Wrong
Papist: Right, right, right!
BoardMeeting: Wrong, wrong, Wrong.
Papist: Your mom goes to college (Quote from Napolean Dynomite)
Game... Set... Match... Papist.     

[ialmisry]

I think ultimately Orthodox are arguing from an Imperial Historical perspective that simply died out in the west under the abuses of secular power.

If Church Authority is above secular/Imperial Authority, then Patriarchs, Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops are above the authority of of the ruling class. In the West, this ultimately meant that the Pope was 'the Man'.

That's right. The Pope is THE MAN! LOL

And Jesus is THE LORD.

Pick which one to follow 'cause THE MAN's off on his own direction.

LOL. Genesis 3:22.