OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 03:25:49 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Church Fathers against the Papacy  (Read 11367 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 642


militantsparrow
« on: October 03, 2010, 10:38:44 AM »

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #1 on: October 03, 2010, 12:12:12 PM »

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

I don't have time right now, but look up Pope Victor and Polycrates. I've posted the story from Eusebius about that: Pope Victor was "rebuked" by councils held throughout the Church when he tried to bully the Asian Church.

Also posted is Pope St. Gregory's letters against the idea of a universal bishop.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #2 on: October 03, 2010, 01:37:36 PM »

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

I don't have time right now, but look up Pope Victor and Polycrates. I've posted the story from Eusebius about that: Pope Victor was "rebuked" by councils held throughout the Church when he tried to bully the Asian Church.

Also posted is Pope St. Gregory's letters against the idea of a universal bishop.

Two quotes from Pope St. Gregory:

   "As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city."     (Lib. IX, Ep. 12)

    "If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it [the Apostolic See]; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility."     (Lib. IX, Ep. 59)

+++++++++++++++++++++

Again I think you lack the proper took kit or vision with which to assess Catholic documents in context. 

The quotes above make a case against your assertions quite clearly, so something is wrong in your "reading" of these other letters of which you speak.

What you are presenting here is a myth that has gained a great deal of credibility in modern Orthodoxy but I have only ever heard this assertion made by those who have a great resistance to any kind of pre-schismatic claims to any kind of papal primacy at all.    But you do not find disinterested classicists who take this reading of the ancient documents.

More than anything these bi-lateral discussions that we are having are in great need of historians who are capable of reading in the moment as well as the languages involved.  But I do think we are coming closer to all of that and some of these mythologies will finally be put to their due rest.

M.
Logged

Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #3 on: October 03, 2010, 02:44:11 PM »

There was never such a thing as opposition to Primacy.

It is a natural and divine institution.

What happened was the claim for new rights and duties from the then primate Roman bishops.

What happened was a "prime-minister" claiming absolute power and resistance to it coming from the "congress". Eventually, the "congress" considered the "prime-minister" and his new "laws"(theology) to not be in accordance to the "nation's" traditional law/ thus, the now ex-prime-minister had formed an entirely new "country". The traditional "congress" then passed the office of prime-minister to the next in the succession line (Constantinople). The ex-prime-minister got sort of angry with that, and leaving aside that one can be a prime-minister only within a congress, started claiming that whoever lived in his city (which had been the capital of the country many centuries before, in fact more centuries than those between us and the Great Discoveries) was the prime-minister and it was his office that defined who was in "congress" or not.

The role of the primate, as St. Gregory quoted by Mary, was that of head of bishops, which imperial laws by Justinian and Phocas confirm. The "head of the bishops" is the "president" of the "congress" not the "president of the country". He is a congressman among congressmen, just with a special role. The supreme role of "Mr. President" belongs to Christ only if, in this analogy, the "country" is the Church.

The same St. Gregory also said the he who took the title of Universal Bishop would be the precursor of the AntiChrist, that such a lofty title necessarily takes from the honour and authority from every other bishop. I, particularly, think this was an ex cathedra statement. Smiley

----------

The Papacy is far more than just having a primate. It implies a series of novel and heretical teachings:

Universal jurisdiction;
Infallibility ex cathedra exclusive to the Pope;

and, although rarely explicitily stated, it is implied:

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.
the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Traditional primacy, on the other hand worked in a different way:

The primate has jurisdiction only over his own archdiocese; His "universal role" so to speak, is as mediator and "president" of the universal synod of bishops; We do not have, at this moment in history, any secular institution that resembles that exactly. The closest is the Swiss Federal Council http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swiss_Federal_Council.

Infallibility belongs to the Holy Spirit only and may manifest itself through the primate or through a poor monk, or even through miracles. Nobody and nothing holds it in an exclusive irremovable way;

Primacy is an office of the Church, like all activities of priesthood. It does not belong to one bishop or see, but to the Holy Spirit. If an entire see falls from Orthodoxy, it doesn't retain the primacy.

The Orthodox faith is the source of primacy. Having this inegotiable fundament, other factors that are relevant are ecclesiastical tradition and secular centrality.

------

Archbishop Kenrick, one of the many RCs who opposed the heresy of infallibility during Vatican I (although due to respect he later silenced about it), wrote a book making a denunciation of how this heresy was forced upon the council of RC bishops.

In this book, talking about St. Matthews 16:18, he actually counted how many fathers interpreted it according to the disputed readings of the passage.

Archbishop Kenrick wrote:

Quote
"In a remarkable pamphlete printed in fac-simile of manuscript and presented to the fathers almost two months ago, we find five different interpretations of the word "rock", in the place cited; "the first of which declares (I transcribe the words) "that the church was built on Peter; and this interpretation is followed by seventeen fathers, among them, by Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Hilary, Cyril of Alexandria, Leo the Great, Augustine.
"The second interpretation understands from these words 'on this rock will I build my church', that the church was built on all the apostles, whom Peter represented by virtue of the primacy. And this opinion is followed by eight fathers - among them, Origen, Cyprian, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret.
"The third interpretation asserts that the words, 'on this rock', etc, are to be understood of the faith which Peter had professed - that this profession of faith, by which we believe Christ to be the Son of the Living God, is the everlasting and immovable foundation of the church. This interpretation is the weightiest of all, since it is followed by forty-four fathers and doctors; among them, from the East, are Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom, Theophylact; from the West, Hilary, Ambrose, Leo the Great; from Africa, Augustine.
The fourth interpretation declare that the words 'on this rock', etc, are to be understood of the rock which Peter had confessed, that is, Christ - that the church was built upon Christ. This interpretation is followed by sixteen fathers and doctors.
The fifth interpretation of the fathers understands by the name of 'the rock', the faithful themselves, who, believing Christ to be the Son of God, are constituted living stones out of which the church is built.
Thus far the author of the pamphlet aforesaid, in which may be read the words of the fathers and doctors whom he cites.
From this it follows, either that no argument at all, or one of the slenderest probability, is to be derived from the words, 'on this rock will I build my church', in support of the primacy. Unless it is certain that by 'the rock' is to be understood the apostle Peter in his own person, and not in his capacity as the chief apostle speaking for them all, the word supplies no argument whatever, I do not say in proof of papal infalibility, but even in support of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. If we are bound to follow the majority of the fathers in this thing, then we are bound to hold for certain that by 'the rock' should be understood the faith professed by Peter, not Peter professing the faith."
Archbishop Kenrick in "An Inside View of the Vatican Council"

I disagree with some of the consequences the good Archbishop took from the assessment of the information brough by the pamphlet he read. Lacking the proper Orthodox theology, he seems to think that the Fathers have different opinions on the interpretation of the polemyc passage, but they do not. In fact, they are pointing different applications of the same principle. Nevertheles, it is as the archbishop said: whatever right the primate has, he has in the capacity of his office as head of the bishops and depending on the orthodoxy of his faith, and not in him himself as source of Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 03:08:19 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2010, 05:58:19 PM »

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

I don't have time right now, but look up Pope Victor and Polycrates. I've posted the story from Eusebius about that: Pope Victor was "rebuked" by councils held throughout the Church when he tried to bully the Asian Church.

Also posted is Pope St. Gregory's letters against the idea of a universal bishop.

Two quotes from Pope St. Gregory:

   "As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city."     (Lib. IX, Ep. 12)

    "If any fault is found among bishops, I know not any one who is not subject to it [the Apostolic See]; but when no fault requires otherwise, all are equal according to the estimation of humility."     (Lib. IX, Ep. 59)

Yes, this correspondence has come up before.

"the curses of heretics are blessings" LOL loved this!

Anyway, please Ialmisry don't be so vehement with Dan-Romania.

I'm sorry my tongue in cheek didn't come across.

Quote
John Paul II was of course a VERY charismatic public person, who "gave" an image of sanctity to the world. I'm not so sure of his sanctity, though. He embraced many Protestant ideas, supported abhorrent liturgical innovations, invoked a false ecumenism which smells of relativism... He just had a stronger attractive power towards the youth, which is of course the only reason why I prefer him to Benedict XVI. But still my favourite is John XXIII: I think they stopped him while he was trying to do something TRULY ecumenical and at the same time not so relativistic. Unfortunately, he didn't manage to do that :-(

I was rather fond of JP II, and am of Benedict XVI.  That doesn't mean I could agree to put the one on the iconostasis, nor commune the other.

Quote
A suggestion to you, dear Dan-Romania: read the epistular exchanges between Pope Gregory and the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, so that you can grasp the true meaning of the Papacy in the original Orthodox church!

Quote
"I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is, by his pride, the precursor of Antichrist, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of Antichrist; for as that Wicked One wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would be called sole bishop exalteth himself above others....You know it, my brother; hath not the venerable Council of Chalcedon conferred the honorary title of 'universal' upon the bishops of this Apostolic See [Rome], whereof I am, by God's will, the servant? And yet none of us hath permitted this title to be given to him; none hath assumed this bold title, lest by assuming a special distinction in the dignity of the episcopate, we should seem to refuse it to all the brethren."
Yet, the popes claim for superjurisdiction over all bishops... so they clearly are in heresy and precursors of Antichrist!

In the same correspodence Pope St. Gregory tells the Pope of Alexandria (the title originated there, centuries before Rome took it) and Antioch that they are all bishops of the one Petrine See.

In fact, here is a catholic website dealing with this quote:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm

Usually I find articles from Bonocore here. AAARg. I once saw a "timeline" he had a hand in which claimed that Theodosius gave the title EP as a counter to Gratian giving the title pontif to the Pope of Rome.  A glaring anachronism for starters.

This is article isn't too bad.  Of course, it has its inadequacies.

He mentions that St. Gregory talks of Constantinople having heresiarchs.  This of course was before Pope Honorius (who of course isnt' mentioned).

Of course it is interesting so much emphasis on the title, whereas in substance, the Vatican indeed only has one bishop.

Another thing sidestepped and not mentioned in the article is that St. Gregory during this cotroversy wrote that the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria (through St. Mark) and Antioch are all one Petrine See.  I've yet to see an explanation, then why Antioch shouldn't be ahead of Alexandria, since Antioch is Petrine directly, Alexandria second hand.  Could it be because that was the secular order within the empire, like the Fathers alluded to in Constantinople c. 3 and Chalcedon c. 28 (btw, St. Gregory is quite wrong on the Pope's veto power: even Pope St. Leo recognized that his own bishops were not following his veto of canon 28)? Roll Eyes

I always love this quote:

"As regards the Church of Constantinople,WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it."

So the brother bishop of Constantinople, a/k/a the percursor of antichrist, continually acknowleges Rome.  I've never seen the antichrist cited as a Church Father for papal supremacy outside of a Chick tract.

"As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city." 

So St. Gregory's brother and bishop of the Church of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch a/k/a "the precursor of antichrist," constanty owns that he is subject to "the Apostolic See" as the Vatican fancies itself. I'll repeat, never seen the precursor of the antichrist cited as a Church Father in favor of Ultramontanism, outside of this and Chick Publications.

Again I think you lack the proper took kit or vision with which to assess Catholic documents in context.

I have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. I need nothing else.

In the case you bring to the bar, if you are going to press your quote, then one only need to know how to see hypocrisy when he sees it, as an Ultramontanist read of St. Gregory has to also summarize his argument as "do as I say, not as I do."

The quotes above make a case against your assertions quite clearly, so something is wrong in your "reading" of these other letters of which you speak.
Well, once we strain the hypocrisy out, what is left? The major sees (actually, all sees) share the same Apostolic Throne.

What you are presenting here is a myth that has gained a great deal of credibility in modern Orthodoxy

That there is such a thing as modern Orthodoxy as opposed to ancient Orthodoxy is myth, one I know that Mardukm has tried to spread here.

but I have only ever heard this assertion made by those who have a great resistance to any kind of pre-schismatic claims to any kind of papal primacy at all. 

Then you haen't been listening. Primacy =/= supremacy.  Ancient Orthodoxy recognized the former at Rome, the Vatican locates the latter in Rome.

But you do not find disinterested classicists who take this reading of the ancient documents.

No, they call Pope St. Gregory the Great a hypocrite and leave it at that.

More than anything these bi-lateral discussions that we are having are in great need of historians who are capable of reading in the moment as well as the languages involved.  But I do think we are coming closer to all of that and some of these mythologies will finally be put to their due rest.

It often doesn't take much: I've often seen acts, epistles, etc. "translated" where the "pope" of Rome is speaking amongst bishops. When one looks at the original, anyone with even a few lessons of Latin or Greek can see that "bishop" is the same word used for the bishop of Rome and his brother hiearchs.

As for "reading in the moment"
Quote
Mention should be made of the curious fact that, although Gregory's sojourn at Constantinople lasted for six years, he seems never to have mastered even the rudiments of Greek. Possibly he found that the use of an interpreter had its advantages, but he often complains of the incapacity of those employed for this purpose. It must be owned that, so far as obtaining help for Rome was concerned, Gregory's stay at Constantinople was a failure. However, his period as ambassador taught him very plainly a lesson which was to bear great fruit later on when he ruled in Rome as pope. This was the important fact that no help was any longer to be looked for from Byzantium, with the corollary that, if Rome and Italy were to be saved at all, it could only be by vigorous independent action of the powers on the spot. Humanly speaking, it is to the fact that Gregory had acquired this conviction that his later line of action with all its momentous consequences is due.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm

A good summary of
Ekonomou, Andrew J. 2007. Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern influences on Rome and the papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752. Lexington Bookshttp
http://books.google.com/books?id=zomZk6DbFTIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Byzantine+Rome+and+the+Greek+Popes:+Eastern+influences+on+Rome+and+the+papacy+from+Gregory+the&source=bl&ots=ZTanlY-w0q&sig=b66bq2ZPlzupEf-DJ8jMyXv63Go&hl=en&ei=tvmoTKmUM8aTnQey5vDfDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CBsQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false
Quote
In 579, Pelagius II chose Gregory as his apocrisiarius (ambassador to the imperial court in Constantinople).[p. 8] Gregory was part of the Roman delegation (both lay and clerical) that arrived in Constantinople in 578 to ask the emperor for military aid against the Lombards.[p. 9] With the Byzantine military focused on the East, these entreaties proved unsuccessful; in 584, Pelagius II wrote to Gregory as apocrisiarius, detailing the hardships that Rome was experiencing under the Lombards and asking him to ask Emperor Maurice to send a relief force.[p. 9] Maurice, however, had long ago determined to limit his efforts against the Lombards to intrigue and diplomacy, pitting the Franks against them.[p. 9] It soon became obvious to Gregory that the Byzantine emperors were unlikely to send such a force, given their more immediate difficulties with the Persians in the East and the Avars and Slavs to the North.[p. 10]

According to Ekonomou, "if Gregory's principle task was to plead Rome's cause before the emperor, there seems to have been little left for him to do once imperial policy toward Italy became evident. Papal representatives who pressed their claims with excessive vigor could quickly become a nuisance and find themselves excluded from the imperial presence altogether".[p. 10] Gregory had already drawn an imperial rebuke for his lengthy canonical writings on the subject of the legitimacy of John III Scholasticus, who had occupied the Patriarchate of Constantinople for twelve years prior to the return of Eutychius (who had been driven out by Justinian).[p. 10] Gregory turned himself to cultivating connections with the Byzantine elite of the city, where he became extremely popular with the city's upper class, "especially aristocratic women".[p. 10] Ekonomou surmises that "while Gregory may have become spiritual father to a large and important segment of Constantinople's aristocracy, this relationship did not significantly advance the interests of Rome before the emperor".[p. 10] Although the writings of John the Deacon claim that Greogry "labored diligently for the relief of Italy", there is no evidence that his tenure accomplished much towards any of the objectives of Pelagius II.[pp. 10-11]
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: October 03, 2010, 06:35:19 PM »

Quote
II wrote to Gregory as apocrisiarius, detailing the hardships that Rome was experiencing under the Lombards and asking him to ask Emperor Maurice to send a relief force.[p. 9] Maurice, however, had long ago determined to limit his efforts against the Lombards to intrigue and diplomacy, pitting the Franks against them.[p. 9] It soon became obvious to Gregory that the Byzantine emperors were unlikely to send such a force, given their more immediate difficulties with the Persians in the East and the Avars and Slavs to the North.[p. 10]


The great sin of Constantinople was its arrogance about the "barbarians" of the West. They were quickly becoming, not only more than barbarians, but an entirely new civilization. Constantinople failed to see that and treated them as the foederati barbarians of old until its very last breath. We can't blame them entirely since there were no records of that magnificent phenomena they were witnessing: the birth of a civilization. Only with hindsight it seems "easy" to notice that something momentous was happening in the West. Nevertheles, because of the same hindsight, it seems clear to me that Constantinople's fall abandoned by the allies that could have helped her, is but a historic irony for the period when the City itself had abandoned the West.

Had Constantinople cared as it should about the West, we probably would still have two civlizations, one more "hellenically eastern" and another more "latin-germanic". But both would be Orthodox, the Ottoman Empire would never have grown so much and I wouldn't be surprised that the City would have had collonies of its own in Asia, Africa or even in the Americas.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 06:37:47 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 642


militantsparrow
« Reply #6 on: October 03, 2010, 07:26:18 PM »

It seems like the answer to my OP is no. No such writings exist.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 20,146


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #7 on: October 03, 2010, 07:39:11 PM »

It seems like the answer to my OP is no. No such writings exist.

Impatient, aren't we?  Even by internet standards, you're a bit quick on the trigger.  Why should we bother re-hashing what likely amount to thousands of pages (8 1/2 x 11 type) of counter-Papal-Supremacy arguments here on this site, when you could literally do a 2-minute search and find dozens of threads with hundreds of quotes, arguments, and/or references.  My goodness, we have a specific Orthodox-Catholic section with 24 pages of threads (at 45 threads/page, that's a lot of discussions) - most of which at least in one way or another address the issue of the Papacy.  IMO, there is no single human figure who has been as divisive within Christianity as the Pope (and I have a feeling most, if not all, of my Orthodox brethren would agree), so there are certainly (at least from our POV) many, many citations on this site to our position viz-a-viz the Pontiff, Vatican, etc.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 07:43:53 PM by Fr. George » Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 642


militantsparrow
« Reply #8 on: October 03, 2010, 08:10:14 PM »

It seems like the answer to my OP is no. No such writings exist.

Impatient, aren't we?  Even by internet standards, you're a bit quick on the trigger.  Why should we bother re-hashing what likely amount to thousands of pages (8 1/2 x 11 type) of counter-Papal-Supremacy arguments here on this site, when you could literally do a 2-minute search and find dozens of threads with hundreds of quotes, arguments, and/or references.  My goodness, we have a specific Orthodox-Catholic section with 24 pages of threads (at 45 threads/page, that's a lot of discussions) - most of which at least in one way or another address the issue of the Papacy.  IMO, there is no single human figure who has been as divisive within Christianity as the Pope (and I have a feeling most, if not all, of my Orthodox brethren would agree), so there are certainly (at least from our POV) many, many citations on this site to our position viz-a-viz the Pontiff, Vatican, etc.

lol. No. I'm very patient. I just get frustrated sometimes hearing the Sam people make the same arguments regardless of the OP. I am truly interested in the responses.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,892


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #9 on: October 03, 2010, 08:27:03 PM »

It might be helpful if you first click on the "Petrine Primacy" tag below and read the threads.  I think you'll find some quotes there.  If you still need more, you can come back to this thread and ask more specifically about what you want.

Just a suggestion.   Smiley
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #10 on: October 03, 2010, 08:40:38 PM »

It seems like the answer to my OP is no. No such writings exist.
You do realize that asking for quotes like you do against Ultramontanis, you seem to be asking something akin to asking for quotes of the Fathers against Episcopalianism: it didn't exist in full bloom to be written against.

Mat. 13:24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Until the weeds appear, the Fathers understanbly are silent.

Btw, on Polycrates:
Quote
Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.  But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor...Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html#iii.x.xxv-Page_243
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 642


militantsparrow
« Reply #11 on: October 03, 2010, 08:41:46 PM »

It might be helpful if you first click on the "Petrine Primacy" tag below and read the threads.  I think you'll find some quotes there.  If you still need more, you can come back to this thread and ask more specifically about what you want.

Just a suggestion.   Smiley

I appreciate the advice, but I dont come to forums as reference. I like forums for the dialog.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,501



« Reply #12 on: October 03, 2010, 09:22:25 PM »

When I think of this issue, I don't think of the florilegiums and proof texting, or even debates over the quotes (e.g. here), I think of historical realities. When I think of how Justinian treated the Pope, or how the Pope's desires were ignored when adopting canons at Councils, of how Eastern bishops (even stains) didn't think it any big deal to not be in communion with Rome, of how some Eastern bishops were outright rejected by Rome (e.g. Meletius of Antioch) and were nonetheless considered valid and even saintly, and so forth, I come to the conclusion that the early Christians just didn't attribute powers to the Pope that quotes hand-picked by Catholic apologists would seem to indicate.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2010, 09:23:44 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #13 on: October 03, 2010, 10:07:53 PM »

When I think of this issue, I don't think of the florilegiums and proof texting, or even debates over the quotes (e.g. here), I think of historical realities. When I think of how Justinian treated the Pope, or how the Pope's desires were ignored when adopting canons at Councils, of how Eastern bishops (even stains) didn't think it any big deal to not be in communion with Rome, of how some Eastern bishops were outright rejected by Rome (e.g. Meletius of Antioch) and were nonetheless considered valid and even saintly, and so forth, I come to the conclusion that the early Christians just didn't attribute powers to the Pope that quotes hand-picked by Catholic apologists would seem to indicate.
Indeed. I recently noticed that with the Ecumenical Councils, the decrees are signed by a myriad of bishops. The councils that the Vatican has held since the schism for the most part only have the signature of the supreme pontiff. (Florence being an obvious exception: trying to get the Orthodox bishops to sign on was the purpose of dragging them to Florence).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #14 on: October 03, 2010, 10:44:14 PM »

There is always the account from St Irenaeus regarding St Polycarp's visit to Rome:http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.viii.iii.html

The relevant portion being: "And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him."

I also find it interesting that while St Polycarp is shown to have received his tradition from St John and other Apostles, Pope Anicetus' tradition is from anonymous preceding presbyters.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #15 on: October 04, 2010, 10:51:55 AM »


----------

The Papacy is far more than just having a primate. It implies a series of novel and heretical teachings:

Universal jurisdiction;
Infallibility ex cathedra exclusive to the Pope;

and, although rarely explicitily stated, it is implied:

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.
the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Here is where you have to resort to false attribution and presumption, without which the rest of your argument falls apart.   I hope Orthodox bishops are more subtle when we get to this point of the discussion.

The first assertion that you make above is an outright falsehood, because the Church teaches very clearly that the infallibility of the papal office is a function of the infallibility of the Church.  Without the certitude of Church, you cannot have the certitude of the papal office.  IF the bishops rise up against a teaching, then the pope, reaching into Tradition for the substantial truth of a teaching may exercise his apostolic authority singly and the faithful can have a high degree of certitude that his word is true while the bishops fail in their duty to protect the faith.  If you assert other than this in the face of explicit Catholic teaching then you assert a falsehood.

The second is a perversion and a presumption.  It, in no way, reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you fail to do, and this is no small thing.   You fail to concede that the excesses of papal authority over time are abuses.  They are not ever intended to be to formal faithful teaching of the Church.  Do Catholics realize that popes erred and erred badly sometimes?  Absolutely.   But to assert that these errors and excesses cause the Church to permanently veer away from the age old truth of the primacy is false, and purposefully so, done in an attempt to put the Catholic Church in a bad light.  It never does hold up to scrutiny internally and surely will not externally.

But while you are busy pulling the mote out of the Catholic eye, you miss the plank in the primatial eye of Orthodoxy...

It is better if we allow one another to define who we are to each other rather than lobbing presumptions and false accusations.

But if that happens, when that happens, the fighting ceases...and we can't have that...can we?

Mary

Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #16 on: October 04, 2010, 11:32:49 AM »


I have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. I need nothing else.

In the case you bring to the bar, if you are going to press your quote, then one only need to know how to see hypocrisy when he sees it, as an Ultramontanist read of St. Gregory has to also summarize his argument as "do as I say, not as I do."

I am a member in the Body of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.  So I do not speak out of my own understanding, but that is all you can do when you speak of the Catholic Church.

That is the problem here.  You are not qualified to speak for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, though you insist that you do.

There is no hypocrisy in St. Gregory the Great.  You have failed to read him in context and apprehend his meaning in the case that you press.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #17 on: October 04, 2010, 11:33:39 AM »

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

The idea that is being put forward here, concerning Pope St. Gregory the Great, is being presented in a very misleading way.   Here is a clip from an encyclopedia entry. 

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA494&lpg=PA494&sig=Ql6mmHjXx2MjLAj4U-14h0ImTic&ei=SQupTJHjBYP88AahybmBDQ&ct=result&id=hLoTAAAAYAAJ&ots=ILt3iOMsED&output=text

Quote
St. Gregory I (590-604), who succeeded Pelagius IT, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrigianus) there (578-584); and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp I, iv, Ib P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his " Regula pastoralis " is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, " Patrology ", tr. Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of (ecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Cpnstantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V,xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon), to assume such a title as this. It further argues independence of any superior; whereas, says Gregory, "who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?" (Epp., IX, xii, ibid., 957); and again: "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See" (ibid.).

The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.). This idea rests on a misconception (HefeleLeclercq, " Histoire des Conciles ", II, Paris, 1908, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others [privative quoad omnes alias] so that he who calls himself cacumenic, that is universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth " (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenrother, "Photius", I, 184). For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arrogance " (Epp., V, xx, in_P. L., LXXVII, 746, xxi, 750. etc.); be who Bo calls himself is antichrist. Opposed to it Gregory assumed the title borne ever since by his successors. "He refuted the name 'universal' and first of all began to write himself ' servant of the servants of God' at the beginning of his letters, with sufficient humility, leaving to all his successors this hereditary evidence of his meekness " (Johannes Diaconus, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, i, in P. L., LXXV, 87). Nevertheless the patriarchs of Constantinople kept their "oecumenical" title till it became part of their official style. The Orthodox patriarch subscribes him

self still: "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and (Ecumenical Patriarch". But it is noticeable that even Photius (d. 891) never dared use the word when writjng to Rome. The Catholic Church has never admitted it. It became a symbol of Byzantine arrogance and Ihe Byzantine schism. In 1024 the Emperor Basil II (963-1025) tried to persuade Pope John XIX (1024-1033) to acknowledge it. The pope seems to have been ready to do so, but an outburst of indignation throughout the West and a stem letter from Abbot William of Dijon made him think better of it (Fortescue, " Orthodox Eastern Church ", p. 167) . Later again, at the time of the final schism, Pope Leo IX writes to Michael Cserularius of Constantinople (in 105.3): "How lamentable and detestable is the sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch" (op. cit., p. 182). No Catholic bishop since then has ever dared assume this title.

With regard to the issue, one should note first that Gregory knew no Greek. He saw the words only in a Latin version: Patriarcha universalTM, in which they certainly sound more scandalous than in Greek. How he understood them is plain from his letters. They seem to mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone. Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See. It is the whole difference between diocesan ordinaries and vicars Apostolic. All bishops are not Apostolic vicars of the pope. Nor has any pope ever assumed the title "universal bishop", though occasionally they have been so called in complimentary addresses from other persons. The accusation, then, that Gregory's successors have usurped the title that he so resented is false.
Logged

dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #18 on: October 04, 2010, 12:24:26 PM »


----------

The Papacy is far more than just having a primate. It implies a series of novel and heretical teachings:

Universal jurisdiction;
Infallibility ex cathedra exclusive to the Pope;

and, although rarely explicitily stated, it is implied:

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.
the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Here is where you have to resort to false attribution and presumption, without which the rest of your argument falls apart.   I hope Orthodox bishops are more subtle when we get to this point of the discussion.

The first assertion that you make above is an outright falsehood, because the Church teaches very clearly that the infallibility of the papal office is a function of the infallibility of the Church.  Without the certitude of Church, you cannot have the certitude of the papal office.  IF the bishops rise up against a teaching, then the pope, reaching into Tradition for the substantial truth of a teaching may exercise his apostolic authority singly and the faithful can have a high degree of certitude that his word is true while the bishops fail in their duty to protect the faith.  If you assert other than this in the face of explicit Catholic teaching then you assert a falsehood.

The second is a perversion and a presumption.  It, in no way, reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you fail to do, and this is no small thing.   You fail to concede that the excesses of papal authority over time are abuses.  They are not ever intended to be to formal faithful teaching of the Church.  Do Catholics realize that popes erred and erred badly sometimes?  Absolutely.   But to assert that these errors and excesses cause the Church to permanently veer away from the age old truth of the primacy is false, and purposefully so, done in an attempt to put the Catholic Church in a bad light.  It never does hold up to scrutiny internally and surely will not externally.

But while you are busy pulling the mote out of the Catholic eye, you miss the plank in the primatial eye of Orthodoxy...

It is better if we allow one another to define who we are to each other rather than lobbing presumptions and false accusations.

But if that happens, when that happens, the fighting ceases...and we can't have that...can we?

Mary



In what ways would you say that papal authority has been exaggerated or abused from a Catholic perspective?
Logged
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #19 on: October 04, 2010, 12:39:12 PM »

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist.  For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist.  One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts.  To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism.  In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy.  We need to be careful about proof texting, however.  I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #20 on: October 04, 2010, 02:01:09 PM »


I have the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Orthodox Church. I need nothing else.

In the case you bring to the bar, if you are going to press your quote, then one only need to know how to see hypocrisy when he sees it, as an Ultramontanist read of St. Gregory has to also summarize his argument as "do as I say, not as I do."

I am a member in the Body of the One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

I know that the Vatican tells you so, but it has been struck from the diptychs of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church for nearly a millenium: the bishop of Rome commemorated there now is Bishop Siluan. If the hierarchs meet in 2012, as published, they will be able to make that official and clear for those for whom that is not already evident.

So I do not speak out of my own understanding,
So you keep saying.

but that is all you can do when you speak of the Catholic Church.
Speak out of your own understanding? No, I'll take my understanding from the Apostles and Fathers and their successors and spokemen, the Orthodox bishops.

That is the problem here.  You are not qualified to speak for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, though you insist that you do.

Your supreme pontiff is not qualified to speak for the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, though he claims to, and you believe him. You are not in a position to give me a nihil obstat, imprimatur, nor letters apostolic.  Your approbation would add nothing to that which I received from the One, Holy, Cathoic and Apostolic Church in her chrism.

There is no hypocrisy in St. Gregory the Great.

There is in your portrayal of him.

You have failed to read him in context and apprehend his meaning in the case that you press.
No, I have not.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #21 on: October 04, 2010, 02:02:05 PM »

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist.  For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist.  One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts.  To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism.  In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy.  We need to be careful about proof texting, however.  I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion. 
Excellent analogy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #22 on: October 04, 2010, 02:04:30 PM »

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist.  For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist.  One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts.  To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism.  In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy.  We need to be careful about proof texting, however.  I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion. 
Excellent analogy.
Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin. Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #23 on: October 04, 2010, 02:10:44 PM »

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist.  For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist.  One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts.  To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism.  In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy.  We need to be careful about proof texting, however.  I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.  
Excellent analogy.
Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin. Smiley

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.   Smiley
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 02:11:08 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: October 04, 2010, 02:21:49 PM »


----------

The Papacy is far more than just having a primate. It implies a series of novel and heretical teachings:

Universal jurisdiction;
Infallibility ex cathedra exclusive to the Pope;

and, although rarely explicitily stated, it is implied:

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.
the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Here is where you have to resort to false attribution and presumption, without which the rest of your argument falls apart.   I hope Orthodox bishops are more subtle when we get to this point of the discussion.

The first assertion that you make above is an outright falsehood, because the Church teaches very clearly that the infallibility of the papal office is a function of the infallibility of the Church.  Without the certitude of Church, you cannot have the certitude of the papal office.  IF the bishops rise up against a teaching, then the pope, reaching into Tradition for the substantial truth of a teaching may exercise his apostolic authority singly and the faithful can have a high degree of certitude that his word is true while the bishops fail in their duty to protect the faith.  If you assert other than this in the face of explicit Catholic teaching then you assert a falsehood.

The second is a perversion and a presumption.  It, in no way, reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you fail to do, and this is no small thing.   You fail to concede that the excesses of papal authority over time are abuses.  They are not ever intended to be to formal faithful teaching of the Church.  Do Catholics realize that popes erred and erred badly sometimes?  Absolutely.   But to assert that these errors and excesses cause the Church to permanently veer away from the age old truth of the primacy is false, and purposefully so, done in an attempt to put the Catholic Church in a bad light.  It never does hold up to scrutiny internally and surely will not externally.

But while you are busy pulling the mote out of the Catholic eye, you miss the plank in the primatial eye of Orthodoxy...

It is better if we allow one another to define who we are to each other rather than lobbing presumptions and false accusations.

But if that happens, when that happens, the fighting ceases...and we can't have that...can we?

Mary



Mary,

you say that your church teaches that primal infallibility comes from the infallibility of the Roman institution itself. Yet, you say that even right before you affirm that if the collegiate of bishops unanimously say something different, it is the supreme bishop of the RCs that will be the ultimate factor of decision.

Obviously that is either a false argument or an outright malicious attempt to cause cognitive dissonance, since there is an obvious contradiction between the praxis and the theoria, something so self-evident that one can only advise to avoid this kind of rustic line of thought if we are to have any serious debate. Of course that at this point, everybody has already noticed your arrogant condescendence which just thinly hides your slanderous contempt for the Church. But it's ok since the Church has been the victim of these vile falsehoods from its very beginning. You're just the last in a very, very long line.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 02:31:26 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: I'll take (e) for "all of the above"
Posts: 2,445



WWW
« Reply #25 on: October 04, 2010, 02:29:30 PM »

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist.  For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist.  One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts.  To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism.  In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy.  We need to be careful about proof texting, however.  I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion. 
Excellent analogy.
Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin. Smiley

Did the office of "Pope" exist in the time of the Fathers?  Of course.  Alexandria had (and has) one.

Did the first Nicene Council give to Rome a primacy of honour, due to it's status as capital of the Roman Empire?  Yes.

Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century?  It would not appear so.
Logged

"Funny," said Lancelot, "how the people who can't pray say that prayers are not answered, however much the people who can pray say they are."  TH White

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #26 on: October 04, 2010, 02:33:31 PM »



Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century?  It would not appear so.
False. Try again.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #27 on: October 04, 2010, 02:52:30 PM »

I've read plenty of quotes by the Church Fathers who seem to support papal primacy, but I am interested in reading the other side. Steve Ray makes an argument from silence in his book Upon this Rock. He makes the point that not having church fathers speak out against the papal claims is proof that the East accepted those claims. This cant be true. Opposition to the papacy couldn't have come from nowhere.

Can anyone provide me with some quotes by the church fathers speaking out against the papacy.

Thank you.

The idea that is being put forward here, concerning Pope St. Gregory the Great, is being presented in a very misleading way.   Here is a clip from an encyclopedia entry.  

http://books.google.com/books?pg=PA494&lpg=PA494&sig=Ql6mmHjXx2MjLAj4U-14h0ImTic&ei=SQupTJHjBYP88AahybmBDQ&ct=result&id=hLoTAAAAYAAJ&ots=ILt3iOMsED&output=text
You left out the book info:
"The Catholic encyclopedia: an international work of reference on the constitution, doctrine, discipline and history of the Catholic Church" Volume 8 By Knights of Columbus. Catholic Truth Committee." Hmmm. Is that like the Ministry of Truth? I wonder which side the Knights of Columbus (the Vatican's answer-and a good one-to the Masons) will come down on? Unlike the Crusaders, though, their swords are only ceremonial. But at least the CE is honest in its bias:
Quote
The Making of the Catholic Encyclopedia (1917)
The need of a Catholic Encyclopedia in English was manifest for many years before it was decided to publish one. Editors of various general Encyclopedias had attempted to make them satisfactory from a Catholic point of view, but without success, partly because they could not afford the space, but chiefly because in matters of dispute their contributors were too often permitted to be partial, if not erroneous, in their statements.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/00001a.htm

Quote
St. Gregory I (590-604), who succeeded Pelagius IT, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrigianus) there (578-584); and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp I, iv, Ib P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his " Regula pastoralis " is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, " Patrology ", tr. Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of (ecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Cpnstantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V,xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon),

Odd that they would admit that Pope St. Gregory acknowledged the Pentarchy, and then here call it "uncertain.'

Quote
to assume such a title as this. It further argues independence of any superior; whereas, says Gregory, "who doubts that the Church of Constantinople is subject to the Apostolic See?" (Epp., IX, xii, ibid., 957); and again: "I know of no bishop who is not subject to the Apostolic See" (ibid.).
It would seem that he hadn't heard of Patriarch St. Meletius. Nor the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council.

Quote
The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.).
Odd, I haven't found any such thing in the Acts of Chalcedon
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA217&dq=Acts+of++Chalcedon+universal+bishop&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Acts%20of%20%20Chalcedon%20universal%20bishop&f=false
Btw, it seems the Latin embellishes the titles of the Pope, I mean bishop, of Rome (which hadn't taken the title then born by the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria yet) amongst other things, not found in the Greek (which was the offical language of the proceedings).

Quote
This idea rests on a misconception (HefeleLeclercq, " Histoire des Conciles ", II, Paris, 1908, pp. 834-5), but his reason for resenting the title in any bishop is obvious throughout his letters. "He understood it as an exclusion of all the others [privative quoad omnes alias] so that he who calls himself ecumenic, that is universal, thinks all other patriarchs and bishops to be private persons and himself the only pastor of the inhabited earth " (so Horace Giustiniani at the Council of Florence; Hergenrother, "Photius", I, 184). For this reason Gregory does not spare his language in denouncing it. It is "diabolical arrogance " (Epp., V, xx, in_P. L., LXXVII, 746, xxi, 750. etc.); be who so calls himself is antichrist. Opposed to it Gregory assumed the title borne ever since by his successors. "He refuted the name 'universal' and first of all began to write himself ' servant of the servants of God' at the beginning of his letters, with sufficient humility, leaving to all his successors this hereditary evidence of his meekness " (Johannes Diaconus, "Vita S. Gregorii", II, i, in P. L., LXXV, 87). Nevertheless the patriarchs of Constantinople kept their "oecumenical" title till it became part of their official style. The Orthodox patriarch subscribes himself still: "Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and (Ecumenical Patriarch". But it is noticeable that even Photius (d. 891) never dared use the word when writjng to Rome. The Catholic Church has never admitted it. It became a symbol of Byzantine arrogance and Ihe Byzantine schism. In 1024 the Emperor Basil II (963-1025) tried to persuade Pope John XIX (1024-1033) to acknowledge it. The pope seems to have been ready to do so, but an outburst of indignation throughout the West and a stem letter from Abbot William of Dijon made him think better of it (Fortescue, " Orthodox Eastern Church ", p. 167) . Later again, at the time of the final schism, Pope Leo IX writes to Michael Cserularius of Constantinople (in 105.3): "How lamentable and detestable is the sacrilegious usurpation by which you everywhere boast yourself to be the Universal Patriarch" (op. cit., p. 182). No Catholic bishop since then has ever dared assume this title.
No, but the Vatican did:read Pastor Aeternus.  The EP is Catholic. As for the Vatican, "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" just reeks of humility.

Quote
With regard to the issue, one should note first that Gregory knew no Greek. He saw the words only in a Latin version: Patriarcha universala, in which they certainly sound more scandalous than in Greek. How he understood them is plain from his letters. They seem to mean that all jurisdiction comes from one bishop, that all other bishops are only his vicars and delegates. Catholic theology does not affirm this of the pope or anyone.
Ah, the Ministry of Truth at work.

Quote
Diocesan bishops have ordinary, not delegate, jurisdiction; they receive their authority immediately from Christ, though they may use it only in the communion of the Roman See.

So they receive it in name only. So a distinction without a difference:
Quote
It is the whole difference between diocesan ordinaries and vicars Apostolic. All bishops are not Apostolic vicars of the pope. Nor has any pope ever assumed the title "universal bishop", though occasionally they have been so called in complimentary addresses from other persons.
Roll Eyes
Quote
The accusation, then, that Gregory's successors have usurped the title that he so resented is false.
No it hits the nail on the head, and is thus too close for comfort. Neither EP St. John the Faster, nor his successors (or most of them: oddly enough today, those most insistent on seeing the Vatican as a sister church also insist on seeing the Phanar as the Orthodox Vatican) claimed to be a universal bishop, but successors of Pope St. Gregory most certainly have.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 02:54:05 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #28 on: October 04, 2010, 02:55:35 PM »



Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century?  It would not appear so.
False. Try again.
False. Try again. Just this time with an argument.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #29 on: October 04, 2010, 03:02:42 PM »

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist.  For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist.  One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts.  To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism.  In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy.  We need to be careful about proof texting, however.  I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion.  
Excellent analogy.
Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin. Smiley

Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia.   Smiley
Sic dicet Vaticana.

The One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic and Orthodox Church says with with Pat. St. Ignatius of Antioch, who said it in the first century of the Church: "Wherever the bishop appears, there let the people be; as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful to baptize or give communion without the consent of the bishop. On the other hand, whatever has his approval is pleasing to God. Thus, whatever is done will be safe and valid." — Letter to the Smyrnaeans 8

(btw, it was arguing over this quote that was the last straw for extending the term "Catholic" to the Vatican by me).
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #30 on: October 04, 2010, 03:09:40 PM »

There is no hypocrisy in St. Gregory the Great.

There is in your portrayal of him.

You have failed to read him in context and apprehend his meaning in the case that you press.
No, I have not.

You have clearly distorted his meaning by implying that the Catholic Church claims the title "universal bishop" for the men in the papal office.  That is not a title used by the papal office.  So his rejection of the title cannot mean that St. Gregory the Great is denying his own office.  

You assert a general protestant argument in that instance and it has never been upheld, though many keep trying.

In some ways it not even meant to be a serious argument any longer in most eyes.  

Simply a way to poke fun.

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #31 on: October 04, 2010, 03:09:40 PM »


----------

The Papacy is far more than just having a primate. It implies a series of novel and heretical teachings:

Universal jurisdiction;
Infallibility ex cathedra exclusive to the Pope;

and, although rarely explicitily stated, it is implied:

onthological and inheritable character of the primacy, that is, primacy belongs to Rome as an irremovable trait. The charisma of Peter's leadership was given to the city bishop, whoever he is.
the primacy is the source of orthodoxy. You are orthodox because you are under the Pope as long as you don't contradict him;

------

Here is where you have to resort to false attribution and presumption, without which the rest of your argument falls apart.   I hope Orthodox bishops are more subtle when we get to this point of the discussion.

The first assertion that you make above is an outright falsehood, because the Church teaches very clearly that the infallibility of the papal office is a function of the infallibility of the Church.  Without the certitude of Church, you cannot have the certitude of the papal office.  IF the bishops rise up against a teaching, then the pope, reaching into Tradition for the substantial truth of a teaching may exercise his apostolic authority singly and the faithful can have a high degree of certitude that his word is true while the bishops fail in their duty to protect the faith.  If you assert other than this in the face of explicit Catholic teaching then you assert a falsehood.

The second is a perversion and a presumption.  It, in no way, reflects the teaching of the Catholic Church.

What you fail to do, and this is no small thing.   You fail to concede that the excesses of papal authority over time are abuses.  They are not ever intended to be to formal faithful teaching of the Church.  Do Catholics realize that popes erred and erred badly sometimes?  Absolutely.   But to assert that these errors and excesses cause the Church to permanently veer away from the age old truth of the primacy is false, and purposefully so, done in an attempt to put the Catholic Church in a bad light.  It never does hold up to scrutiny internally and surely will not externally.

But while you are busy pulling the mote out of the Catholic eye, you miss the plank in the primatial eye of Orthodoxy...

It is better if we allow one another to define who we are to each other rather than lobbing presumptions and false accusations.

But if that happens, when that happens, the fighting ceases...and we can't have that...can we?

Mary



Mary,

you say that your church teaches that primal infallibility comes from the infallibility of the Roman institution itself. Yet, you say that even right before you affirm that if the collegiate of bishops unanimously say something different, it is the supreme bishop of the RCs that will be the ultimate factor of decision.

Obviously that is either a false argument or an outright malicious attempt to cause cognitive dissonance, since there is an obvious contradiction between the praxis and the theoria, something so self-evident that one can only advise to avoid this kind of rustic line of thought if we are to have any serious debate. Of course that at this point, everybody has already noticed your arrogant condescendence which just thinly hides your slanderous contempt for the Church. But it's ok since the Church has been the victim of these vile falsehoods from its very beginning. You're just the last in a very, very long line.

Dramatic!  You might want to be careful about what you say to and about me personally, not for any correction you might engender but for the damage that kind of bitter and unjust thinking does to the soul.

The easy example against your tirade here is the fact that there are many many bishops and priests and monks currently in the Catholic Church who are either supportive of the ordination of women into the ministerial priesthood, or are, as some say, "resigned" to the fact that it will soon be a reality in the Church.  In the face of that fact, Pope John Paul II issued a statement declaring that women are not proper matter for the sacrament of holy orders...based upon the long TRADITION of the Church...rather than being based upon the immediate and weak positions taken by bishops and priests world-wide, Church-wide.

So the Pope cannot simply go against his bishops alone, but he can CALL UPON THE LONG TRADITION of the Church in refuting dissident bishops in the present moment.

So John Paul II set the precedent for the next pope, and the next, and the next for dealing with dissident bishops on the matter of women priests.  Pope Benedict has also dealt strongly with the issue, again paving the way for other popes who might need to stand against dissident bishops.

So you can put your drama away, at least as far as it is to have any impact on me personally.  I would hope others might see where the sense and sensibility lies in this matter in any event.

Mary
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #32 on: October 04, 2010, 03:19:35 PM »



Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century?  It would not appear so.
False. Try again.
False. Try again. Just this time with an argument.
I will respond with an argument when I see an argument to respond to. But all that is presented is an assertion, well how does one argue against that?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #33 on: October 04, 2010, 03:23:29 PM »

Just a few tweakings for correction.
I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist.  For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist.  One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts.  To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism.  In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy.  We need to be careful about proof texting, however.  I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion. 
Excellent analogy.
Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin. Smiley

Did the office of "Pope" exist in the time of the Fathers?  Of course.  Alexandria had (and has) one.

Pope constitutes a title, not an office. At least in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, where the episcopate is an ontological whole.  The office of Archbishop of Rome, and Pontiff of Rome (it was a pagan office received by the archbishop of Rome) existed but it had not yet arrogated the title of "Pope" to itself. Pope Gregory, not the St. the Great I but the VII, did that in the 11th century (when it dug up and dusted off the void anti-Photios council of Constantinople (869)).

Did the first Nicene Council give to Rome a primacy of honour, due to it's status as capital of the Roman Empire?  Yes.
Not exactly: Nicea I recognized what already was. And it was that way because of the secular order. Otherwise there is, on theological reasons of scripture and Tradition, no reason why Alexandria preceeds Antioch, both of which, btw, do not owe their position to Old Rome.

Alexandria has had it since Pope Dionysius (248-265) mentions it in reference to Pope Heraclas (232–248)

Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position

The rebuke of Pope Victor, the striking of Pope Vigilius from the diptychs and the Fifth Council being held over his objection, the refusal to recognize Pat. St. Meletius of Antioch deposal by Rome etc., says no, such a concept did not exist.

Quote
derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone,

The claim of a special "Petrine" authority (as opposed to the authority of SS Peter and Paul) does not seem to predate Pope St. Stephen of the 3rd century.

The claims based on Matthew 16 is even later, as even the CE admits:"It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm

It is also odd that the proof text comes not from St. Mark, the Gospel associated with Rome, but St. Matthew, the Gospel associated with St. Peter's first see of Antioch.


Quote
exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century?  It would not appear so.

Indeed not.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #34 on: October 04, 2010, 03:24:10 PM »

here you go ^^^


Did the concept of papacy, that is a special ruling position derived from St Peter and passed on to Rome and Rome alone, exist before Rome started pressing such claims in the late 8th century?  It would not appear so.
False. Try again.
False. Try again. Just this time with an argument.
I will respond with an argument when I see an argument to respond to. But all that is presented is an assertion, well how does one argue against that?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #35 on: October 04, 2010, 03:27:53 PM »

I agree with ialmisry that one cannot find statements against something which didn't exist.  For example, it would be like looking for statements by Thomas Jefferson against Communism: it didn't exist at his time, and so no such statements exist.  One can, however, find relevent statements addressing the principles in question from different contexts.  To use the same example, you could find statements from Thomas Jefferson supporting capitalism, democracy, and freedom, and apply these against the principles of Communism.  In a similar way we could look for statements in the saints of the Church that contradict the ultramontine understanding of the Papacy.  We need to be careful about proof texting, however.  I could pull quotations from the saints for or against many things, but it wouldn't capture the "consensus patri", the faith believe "always, everywhere, and by all" in the words of St. Vincent of Lerins, and so wouldn't serve this discussion. 
Excellent analogy.
Except for the fact that the Papacy did exist at the time of the Fathers while communism didn't exist at the dime of the founding of our nation. So this is, in fact, a false analogy provided by dcointin. Smiley

As I said, I was referring to the “ultramontane” understanding of the Papacy, not the Papacy itself.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #36 on: October 04, 2010, 03:48:30 PM »

There is no hypocrisy in St. Gregory the Great.

There is in your portrayal of him.

You have failed to read him in context and apprehend his meaning in the case that you press.
No, I have not.

You have clearly distorted his meaning by implying that the Catholic Church claims the title "universal bishop" for the men in the papal office.  That is not a title used by the papal office.
 

The title "Dictator" is rarely used by dictators either. And most republics nowadays (e.g. Syria, Egypt, N. Korea,  etc.) are monarchys in all but name only. The Emperoro Augustus himself, claimed only to be "First Citizen."

So his rejection of the title cannot mean that St. Gregory the Great is denying his own office.
 
Since the office of papacy as the Vatican in Pastor Aeternas propounds the doctrine concerning the 1. institution, 2. permanence and 3. nature of the sacred and apostolic primacy, which it miscontrues into the papacy upon which it predictates the strength and coherence of the whole Church, didn't exist, it didn't exist for Pope St. Gregory to renounce.

You assert a general protestant argument in that instance and it has never been upheld, though many keep trying.
The Pillars of Orthodoxy upheld it long before the Protestants came along, and the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of Orthodoxy will uphold it long after the Protestants and the Vatican are gone.

Protestants? Hardly.

In some ways it not even meant to be a serious argument any longer in most eyes.
so your mouth speaks for most eyes now, huh? Was a vote taken, or did you receive letters apostolic.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #37 on: October 04, 2010, 03:52:04 PM »


Mary,

you say that your church teaches that primal infallibility comes from the infallibility of the Roman institution itself. Yet, you say that even right before you affirm that if the collegiate of bishops unanimously say something different, it is the supreme bishop of the RCs that will be the ultimate factor of decision.

Obviously that is either a false argument or an outright malicious attempt to cause cognitive dissonance, since there is an obvious contradiction between the praxis and the theoria, something so self-evident that one can only advise to avoid this kind of rustic line of thought if we are to have any serious debate. Of course that at this point, everybody has already noticed your arrogant condescendence which just thinly hides your slanderous contempt for the Church. But it's ok since the Church has been the victim of these vile falsehoods from its very beginning. You're just the last in a very, very long line.

Dramatic!  You might want to be careful about what you say to and about me personally, not for any correction you might engender but for the damage that kind of bitter and unjust thinking does to the soul.

The easy example against your tirade here is the fact that there are many many bishops and priests and monks currently in the Catholic Church who are either supportive of the ordination of women into the ministerial priesthood, or are, as some say, "resigned" to the fact that it will soon be a reality in the Church.  In the face of that fact, Pope John Paul II issued a statement declaring that women are not proper matter for the sacrament of holy orders...based upon the long TRADITION of the Church...rather than being based upon the immediate and weak positions taken by bishops and priests world-wide, Church-wide.

So the Pope cannot simply go against his bishops alone, but he can CALL UPON THE LONG TRADITION of the Church in refuting dissident bishops in the present moment.

So John Paul II set the precedent for the next pope, and the next, and the next for dealing with dissident bishops on the matter of women priests.  Pope Benedict has also dealt strongly with the issue, again paving the way for other popes who might need to stand against dissident bishops.

So you can put your drama away, at least as far as it is to have any impact on me personally.  I would hope others might see where the sense and sensibility lies in this matter in any event.

Mary

Tradition failed the Vatican, or rather the Vatican failed Tradition, in Vatican I and Vatican II. The "supreme pontiff" went and did what he wanted anyways.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 03:53:14 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #38 on: October 04, 2010, 03:59:45 PM »

The "supreme pontiff" went and did what he wanted anyways.
You mean as your church has done all along?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #39 on: October 04, 2010, 04:14:08 PM »


Quote
St. Gregory I (590-604), who succeeded Pelagius IT, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrigianus) there (578-584); and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp I, iv, Ib P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his " Regula pastoralis " is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, " Patrology ", tr. Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of (ecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Cpnstantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V,xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon),

Odd that they would admit that Pope St. Gregory acknowledged the Pentarchy, and then here call it "uncertain.'

Oh my.  I hope that you are not suggesting that consistency, lack of any qualifications concerning discernment and meaning, followed closely by literal black and white statements with only one possible meaning are a mark of the True Church?

It seems that much of what you say in these discussions tend to hold everyone else to a standard that you brush off when applied to what seems to be in your interest.

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #40 on: October 04, 2010, 04:15:58 PM »

The "supreme pontiff" went and did what he wanted anyways.
You mean as your church has done all along?

Not exactly. Our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always wanted to preserve and transmit the Orthodoxy it received from the Apostles, neither adding to nor subtracting from it. And so we have done.

So yes we also have done what we wanted, but what we wanted differed from the Vatican's wishes and desires.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #41 on: October 04, 2010, 04:17:48 PM »

Dramatic!  You might want to be careful about what you say to and about me personally, not for any correction you might engender but for the damage that kind of bitter and unjust thinking does to the soul.

So you can put your drama away, at least as far as it is to have any impact on me personally.  I would hope others might see where the sense and sensibility lies in this matter in any event.

Mary

Mary,

we couldn't agree more on the tone of the message I posted and you criticized.  Dramatic indeed. And bitter and unjust and utterly senselles and without sensibility.

Only that, as anyone who cares may easily compare, I did not write in my usual style, but I used *your* recorrent style for replying messages: passive-agressive, condescendent, constantly whining about how everybody is so unjust with my church and using that as an excuse to indirectly say that people whom you disagree with are malicious or ignorant, using ad argumenton eristics (the technique of "calling names" to an argument to make the audience not accept it), in short, going way over the line of respect for someone who goes to another faith's forum to dialogue. If a protestant or orthodox goes to a RC forum, this person will have to read now and then that their faith is heretic. It's life. Get over it. There will not be en mass convertion, just a couple of people will move from one church to the other. These institutions will not go away, even if they are wrong (hindu religion and budhism have been around far longer than Christianity; endurance is no proof of truth).

You want dialogue? Show a bit more of respect. I may be the only one here speaking about this, but I bet a lot of people here are tired of your's (and Papist's) trolling around. I am a moderator of forums as well (not this one) and I have defended the RC from historical falsehoods not once or twice, but many times, even defending the Inquisition in its historical context which is far over the boundery even for some of the self-styled tolerants. Your constant accusations of ignorance and mallice against everybody who does not agree with RC interpretations of the first millenium speak more about the attitude that moves you than of any real fact. The world is not made of the people who agree with you or like your church on one side, and the stupid malignant ones on the other.

I have no moderating power here whatsoever, but as co-forumite, I'll repeat my request: you are not Orthodox, you are not in your house.  Your presence here is a kindness of the creators of the forum for the sake of dialogue. If you can't make your point without passive-agressiveness, if you can't make it without pretending everybody who disagrees is ignorant or mallicious, you'd better restrain yourself.
« Last Edit: October 04, 2010, 04:18:55 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #42 on: October 04, 2010, 04:18:32 PM »

The "supreme pontiff" went and did what he wanted anyways.
You mean as your church has done all along?

Not exactly. Our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always wanted to preserve and transmit the Orthodoxy it received from the Apostles, neither adding to nor subtracting from it. And so we have done.

So yes we also have done what we wanted, but what we wanted differed from the Vatican's wishes and desires.
I agree. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has always preserved and transmited orthodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, has not.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #43 on: October 04, 2010, 04:30:00 PM »


Quote
St. Gregory I (590-604), who succeeded Pelagius IT, was at first on good terms with John IV. He had known him at Constantinople while he had been legate (apocrigianus) there (578-584); and had sent him notice of his succession as pope in a friendly letter (Epp I, iv, Ib P. L., LXXVII, 447). It has been thought that the John to whom he dedicates his " Regula pastoralis " is John of Constantinople (others think it to be John of Ravenna, Bardenhewer, " Patrology ", tr. Shahan, St. Louis, 1908, p. 652). But in 593 this affair of the new and arrogant title provoked a serious dispute. It should be noticed that Gregory was still old-fashioned enough to cling to the theory of three patriarchates only, although officially he accepted the five (Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", p. 44). He was therefore not well-disposed towards Constantinople as a patriarchate at all. That it should claim to be the universal one seemed to him unheard-of insolence. John had cruelly scourged two priests accused of heresy. They appealed to the pope. In the correspondence that ensued John assumed this title of (ecumenical patriarch "in almost every line" of his letter (Epp., V, xviii in P. L., LXXVII, 738). Gregory protested vehemently against it in a long correspondence addressed first to John, then to the Emperor Maurice, the Empress Cpnstantina, and others. He argues that "if one patriarch is called universal the title is thereby taken from the others" (Epp., V,xviii, ibid., 740). It is a special effrontery for the Byzantine bishop, whose existence as a patriarch at all is new and still uncertain (Rome had refused to accept the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople and the twenty-eighth canon of Chalcedon),

Odd that they would admit that Pope St. Gregory acknowledged the Pentarchy, and then here call it "uncertain.'

Oh my.  I hope that you are not suggesting that consistency,

What consistency? If he had stuck to his "theory of three patriarchs," or gave it up and adopted the official Pentarchy of the Church, either would show consistency.  Officially accepting the Pentarchy-he owed his stay in Constantinople to it-while hiding behind the legal fiction that Rome hadn't accepted the canons officially, and arguing against the established fact of the Pentarchy from a dicarded theory, just makes a muddled mess of his purported mandate.


lack of any qualifications concerning discernment and meaning,


Pope St. Gregory the Great wasn't devoid of either discernment nor meaing. Though his lack of knowledge presented a problem.

followed closely by literal black and white statements with only one possible meaning are a mark of the True Church?

Filioque. War is peace. Freedom is slavery, etc...

It seems that much of what you say in these discussions tend to hold everyone else to a standard that you brush off when applied to what seems to be in your interest.
Not at all.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
John Larocque
Catholic
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 530


« Reply #44 on: October 04, 2010, 04:44:14 PM »

Quote
So John Paul II set the precedent for the next pope, and the next, and the next for dealing with dissident bishops on the matter of women priests.  Pope Benedict has also dealt strongly with the issue, again paving the way for other popes who might need to stand against dissident bishops.

What about precedents set during the pontificate of the venerable John Paul II on altar girls?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR19.HTM
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #45 on: October 04, 2010, 11:20:00 PM »

Quote
So John Paul II set the precedent for the next pope, and the next, and the next for dealing with dissident bishops on the matter of women priests.  Pope Benedict has also dealt strongly with the issue, again paving the way for other popes who might need to stand against dissident bishops.

What about precedents set during the pontificate of the venerable John Paul II on altar girls?

http://www.ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/ZLITUR19.HTM


How does this relate to the topic here?  Or is it just one of the things that annoys you about the disciplines in the Latin rite today and you decided to poke it in here because I mentioned women?
Logged

prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #46 on: October 05, 2010, 12:48:14 AM »

The "supreme pontiff" went and did what he wanted anyways.
You mean as your church has done all along?

Not exactly. Our One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church has always wanted to preserve and transmit the Orthodoxy it received from the Apostles, neither adding to nor subtracting from it. And so we have done.

So yes we also have done what we wanted, but what we wanted differed from the Vatican's wishes and desires.
I agree. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has always preserved and transmited orthodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, has not.

Ha! And you have the hide to complain about others making assertions  Roll Eyes
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #47 on: October 05, 2010, 03:31:00 AM »

[
I agree. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has always preserved and transmited orthodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, has not.

The Supreme Pontiff does not agree with you at all...

In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity."


~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.

Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #48 on: October 05, 2010, 03:35:25 AM »

/\   It is odd that the words of Pope Benedict may be counted as words of a "Church Father against the Papacy" because he has shown that the Papacy is simply not needed in the Church, certainly not for the preservation of right doctrine.
Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 642


militantsparrow
« Reply #49 on: October 05, 2010, 07:17:14 AM »

/\   It is odd that the words of Pope Benedict may be counted as words of a "Church Father against the Papacy" because he has shown that the Papacy is simply not needed in the Church, certainly not for the preservation of right doctrine.

True. But I do believe the Papacy is necessary for unity.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #50 on: October 05, 2010, 10:04:10 AM »

/\   It is odd that the words of Pope Benedict may be counted as words of a "Church Father against the Papacy" because he has shown that the Papacy is simply not needed in the Church, certainly not for the preservation of right doctrine.

True. But I do believe the Papacy is necessary for unity.

But, as Fr. Ambrose points out, Orthodoxy has disproved that "need."
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 10:06:24 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #51 on: October 05, 2010, 10:48:40 AM »

I have a question regarding the papacy and it may seem silly or unimportant but if I don't ask I'll never know the answer. In the discussions that I have seen (there maybe some threads I haven't seen) I haven't seen any discussion about the False Donation of Constantine or the False Decretals  of Isidore and what effect these documents had on the Western view of the Church and the powers of the papacy. So my question is: Do these documents matter and if so how did they affect the western view of the Church?
Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,501



« Reply #52 on: October 05, 2010, 11:03:12 AM »

/\   It is odd that the words of Pope Benedict may be counted as words of a "Church Father against the Papacy" because he has shown that the Papacy is simply not needed in the Church, certainly not for the preservation of right doctrine.

True. But I do believe the Papacy is necessary for unity.

I don't quite understand this. Where was Rome's ability to preserve unity after the 4th ecumenical council, when Constantinople broke from her in 1009, when much of the rest of the east broke from her in 1054, when anglicanism was created, when lutheranism was created, and so on? (btw, I do not mean to put EO/OO on the same level as Anglicans, or Anglicans on the same level as Lutherans... the point, of course, is simply that Rome doesn't exactly have a track record for keeping people part of one big, happy church family). Rome has not shown that it is necessary for maintaining unity, or that it is helpful in rebuilding unity once it is lost.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 11:04:57 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #53 on: October 05, 2010, 11:23:48 AM »

I have a question regarding the papacy and it may seem silly or unimportant but if I don't ask I'll never know the answer. In the discussions that I have seen (there maybe some threads I haven't seen) I haven't seen any discussion about the False Donation of Constantine or the False Decretals  of Isidore and what effect these documents had on the Western view of the Church and the powers of the papacy. So my question is: Do these documents matter and if so how did they affect the western view of the Church?

In studies on the Great Pyramid, a lot of energy is expended on explaining how it was built. The problem, of course, is that one a building is finished, its scaffolding is taken away: the idea that it is not to leave a trace, just the building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_pyramid_construction_techniques#Various_kinds_of_ramps

So too the Donation of Constantine, the False Decretals, the Symmachean forgeries
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmachean_forgeries
and the anti-historical Vita Beati Sylvestri served as scaffolding for the Ultramontanists to build themselves up a see and a basilica, whose top may reach unto heaven; and make themselves a name, lest they be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth-that "font of unity," the Vatican papacy. Their work been done, they are now discarded even by the Ultarmontanist (who resent us bringing them up).

Btw, a parallel process can be seen in the excessive dogma of the Vatican on the Theotokos stemming from Jerome's mistranslation of Genesis 3:15, which the Vatican's translators now admit is mistaken.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 642


militantsparrow
« Reply #54 on: October 05, 2010, 11:26:22 AM »

/\   It is odd that the words of Pope Benedict may be counted as words of a "Church Father against the Papacy" because he has shown that the Papacy is simply not needed in the Church, certainly not for the preservation of right doctrine.

True. But I do believe the Papacy is necessary for unity.

I don't quite understand this. Where was Rome's ability to preserve unity after the 4th ecumenical council, when Constantinople broke from her in 1009, when much of the rest of the east broke from her in 1054, when anglicanism was created, when lutheranism was created, and so on? (btw, I do not mean to put EO/OO on the same level as Anglicans, or Anglicans on the same level as Lutherans... the point, of course, is simply that Rome doesn't exactly have a track record for keeping people part of one big, happy church family). Rome has not shown that it is necessary for maintaining unity, or that it is helpful in rebuilding unity once it is lost.

The Oriental Orthodox broke communion with the pre-schism Church much earlier. Was that also Rome's fault? Anglicans and Lutherans broke away for reasons which, as you pointed out, were much different than the reasons Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism remain separated. In fact, I think the protestant examples are more of a result of a Western mentality ("everything my way") than issues with Roman Catholicism's ability to unite.

Regardless of the divisions, the papacy still stands--First Rome still stands. Leaders in both East and West have been working to heal the division. Nobody, on either side, is looking to abolish the Papacy. Where there is disagreement, they are only seeking to better define/refine the role of the Papacy in a united Church. Even Archbishop Hilarion recognizes the advantages the Western ecclesiastical structure affords. When the East and West re-unite (which I pray for and truly believe will happen) the Pope will be the First Among Equals. Rome will be Protos.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
dcointin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 61


« Reply #55 on: October 05, 2010, 01:18:55 PM »

While I don't agree that the Papacy is necessary for dogmatic unity, I do think a church united under a Papacy serves some useful purposes.

One, it could help with canonical disputes such as an official recongition of who's in communion with the Church, whose authority extends over what, what a church's status is (e.g. autocephalus), and similar issues.  Orthodoxy currently struggles with resolving these issues, and I think it's due to a lack of leadership.

Two, it could help clarify what the Church's official teaching is on contemporary issues.  For example, it could respond quickly and officially to issues like the Church's position on Islam after the 9-11 attacks.

Three, it could engage in ecumenical dialogues more effectively.  As it is, various Orthodox Churches are independent and free to pursue their own dialogues with or without one another, which means that a dialogue would have to be repeated over and over with different churches to achieve the same results.

Much more could be said, but my point is that it *does* have its advantages as well.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 01:20:01 PM by dcointin » Logged
ICXCNIKA
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 661



« Reply #56 on: October 05, 2010, 02:29:26 PM »

I have to disagree. I don't see those as advantages. We may have issues to resolve but they will be resolved in a conciliar manner not a papal one.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #57 on: October 05, 2010, 03:02:21 PM »

/\   It is odd that the words of Pope Benedict may be counted as words of a "Church Father against the Papacy" because he has shown that the Papacy is simply not needed in the Church, certainly not for the preservation of right doctrine.

True. But I do believe the Papacy is necessary for unity.

I don't quite understand this. Where was Rome's ability to preserve unity after the 4th ecumenical council, when Constantinople broke from her in 1009, when much of the rest of the east broke from her in 1054, when anglicanism was created, when lutheranism was created, and so on? (btw, I do not mean to put EO/OO on the same level as Anglicans, or Anglicans on the same level as Lutherans... the point, of course, is simply that Rome doesn't exactly have a track record for keeping people part of one big, happy church family). Rome has not shown that it is necessary for maintaining unity, or that it is helpful in rebuilding unity once it is lost.

The Oriental Orthodox broke communion with the pre-schism Church much earlier. Was that also Rome's fault? Anglicans and Lutherans broke away for reasons which, as you pointed out, were much different than the reasons Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism remain separated. In fact, I think the protestant examples are more of a result of a Western mentality ("everything my way") than issues with Roman Catholicism's ability to unite.

We are just matching the Vatican's rhetoric with its record. Were it not for the spread of the Vatican's communion in Latin America (not without the Spanish Inquisition-the existence of Candomblé, Voodoo,  "Los Costumbres" etc. call into question how successful that was), the even divide between Protestants and the Vatican in Europe would pose a more visible question of the Vatican's abilit to unite.  Given the inroads of the Protestants lately into Latin America, that question might come to the fore.

Regardless of the divisions, the papacy still stands--First Rome still stands.

Would you have said that, say, in 1378?


Define "still stands" The office of the pagan kings of Rome still stands-the Roman emperors gave it to the archbishop of Rome, hence "pontiff"-but not in a form they would recognize.  The monastic order of Gautama Siddhartha a/k/a "the Buddha" still stands, as does the Imperial House of Japan. Neither has induced me towards Buddhism nor Shintoism.  The Archbishoprick of Cantebury stills stands, from the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great. Need I comment how well it stands?

Leaders in both East and West have been working to heal the division. Nobody, on either side, is looking to abolish the Papacy.

That inadvertently is going to be on the agenda in 2012, if the "Great and Holy Council" meets:
So two the formation of EA in the West outside of Italy having no reference to Rome shouldn't concern or vex us in the slightest.
Quote
The model of church unity between East and West will be discussed by the Mixed Catholic-Orthodox Theological Commission that will meet after a six-year break in the fall of 2006. It is clear that this model will be hypothetic, since there remain many obstacles, both of dogmatic and of ecclesiological character, for the restoration of the full communion. However, the main obstacle to unity, according to many Orthodox theologians, is the teaching on the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. It is this teaching that will be discussed in the framework of the Mixed Commission. In this context unacceptable and even scandalous, from the Orthodox point of view, are precisely those titles that remain in the list, i.e. Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church.

Indeed! And if the "Great and Holy Council" convenes in 2012, it is going to have to deal with that fact.  As Abp. Hilarion points out:
Quote
The title "Supreme Pontiff" (pontifex maximus) originally belonged to the pagan emperors of Rome. It was not rejected by Emperor Constantine when he converted to Christianity. With relation to the pope of Rome the title "Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church" points to the pope's universal jurisdiction which is not and will never be recognized by the Orthodox Churches. It is precisely this title that should have been dropped first, had the move been motivated by the quest for "ecumenical progress" and desire for amelioration of the Catholic-Orthodox relations.

With the convening of the EA, the long overdo to see "historical and theological realities."  We were told at the time of the dropping of the title that we would "just get over it." I think we should.  William Tighe, a communicant of the Vatican "always imagined that its removal by the present pope was an act of “ecumenical honesty,” no more and no less."
http://wdtprs.com/blog/2010/08/dropping-patriarch-of-the-west-and-changing-titles-of-roman-basilicas-to-papal/
Time has come for the Orthodox for such honesty. No discussion of the EA and the diptychs at the "Great and Holy Council" will progress without it.

Where there is disagreement, they are only seeking to better define/refine the role of the Papacy in a united Church.

Well, we have a Romanian bishop in Rome and a Greek Metropolitan of Italy: uniting them in one Episcopal Assembly moots the issue of what the Vatican wants to do.

Even Archbishop Hilarion recognizes the advantages the Western ecclesiastical structure affords.

Can we get a quote of what you are refering to here?

When the East and West re-unite (which I pray for and truly believe will happen) the Pope will be the First Among Equals. Rome will be Protos.
Only if he confesses the Orthodox Faith. As Fr. Ambrose has posted, there is considerable doubt even if and when.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #58 on: October 05, 2010, 03:10:19 PM »

While I don't agree that the Papacy is necessary for dogmatic unity, I do think a church united under a Papacy serves some useful purposes.

One, it could help with canonical disputes such as an official recongition of who's in communion with the Church, whose authority extends over what, what a church's status is (e.g. autocephalus), and similar issues.  Orthodoxy currently struggles with resolving these issues, and I think it's due to a lack of leadership.

The Vatican has four patriarchs in Antioch. We have two, and only one if you do not count the OO. And our "problems" in this area pales to similiar issues the Vatican has (sede vacantists, Lefebrists, SSPIX, "Priestly Society of St. Josapht," etc, not to mention the Protestants, if you are going on the basis of the patrimony of the patriarchates).

Two, it could help clarify what the Church's official teaching is on contemporary issues.  For example, it could respond quickly and officially to issues like the Church's position on Islam after the 9-11 attacks.
Can you point to the Vatican's great success on this?

Three, it could engage in ecumenical dialogues more effectively.

That's a good thing? Even if it is, what ecumenical triumph has the Vatican had?

As it is, various Orthodox Churches are independent and free to pursue their own dialogues with or without one another, which means that a dialogue would have to be repeated over and over with different churches to achieve the same results.

Where have you seen this?

Much more could be said, but my point is that it *does* have its advantages as well.

I'm with ICXCNIKA.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #59 on: October 05, 2010, 04:09:56 PM »

I have to disagree. I don't see those as advantages. We may have issues to resolve but they will be resolved in a conciliar manner not a papal one.

More often than not the papal manner is a conciliar one!!

There is really no need to over-state the terrors of a papacy...

Reality is never as terrifying as the fantasy.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #60 on: October 05, 2010, 04:22:56 PM »

[
I agree. The One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church has always preserved and transmited orthodoxy. The Eastern Orthodox Church, however, has not.

The Supreme Pontiff does not agree with you at all...

In the words of Pope Benedict, we are assured that there has been NO doctrinal or theological creep in the last thousand years within Orthodoxy.

This fact alone points to the utter superfluity of both the Papacy and the Magisterium,  We have kept the faith intact without them.   All praise to the Spirit of Truth who indwells the Church.

Pope Benedict himself has acknowledged this:

"While the West may point to the absence of the office of Peter in the East—it
must, nevertheless, admit that, in the Eastern Church, the form and content of
the Church of the Fathers is present in unbroken continuity."


~"Principles of Catholic Theology," Cardinal Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, 1987.



Those words of Pope Benedict are very circumspect. 

Remember that the Catholic Church recognizes things in the fathers that Orthodox believers reject vehemently.   

Remember that the Catholic Church also recognizes that the Catholic Church also holds the fullest form and content of the Church of the Fathers in unbroken continuity.

If you choose to embrace this papal opinion, and recognize his ability to see truth where it lies...well then....

Mary
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 05, 2010, 05:31:09 PM »

I have a question regarding the papacy and it may seem silly or unimportant but if I don't ask I'll never know the answer. In the discussions that I have seen (there maybe some threads I haven't seen) I haven't seen any discussion about the False Donation of Constantine or the False Decretals  of Isidore and what effect these documents had on the Western view of the Church and the powers of the papacy. So my question is: Do these documents matter and if so how did they affect the western view of the Church?

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05118a.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05773a.htm

There's a complexity in these occurrences that cannot be discussed in sound bites.

It is important to know how they were false, for their contents were not necessarily false, though their proofs and attributions often were.  It is important to know why they were written, and that is not nearly as crass, in reasoning, as one might imagine. 

Lies never hold and it did not take over-long to expose these documents, which were really only important in specific times and places and certainly not universally distributed, but they are very interesting and the idea that the Church and heads of the Church rule the secular world, which is a huge part of both documents, is not something that we should sneer at.  We have seen in Orthodoxy how it does not work to spiritual perfection when the roles are reversed and the secular Emperors and Tsars rule the Church.  If I were to err, I would much rather err in saying that the Christian world looks to the Church for leadership in all but the most banal matters.

At any rate, you should carefully read those two entries.  I find them to be fascinating and not at all abhorrent but then I find history to be exceptionally fascinating, and I understand human weakness, for I live it daily. 

God forbid they ever really get down to examining the histories of our respective lived memories.  Saints and sinners both will cringe.

M.
Logged

Paisius
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Wherever the wind blows......
Posts: 1,235


Scheherazade


« Reply #62 on: October 05, 2010, 05:49:58 PM »

If you choose to embrace this papal opinion, and recognize his ability to see truth where it lies...well then....

Mary


My sister, even a broken clock is right twice a day.  Wink
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #63 on: October 05, 2010, 05:54:13 PM »

To Isa by request, and for all those interested,

The following comes from a cordial dialogue I had with an Eastern Catholic on CAF on a very interesting and crucial topic. I've included just my main points to get across the fact that, not only did the Church believe a pope could espouse heresy, but that an Ecumenical Council could also anathematize him and render him accountable to the Council, without of course minimising the sense of importance and esteem given to the See of Rome.

On Vigilius' excommunication:

You might find it compelling that a prominent Jesuit papal scholar will have no problems in acknowledging this fact:

"Pope Vigilius (537-555), who had very little backbone in conflict situations, first gave way and condemned the three chapters in his Iudicatum of 548. Faced with a storm of protest in the West, where the pope was accused of betraying Chalcedon, he made an about-face and retracted his condemnation (Constitutum, 553). The emperor in turn called a council at Constantinople (the Second Council of Constantinople, 553) made up only of opponents of the three chapters. It not only condemned those three chapters but even excommunicated the pope. This was a unique case of an ecumenical council setting itself clearly against the pope and yet not suffering the fate of Ephesus II. Instead, over time it was accepted and even recognized as valid by the pope. The council got around the papal opposition by referring to Matthew 18:20 (“Where two or three are gathered in my name…”): no individual council could therefore forestall the decision of the universal Church. This kind of argument was invalid, of course, because the pope was not alone; the entire West was behind him, and yet it was not represented at the council. Broken in spirit, Vigilius capitulated after the end of the council and assented to its condemnation of the three chapters. The result was a schism in the West, where the pope was accused of having surrendered Chalcedon. A North African synod of bishops excommunicated the pope, and the ecclesial provinces of Milan and Aquileia broke communion with Rome….The Spanish Church did not separate from Rome, but throughout the Middle Ages it refused to recognize this Council. The authority of the papacy in the West had suffered a severe blow with regard to dogma as well" (Schatz, Klaus, Papal Primacy. From Its Origins to the Present, 1996, Liturgical Press: Collegeville, p. 53).

This is also backed up by JND Kelly:

"In reprisal, at the seventh session of the council (26 May) he [Justinian] humiliated Vigilius by revealing his secret correspondence condemning or promising to condemn them [the three chapters]. He then ordered the pope’s name to be struck from the diptychs, making it clear, however, that he was severing communion with him personally, not with the holy see". (Kelly, J.N.D., Oxford Dictionary of Popes; 1986, Oxford University Press: Oxford, p. 62) 

It’s sufficient to note that the undeniable facts herewith presented are not in dispute by the most reputable Church historians, papal or otherwise. I don’t regard the pleadings to the argument of a corruption of the MSS as one worthy of much consideration since, in addition to no sources being cited by you, many figures in the history of the RCC have attempted to employ the same desperate measures and have failed. One reference I can provide for further research comes from the [ccel] website. Notice that the Sixth Ecumenical Council is one reference point to the authenticity of the acts which you dispute:

"From all this it would seem that the substantial accuracy of the rest of the acts have been established by the authority of the Sixth Synod, and Hefele and all recent scholars follow Mansi’s Paris ms. It may be well here to add that a most thorough-going attack upon the acts has been made in late years by Professor Vincenzi, in defence of Pope Vigilius and of Origen.  The reader is referred to his writings on the subject:  In Sancti Gregorii Nysseni et Originis scripta et doctrinam nova defensio; Vigil., Orig., Justin. triumph., in Synod V. (Romæ, 1865.)  The Catholic Dictionary frankly says that this is “an attempt to deny the most patent facts, and treat some of the chief documents as forgeries,” and “unworthy of serious notice.” http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.iii.html

Vigilius was caught between a rock and a hard place as he was facing strong pressure from two opposing factions – those loyal to the Council who tried to express the faith according to a more Cyrillian way in attempt to bring back the Oriental Orthodox to full communion with the Greek (Roman) Orthodox, and those loyal to the so-called “diophysite” theology of Chalcedon. His actions even led to his excommunication by the North African churches.

...your argument that the Council and Vigilius were of one mind is only a half-truth, because his reconciliation came only when heeding:

"the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren.  He adds, that one ought not to be ashamed to retract, when one recognises the truth, and brings forward the example of Augustine.  He says, that, after having better examined the matter of the Three Chapters, he finds them worthy of condemnation.  “We recognize for our brethren and colleagues all those who have condemned them, and annul by this writing all that has been done by us or by others for the defence of the three chapters.” (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.xi.html)

Again, the facts of the Council reveal that Vigilius’s faint-heartedness left him outside of the communion of the Church until he reconciled himself to the Council. How is this a “sensationalist interpretation” of the Acts when it is merely historical fact? The session in question is the third:

It is clear that most of the time of the first two sessions was consumed by attempts to bring Pope Vigilius to the council. At the third session a confession of faith was made which was based on the introductory speech by Justinian. To this there was added an anathema against anyone who separated himself from the Church — it is obviously Vigilius to whom they refer. (florovsky, Georges, the Byzantine Fathers of the sixth to eighth century, http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/fathers_florovsky_3.htm)

It logically stands and there is no getting around the fact that:

“These things prove, that in a matter of the utmost importance, disturbing the whole Church, and seeming to belong to the Faith, the decrees of sacred councils prevail over the decrees of Pontiffs, and that the letter of Ibas, though defended by a judgment of the Roman Pontiff, could nevertheless be proscribed as heretical.” (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/const2.html)

It is true that the Council finally honoured the pope as “head, father and primatus” and I’m happy that you brought this up, because it vindicates Orthodox doctrine that papal primacy depends on a right-believing pope and adds further weight to this fundamental insistence. If you had previously accounted for the Orthodox denial of papal primacy solely on its faithfulness to the conciliar model of the early Church, let me remind you of St. Symeon of Thessalonica:

“One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If this is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff...Let the Bishop of Rome be successor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and the first among the other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Saviour Himself" (Meyendorff, J., ed., the Primacy of Peter, 1992, SVSP: Crestwood, p. 86).

Am I correct in saying that your major premise in this argument consists of the Roman Catholic view that communion with the pope is an unconditional precept of being in communion with the Church? In that case, were those who excommunicated Vigilius at Constantinople II in communion with the Church? If not, then they committed a schismatic act and all sessions subsequently held without the pope automatically become schismatic acts. If yes, then the edifice immediately collapses, taking with it the Vatican I’s defined dogma of papal supremacy. Now as regards the African churches’ excommunication of Vigilius after the Council (as well as that of the churches of Milan and Aquileia), these actions were clearly a case of the rejection of a pope whose orthodoxy had been vindicated by the Council after his denunciation of the heretical Three Chapters. There would be no question, therefore, that these churches can be considered to have been outside Orthodoxy.

I’m beginning to see a pattern akin to that observable in many of the ultra-montane sympathisers throughout history: modern Roman Catholic doctrine is the standard by which the authenticity of any historical document should be judged. It is a trait of the works of Dom Chapman, it is also a trait of the ultra-montane party at Vatican I (some of whom refused to acknowledge that the Sixth Ecumenical Council was in fact “ecumenical” because it had condemned pope Honorius! The lengths people will go in their subservience to papacy…) Granted, the injurious slanders to the memory of pope Vigilius had been established as forgeries, but you have not made any compelling case that we should equally consider the proven authentic acts of the excommunication of Vigilius as forgeries aside from your opinion. Once again I refer you to the statement of the Catholic Dictionary that this is "an attempt to deny the most patent facts, and treat some of the chief documents as forgeries," and "unworthy of serious notice."

The following citations are from a work by the French historian Claire Sotinel. In it, the author discusses the perimeters of church authority during the time of Justinian and seeks to define the relationship between Church and imperial authority in the period leading up to and following the Fifth Ecumenical Council. When discussing the relevance of Vigilius’ excommunication to her topic, she quotes Justinian’s letter in which Vigilius is clearly singled out. Remember that at this stage, Vigilius had retracted his condemnation of the three chapters:

“Le très religieux pape de l’ancienne Rome [s’est rendu lui-même] étranger à l’Église catholique en défendant l’impiété des chapitres et, d’autre part, en se séparent de lui-même de votre communion […]. Puis donc qu’il s’est rendu étranger aux chrétiens, nous avons jugé que son nom ne sera pas récité dans les saints diptyques, afin que nous ne nous trouvons pas, par ce moyen, en communication avec les impieties de Nestorius et de Théodore […]. L’unité avec le siège apostolique, nous la servons et vous la gardez, ceci est certain. La transformation de Vigile, ou de qui que ce soit d’autre, ne peut en effet nuire à la paix des Églises.” ” (Sotinel, C 2000, Le concile, l’empereur, l’évêque, in ‘Orthodoxie, Christianisme, histoire’, ed. Elm, S et al, École français de Rome, p. 294).


“The most religious pope of Old Rome [has made himself] a stranger to the catholic Church in defending the impiety of the chapters and, moreover, in separating himself from your communion by his own initiative […].  Thus, since he has made himself a stranger to Christians, we have judged that his name will not be recited in the holy diptychs lest, by this means, we find ourselves in communion with the impieties of Nestorius and Theodore […]. One thing is certain:  we serve unity with the apostolic see, and you maintain it.  Vigilius’ transformation, or anyone else’s, cannot, in fact, harm the peace of the Churches”.

To which the council responds:

Les projets du très pieux empereur sont conformes (congrua sunt) aux travaux qu’il a accomplis pour l’unité des saintes Églises. Que nous servions donc l’unité avec le siege apostolique de la sacrosainte Église de l’ancienne Rome en accomplissant tout selon la teneur du rescrit imperial (apex) qui vient d’être lu. (Sotinel, ibid., p.294-5)

"The plans of the most pious emperor are in conformity with his actions undertaken for the unity of the holy Churches. Let us therefore serve unity with the apostolic see of the all-holy Church of Old Rome by fulfilling everything according to the terms of the imperial decree which has just been read” (I am indebted to Fr. Andrew Wade from Fr. Ambrogio’s parish for editing my translations).

“Ainsi, la réalité de l’importance de Rome n’est pas entièrement evacuee, mais le statut particulier du siege apostolique n’est en rien le garant de l’orthodoxie de son titulaire aux yieux de l’empereur ou des pères du concile.” (Sotinel, ibid., p.295)

“As such, the reality of the importance of Rome is not entirely dispensed of, but the particular status of the apostolic see in no way guarantees the orthodoxy of her incumbent in the eyes of the emperor and the fathers of the council.” (My translation).

From these extracts we can definitively establish two critical facts, both of which refute any attempts to both excuse Vigilius’ excommunication, and excuse it on non-dogmatic grounds. Aside from the obvious, the citations draw particular attention to the grounds of Vigilius’ excommunication. The emperor gives explicit reason for his sentence –he is preserving the Church from communion with Nestorian sympathisers, a clear indication of which, for both him and the council, was the failure to condemn the three chapters. The topsy-turvy actions of the pope, by this stage a defender of the three chapters, bring him under the condemnations reserved for the heretics.

Let’s consider for a moment what the consequences for the Church would have been had Vigilius’ papacy been informed by the prevailing dogmatic conditions of the post-Vatican I church of Rome. We would unquestionably have a Church bound to heretical teaching. That Rome’s doctrinal authority had been grievously hurt by this episode is evident in the ensuing schism between several important Sees in the West and the pungent admonitions given to successive pontiffs to avoid the fate that had tarnished the memory of Viglius. St. Columbanus did just that, lamenting how “sad it is when the catholic faith is not preserved in the apostolic see” (Schatz 1996, p. 54) gives a stern warning to pope Boniface IV lest he follow his predecessor’s lack of vigilance (ibid.).

The fact remains, and is readily admitted by the highest scholarship, that:

“L’autorité du concile est légitime s’il fait la preuve de son orthodoxie. Ce n’est pas l’institution conciliaire qui fait l’orthodoxie, mais l’orthodoxie qui qualifie le concile comme institution.” (Sotinel, p. 293)

“The authority of the council is legitimate if its orthodoxy is proven. It is not the conciliar institution which determines orthodoxy, but orthodoxy which qualifies the council as an institution.” (My translation).

Against your position that:
a) Vigilius was not excommunicated,
b) Vigilius was of one mind theologically with the Council,
 
we have established that:

a) pope Vigilius was excommunicated by the Council,
b) he was placed into the category of Nestorian sympathisers, making it impossible to have been theologically one with the Council (well…it seems he was of two minds with the Council considering his character!)
c) he was ultimately reconciled to the Council’s decisions.
 
I now pose the following questions: who was and who wasn’t in the Church during the six months of the pope’s isolation from the Council? Were those in communion with the excommunicated pope Vigilius in communion with the Petrine Office? One is obliged to admit a radical development (if one can call it that) in the doctrine of the fundamental nature of church authority on the part of the Vatican I-era church of Rome. How do you reconcile the Vatican dogma’s extraordinary powers assigned to the pope in light of the historical conscience of the Church of the first millennium clearly allowing for the possibility to call into question the pope’s doctrinal orthodoxy?

 
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #64 on: October 05, 2010, 05:55:38 PM »

I have to disagree. I don't see those as advantages. We may have issues to resolve but they will be resolved in a conciliar manner not a papal one.

More often than not the papal manner is a conciliar one!!

There is really no need to over-state the terrors of a papacy...

Reality is never as terrifying as the fantasy.
Many Orthodox Churches have know the reality. They have no use for the promised fantasy.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #65 on: October 05, 2010, 06:18:09 PM »

Prodromos posted on anothe forum police Roll Eyes police this, I'll have to give it a looksy.

The papacy: its historic origin and primitive relations with the Eastern Churches By Guettée (Wladimir, M. l'abbé), Arthur Cleveland Coxe
http://books.google.com/books?id=vxQQAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:vxQQAAAAIAAJ&hl=en&ei=0aKrTJnFGMvtnQfO7dncBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
It has a nice spot on Pope St. Gregory, mentioned above:
Quote
. . . "The Lord, wishing to recall to a proper humility the yet feeble hearts of his disciples, said to them, * If any man desire to be first, the same shall be last of all;' whereby we are clearly taught that he who is truly high is he who is most humble in mind. Let us, therefore, beware of being of the number of those ' who love the chief seats in the synagogues, and greetings in the markets, and to be called of men, Rabbi, Rabbi.' In fact, the Lord said to his disciples, * He ye not called Rabbi, for one is your Master, . . . and all ye are brethren. Neither be ye called Fathers, for ye have but one Father?

" What then could you answer, beloved brother, in the terrible judgment to come, who desire not only to be called Father, but universal Father of the world ? Beware then of evil suggestions ; fly from- the counsel of offence. ' It is impossible] indeed, ' but that offences -will come ; but] for all that, ' WO unto him through whom they come P In consequence of your wicked and vainglorious title, the Church is divided and the hearts of the brethren are offended.

. . i " I have sought again and again, by my messengers and by humble words, to correct the sin which has been committed against the whole Church. Now I myself write. I have omitted nothing that humility made it my duty to do. If I reap from my rebuke nothing better than contempt, there will nothing be left for me but to appeal to the Church."

By this first letter of St. Gregory we see, first, that ecclesiastical authority resides in the episcopate, and not in any one bishop, however high in the ecclesiastical hierarchy
« Last Edit: October 05, 2010, 06:24:12 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 642


militantsparrow
« Reply #66 on: October 05, 2010, 06:38:53 PM »

You can listen to Archbishop Hilarion reference the fact that First Rome still stands and that the Roman Catholic structure is probably better.

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/mother_churches/primacy_and_catholicity_in_the_orthodox_tradition
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #67 on: October 05, 2010, 06:50:15 PM »

The Church Fathers on the passages RCs use to defend their point (St. Mat. 16:18):

13. When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, saying, “Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?”

14. And they said, “Some say that thou art John the Baptist; some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.”

15. He saith unto them, “But whom say ye that I am?”

16. And Simon Peter answered and said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.

18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church: and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

19. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gloss., non occ.: As soon as the Lord had taken His disciples out of the teaching of the Pharisees, He then suitably proceeds to lay deep the foundations of the Gospel doctrine; and to give this the greater solemnity, it is introduced by the name of the place, “When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi.”

Chrys., Hom., liv: He adds ‘of Philip,’ to distinguish it from the other Caesarea, of Strato. And He asks this question in the former [p. 580] place, leading His disciples far out of the way of the Jews, that being set free from all fear, they might say freely what was in their mind.

Jerome: This Philip was the brother of Herod, the tetrarch of Ituraea, and the region of Trachonitis, who gave to the city, which is now called Panaeas, the name of Caesarea in honour of Tiberias Caesar.

Gloss., ap. Anselm: When about to confirm the disciples in the faith, He would first take away from their minds the errors and opinions of others, whence it follows, “And he asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?”

Origen: Christ puts this question to His disciples, that from their answer we may learn that there were at that time among the Jews various opinions concerning Christ; and to the end that we should always investigate what opinion men may form of us; that if any ill be said of us, we may cut off the occasions of it; or if any good, we may multiply the occasions of it.

Gloss., non occ.: So by this instance of the Apostles, the followers of the Bishops are instructed, that whatever opinions they may hear out of doors concerning their Bishops, they should tell them to them.

Jerome: Beautifully is the question put, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” For they who speak of the Son of Man, are men: but they who understood His divine nature are called not men but Gods.

Chrys.: He says not, Whom do the Scribes and Pharisees say that I am? but, Whom do men say that I am? searching into the minds of the common people, which were not perverted to evil. For though their opinion concerning Christ was much below what it ought to have been, yet it was free from wilful wickedness; but the opinion of the Pharisees concerning Christ was full of much malice.

Hilary: By asking, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” He implied that something ought to be thought respecting Him beyond what appeared, for He was the Son of Man. And in thus enquiring after men’s opinion respecting Himself, we are not to think that He made confession of Himself; for that which He asked for was something concealed, to which the faith of believers ought to extend itself.

We must hold that form of confession, that we so mention the Son of God as not to forget the Son of Man, for the one without the other offers us no hope of salvation; and therefore He said emphatically, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” [p. 581]

Jerome: He says not, Whom do men say that I am? but, “Whom do men say that the Son of Man is?” that He should not seem to ask ostentatiously concerning Himself. Observe, that wherever the Old Testament has ‘Son of Man,’ the phrase in the Hebrew is ‘Son of Adam.’

Origen: Then the disciples recount the divers opinions of the Jews relating to Christ; “And they said, some say John the Baptist,” following Herod’s opinion [margin note: see Matt 14:2]; “others Elias,” supposing either that Elias had gone through a second birth, or that having continued alive in the body, He had at this time appeared; “others Jeremias”, whom the Lord had ordained to be Prophet among the Gentiles, not understanding that Jeremias was a type of Christ; “or one of the Prophets,” in a like way, because of those things which God spoke to them through the Prophets, yet they were not fulfilled in them, but in Christ.

Jerome: It was as easy for the multitudes to be wrong in supposing Him to be Elias and Jeremias, as Herod in supposing Him to be John the Baptist; whence I wonder that some interpreters should have sought for the causes of these several errors.

Chrys.: The disciples having recounted the opinion of the common people, He then by a second question invites them to higher thoughts concerning Him; and therefore it follows, “Jesus saith unto them, Whom say ye that I am?” You who are with Me always, and have seen greater miracles than the multitudes, ought not to agree in the opinion of the multitudes. For this reason He did not put this question to them at the commencement of His preaching, but after He had done many signs; then also He spoke many things to them concerning His Deity

Jerome: Observe how by this connexion of the discourse the Apostles are not styled men but Gods. For when He had said, “Whom say ye that the Son of Man is?” He adds, “Whom say ye that I am?” as much as to say, They being men think of Me as man, ye who are Gods, whom do you think Me?

Raban.: He enquires the opinions of His disciples and of those without, not because He was ignorant of them; His disciples He asks, that He may reward with due reward their confession of a right faith; and the opinions of those without He enquires, that having the wrong opinions first set forth, it might be proved that the disciples had received the truth of their confession not from common opinion, but out [p. 582] of the hidden treasure of the Lord’s revelation.

Chrys.: When the Lord enquires concerning the opinion of the multitudes, all the disciples answer; but when all the disciples are asked, Peter as the mouth and head [margin note: κορυφαιος] of the Apostles answers for all, as it follows, “Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.”

Origen: Peter denied that Jesus was any of those things which the Jews supposed, by his confession, “Thou art the Christ,” which the Jews were ignorant of; but he added what was more, “the Son of the living God,” who had said by his Prophets, “I live, saith the Lord.” [Eze 33:11] And therefore was He called the living Lord, but in a more especial manner as being eminent above all that had life; for He alone has immortality, and is the fount of life, wherefore He is rightly called God the Father; for He is life as it were flowing out of a fountain, who said, “I am the life.” [John 14:6]

Jerome: He calls Him “the living God,” in comparison of those gods who are esteemed gods, but are dead; such, I mean, as Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Hercules, and the other monsters of idols.

Hilary: This is the true and unalterable faith, that from God came forth God the Son, who has eternity out of the eternity of the Father. That this God took unto Him a body and was made man is a perfect confession. Thus He embraced all in that He here expresses both His nature and His name, in which is the sum of virtues.

Raban.: And by a remarkable distinction it was that the Lord Himself puts forward the lowliness of the humanity which He had taken upon Him, while His disciple shews us the excellence of His divine eternity.

Hilary: This confession of Peter met a worthy reward, for that he had seen the Son of God in the man. Whence it follows, “Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas, for flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but my Father who is in heaven.”

Jerome: This return Christ makes to the Apostle for the testimony which Peter had spoken concerning Him, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God.” The Lord said unto him, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonas?” Why? Because flesh and blood has not revealed this unto thee, but My Father. That which flesh and blood could not reveal, was revealed by the grace of the Holy Spirit. By his confession then he obtains a title, which should signify that [p. 583] he had received a revelation from the Holy Spirit, whose son he shall also be called; for Barjonas in our tongue signifies The son of a dove.

Others take it in the simple sense, that Peter is the son of John [ed. note: In John 21, the Vulgate has ‘Johannis,’ but in John 1, 43, ‘Jona.’], according to that question in another place, “Simon, son of John, lovest thou me?” [John 21:15] affirming that it is an error of the copyists in writing here Barjonas for Barjoannas, dropping one syllable. Now Joanna is interpreted ‘The grace of God.’ But either name has its mystical interpretation; the dove signifies the Holy Spirit; and the grace of God signifies the spiritual gift.

Chrys.: It would be without meaning to say, Thou art the son of Jonas, unless he intended to shew that Christ is as naturally the Son of God, as Peter is the son of Jonas, that is, of the same substance as him that begot him.

Jerome: Compare what is here said, “flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,” with the Apostolic declaration, “Immediately I was not content with flesh and blood,” [Gal 1:16] meaning there by this expression the Jews; so that here also the same thing is shewn in different words, that not by the teaching of the Pharisees, but by the grace of God, Christ was revealed to him the Son of God.

Hilary: Otherwise; He is blessed, because to have looked and to have seen beyond human sight is matter of praise, not beholding that which is of flesh and blood, but seeing the Son of God by the revelation of the heavenly Father; and he was held worthy to be the first to acknowledge the divinity which was in Christ.

Origen: It must be enquired in this place whether, when they were first sent out, the disciples knew that He was the Christ. For this speech shews that Peter then first confessed Him to be the Son of the living God. And look whether you can solve a question of this sort, by saying that to believe Jesus to be the Christ is less than to know Him; and so suppose that when they were sent to preach they believed that Jesus was the Christ, and afterwards as they made progress they knew Him to be so. Or must we answer thus? That then the Apostles had the beginnings of a knowledge of Christ, and knew some little concerning Him; and that they made progress afterwards in the knowledge of Him, so that they were able to receive the knowledge of Christ revealed by the Father, as Peter, who is [p. 584] here blessed, not only for that he says, “Thou art the Christ,” but much more for that he adds, “the Son of the living God.”

Chrys.: And truly if Peter had not confessed that Christ was in a peculiar sense born of the Father, there had been no need of revelation; nor would he have been worthy of this blessing for confessing Christ to be one of many adopted sons; for before this they who were with Him in the ship had said, “Truly thou art the Son of God.” Nathanael also said, “Rabbi, thou art the Son of God.” [John 1:49] Yet were not these blessed because they did not confess such sonship as does Peter here, but thought Him one among many, not in the true sense a son; or, if chief above all, yet not the substance of the Father.

But see how the Father reveals the Son, and the Son the Father; from none other comes it to confess the Son than of the Feather, and from none other to confess the Father than of the Son; so that from this place even it is manifest that the Son is of the same substance, and to be worshipped together with the Father. Christ then proceeds to shew that many would hereafter believe what Peter had now confessed, whence He adds, “And I say unto thee, that thou art Peter,”

Jerome: As much as to say, You have said to me, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God,” therefore I say unto thee, not in a mere speech, and that goes not on into operation; but I say unto thee, and for Me to speak is to make it so [ed. note: See Mr. Newman’s Lectures on Justification, Lect iii, p.87], “that thou art Peter.” For as from Christ proceeded that light to the Apostles, whereby they were called the light of the world, and those other names which were imposed upon them by the Lord, so upon Simon who believed in Christ the Rock, He bestowed the name of Peter (Rock.)

Aug., de Cons. Ev., ii, 53: But let none suppose that Peter received that name here; he received it at no other time than where John relates that it was said unto him, “Thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted, Peter.” [John 1:42] Chrys.: And pursuing the metaphor of the rock, it is rightly said to him as follows: “And upon this rock I will build my Church.”

Chrys.: That is, On this faith and confession I will build my Church. Herein shewing that many should believe what Peter had confessed, and raising his understanding, and making him His shepherd.

Aug., Retract., i, 21: I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that [p. 585] it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. but I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church,” as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, “Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;: and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, “Thou art Peter.” But the rock was Christ, [1 Cor 10:4] whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable.

Hilary: But in this bestowing of a new name is a happy foundation of the Church, and a rock worthy of that building, which should break up the laws of hell, burst the gates of Tartarus, and all the shackles of death. And to shew the firmness of this Church thus built upon a rock, He adds, “And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Gloss. interlin.: That is, shall not separate it from the love and faith of Me.

Jerome: I suppose the gates of hell to mean vice and sin, or at least the doctrines of heretics by which men are ensnared and drawn into hell.

Origen: But in heavenly things every spiritual sin is a gate of hell, to which are opposed the gates of righteousness.

Raban.: The gates of hell are the torments and promises of the persecutors. Also, the evil works of the unbelievers, and vain conversation, are gates of hell, because they shew the path of destruction.

Origen: He does not express what it is which they shall not prevail against, whether the rock on which He builds the Church, or the Church which He builds on the rock; but it is clear that neither against the rock nor against the Church will the gates of hell prevail.

Cyril [ed. note: ‘ This passage is quoted in the Catena from ‘Cyril in Lib. Thes.’ but does not occur in any of S. Cyril’s works. On the subject of this interpolation, vid. Launoy’s Epistles, part i. Ep. 1-3. and v. Ep. 9. c. 6-12. From him it appears that, besides the passage introduced into the Catena, S. Thomas ascribes similar ones to S. Cyril in his comment on the Sentences, Lib. iv. cl. 24. 3. and in his books ‘contr. impugn.reliq.’ and ‘contra errores Graee.’ He is apparently the first to cite them, and they seem to have been written later than Nicholas I. and Leo IX. (A. D. 867-1054.) He was young when he used them, and he is silent about them in his Summa, (which was the work of his last ten years,) in three or four places where the reference might have been expected.]

According to this promise of the Lord, the Apostolic Church of Peter remains pure and spotless from all leading into error, or heretical fraud, above all Heads and Bishops, and Primates of Churches and people, [p. 586] with its own Pontiffs, with most abundant faith, and the authority of Peter. And while other Churches have to blush for the error of some of their members, this reigns alone immoveably established, enforcing silence, and stopping the mouths of all heretics; and we [ed. note: The editions read here, ‘et nos necessario salutis,’ the meaning of which, says Nicolai, it is impossible to divine], not drunken with the wine of pride, confess together with it the type of truth, and of the holy apostolic tradition.

Jerome: Let none think that this is said of death, implying that the Apostles should not be subject to the condition of death, when we see their martyrdoms so illustrious.

Origen: Wherefore if we, by the revelation of our Father who is in heaven, shall confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, having also our conversation in heaven, to us also shall be said, “Thou art Peter;” for every one is a Rock who is an imitator of Christ. But against whomsoever the gates of hell prevail, he is neither to be called a rock upon which Christ builds His Church; neither a Church, or part of the Church, which Christ builds upon a rock.

Chrys.: Then He speaks of another honour of Peter, when He adds, “And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven;” as much as to say, As the Father hath given thee to know Me, I also will give something unto thee, namely, the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

Raban.: For as with a zeal beyond the others he had confessed the King of heaven, he is deservedly entrusted more than the others with the keys of the heavenly kingdom, that it might be clear to all, that without that confession and faith none ought to enter the kingdom of heaven. By the keys of the kingdom He means discernment [margin note: discretio] and power; power, by which he binds and looses; discernment, by which he separates the worthy from the unworthy.

It follows, “And whatsoever thou shalt bind;” that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge unworthy of forgiveness while he lives, shall be judged unworthy with God; and “whatsoever thou shalt loose,” that is, whomsoever thou shalt judge worthy to be forgiven while he lives, shall obtain forgiveness of his sins from God.

Origen: See how great power has that rock upon which the Church is built, that its sentences are to continue firm as though God gave sentence by it.

Chrys.: See how Christ leads Peter to a high understanding concerning himself. [p. 587] These things that He here promises to give him, belong to God alone, namely to forgive sins, and to make the Church immoveable amidst the storms of so many persecutions and trials.

Raban.: But this power of binding and loosing, though it seems given by the Lord to Peter alone, is indeed given also to the other Apostles, [margin note: see Matt 18:18] and is even now in the Bishops and Presbyters in every Church. But Peter received in a special manner the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and a supremacy of judicial power, that all the faithful throughout the world might understand that all who in any manner separate themselves from the unity of the faith, or from communion with him, such should neither be able to be loosed from the bonds of sin, nor to enter the gate of the heavenly kingdom.

Gloss., ap. Anselm: This power was committed specially to Peter, that we might thereby be invited to unity. For He therefore appointed him the head of the Apostles, that the Church might have one principal Vicar of Christ, to whom the different members of the Church should have recourse, if ever they should have dissensions among them.

But if there were many heads in the Church, the bond of unity would be broken. Some say that the words “upon earth” denote that power was not given to men to bind and loose the dead, but the living; for he who should loose the dead would do this not upon earth, but after the earth.

Second Council of Constantinople, Concil. Con. ii. Collat. 8: How is it that some do presume to say that these things are said only of the living? Know they not that the sentence of anathema is nothing else but separation? They are to be avoided who are held of grievous faults, whether they are among the living, or not. For it is always behoveful to fly from the wicked. Moreover there are divers letters read of Augustine of religious memory, who was of great renown among the African bishops, which affirmed [margin note: see Aug. Ep. 185, 4] that heretics ought to be anathematized even after death. Such an ecclesiastical tradition other African Bishops also have preserved. And the Holy Roman Church also has anathematized some Bishops after death, although no accusation had been brought against their faith in their lifetime. [ed. note: This passage is quoted from the sentence of the Council. It alleges the authority of S. Cyril, from one of whose lost works against Theodorus the sentence beginning, “They are to be avoided, &c,” is quoted.]

Jerome: Bishops and Presbyters, not understanding [p. 588] this passage, assume to themselves something of the lofty pretensions of the Pharisees, and suppose that they may either condemn the innocent, or absolve the guilty; whereas what will be enquired into before the Lord will be not the sentence of the Priests, but the life of him that is being judged.

We read in Leviticus of the lepers, how they are commanded to shew themselves to the Priests; and if they have the leprosy, then they are made unclean by the Priest; not that the Priest makes them leprous and unclean, but that the Priest has knowledge of what is leprosy and what is not leprosy, and can discern who is clean, and who is unclean. In the same way then as there the Priest makes the leper unclean, here the Bishop or Presbyter binds or looses not those who are without sin, or guilt, but in discharge of his function when he has heard the varieties of their sins, he knows who is to be bound, and who loosed.

Origen: Let him then be without blame who binds or looses another, that he may be found worthy to bind or loose in heaven. Moreover, to him who shall be able by his virtues to shut the gates of hell, are given in reward the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For every kind of virtue when any has begun to practise it, as it were opens itself before Him, the Lord, namely, opening it through His grace, so that the same virtue is found to be both the gate, and the key of the gate. But it may be that each virtue is itself the kingdom of heaven.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

20. Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man that he was Jesus the Christ.

21. From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and Chief Priests and Scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origen: Seeing Peter had confessed Him to be Christ the Son of the living God, because He would not have them preach this in the mean time, He adds, “Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no man, that he was Jesus the Christ.”

Jerome: When then above He sends His disciples to preach, and commands them to proclaim [p. 589] His advent, this seems contrary to His command here, that they should not say that He is Jesus the Christ. To me it seems that it is one thing to preach Christ, and another to preach Jesus the Christ. Christ is a common title of dignity, Jesus the proper name of the Saviour.

Origen: Or they then spake of Him in lowly words, as only a great and wonderful man, but as yet proclaimed Him not as the Christ. Yet if any will have it that He was even at the first proclaimed to be Christ, be may say that now He chose that first short announcement of His name to be left in silence and not repeated, that little which they had heard concerning Christ might be digested into their minds. Or the difficulty may be solved thus: that the fairer relation concerning their preaching Christ does not belong to the time before His Resurrection, but to the time that should be after the Resurrection; and that the command now given is meant for the time present; for it were of no use to preach Him, and to be silent conceiving His cross. Moreover, He commanded them that they should tell no man that He was the Christ, and prepared them that they should afterwards say that He was Christ who was crucified, and who rose again from the dead.

Jerome: But that none should suppose that this is only any explanation, and not an evangelic interpretation, what follows explains the reasons of His forbidding them to preach Him at that time; “Then began Jesus to shew unto his disciples that he must needs go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and Scribes, and Chief Priests, and be put to death, and rise again the third day.”

The meaning is; Then preach Me when I shall have suffered these things, for it will be of no avail that Christ be preached publicly, and His Majesty spread abroad among the people, when after a little time they shall see Him scourged and crucified.

Chrys.: For what having once had root has afterwards been torn up, if it is again planted, is with difficulty retained among the multitude; but what having been once rooted has continued ever after unmoved, is easily brought on to a further growth. He therefore dwells on these sorrowful things, and repeats His discourse upon them, that He may open the minds of His disciples.

Origen: And observe that it is not said, ‘He began to say,’ or ‘to teach,’ [p. 590] but “to shew;” for as things are said to be shewn to the sense, so the things which Christ spake are said to be shewn by Him. Nor indeed do I think, that to those who saw Him suffering many things in the flesh, were those things which they saw so shewn as this representation in words shewed to the disciples the mystery of the passion and resurrection of Christ. At that time, indeed, He only “began to shew them,” and afterwards when they were more able to receive it, He shewed them more fully; for all that Jesus began to do, that He accomplished.

He must needs go to Jerusalem, to be put to death indeed in the Jerusalem which is below, but to rise again and reign in the heavenly Jerusalem. But when Christ rose again, and others were risen with Him, they no longer sought the Jerusalem which is beneath, or the house of prayer in it, but that which is above. He suffers many things from the elders of the earthly Jerusalem, that He may be glorified by those heavenly elders who receive His mercies. He rose again from the dead on the third day, that He may deliver from the evil one, and purchase for such as are so delivered this gift, that they be baptized in spirit, soul, and body, in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, who are three days perpetually present to those that through them have been made children of light.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

22. Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, “Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.”

23. But he turned, and said unto Peter, “Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origen: While Christ was yet speaking the beginnings of the things which He was shewing unto them, Peter considered them unworthy of the Son of the living God. And forgetting that the Son of the living God does nothing, and acts in no way worthy of blame, he began to rebuke Him; and this is what is said, “And Peter took him, and began to rebuke [p. 591] him.”

Jerome: We have often said that Peter had too hot a zeal, and a very great affection towards the Lord the Saviour. Therefore after that his confession, and the reward of which he had heard from the Saviour, he would not have that his confession destroyed, and thought it impossible that the Son of God could be put to death, but takes Him to him affectionately, or takes Him aside that he may not seem to be rebuking his Master in the presence of his fellow disciples, and begins to chide Him with the feeling of one that loved Him, and to contradict Him, and say, “Be it far from thee, Lord;” or as it is better in the Greek, ιλεως σοι Κυριε, ου μη εσται σοι τουτο, that is, Be propitious to Thyself, Lord, this shall not be unto Thee.

Origen: As though Christ Himself had needed a propitiation. His affection Christ allows, but charges him with ignorance; as it follows, “He turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan, thou art an offence unto me.”

Hilary: The Lord, knowing the suggestion of the craft of the devil, says to Peter, “Get thee behind me;” that is, that he should follow the example of His passion; but to him by whom this expression was suggested, He turns and says, “Satan, thou art an offence unto me.” For we cannot suppose that the name of Satan, and the sin of being an offence, would be imputed to Peter after those so great declarations of blessedness and power that had been granted him.

Jerome: But to me this error of the Apostle, proceeding from the warmth of his affection, will never seem a suggestion of the devil. Let the thoughtful reader consider that that blessedness of power was promised to Peter in time to come, not given him at the time present; had it been conveyed to him immediately, the error of a false confession would never have found place in him.

Chrys.: For what wonder is it that this should befal Peter, who had never received a revelation concerning these things? For that you may learn that confession which he made concerning Christ was not spoken of himself, observe how in these things which had not been revealed to him, he is at a loss. Estimating the things of Christ by human and earthly principles, he judged it mean and unworthy of Him that He should suffer. Therefore the Lord added, “For thou savourest not the things that be of God, but the things that [p. 592] be of men.”

Jerome: As much as to say; It is of My will, and of the Father’s will, that I should die for the salvation of men; you considering only your own will would not that the grain of wheat should fall into the ground, that it may bring forth much fruit; therefore as you speak what is opposed to My will, you ought to be called My adversary. For Satan is interpreted ‘adverse’ or ‘contrary.’

Origen: Yet the words in which Peter and those in which Satan are rebuked, are not, as is commonly thought, the same; to Peter it is said, “Get thee behind me, Satan;” that is, follow me, thou that art contrary to my will; to the Devil it is said, “Go thy way, Satan,” understanding not ‘behind me,’ but ‘into everlasting fire.’

He said therefore to Peter, “Get thee behind me,” as to one who through ignorance was ceasing to walk after Christ. And He called him Satan, as one, who through ignorance had somewhat contrary to God. But he is blessed to whom Christ turns, even though He turn in order to rebuke him. But why said He to Peter, “Thou art an offence unto me, when in the Psalm it is said, Great peace have they that love thy law, and there is no offence to them?” [Ps 119:165] It must be answered, that not only is Jesus not offended, but neither is any man who is perfect in the love of God; and yet he who does or speaks any thing of the nature of an offence, may be an offence even to one who is incapable of being offended. Or he may hold every disciple that sinneth as an offence, as Paul speaks, “Who is offended, and I burn not?” [2 Cor 11:29]

Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #68 on: October 05, 2010, 06:55:42 PM »

And St. John 21:15-17

15. So when they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, love you me more than these? He says to him, Yea, Lord; you know that I love you. He says to him, Feed my lambs.

16. He says to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, love you me? He says to him, Yea, Lord; you know that I love you. He says, to him, Feed my sheep.

17. He says to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, love you me? Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, Love you me? And he said to him, Lord, you know all things you know that I love you. Jesus says to him, Feed my sheep.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THEOPHYL. The dinner being ended, He commits to Peter the superintendence over the sheep of the world, not to the others: So when they had dined, Jesus says to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, Do love you Me more than these do?

AUG. Our Lord asked this, knowing it: He knew that Peter not only loved Him, but loved Him more than all the rest.

ALCUIN. He is called Simon, son of John, John being his natural father. But mystically, Simon is obedience, John grace, a name well befitting him who was so obedient to God’s grace, that he loved our Lord more ardently than any of the others. Such virtue arising from divine gift, not mere human will.

AUG. While our Lord was being condemned to death, he feared, and denied Him. But by His resurrection Christ implanted love in his heart, and drove away fear. Peter denied, because he feared to die: but when our Lord was risen from the dead, and by His death destroyed death, what should he fear? He says to Him, Yea, Lord; you know that 1 love You. On this confession of his love, our Lord commends His sheep to him: He says to him, Feed My lambs. as if there were no way of Peter’s showing his love for Him, but by being a faithful shepherd, under the chief Shepherd.

CHRYS. That which most of all attracts the Divine love is care and love for our neighbor. Our Lord passing by the rest, addresses this command to Peter: he being the chief of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and head of the college. Our Lord remembers no more his sin in denying Him, or brings that as a charge against him, but commits to him at once the superintendence over his brethren. If you love Me, have rule over your brethren, show forth that love which you have evidenced throughout, and that life which you said you would lay down for Me, lay down for the sheep.

He says to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, love you Me? He says to Him, Yea, Lord; you know that I love You. Well does He say to Peter, Love you Me, and Peter answer, Amo Te, and our Lord replies again, Feed My lambs. Whereby, it appears that amor and dilectio are the same thing: especially as our Lord the third time He speaks does not say, Diligis Me, but Amas Me. He says to him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, love you Me? A third time our Lord asks Peter whether he loves Him. Three confessions are made to answer to the three denials; that the tongue might show as much love as it had fear, and life gained draw out the voice as much as death threatened. CHRYS. A third time He asks the same question, and gives the same command; to show of what importance He esteems the superintendence of His own sheep, and how He regards it as the greatest proof of love to Him.

THEOPHYL. Thence is taken the custom of threefold confession in baptism.

CHRYS. The question asked for the third time disturbed him: Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, Love you Me? He was afraid perhaps of receiving a reproof again for professing to love more than he did. So he appeals to Christ Himself: And he said to Him, Lord, you know all things, i.e. the secrets of the heart, present and to come.

AUG. He was grieved because he was asked so often by Him Who knew what He asked, and gave the answer. He replies therefore from his inmost heart; you know that I love You. AUG. He says no more, He only replies what he knew himself; he knew he loved Him; whether any else loved Him he could not tell, as he could not see into another’s heart: Jesus says to him, Feed My sheep; as if to say, Be it the office of love to feed the Lord’s flock, as it was the resolution of fear to deny the Shepherd.

THEOPHYL. There is a difference perhaps between lambs and sheep. The lambs are those just initiated, the sheep are the perfected.

ALCUIN. To feed the sheep is to support the believers in Christ from falling from the faith, to provide earthly sustenance for those under us, to preach and exemplify withal our preaching by our lives, to resist adversaries, to correct wanderers.

AUG. They who feed Christ’s sheep, as if they were their own, not Christ’s, show plainly that they love themselves, not Christ; that they are moved by lust of glory, power, gain, not by the love of obeying, ministering, pleasing God. Let us love therefore, not ourselves, but Him, and in feeding His sheep, seek not our own, but the things which are His. For whoso loves himself, not God, loves not himself: man that cannot live of himself, must die by loving himself; and he cannot love himself, who loves himself to his own destruction. Whereas when He by Whom we live is loved, we love ourselves the more, because we do not love ourselves; because we do not love ourselves in order that we may love Him by Whom we live

AUG. But unfaithful servants arose, who divided Christ’s flock, and handed down the division to their successors: and you hear them say, Those sheep are mine, what seek you with my sheep, I will not let you come to my sheep. If we call our sheep ours, as they call them theirs, Christ has lost His sheep.

----------------------------------------------------

The Fathers speak for themselves.

But there is one thing worth of note regarding the subject of RC allegations.

There not one single quote from the Fathers when interpreting these passages that link it to Roman primacy. I am not talking about infallibility or universal jurisdiction.

If there had been where the pious Church Fathers were to give the "correct" teaching about the Primacy of Rome, it had to be when commenting these passages.

But it's not there. It is very clear from this comparative study that RCs allegations are contrary to traditional Orthodox Catholicism and exegesis.

In this case, silence speaks louder than any loud claim.
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #69 on: October 05, 2010, 07:01:54 PM »

You can listen to Archbishop Hilarion reference the fact that First Rome still stands and that the Roman Catholic structure is probably better.

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/mother_churches/primacy_and_catholicity_in_the_orthodox_tradition

I might not have the two hours to hear it for now. Can you paraphrase what Abp. Hilarion says?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #70 on: October 05, 2010, 07:13:05 PM »

Nor do they make much of Peter being named first in the lists of Apostles. They acknowledge it and *again* they never mention that Peter's honour meant lordship over the other apostles, much less that Rome would have inherited it. Moreover, the systematic witness of the Fathers is that Peter had his name changed *before* the confession that Jesus is the Son of God. Indeed, the same confession appears in another passage and there is no mention to the change of name of Peter.

St. Mark 3

13. And He goeth up into a mountain, and calleth unto Him whom He would: and they came unto Him.

14. And He ordained twelve, that they should be with Him, and that He might send them forth to preach, [p. 60]

15. And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:

16. And Simon He surnamed Peter;

17. And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and He surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

18. And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,

19. And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed Him.
----------------------------------------------------------

Augustine, de Con. Evan. ii, 17: But let no one suppose that Simon now received his name and was called Peter, for thus he would make Mark contrary to John, who relates that it had been long before said unto him, “Thou shalt be called Cephas.” [John 1:42]

But Mark gives this account by way of recapitulation; for as he wished to give the names of the twelve Apostles, and was obliged to call him, Peter, his object was to intimate briefly, that he was not called this originally, but that the Lord gave him that name.

Bede: And the reason that the Lord willed that he should at first be called otherwise, was that from the change itself of the name, a mystery might be conveyed to us. Peter then in Latin or in Greek means the same thing as Cephas in Hebrew, and in each language the name is drawn from, a stone.

Nor can it be doubted that is the rock of which Paul spoke, “And this rock was Christ.” [1 Cor 10:4] For as Christ was the true light, and allowed also that the Apostles should be called the light of the world, [Matt 5:14] so also to Simon, who believed on the rock Christ, He gave the name of Rock.

Pseudo-Jerome: Thus from obedience, which Simon signifies, the ascent is made to knowledge, which is meant by Peter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
St. Mat. 10

1. And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease.

2. Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother;

3. Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the Publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus;

4. Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


Jerome: A kind and merciful Lord and Master does not envy His servants and disciples a share in His powers. As Himself had cured every sickness and disease, He imparted the same power to His Apostles. But there is a wide difference between having and imparting, between giving and receiving. Whatever He does He does with the power of a master, whatever they do it is with confession of their own weakness, as they speak, “In the name of Jesus rise and walk.” [Acts 3:6]

A catalogue of the names of the Apostles is given, that all false Apostles might be excluded. “The names of the twelve Apostles are these; First, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother.” To arrange them in order according to their merit is His alone who searches the secrets of all hearts. But Simon is placed first, having the surname of Peter given to distinguish him from the other Simon surnamed Chananaeus, [p. 364] from the village of Chana in Galilee where the Lord turned the water into wine.

Rabanus, e Beda: The Greek or Latin ‘Petrus’ is the same as the Syriac Cephas, in both tongues the word is derived from a rock; undoubtedly that of which Paul speaks, “And that rock was Christ.” [1 Cor 10:4]

Remig., ap. Rabanus: There have been some who in this name Peter, which is Greek and Latin, have sought a Hebrew interpretation, and would have it to signify, ‘Taking off the shoe,’, ‘or unloosing,’ or ‘acknowledging.’ But those that say this are contradicted by the facts. First, that the Hebrew has no letter P, but uses PH instead. Thus Pilate they call, Philate. Secondly, that one of the Evangelists has used the word as an interpretation of Cephas; The Lord said, “Thou shalt be called Cephas,” [John 1:42] on which the Evangelist adds, “which being interpreted is Petrus.”

Simon in interpreted ‘obedient,’ for he obeyed the words of Andrew, and with him came to Christ, or because he obeyed the divine commands, and at one word of bidding followed the Lord. Or as some will have it, it is to be interpreted, ‘Laying aside grief,’ and, ‘hearing painful things;’ for that on the Lord’s resurrection he laid aside the grief he had for His death; and he heard sorrowful things when the Lord said to him, “Another shall gird thee, and shall carry thee whither thou wouldest not.” [John 21:18]

“And Andrew his brother.”

Chrys.: This is no small honour (done to Peter), He places Peter from his merit, Andrew from the nobility he had in being the brother of Peter. Mark names Andrew next after the two heads, namely, Peter and John; but this one not so; for Mark has arranged them in order of dignity.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

St. Luke 6

12. And it came to pass in those days, that he went out into a mountain to pray, and continued all night in prayer to God.

13. And when it was day, he called to him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;

14. Simon, (whom he also named Peter,) and Andrew his brother, James and John, Philip and Bartholomew,

15. Matthew and Thomas, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon called Zelotes,

16. And Judas the brother of James, and Judas Iscariot, which also was the traitor.


CYRIL; But mark the great carefulness of the. Evangelist. He not only says that the holy Apostles were chosen, but he enumerates them by name, that no one should dare to insert any others in the catalogue; Simon, whom he also called Peter, and Andrew his brother.

BEDE; He not only surnamed Peter first, but long before this, when he was brought by Andrew, it is said, You shall be called Cephas, which is by interpretation, a stone. But Luke, wishing to mention the names of the disciples, since it was necessary to call him Peter, wished shortly to imply that this was not his name before, but the Lord had given it to him.
Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 642


militantsparrow
« Reply #71 on: October 05, 2010, 07:48:20 PM »

You can listen to Archbishop Hilarion reference the fact that First Rome still stands and that the Roman Catholic structure is probably better.

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/mother_churches/primacy_and_catholicity_in_the_orthodox_tradition

I might not have the two hours to hear it for now. Can you paraphrase what Abp. Hilarion says?

It is long, but it's well worth listening to when you do have the time. He speaks of the fact that some people speak of Second and Third Rome but we (I believe he meant Orthodox) must admit that only First Rome still stands. As far as the organizational structure, his Eminence alludes to some of the same points dcointin has made.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 642


militantsparrow
« Reply #72 on: October 05, 2010, 07:58:25 PM »

You can listen to Archbishop Hilarion reference the fact that First Rome still stands and that the Roman Catholic structure is probably better.

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/mother_churches/primacy_and_catholicity_in_the_orthodox_tradition

I might not have the two hours to hear it for now. Can you paraphrase what Abp. Hilarion says?

It is long, but it's well worth listening to when you do have the time. He speaks of the fact that some people speak of Second and Third Rome but we (I believe he meant Orthodox) must admit that only First Rome still stands. As far as the organizational structure, his Eminence alludes to some of the same points dcointin has made.

Just to be clear, Archbishop Hilarion does not state or imply that he accepts the papacy as it has existed for the past millennium.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #73 on: October 05, 2010, 11:12:55 PM »

You can listen to Archbishop Hilarion reference the fact that First Rome still stands and that the Roman Catholic structure is probably better.

http://ancientfaith.com/specials/mother_churches/primacy_and_catholicity_in_the_orthodox_tradition

I might not have the two hours to hear it for now. Can you paraphrase what Abp. Hilarion says?

It is long, but it's well worth listening to when you do have the time. He speaks of the fact that some people speak of Second and Third Rome but we (I believe he meant Orthodox) must admit that only First Rome still stands. As far as the organizational structure, his Eminence alludes to some of the same points dcointin has made.

Just to be clear, Archbishop Hilarion does not state or imply that he accepts the papacy as it has existed for the past millennium.
I should say not:
Quote
the extremely restrictive views that the patriarchate of Moscow, through the pen of Metropolitan Hilarion, expresses of the pope's role in the first millennium:

"For the Orthodox participants, it is clear that in the first millennium the jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was exercised only in the West, while in the East, the territories were divided between four patriarchs – those of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem. The bishop of Rome did not exercise any direct jurisdiction in the East in spite of the fact that in some cases Eastern hierarchs appealed to him as arbiter in theological disputes. These appeals were not systematic and can in no way be interpreted in the sense that the bishop of Rome was seen in the East as the supreme authority in the whole universal Church. It is hoped that at the next meetings of the commission, the Catholic side will agree with this position which is confirmed by numerous historical evidence."
http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1345026?eng=y
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Michael_Gerard
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 74


« Reply #74 on: October 28, 2010, 10:16:29 PM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #75 on: October 28, 2010, 11:12:43 PM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
No, which is one of the chief reasons to reject the non-existent order of "papacy." Only the highest order of bishop can ordain the lesser orders of priest and deacon, and chrismate. Since the Vatican believes the pope is above the bishops, it would mean the inferior would be consecrating the superior. No charism of the priesthood is given except in a Holy Mystery/Sacrament, and the Vatican doesn't even claim the existent of a Holy Mystery/Sacrament of consecrating a pope.

A non-bishop can be elected pope under the present rules, but he must be consecrated a bishop before taking office.  A bishop elected becomes pope the moment he accepts his election, hence the announcement "Habemus papam."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,831


WWW
« Reply #76 on: October 28, 2010, 11:40:31 PM »

^ Isa, correct me if I'm wrong.   Undecided

When an Orthodox Patriarch (or Metropolitan or Archbishop) is elected by a Holy Synod (of equal Hierarchs), there is a formal announcement followed by an enthronement ceremony.  The electee is merely enthroned, not re-consecrated because he was already consecrated a Bishop?

So if the College of Cardinals elects a new Pope from their ranks, His enthronement may be less "formal" than the process used by Orthodox Hierarchs?
« Last Edit: October 28, 2010, 11:41:03 PM by SolEX01 » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #77 on: October 29, 2010, 01:23:31 AM »

^ Isa, correct me if I'm wrong.   Undecided

When an Orthodox Patriarch (or Metropolitan or Archbishop) is elected by a Holy Synod (of equal Hierarchs), there is a formal announcement followed by an enthronement ceremony.  The electee is merely enthroned, not re-consecrated because he was already consecrated a Bishop?

Yes. Abp. Job of blessed memory was enthroned in Chicago (I was there), having been consecrated in New England where he was bishop previously. If Bp. Mark was to be translated here, he would be enthroned, but since Hieromonk Matthias may be chosen, he would be consecrated.

The same applies to primates, although I cannot recall when was the last time a primate was elected who was not already consecrated.  Met. Jonah missed it by a month or so. St. Gorazd was consecrated Metropolitan of Czechoslovakia, but it was not yet autocephalous.

Quote
So if the College of Cardinals elects a new Pope from their ranks, His enthronement may be less "formal" than the process used by Orthodox Hierarchs?

Not exactly. There was (technically, still is) a formal but only symbolic ceremony which lasts 6 hours.  Pope Paul in the 60's got away from wearing the tiara, and his successors have declined to have the formal enthronement.  The election of the conclave has more ritual: the last three times only an inaugural mass is served.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_Inauguration

Btw, Pope Gregory XVI was the last, in 1830, non-bishop elected pope of Rome.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
SolEX01
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, Holy Metropolis of New Jersey
Posts: 11,831


WWW
« Reply #78 on: October 29, 2010, 02:15:59 AM »

Thanks, Isa.   Smiley

A Primate of any Orthodox Church is usually enthroned during a Divine Liturgy while there appears to be more pomp and circumstance (and fewer liturgics?) during a Papal Inauguaration?
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #79 on: October 29, 2010, 09:30:51 AM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?

Bishops are not ordained they are Consecrated.

Popes are elected.

M.
Logged

elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #80 on: October 29, 2010, 10:38:09 AM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
No, which is one of the chief reasons to reject the non-existent order of "papacy." Only the highest order of bishop can ordain the lesser orders of priest and deacon, and chrismate. Since the Vatican believes the pope is above the bishops, it would mean the inferior would be consecrating the superior. No charism of the priesthood is given except in a Holy Mystery/Sacrament, and the Vatican doesn't even claim the existent of a Holy Mystery/Sacrament of consecrating a pope.

A non-bishop can be elected pope under the present rules, but he must be consecrated a bishop before taking office.  A bishop elected becomes pope the moment he accepts his election, hence the announcement "Habemus papam."

The Papacy is not an order.

The Papacy is an office.
Logged

Dart
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 655


« Reply #81 on: October 29, 2010, 04:51:59 PM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
No, which is one of the chief reasons to reject the non-existent order of "papacy." Only the highest order of bishop can ordain the lesser orders of priest and deacon, and chrismate. Since the Vatican believes the pope is above the bishops, it would mean the inferior would be consecrating the superior. No charism of the priesthood is given except in a Holy Mystery/Sacrament, and the Vatican doesn't even claim the existent of a Holy Mystery/Sacrament of consecrating a pope.

A non-bishop can be elected pope under the present rules, but he must be consecrated a bishop before taking office.  A bishop elected becomes pope the moment he accepts his election, hence the announcement "Habemus papam."

The Papacy is not an order.

The Papacy is an office.

If the Pope is an office then the Pope could be removed from his office. I believe it has happened before in 1409, 1418, and 1439. However these councils were later decreed to be illigitimate by other councils.

If the Papacy were an office, then an Ecumenical council could convene and do away with the office all together?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #82 on: October 29, 2010, 05:25:47 PM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
No, which is one of the chief reasons to reject the non-existent order of "papacy." Only the highest order of bishop can ordain the lesser orders of priest and deacon, and chrismate. Since the Vatican believes the pope is above the bishops, it would mean the inferior would be consecrating the superior. No charism of the priesthood is given except in a Holy Mystery/Sacrament, and the Vatican doesn't even claim the existent of a Holy Mystery/Sacrament of consecrating a pope.

A non-bishop can be elected pope under the present rules, but he must be consecrated a bishop before taking office.  A bishop elected becomes pope the moment he accepts his election, hence the announcement "Habemus papam."

The Papacy is not an order.

The Papacy is an office.
That is exactly the problem with the claims of Vatican ecclesiology.

The Vatican holds the orders of deacon, priest and bishop in the priesthood ("Holy Orders") and attributes charisms to each. She does not attribute any charism to various offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, Metropolitan, Catholicos etc. (in that, its ecclesiology resembles Orthodox ecclesiology) (I would add "Pope," the title which orginated with the Patriarch of Alexandria, but the Vatican forbids any other hierarch from holding that title, so those who submit to it at Alexandria. Another aberration of ecclesiology). Only for the office of the papacy does it claim a charism (infallibility, supremacy, etc.), a total disconnect from the rest of even its own ecclesiology: you wouldn't claim a priest could become a bishop by accepting election without consecration nor three priests consecrating a fourth a bishop. Yet you claim your head of the episcopate takes his positin just that way.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #83 on: October 29, 2010, 07:25:24 PM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
No, which is one of the chief reasons to reject the non-existent order of "papacy." Only the highest order of bishop can ordain the lesser orders of priest and deacon, and chrismate. Since the Vatican believes the pope is above the bishops, it would mean the inferior would be consecrating the superior. No charism of the priesthood is given except in a Holy Mystery/Sacrament, and the Vatican doesn't even claim the existent of a Holy Mystery/Sacrament of consecrating a pope.

A non-bishop can be elected pope under the present rules, but he must be consecrated a bishop before taking office.  A bishop elected becomes pope the moment he accepts his election, hence the announcement "Habemus papam."

The Papacy is not an order.

The Papacy is an office.
That is exactly the problem with the claims of Vatican ecclesiology.

The Vatican holds the orders of deacon, priest and bishop in the priesthood ("Holy Orders") and attributes charisms to each. She does not attribute any charism to various offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, Metropolitan, Catholicos etc. (in that, its ecclesiology resembles Orthodox ecclesiology) (I would add "Pope," the title which orginated with the Patriarch of Alexandria, but the Vatican forbids any other hierarch from holding that title, so those who submit to it at Alexandria. Another aberration of ecclesiology). Only for the office of the papacy does it claim a charism (infallibility, supremacy, etc.), a total disconnect from the rest of even its own ecclesiology: you wouldn't claim a priest could become a bishop by accepting election without consecration nor three priests consecrating a fourth a bishop. Yet you claim your head of the episcopate takes his positin just that way.
oh, the EO habbit of trying to find problems where none exist.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #84 on: October 29, 2010, 07:27:28 PM »

The Vatican holds the orders of deacon, priest and bishop in the priesthood ("Holy Orders") and attributes charisms to each. She does not attribute any charism to various offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, Metropolitan, Catholicos etc. (in that, its ecclesiology resembles Orthodox ecclesiology) (I would add "Pope," the title which orginated with the Patriarch of Alexandria, but the Vatican forbids any other hierarch from holding that title, so those who submit to it at Alexandria. Another aberration of ecclesiology). Only for the office of the papacy does it claim a charism (infallibility, supremacy, etc.), a total disconnect from the rest of even its own ecclesiology: you wouldn't claim a priest could become a bishop by accepting election without consecration nor three priests consecrating a fourth a bishop. Yet you claim your head of the episcopate takes his positin just that way.

Since we believe that St. Peter had a special (Christ appointed) role in the Church we likewise believe that that office would not go away after the death of St. Peter. The Bishop of Rome possesses more authority than the other Bishops precisely because he is the Bishop of Rome. That does not mean he ceases to be a Bishop once he becomes Pope or that there is another level of the Sacrament of Holy Orders which is above Bishop; it just means that, being that he is the Bishop of Rome, his job description just got a lot bigger.
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 07:28:22 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,501



« Reply #85 on: October 29, 2010, 07:32:16 PM »

...find problems where none exist.

That's what Khomiakov said about you and your immaculate conception  Tongue
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 07:32:50 PM by Asteriktos » Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #86 on: October 29, 2010, 07:33:34 PM »

...find problems where none exist.

That's what Khomiakov said about you and your immaculate conception  Tongue

Original sin does exist and is a big problem.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #87 on: October 29, 2010, 07:40:25 PM »

...find problems where none exist.

That's what Khomiakov said about you and your immaculate conception  Tongue

Original sin does exist and is a big problem.
Christ Who knew no sin became sin for us and solved the problem.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #88 on: October 29, 2010, 07:46:39 PM »

...find problems where none exist.

That's what Khomiakov said about you and your immaculate conception  Tongue

Original sin does exist and is a big problem.
Christ Who knew no sin became sin for us and solved the problem.
We are still born into original sin. Baptism cleanses us of it. Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of the Theotokos being born into sin and God the Son needing a spotless vessel with which to enter the world, hence the necessity of the Immaculate Conception.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #89 on: October 29, 2010, 07:49:19 PM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
No, which is one of the chief reasons to reject the non-existent order of "papacy." Only the highest order of bishop can ordain the lesser orders of priest and deacon, and chrismate. Since the Vatican believes the pope is above the bishops, it would mean the inferior would be consecrating the superior. No charism of the priesthood is given except in a Holy Mystery/Sacrament, and the Vatican doesn't even claim the existent of a Holy Mystery/Sacrament of consecrating a pope.

A non-bishop can be elected pope under the present rules, but he must be consecrated a bishop before taking office.  A bishop elected becomes pope the moment he accepts his election, hence the announcement "Habemus papam."

The Papacy is not an order.

The Papacy is an office.
That is exactly the problem with the claims of Vatican ecclesiology.

The Vatican holds the orders of deacon, priest and bishop in the priesthood ("Holy Orders") and attributes charisms to each. She does not attribute any charism to various offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, Metropolitan, Catholicos etc. (in that, its ecclesiology resembles Orthodox ecclesiology) (I would add "Pope," the title which orginated with the Patriarch of Alexandria, but the Vatican forbids any other hierarch from holding that title, so those who submit to it at Alexandria. Another aberration of ecclesiology). Only for the office of the papacy does it claim a charism (infallibility, supremacy, etc.), a total disconnect from the rest of even its own ecclesiology: you wouldn't claim a priest could become a bishop by accepting election without consecration nor three priests consecrating a fourth a bishop. Yet you claim your head of the episcopate takes his positin just that way.
oh, the EO habbit of trying to find problems where none exist.
Your inconsistencies are not our problems.

If you treated the office of the papacy like an office (like the Archbishops, Patriarchs, Catholicos, Metropolitans etc. you have), we might have some to talk about at those talks. But you treat it as another order: a deacon cannot "confect the Eucharist," a priest cannot ordain, a bishop cannot speak infallibly. Deacons can't ordain a priest, priest cannot consecrate a bishop, and no number of bishops (following the principle ennuciated in Hebrews that "without contradiction, the inferior is blessed by the superior") can elevate a supreme pontiff.  Hence we have nothing to talk about when it comes to "reunion."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #90 on: October 29, 2010, 07:53:25 PM »

...find problems where none exist.

That's what Khomiakov said about you and your immaculate conception  Tongue

Original sin does exist and is a big problem.
Christ Who knew no sin became sin for us and solved the problem.
We are still born into original sin. Baptism cleanses us of it. Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of the Theotokos being born into sin and God the Son needing a spotless vessel with which to enter the world, hence the necessity of the Immaculate Conception.

I thought you all were into denying necessity as the basis for the IC. Change yet again.

The Theotokos being born into sin is a nonexistent problem, as Christ was to become sin for us and  so had no "necessity" for the IC.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #91 on: October 29, 2010, 08:07:07 PM »

I thought you all were into denying necessity as the basis for the IC. Change yet again.

No, the part we deny (and rightfully so) is that Mary needed to be without sin in order for Christ to be. That is what some people falsely think we believe. We believe Mary was immaculately conceived and remained sinless to be a perfect vessel to house the Messiah. After all, God could just as easily make God the Son Incarnate immaculately conceived, so Mary's sinlessness had nothing to do with Christ's sinlessness.

The Theotokos being born into sin is a nonexistent problem, as Christ was to become sin for us and so had no "necessity" for the IC.

See above.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #92 on: October 29, 2010, 08:08:57 PM »

The Vatican holds the orders of deacon, priest and bishop in the priesthood ("Holy Orders") and attributes charisms to each. She does not attribute any charism to various offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, Metropolitan, Catholicos etc. (in that, its ecclesiology resembles Orthodox ecclesiology) (I would add "Pope," the title which orginated with the Patriarch of Alexandria, but the Vatican forbids any other hierarch from holding that title, so those who submit to it at Alexandria. Another aberration of ecclesiology). Only for the office of the papacy does it claim a charism (infallibility, supremacy, etc.), a total disconnect from the rest of even its own ecclesiology: you wouldn't claim a priest could become a bishop by accepting election without consecration nor three priests consecrating a fourth a bishop. Yet you claim your head of the episcopate takes his positin just that way.

Since we believe that St. Peter had a special (Christ appointed) role in the Church we likewise believe that that office would not go away after the death of St. Peter. The Bishop of Rome possesses more authority than the other Bishops precisely because he is the Bishop of Rome. That does not mean he ceases to be a Bishop once he becomes Pope or that there is another level of the Sacrament of Holy Orders which is above Bishop; it just means that, being that he is the Bishop of Rome, his job description just got a lot bigger.
A bishop is not a priest with a bigger job description anymore than a priest is a deacon with a bigger job description.  So your model won't work for your supreme pontiff and font of unity, not to mention it leaves the problem that the Patriarch of Antioch sits on St. Peter's throne, as do (as St. Cyprian stated) every Orthodox bishop. For infallibility, the power to call and confirm Ecumenical councils etc. you would need another level of the sacrament of Holy Orders above bishop. That you do not (nor did the ancient Church) should tell you something.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #93 on: October 29, 2010, 08:14:19 PM »

I thought you all were into denying necessity as the basis for the IC. Change yet again.
No, the part we deny (and rightfully so) is that Mary needed to be without sin in order for Christ to be. That is what some people falsely think we believe. We believe Mary was immaculately conceived and remained sinless to be a perfect vessel to house the Messiah. After all, God could just as easily make God the Son Incarnate immaculately conceived, so Mary's sinlessness had nothing to do with Christ's sinlessness.

What did you just say?
We are still born into original sin. Baptism cleanses us of it. Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of the Theotokos being born into sin and God the Son needing a spotless vessel with which to enter the world, hence the necessity of the Immaculate Conception.

God the Son was immaculately conceived, the only one ever.

The Theotokos being born into sin is a nonexistent problem, as Christ was to become sin for us and so had no "necessity" for the IC.

See above.
Ditto
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #94 on: October 29, 2010, 08:20:42 PM »

A bishop is not a priest with a bigger job description anymore than a priest is a deacon with a bigger job description.
Well of course not. Why? Because the diaconate is a level of holy orders, the presbyteriate is a level of holy orders, the episcopate is a level of holy orders, but the Papacy is an office. I thought we were all clear on that.

So your model won't work for your supreme pontiff and font of unity, not to mention it leaves the problem that the Patriarch of Antioch sits on St. Peter's throne, as do (as St. Cyprian stated) every Orthodox bishop. For infallibility, the power to call and confirm Ecumenical councils etc. you would need another level of the sacrament of Holy Orders above bishop. That you do not (nor did the ancient Church) should tell you something.
Says ialmisry. I remain unconvinced.

I thought you all were into denying necessity as the basis for the IC. Change yet again.
No, the part we deny (and rightfully so) is that Mary needed to be without sin in order for Christ to be. That is what some people falsely think we believe. We believe Mary was immaculately conceived and remained sinless to be a perfect vessel to house the Messiah. After all, God could just as easily make God the Son Incarnate immaculately conceived, so Mary's sinlessness had nothing to do with Christ's sinlessness.

What did you just say?
We are still born into original sin. Baptism cleanses us of it. Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of the Theotokos being born into sin and God the Son needing a spotless vessel with which to enter the world, hence the necessity of the Immaculate Conception.

God the Son was immaculately conceived, the only one ever.

The Theotokos being born into sin is a nonexistent problem, as Christ was to become sin for us and so had no "necessity" for the IC.

See above.
Ditto
Reread what I said because clearly you are assuming a meaning into the text that isn't there. I said that Christ needed a perfect vessel with which to enter the world. I never said why He needed a perfect vessel. Ialmisry assumed I meant because if she wasn't sinless, God the Son would have inherited original sin, but that isn't what I meant at all. Christ needed to have a perfect vessel for the sake of having a perfect vessel. You know, Mary as the New Eve, the new Ark of the Covenant, etc. (not sure of the Eastern Orthodox have those views of Mary or not).
« Last Edit: October 29, 2010, 08:21:38 PM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #95 on: October 29, 2010, 08:43:57 PM »

A bishop is not a priest with a bigger job description anymore than a priest is a deacon with a bigger job description.
Well of course not. Why? Because the diaconate is a level of holy orders, the presbyteriate is a level of holy orders, the episcopate is a level of holy orders, but the Papacy is an office. I thought we were all clear on that.

Yes, you are claiming for an office a super level of holy orders. That's quite clear.

So your model won't work for your supreme pontiff and font of unity, not to mention it leaves the problem that the Patriarch of Antioch sits on St. Peter's throne, as do (as St. Cyprian stated) every Orthodox bishop. For infallibility, the power to call and confirm Ecumenical councils etc. you would need another level of the sacrament of Holy Orders above bishop. That you do not (nor did the ancient Church) should tell you something.
Says ialmisry. I remain unconvinced

Show me a charism of the Church not bestowed by a sacramental act.

I thought you all were into denying necessity as the basis for the IC. Change yet again.
No, the part we deny (and rightfully so) is that Mary needed to be without sin in order for Christ to be. That is what some people falsely think we believe. We believe Mary was immaculately conceived and remained sinless to be a perfect vessel to house the Messiah. After all, God could just as easily make God the Son Incarnate immaculately conceived, so Mary's sinlessness had nothing to do with Christ's sinlessness.

What did you just say?
We are still born into original sin. Baptism cleanses us of it. Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of the Theotokos being born into sin and God the Son needing a spotless vessel with which to enter the world, hence the necessity of the Immaculate Conception.

God the Son was immaculately conceived, the only one ever.

The Theotokos being born into sin is a nonexistent problem, as Christ was to become sin for us and so had no "necessity" for the IC.

See above.
Ditto
Reread what I said because clearly you are assuming a meaning into the text that isn't there.

I read the ill conceived syllogism the first time. And many times before.


I said that Christ needed a perfect vessel with which to enter the world.


Read what Holy Scripture says "He made Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us."

I never said why He needed a perfect vessel.

Go for it.

Ialmisry assumed I meant because if she wasn't sinless, God the Son would have inherited original sin, but that isn't what I meant at all. Christ needed to have a perfect vessel for the sake of having a perfect vessel.

And the supreme pontiff speak infallibly because he says so.


You know, Mary as the New Eve, the new Ark of the Covenant, etc. (not sure of the Eastern Orthodox have those views of Mary or not).
We do, and never had the need for the IC.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #96 on: October 30, 2010, 12:27:40 AM »

Yes, you are claiming for an office a super level of holy orders. That's quite clear.
k.

Show me a charism of the Church not bestowed by a sacramental act.
The Petrine Office established by Christ.

I read the ill conceived syllogism the first time. And many times before.
On what grounds is it ill conceived?


Read what Holy Scripture says "He made Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us."
Christ paid the price for our sins, but do you believe that He had personal or original sin? That would be heretical.

Go for it.
God cannot be in the presence of sin, hence the fact that we need to be purified before we can be in the presence of the Beatific Vision...although I don't know how much of that you believe as an Eastern Orthodox.

And the supreme pontiff speak infallibly because he says so.
Because Christ says so when He says He will build the Church upon St. Peter.

We do, and never had the need for the IC.
You sound like it's an entree option at a buffet. This isn't dinner options we are talking about here. We are talking about the Faith.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #97 on: October 30, 2010, 10:11:02 AM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
No, which is one of the chief reasons to reject the non-existent order of "papacy." Only the highest order of bishop can ordain the lesser orders of priest and deacon, and chrismate. Since the Vatican believes the pope is above the bishops, it would mean the inferior would be consecrating the superior. No charism of the priesthood is given except in a Holy Mystery/Sacrament, and the Vatican doesn't even claim the existent of a Holy Mystery/Sacrament of consecrating a pope.

A non-bishop can be elected pope under the present rules, but he must be consecrated a bishop before taking office.  A bishop elected becomes pope the moment he accepts his election, hence the announcement "Habemus papam."

The Papacy is not an order.

The Papacy is an office.
That is exactly the problem with the claims of Vatican ecclesiology.

The Vatican holds the orders of deacon, priest and bishop in the priesthood ("Holy Orders") and attributes charisms to each. She does not attribute any charism to various offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, Metropolitan, Catholicos etc. (in that, its ecclesiology resembles Orthodox ecclesiology) (I would add "Pope," the title which orginated with the Patriarch of Alexandria, but the Vatican forbids any other hierarch from holding that title, so those who submit to it at Alexandria. Another aberration of ecclesiology). Only for the office of the papacy does it claim a charism (infallibility, supremacy, etc.), a total disconnect from the rest of even its own ecclesiology: you wouldn't claim a priest could become a bishop by accepting election without consecration nor three priests consecrating a fourth a bishop. Yet you claim your head of the episcopate takes his positin just that way.
oh, the EO habbit of trying to find problems where none exist.
Your inconsistencies are not our problems.

If you treated the office of the papacy like an office (like the Archbishops, Patriarchs, Catholicos, Metropolitans etc. you have), we might have some to talk about at those talks. But you treat it as another order: a deacon cannot "confect the Eucharist," a priest cannot ordain, a bishop cannot speak infallibly. Deacons can't ordain a priest, priest cannot consecrate a bishop, and no number of bishops (following the principle ennuciated in Hebrews that "without contradiction, the inferior is blessed by the superior") can elevate a supreme pontiff.  Hence we have nothing to talk about when it comes to "reunion."

LOL...that seems to be an Orthodox problem, since your people are talking to our people. 

Apparently they have not consulted you...so perhaps it really is a personal problem?

M.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #98 on: November 02, 2010, 02:26:03 AM »

Yes, you are claiming for an office a super level of holy orders. That's quite clear.
k.

Show me a charism of the Church not bestowed by a sacramental act.
The Petrine Office established by Christ.

Rather fond of tautologies, aren't you.

If the Ultramontane's "petrine office" were an office, then, for instance, when your Pope John died the caretaker locum tenens could have continued Vatican II, or indeed the council itself-which you all are quick to claim are part of the "magesterium" whenever the absurdities of your "petrine office" are brought to the fore-could have continued the "collegial act' set in motion by Pope John. But no, according to the rules they had to wait for an actual bishop of Rome.  The US Congress is fully empowered if the President is removed from office (dies, resigns etc.) and if there is a delay from the Vice-President assuming office (e.g. if the Vice-President dies or resigned: both have happened in the past. If, for instance, President Johnson had been impeached, there would have ensued a constitutional crisis because he had no Vice-President and there was no mechanism to replace him when he succeeded Lincoln nor if he was impeached, something the 25th Amendment wouldn't solve if Johnson didn't nominate a VP before impeachment). That is because the Presidency is an office.  The British Parliament is not empowered after demise of the crown (death, abdication etc. of the monarch) as the monarcy is not an office (though modern changes on the automatic dissoluton of Parliament at the death of the monarch etc. have blurred the point here). You, not Christ, have vested charism to office of bishop of Rome (if you want to insist that it is an office, it is no different than office of bishop of Chicago, which carries no special charism though he is usually made a cardinal-another issue, but I won't go into that right now). Charism do not reside in abstactions like offices, they abide in persons.  You all are confused on that point as much as your Protestant siblings, who think that just starting to preach ordains one a minister.

I read the ill conceived syllogism the first time. And many times before.
On what grounds is it ill conceived?

decuit.

Read what Holy Scripture says "He made Him Who knew no sin to become sin for us."
Christ paid the price for our sins, but do you believe that He had personal or original sin? That would be heretical.

The IC is heretical. No, He had neither personal nor original sin, but that is besides the point (and His paying the price for our sins as well).  The God Who made Himself Who knew no sin to become sin for us had no need, nor was it fitting, that He have a mother untouched by sin.  That she was born into ancestral sin is required by the Orthodox dogma of the Catholic Church.  That she had no actual sin is not required by Orthodox dogma, but the Catholic Church has held that belief, based on our experience of her.

Go for it.
God cannot be in the presence of sin, hence the fact that we need to be purified before we can be in the presence of the Beatific Vision...although I don't know how much of that you believe as an Eastern Orthodox.

He descended into Hell. Plenty of sin there.  His mother's womb presents no problem.

And the supreme pontiff speak infallibly because he says so.
Because Christ says so when He says He will build the Church upon St. Peter.

No, according to the Orthodox consensus of the Fathers, on his confession.

We do, and never had the need for the IC.
You sound like it's an entree option at a buffet.

If it were, I would send it back to the cook.

Quote
This isn't dinner options we are talking about here. We are talking about the Faith.

Not the Orthodox Faith.

Your "doctors" are the ones who claimed He could do it, He should do it, therefore He did it. You yourself claim some problem needed a solution. There was no problem, hence no needed solution, no necessity of the IC.

The Faith isn't broken, so your "magisterium" should stop trying to fix it.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #99 on: November 02, 2010, 02:29:55 AM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
No, which is one of the chief reasons to reject the non-existent order of "papacy." Only the highest order of bishop can ordain the lesser orders of priest and deacon, and chrismate. Since the Vatican believes the pope is above the bishops, it would mean the inferior would be consecrating the superior. No charism of the priesthood is given except in a Holy Mystery/Sacrament, and the Vatican doesn't even claim the existent of a Holy Mystery/Sacrament of consecrating a pope.

A non-bishop can be elected pope under the present rules, but he must be consecrated a bishop before taking office.  A bishop elected becomes pope the moment he accepts his election, hence the announcement "Habemus papam."

The Papacy is not an order.

The Papacy is an office.
That is exactly the problem with the claims of Vatican ecclesiology.

The Vatican holds the orders of deacon, priest and bishop in the priesthood ("Holy Orders") and attributes charisms to each. She does not attribute any charism to various offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, Metropolitan, Catholicos etc. (in that, its ecclesiology resembles Orthodox ecclesiology) (I would add "Pope," the title which orginated with the Patriarch of Alexandria, but the Vatican forbids any other hierarch from holding that title, so those who submit to it at Alexandria. Another aberration of ecclesiology). Only for the office of the papacy does it claim a charism (infallibility, supremacy, etc.), a total disconnect from the rest of even its own ecclesiology: you wouldn't claim a priest could become a bishop by accepting election without consecration nor three priests consecrating a fourth a bishop. Yet you claim your head of the episcopate takes his positin just that way.
oh, the EO habbit of trying to find problems where none exist.
Your inconsistencies are not our problems.

If you treated the office of the papacy like an office (like the Archbishops, Patriarchs, Catholicos, Metropolitans etc. you have), we might have some to talk about at those talks. But you treat it as another order: a deacon cannot "confect the Eucharist," a priest cannot ordain, a bishop cannot speak infallibly. Deacons can't ordain a priest, priest cannot consecrate a bishop, and no number of bishops (following the principle ennuciated in Hebrews that "without contradiction, the inferior is blessed by the superior") can elevate a supreme pontiff.  Hence we have nothing to talk about when it comes to "reunion."
LOL...that seems to be an Orthodox problem, since your people are talking to our people.

Yes:how have those talks been coming along lately?

Quote
Apparently they have not consulted you...so perhaps it really is a personal problem?
Hardly.  They didn't consult the Faithful when they submitted to the Emperor's orders to go to Florence. We gavre our repsonse when they tried to return.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #100 on: November 02, 2010, 02:09:11 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #101 on: November 02, 2010, 02:43:27 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #102 on: November 02, 2010, 04:06:43 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
I've been passionately Catholic for three years now and I have not seen anything wrong with our apologetics.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #103 on: November 02, 2010, 04:23:58 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
I've been passionately Catholic for three years now and I have not seen anything wrong with our apologetics.
A fish spends its whole life not knowing it is wet.

Passionately Catholic? Since when have you professed the Orthodox Faith?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #104 on: November 02, 2010, 04:26:03 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
I've been passionately Catholic for three years now and I have not seen anything wrong with our apologetics.
A fish spends its whole life not knowing it is wet.

Passionately Catholic? Since when have you professed the Orthodox Faith?

Wyatt and I are Catholics.  I am an eastern Catholic.

M.
Logged

Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #105 on: November 02, 2010, 04:26:30 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
I've been passionately Catholic for three years now and I have not seen anything wrong with our apologetics.
A fish spends its whole life not knowing it is wet.

Passionately Catholic? Since when have you professed the Orthodox Faith?
Probably since he came into cummion with Rome. Smiley
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #106 on: November 02, 2010, 04:27:08 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
How can the Vatican need apologetics? It's a City-State in Italy.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #107 on: November 02, 2010, 04:28:09 PM »

This might be a little off topic, but I'm curious as to whether Popes are ordained by the laying on of hands.

I know they're elected by the college of Cardnals, I think the Cardnals are all ordained Bishops, and I think the selected Pope is usually a Cardnal--but is the new Pope actually ordained to his office by the Cardnals?
No, which is one of the chief reasons to reject the non-existent order of "papacy." Only the highest order of bishop can ordain the lesser orders of priest and deacon, and chrismate. Since the Vatican believes the pope is above the bishops, it would mean the inferior would be consecrating the superior. No charism of the priesthood is given except in a Holy Mystery/Sacrament, and the Vatican doesn't even claim the existent of a Holy Mystery/Sacrament of consecrating a pope.

A non-bishop can be elected pope under the present rules, but he must be consecrated a bishop before taking office.  A bishop elected becomes pope the moment he accepts his election, hence the announcement "Habemus papam."

The Papacy is not an order.

The Papacy is an office.
That is exactly the problem with the claims of Vatican ecclesiology.

The Vatican holds the orders of deacon, priest and bishop in the priesthood ("Holy Orders") and attributes charisms to each. She does not attribute any charism to various offices of Archbishop, Patriarch, Metropolitan, Catholicos etc. (in that, its ecclesiology resembles Orthodox ecclesiology) (I would add "Pope," the title which orginated with the Patriarch of Alexandria, but the Vatican forbids any other hierarch from holding that title, so those who submit to it at Alexandria. Another aberration of ecclesiology). Only for the office of the papacy does it claim a charism (infallibility, supremacy, etc.), a total disconnect from the rest of even its own ecclesiology: you wouldn't claim a priest could become a bishop by accepting election without consecration nor three priests consecrating a fourth a bishop. Yet you claim your head of the episcopate takes his positin just that way.
oh, the EO habbit of trying to find problems where none exist.
Your inconsistencies are not our problems.

If you treated the office of the papacy like an office (like the Archbishops, Patriarchs, Catholicos, Metropolitans etc. you have), we might have some to talk about at those talks. But you treat it as another order: a deacon cannot "confect the Eucharist," a priest cannot ordain, a bishop cannot speak infallibly. Deacons can't ordain a priest, priest cannot consecrate a bishop, and no number of bishops (following the principle ennuciated in Hebrews that "without contradiction, the inferior is blessed by the superior") can elevate a supreme pontiff.  Hence we have nothing to talk about when it comes to "reunion."
LOL...that seems to be an Orthodox problem, since your people are talking to our people.

Yes:how have those talks been coming along lately?

Quote
Apparently they have not consulted you...so perhaps it really is a personal problem?
Hardly.  They didn't consult the Faithful when they submitted to the Emperor's orders to go to Florence. We gavre our repsonse when they tried to return.

There is a documentary record of anti-unionists strong-arming the population to speak out against union.  It is an historical record that is not readily available to English speakers from the United States but it exists and it is not a record that looks much like the working of the Holy Spirit.

Mary
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #108 on: November 02, 2010, 04:42:48 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
I've been passionately Catholic for three years now and I have not seen anything wrong with our apologetics.
A fish spends its whole life not knowing it is wet.

Passionately Catholic? Since when have you professed the Orthodox Faith?
Probably since he came into cummion with Rome. Smiley
You mean cummion with the Vatican. Orthodox Catholics are in communion with Bp. Siluan.
http://cidadededeus.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/scrisoare-pastorala-la-praznicul-invierii-domnului-a-ps-siluan-roma-2010/
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #109 on: November 02, 2010, 04:45:29 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
I've been passionately Catholic for three years now and I have not seen anything wrong with our apologetics.
A fish spends its whole life not knowing it is wet.

Passionately Catholic? Since when have you professed the Orthodox Faith?
Probably since he came into cummion with Rome. Smiley
You mean cummion with the Vatican. Orthodox Catholics are in communion with Bp. Siluan.
http://cidadededeus.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/scrisoare-pastorala-la-praznicul-invierii-domnului-a-ps-siluan-roma-2010/

How can some one be in communion with The Vatican? The Vatican is a City-State in Italy. It's impossible to be in communion with the Vatican. You must be confused.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #110 on: November 02, 2010, 04:50:02 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
How can the Vatican need apologetics? It's a City-State in Italy.

Because it's a sorry state.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #111 on: November 02, 2010, 05:00:20 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
How can the Vatican need apologetics? It's a City-State in Italy.

Because it's a sorry state.
How can a city-state be sorry for anything?
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #112 on: November 02, 2010, 05:13:09 PM »

And what the heck is this "cummion" we're supposedly in??
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Fabio Leite
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,511


Future belongs to God only.


WWW
« Reply #113 on: November 02, 2010, 05:39:12 PM »

How can some one be in communion with The Vatican? The Vatican is a City-State in Italy. It's impossible to be in communion with the Vatican. You must be confused.

Someone should warn the Catholic News Service then:

Quote
Scottish traditionalist group nears full communion with Vatican

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A traditionalist group based in northern Scotland is on the road toward establishing full communion with the Vatican.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803696.htm

And also CatholicCulture.org:

Quote
News Feature
New Chinese Bishop Explicitly Ordained In Communion With Vatican
May 10, 2000

You see, according to your comment, they even believe that Vatican city is able to stamp things and make requests:

Quote
Before the Ordination Mass began, the Holy See's approval was publicly announced, which was not the first time the Vatican has given its stamp of approval for the ordination of an Association bishop. But it was the first time that the ordaining bishops were all in legitimate communion with the Holy See, at the Vatican's specific request.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=12896

And on a preemptive reply:

No Papist, this has nothing to do to what RCs believe.
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 05:40:08 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Multiple Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ChristusDominus
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Latin Rite
Posts: 936


Saint Aloysius Gonzaga


« Reply #114 on: November 02, 2010, 06:01:15 PM »

And what the heck is this "cummion" we're supposedly in??
It's a state of ecstasy Smiley
« Last Edit: November 02, 2010, 06:01:32 PM by ChristusDominus » Logged

There is no more evident sign that anyone is a saint and of the number of the elect, than to see him leading a good life and at the same time a prey to desolation, suffering, and trials. - Saint Aloysius Gonzaga
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #115 on: November 02, 2010, 06:10:07 PM »

How can some one be in communion with The Vatican? The Vatican is a City-State in Italy. It's impossible to be in communion with the Vatican. You must be confused.

Someone should warn the Catholic News Service then:

Quote
Scottish traditionalist group nears full communion with Vatican

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- A traditionalist group based in northern Scotland is on the road toward establishing full communion with the Vatican.
http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0803696.htm

And also CatholicCulture.org:

Quote
News Feature
New Chinese Bishop Explicitly Ordained In Communion With Vatican
May 10, 2000

You see, according to your comment, they even believe that Vatican city is able to stamp things and make requests:

Quote
Before the Ordination Mass began, the Holy See's approval was publicly announced, which was not the first time the Vatican has given its stamp of approval for the ordination of an Association bishop. But it was the first time that the ordaining bishops were all in legitimate communion with the Holy See, at the Vatican's specific request.
http://www.catholicculture.org/news/features/index.cfm?recnum=12896

And on a preemptive reply:

No Papist, this has nothing to do to what RCs believe.
The the articles are careless. So what?
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #116 on: November 02, 2010, 09:59:39 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
I've been passionately Catholic for three years now and I have not seen anything wrong with our apologetics.
A fish spends its whole life not knowing it is wet.

Passionately Catholic? Since when have you professed the Orthodox Faith?
Probably since he came into cummion with Rome. Smiley
You mean cummion with the Vatican. Orthodox Catholics are in communion with Bp. Siluan.
http://cidadededeus.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/scrisoare-pastorala-la-praznicul-invierii-domnului-a-ps-siluan-roma-2010/

How can some one be in communion with The Vatican?

How can one be the sovereign of a state on the basis of the claim of acting as vicar of Him Who said "My Kingdom is not of this world?" Sort of like how the communist party ruled the Soviet state like a hand in a glove.  Your supreme pontiffs (what's a bishop of Christ's Church doing holding the office of pagan high priest of the Roman state, an office founded by the Roman kings?) have some interesting ideas, which they evidently picked up when St. Constantine donated (LOL) the papal state:

From your supreme pontiffs and there party congress, er, council:

The Vatican lost no time in profitting from it. The same Pope Innocent (what a misnomer!) III called a "ecumenical" council to "legitimize" the spoils.  Imposing a Latin Patriarchate on Constantinople, he finally formally accepted Constantinople as a Patriarchate and in second place, after it had moved to first place, due to Rome's apostasy.  The Vatican convened its so called 12th "Ecumenical" council of Lateran IV-which it has not repudiated-which stated:
Quote
3. On Heretics

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above [the Ultramontanist filioque faith]. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith — saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.

Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated [and remeber, the bull of 1054 so designated the Orthodox Catholics], refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a Christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses.

"There are some who holding to the form of religion but denying its power (as the Apostle says) , claim for themselves the authority to preach, whereas the same Apostle says, How shall they preach unless they are sent? Let therefore all those who have been forbidden or not sent to preach, and yet dare publicly or privately to usurp the office of preaching without having received the authority of the apostolic see or the catholic bishop of the place", be bound with the bond of excommunication and, unless they repent very quickly, be punished by another suitable penalty. We add further that each archbishop or bishop, either in person or through his archdeacon or through suitable honest persons, should visit twice or at least once in the year any parish of his in which heretics are said to live. There he should compel three or more men of good repute, or even if it seems expedient the whole neighbourhood, to swear that if anyone knows of heretics there or of any persons who hold secret conventicles or who differ in their life and habits from the normal way of living of the faithful, then he will take care to point them out to the bishop. The bishop himself should summon the accused to his presence, and they should be punished canonically if they are unable to clear themselves of the charge or if after compurgation they relapse into their former errors of faith. If however any of them with damnable obstinacy refuse to honour an oath and so will not take it, let them by this very fact be regarded as heretics. We therefore will and command and, in virtue of obedience, strictly command that bishops see carefully to the effective execution of these things throughout their dioceses, if they wish to avoid canonical penalties. If any bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heresy, then when this shows itself by unmistakeable signs he shall be deposed from his office as bishop and there shall be put in his place a suitable person who both wishes and is able to overthrow the evil of heresy

4. On the pride of the Greeks towards the Latins

Although we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord, nevertheless we neither want nor ought to defer to them in matters which bring danger to souls and detract from the church's honour. For, after the Greek church together with certain associates and supporters withdrew from the obedience of the apostolic see, the Greeks began to detest the Latins so much that, among other wicked things which they committed out of contempt for them, when Latin priests celebrated on their altars they would not offer sacrifice on them until they had washed them, as if the altars had been defiled thereby. The Greeks even had the temerity to rebaptize those baptized by the Latins; and some, as we are told, still do not fear to do this. Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God's church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. If anyone however does dare to do such a thing, let him be struck with the sword of excommunication and be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and benefice. [of course, the Orthodox Catholics did and continue to "dare to do such a thing."]

5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him [no such thing ever happened from the time of the Apostles until the Crudaders came] they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.[dream on]

71. Crusade to recover the holy Land

It is our ardent desire to liberate the holy Land from infidel hands. We therefore declare, with the approval of this sacred council and on the advice of prudent men who are fully aware of the circumstances of time and place, that crusaders are to make themselves ready so that all who have arranged to go by sea shall assemble in the kingdom of Sicily on 1 June after next : some as necessary and fitting at Brindisi and others at Messina and places neighbouring it on either side, where we too have arranged to be in person at that time, God willing, so that with our advice and help the Christian army may be in good order to set out with divine and apostolic blessing. Those who have decided to go by land should also take care to be ready by the same date. They shall notify us meanwhile so that we may grant them a suitable legate a latere for advice and help. Priests and other clerics who will be in the Christian army, both those under authority and prelates, shall diligently devote themselves to prayer and exhortation, teaching the crusaders by word and example to have the fear and love of God always before their eyes, so that they say or do nothing that might offend the divine majesty. If they ever fall into sin, let them quickly rise up again through true penitence. Let them be humble in heart and in body, keeping to moderation both in food and in dress, avoiding altogether dissensions and rivalries, and putting aside entirely any bitterness or envy, so that thus armed with spiritual and material weapons they may the more fearlessly fight against the enemies of the faith, relying not on their own power but rather trusting in the strength of God. We grant to these clerics that they may receive the fruits of their benefices in full for three years, as if they were resident in the churches, and if necessary they may leave them in pledge for the same time.

To prevent this holy proposal being impeded or delayed, we strictly order all prelates of churches, each in his own locality, diligently to warn and induce those who have abandoned the cross to resume it, and them and others who have taken up the cross, and those who may still do so, to carry out their vows to the Lord. And if necessary they shall compel them to do this without any backsliding, by sentences of excommunication against their persons and of interdict on their lands, excepting only those persons who find themselves faced with an impediment of such a kind that their vow deservedly ought to be commuted or deferred in accordance with the directives of the apostolic see. In order that nothing connected with this business of Jesus Christ be omitted, we will and order patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots and others who have the care of souls to preach the cross zealously to those entrusted to them. Let them beseech kings, dukes, princes, margraves, counts, barons and other magnates, as well as the communities of cities, vills and towns — in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, the one, only, true and eternal God — that those who do not go in person to the aid of the holy Land should contribute, according to their means, an appropriate number of fighting men together with their necessary expenses for three years, for the remission of their sins in accordance with what has already been explained in general letters and will be explained below for still greater assurance. We wish to share in this remission not only those who contribute ships of their own but also those who are zealous enough to build them for this purpose. To those who refuse, if there happen to be any who are so ungrateful to our lord God, we firmly declare in the name of the apostle that they should know that they will have to answer to us for this on the last day of final judgment before the fearful judge.

In other words, THE SWORD THAT ST. PETER PUT INTO THE SHEATH AT THE LORD'S COMMAND, POPE INNOCENT III ON HIS OWN COMMAND PICKED UP AND SWUNG, AND SWUNG HARD.

Quote
Let them consider beforehand, however with what conscience and with what security it was that they were able to confess before the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, to whom the Father gave all things into his hands, if in this business, which is as it were peculiarly his, they refuse to serve him who was crucified for sinners, by whose beneficence they are sustained and indeed by whose blood they have been redeemed.

Lest we appear to be laying on men's shoulders heavy and unbearable burdens which we are not willing to lighten, like those who say yes but do nothing behold we, from what we have been able to save over and above necessities and moderate expenses, grant and give thirty thousand pounds to this work, besides the shipping which we are giving to the crusaders of Rome and neighbouring districts. We will assign for this purpose, moreover, three thousand marks of silver, which we have left over from the alms of certain of the faithful, the rest having been faithfully distributed for the needs and benefit of the aforesaid Land by the hands of the abbot patriarch of Jerusalem, of happy memory, and of the masters of the Temple and of the Hospital. We wish, however, that other prelates of churches and all clerics may participate and share both in the merit and in the reward. We therefore decree, with the general approval of the council, that all clerics, both those under authority and prelates, shall give a twentieth of their ecclesiastical revenues for three years to the aid of the holy Land, by means of the persons appointed by the apostolic see for this purpose; the only exceptions being certain religious who are rightly to be exempted from this taxation and likewise those persons who have taken or will take the cross and so will go in person. We and our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, shall pay a full tenth. Let all know, moreover, that they are obliged to observe this faithfully under pain of excommunication, so that those who knowingly deceive in this matter shall incur the sentence of excommunication. Because it is right that those who persevere in the service of the heavenly ruler should in all justice enjoy special privilege, and because the day of departure is somewhat more than a year ahead, crusaders shall therefore be. exempt from taxes or levies and other burdens. We take their persons and goods under the protection of St Peter and ourself once they have taken up the cross. We ordain that they are to be protected by archbishops, bishops and all prelates of the church, and that protectors of their own are to be specially appointed for this purpose, so that their goods are to remain intact and undisturbed until they are known for certain to be dead or to have returned. If anyone dares to act contrary to this, let him be curbed by ecclesiastical censure.

If any of those setting out are bound by oath to pay interest, we ordain that their creditors shall be compelled by the same punishment to release them from their oath and to desist from exacting the interest; if any of the creditors does force them to pay the interest, we command that he be forced by similar punishment to restore it. We order that Jews be compelled by the secular power to remit interest, and that until they do so all intercourse shall be denied them by all Christ's faithful under pain of excommunication. Secular princes shall provide a suitable deferral for those who cannot now pay their debts to Jews, so that after they have undertaken the journey and until there is certain knowledge of their death or of their return, they shall not incur the inconvenience of paying interest. The Jews shall be compelled to add to the capital, after they have deducted their necessary expenses, the revenues which they are meanwhile receiving from property held by them on security. For, such a benefit seems to entail not much loss, inasmuch as it postpones the repayment but does not cancel the debt. Prelates of churches who are negligent in showing justice to crusaders and their families should know that they will be severely punished.

Furthermore, since corsairs and pirates greatly impede help for the holy Land, by capturing and plundering those who are travelling to and from it, we bind with the bond of excommunication everyone who helps or supports them. We forbid anyone, under threat of anathema, knowingly to communicate with them by contracting to buy or to sell; and we order rulers of cities and their territories to restrain and curb such persons from this iniquity. Otherwise, since to be unwilling to disquiet evildoers is none other than to encourage them, and since he who fails to oppose a manifest crime is not without a touch of secret complicity, it is our wish and command that prelates of churches exercise ecclesiastical severity against their persons and lands. We excommunicate and anathematize, moreover, those false and impious Christians who, in opposition to Christ and the Christian people, convey arms to the Saracens and iron and timber for their galleys. We decree that those who sell them galleys or ships, and those who act as pilots in pirate Saracen ships, or give them any advice or help by way of machines or anything else, to the detriment of the holy Land, are to be punished with deprivation of their possessions and are to become the slaves of those who capture them. We order this sentence to be renewed on Sundays and feast-days in all maritime towns; and the bosom of the church is not to be opened to such persons unless they send in aid of the holy Land the whole of the damnable wealth which they received and the same amount of their own, so that they are punished in proportion to their offence. If perchance they do not pay, they are to be punished in other ways in order that through their punishment others may be deterred from venturing upon similar rash actions. In addition, we prohibit and on pain of anathema forbid all Christians, for four years, to send or take their ships across to the lands of the Saracens who dwell in the east, so that by this a greater supply of shipping may be made ready for those wanting to cross over to help the holy Land, and so that the aforesaid Saracens may be deprived of the not inconsiderable help which they have been accustomed to receiving from this.

Although tournaments have been forbidden in a general way on pain of a fixed penalty at various councils, we strictly forbid them to be held for three years, under pain of excommunication, because the business of the crusade is much hindered by them at this present time. Because it is of the utmost necessity for the carrying out of this business that rulers of the Christian people keep peace with each other, we therefore ordain, on the advice of this holy general synod, that peace be generally kept in the whole Christian world for at least four years, so that those in conflict shall be brought by the prelates of churches to conclude a definitive peace or to observe inviolably a firm truce. Those who refuse to comply shall be most strictly compelled to do so by an excommunication against their persons and an interdict on their lands, unless their wrongdoing is so great that they ought not to enjoy peace. If it happens that they make light of the church's censure, they may deservedly fear that the secular power will be invoked by ecclesiastical authority against them as disturbers of the business of him who was crucified.

[Pope Innocent III thinking Christ the Redeemer was Christ the butcher].

We therefore, trusting in the mercy of almighty God and in the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, do grant, by the power of binding and loosing that God has conferred upon us, albeit unworthy, unto all those who undertake this work in person and at their own expense, full pardon for their sins about which they are heartily contrite and have spoken in confession, and we promise them an increase of eternal life at the recompensing of the just; also to those who do not go there in person but send suitable men at their own expense, according to their means and status, and likewise to those who go in person but at others' expense, we grant full pardon for their sins. We wish and grant to share in this remission, according to the quality of their help and the intensity of their devotion, all who shall contribute suitably from their goods to the aid of the said Land or who give useful advice and help. Finally, this general synod imparts the benefit of its blessings to all who piously set out on this common enterprise in order that it may contribute worthily to their salvation.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#67

Rather than turnign from the sack of Constantinople, the Vatican then later convened its so called 13th "ecumenical" council of Lyons I, with its Latin emperor and its Latin patriarchs it imposed (Alexandria and Jerusalem, however, being outside the Crusaders reach) in session to try to solidify Crusader control when the armies of the Orthodox sovereigns laid seige to Constatinople to retake her and place the Orthodox EP in exile back on the cathedra of SS. Andrew, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom and Photios:

Quote
2. {47} On help for the empire of Constantinople

Though we are engaged in difficult matters and distracted by manifold anxieties, yet among those things which demand our constant attention is the liberation of the empire of Constantinople. [the armies of the Orthodox had surrounded the capital] This we desire with our whole heart, this is ever the object of our thoughts. Yet though the apostolic see has eagerly sought a remedy on its behalf by earnest endeavour and many forms of assistance, though for long Catholics have striven by grievous toils, by burdensome expense, by care, sweat, tears and bloodshed, yet the hand that extended such aid could not wholly, hindered by sin, snatch the empire from the yoke of the enemy [i.e. the Orthodox]. Thus not without cause we are troubled with grief. But because the body of the church would be shamefully deformed by the lack of a loved member, namely the aforesaid empire [that it calls the empire, rather than the patriarchate, a member of the church is telling], and be sadly weakened and suffer loss; and because it could rightly be assigned to our sloth and that of the church, if it were deprived of the support of the faithful, and left to be freely oppressed by its enemies; we firmly propose to come to the help of the empire with swift and effective aid. Thus at the same time as the church eagerly rises to its assistance and stretches out the hand of defence, the empire can be saved from the dominion of its foes, and be brought back by the Lord's guidance to the unity of that same body, and may feel after the crushing hammer of its enemies the consoling hand of the church its mother, and after the blindness of error regain its sight by the possession of the catholic faith [the surrounding armies, not the Crusaders, professed the Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church]. It is the more fitting that prelates of churches and other ecclesiastics should be watchful and diligent for its liberation, and bestow their help and assistance, the more they are bound to work for the increase of the faith and of ecclesiastical liberty, which could chiefly come about from the liberation of the empire; and especially because while the empire is helped, assistance is consequently rendered to the holy Land.

Indeed, so that the help to the empire may be speedy and useful, we decree, with the general approval of the council, that half of all incomes of dignities parsonages and ecclesiastical prebends, and of other benefices of ecclesiastics who do not personally reside in them for at least six months, whether they hold one or more, shall be assigned in full for three years to the help of the said empire, having been collected by those designated by the apostolic see. Those are exempt who are employed in our service or in that of our brother cardinals and of their prelates, those who are on pilgrimages or in schools, or engaged in the business of their own churches at their direction, and those who have or will take up the badge of the cross for the aid of the holy Land or who will set out in person to the help of the said empire; but if any of these, apart from the crusaders and those setting out, receive from ecclesiastical revenues more than a hundred silver marks, they should pay a third part of the remainder in each of the three years. This is to be observed notwithstanding any customs or statutes of churches to the contrary, or any indulgences granted by the apostolic see to these churches or persons, confirmed by oath or any other means. And if by chance in this matter any shall knowingly be guilty of any deceit, they shall incur the sentence of excommunication.

We ourselves, from the revenues of the church of Rome, after first deducting a tenth from them to be assigned to the aid of the holy Land, will assign a tenth part in full for the support of the said empire. Further, when help is given to the empire, assistance is given in a very particular way and directed to the recovery of the holy Land, while we are striving for the liberation of the empire itself. Thus trusting in the mercy of almighty God and the authority of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul, from the power of binding and loosing which he conferred upon us though unworthy, we grant pardon of their sins to all those who come to the help of the said empire, and we desire they may enjoy that privilege and immunity which is granted to those who come to the help of the holy Land.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM13.HTM#202

This council had not been repudiated by the Vatican.  So the heirs of Nero, speaking ex cathedra, can stop protesting their "innocence." 

The Crusaders, when they sacked Constantinople, placed a prostitute (literally) on the throne of SS. Andrew, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom and Photios.  We need no love from the whores of Rome.

Quote
UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks
i.e. the Orthodox Catholics
Quote
or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
The blood of the sack of Constantinople is on that sword, and any hand that lays claim to the authority that issued Unam Sanctam.

Quote
The Donation of Constantine (c.750-800)
In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, the Father, namely, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine in Christ Jesus, the Lord I God our Saviour, one of that same holy Trinity,-faithful merciful, supreme, beneficent, Alamannic, Gothic, Sarmatic, Germanic, Britannic, Hunic, pious, fortunate, victor and triumpher, always august: to the most holy and blessed father of fathers Sylvester, bishop of the city of and to all his successors the pontiffs , who are about to sit upon Rome and pope, the chair of St. Peter until the end of time - also to all the most reverend and of God beloved catholic bishops, subjected by this our imperial decree throughout the whole world to this same holy, Roman church, who have been established now and in all previous times-grace, peace, charitv, rejoicing, long-suffering, mercv, be with you all from God the Father almighty and from Jesus Christ his Son and from the Holy Ghost. Our most gracious serenity desires, in clear discourse, through the page of this our imperial decree, to bring to the knowledge of all the people in the whole world what things our Saviour and Redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the most High Father, has most wonderfully seen fit to bring about through his holy apostles Peter and Paul and by the intervention of our father Sylvester, the highest pontiff and the universal pope. First, indeed, putting forth, with the inmost confession of our heart, for the purpose of instructing the mind of all of you, our creed which we have learned from the aforesaid most blessed father and our confessor, Svlvester the universal pontiff; and then at length announcing the mercy of God which has been poured upon us.

For we wish you to know,, as we have signified through our former imperial decree, that we have gone away, from the worship of idols, from mute and deaf images made by hand, from devilish contrivances and from all the pomps of Satan; and have arrived at the pure faith of the Christians, which is the true light and everlasting life. Believing, according to what he-that same one, our revered supreme father and teacher, the pontiff Sylvester - has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and vivifier of the whole creature. We confess these, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in such way that, in the perfect Trinity, there shall also be a fulness of divinity and a unity of power. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one in Jesus Christ.

There are therefore three forms but one power. For God, wise in all previous time, gave forth from himself the word through which all future ages were to be born; and when, by that sole word of His wisdom, He formed the whole creation from nothing, He was with it, arranging all things in His mysterious secret place.

Therefore, the virtues of the Heavens and all the material part of the earth having been perfected, by the wise nod of His wisdom first creating man of the clay of the earth in His own image and likeness, He placed him in a paradise of delight. Him the ancient serpent and envious enemy, the devil, through the most bitter taste of the forbidden tree, made an exile from these joys; and, be being expelled, did not cease in many ways to cast his poisonous darts; in order that, turning the human race from the way of truth to the worship of idols, he might persuade it, namely to worship the creature and not the creator; so that, through them (the idols), he might cause those whom he might be able to entrap in his snares to be burned with him in eternal punishment. But our Lord, pitying His creature, sending ahead His holy prophets, announcing through them the light of the future life-the coming,' that is, of His Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ-sent that same only begotten Son and Word of wisdom: He descending from Heaven on account of our salvation, being born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary,-the word was made flesh and d welt among us. He did not cease to be what He had been, but began to be what He had not been, perfect God and perfect man: as God, performing miracles; as man, sustaining human sufferings. We so learned Him to be very man and very God by the preaching of our father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, that we can in no wise doubt that He was very, God and very man. And, having chosen twelve apostles, He shone with miracles before them and an innumerable multitude of people. We confess that this same Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets; that He suffered, was crucified, on the third day arose from the dead according to the Scriptures; was received into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. Whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. For this is our orthodox creed, placed before us by our most blessed father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff. We exhort, therefore, all people, and all the different nations, to hold, cherish and preach this faith; and, in the name of the Holy Trinity, to obtain the grace of baptism; and, with devaout heart, to adore the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns through infinite ages; whom Sylvester our father, the universal pontiff, preaches. For He himself, our Lord God, having pit on me a sinner, sent His holy apostles to visit us, and caused the light of his splendour to shine upon us. And do ye rejoice that I, having been withdrawn from the shadow, have come to the true light and to the knowledge of truth. For, at a time when a mighty and filthy leprosy had invaded all the flesh of my, body, and the care was administered of many physicians who came together, nor by that of any one of them did I achieve health: there came hither the priests of the Capitol, saving to me that a font should be made on the Capitol, and that I should fill this with the blood of innocent infants; and that, if I bathed in it while it was warm, I might be cleansed. And very many innocent infants having been brought together according to their words, when the sacrilegious priests of the pagans wished them to be slaughtered and the font to be filled with their blood: Our Serenity perceiving the tears of the mothers, I straightway abhorred the deed. And, pitying them, I ordered their own sons to be restored to them; and, giving them vehicles and gifts, sent them off rejoicing to their own. That day having passed therefore-the silence of night having come upon us-when the time of sleep had arrived, the apostles St. Peter and Paul appear, saying to me: "Since thou hast placed a term to thy vices, and hast abhorred the pouring forth of innocent blood, we are sent by, Christ the Lord our God, to give to thee a plan for recovering thy health. Hear, therefore, our warning, and do what we indicate to thee. Sylvester - the bishop of the city of Rome - on Mount Serapte, fleeing they persecutions, cherishes the darkness with his clergy in the caverns of the rocks. This one, when thou shalt have led him to thyself, will himself show thee a pool of piety; in which, when he shall have dipped thee for the third time, all that strength of the leprosy will desert thee. And, when this shall have been done, make this return to thy Saviour, that by thy order through the whole world the churches may be restored. Purify thyself, moreover, in this way, that, leaving all the superstition of idols, thou do adore and cherish the living and true God -- who is alone and true -- and that thou attain to the doing of His will.

Rising, therefore, from sleep, straightway I did according to that which I bad been advised to do by, the holy apostles; and, having summoned that excellent and benignant father and our enlightener - Svlvester the universal pope-I told him all the words that had been taught me by the holy apostles; and asked him who where those gods Peter and Paul. But he said that they where not really called gods, but apostles of our Saviour the Lord God Jesus Christ. And again we began to ask that same most blessed pope whether he had some express image of those apostles; so that, from their likeness, we might learn that they were those whom revelation bad shown to us. Then that same venerable father ordered the images of those same apostles to be shown by his deacon. And, when I had looked at them, and recognized, represented in those images, the countenances of those whom I had seen in my dream: with a great noise, before all my satraps*, I confessed that they were those whom I had seen in my dream.
[* there were no such Roman officials]

Hereupon that same most blessed Sylvester our father, bishop of the city of Rome, imposed upon us a time of penance-within our Lateran palace, in the chapel, in a hair garment,-so that I might obtain pardon from our Lord God Jesus Christ our Saviour by vigils, fasts, and tears and prayers, for all things that had been impiously done and unjustly ordered by me. Then through the imposition of the hands of the clergy, I came to the bishop himself; and there, renouncing the pomps of Satan and his works, and all idols made by hands, of my own will before all the people I confessed: that I believed in God the Father almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. And, the font having been blessed, the wave of salvation purified me there with a triple immersion. For there 1, being placed at the bottom of the font, saw with my own eyes a band from Heaven touching me; whence rising, clean, know that I was cleansed from all the squalor of leprosy. And, I being raised from the venerable font-putting on white raiment, be administered to me the sign of the seven-fold holy Spirit, the unction of the holy oil; and he traced the sign of the holy cross on my brow, saying: God seals thee with the seal of His faith in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to signalize thy faith. All the clergy replied: "Amen." The bishop added, "peace be with thee."

And so, on the first day after receiving the mystery of the holy baptism, and after the cure of my body from the squalor of the leprosy, I recognized that there was no other God save the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; whom the most blessed Sylvester the pope doth preach; a trinity in one, a unity in three. For all the gods of the nations, whom I have worshipped up to this time, are proved to be demons; works made by the hand of men; inasmuch as that same venerable father told to us most clearly how much power in Heaven and on earth He, our Saviour, conferred on his apostle St. Peter, when finding him faithful after questioning him He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petrani) shall I build My Church, and the gates of bell shall not prevail against it." Give heed ye powerful, and incline the ear of .your hearts to that which the good Lord and Master added to His disciple, saying: and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." This is very wonderful and glorious, to bind and loose on earth and to have it bound and loosed in Heaven.

And when, the blessed Sylvester preaching them, I perceived these things, and learned that by the kindness of St. Peter himself I had been entirely restored to health: I together with all our satraps and the whole senate and the nobles and all the Roman people, who are subject to the glory of our rule -considered it advisable that, as on earth he (Peter) is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God, so the pontiffs, who are the representatives of that same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a supremacy greater than the earthly clemency of our imperial serenity is seen to have had conceded to it,-we choosing that same prince of the apostles, or his vicars, to be our constant intercessors with God. And, to the extent of our earthly imperial power, we decree that his holy Roman church shall be honoured with veneration; and that, more than our empire and earthly throne, the most sacred seat of St. Peter shall be gloriously exalted; we giving to it the imperial power, and dignity of glory, and vigour and honour.

And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople* and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the -whole world. And he who for the time being shall be pontiff of that holy Roman church shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world; and, according to his judgment, everything which is to be provided for the service of God or the stability of the faith of the Christians is to be administered. It is indeed just, that there the holy law should have the seat of its rule where the founder of holy laws, our Saviour, told St. Peter to take the chair of the apostleship; where also, sustaining the cross, he blissfully took the cup of death and appeared as imitator of his Lord and Master; and that there the people should bend their necks at the confession of Christ's name, where their teacher, St. Paul the apostle, extending his neck for Christ, was crowned with martyrdom. There, until the end, let them seek a teacher, where the holy body of the teacher lies; and there, prone and humiliated, let them perform I the service of the heavenly king, God our Saviour Jesus Christ, where the proud were accustomed to serve under the rule of an earthly king.
[*at the time of the supposed date of the document, Constantinople had not been founded. Its position as "chief seat" was two centuries away.]

Meanwhile we wish all the people, of all the races and nations throughout the whole world, to know: that we have constructed within our Lateran palace, to the same Saviour our Lord God Jesus Christ, a church with a baptistry from the foundations. And know that we have carried on our own shoulders from its foundations, twelve baskets weighted with earth, according to the number of the holy apostles. Which holy church we command to be spoken of, cherished, venerated and preached of, as the head and summit of all the churches in the whole world-as we have commanded through our other imperial decrees. We have also constructed the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, chiefs of the apostles, which we have enriched with gold and silver; where also, placing their most sacred bodies with great honour, we have constructed their caskets of electrum, against which no force of the elements prevails. And we have placed a cross of purest gold and precious gems on each of their caskets, and fastened them with golden keys. And on these churches for the endowing of divine services we have conferred estates, and have enriched them with different objects; and, through our sacred imperial decrees, we have granted them our gift of land in the East as well as in the West; and even on the northern and southern coast;-namely in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa and Italy and the various islands: under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered by the hand of our most blessed father the pontiff Sylvester and his successors.

For let all the people and the nations of the races in the whole world rejoice with us; we exhorting all of you to give unbounded thanks, together with us, to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For He is God in Heaven above and on earth below, who, visiting us through His holy apostles, made us worthy to receive the holy sacrament of baptism and health of body. In return for which, to those same holy apostles, my masters, St. Peter and St. Paul; and, through them, also to St. Sylvester, our father,-the chief pontiff and universal pope of the city of Rome,-and to all the pontiffs his successors, who until the end of the world shall be about to sit in the seat of St. Peter: we concede and, by this present, do confer, our imperial Lateran palace, which is preferred to, and ranks above, all the palaces in the whole world; then a diadem, that is, the crown of our head, and at the same time the tiara; and, also, the shoulder band,-that is, the collar that usually surrounds our imperial neck; and also the purple mantle, and crimson tunic, and all the imperial raiment; and the same rank as those presiding over the imperial cavalry; conferring also the imperial sceptres, and, at the same time, the spears and standards; also the banners and different imperial ornaments, and all the advantage of our high imperial position, and the glory of our power.

And we decree, as to those most reverend men, the clergy who serve, in different orders, that same holy Roman church, that they shall have the same advantage, distinction, power and excellence by the glory of which our most illustrious senate is adorned; that is, that they shall be made patricians and consuls,-we commanding that they shall also be decorated with the other imperial dignities. And even as the imperial soldiery, so, we decree, shall the clergy of the holy Roman church be adorned. And I even as the imperial power is adorned by different offices-by the distinction, that is, of chamberlains, and door keepers, and all the guards,-so we wish the holy Roman church to be adorned. And, in order that the pontifical glory may shine forth more fully, we decree this also: that the clergy of this same holy Roman church may use saddle cloths of linen of the whitest colour; namely that their horses may be adorned and so be ridden, and that, as our senate uses shoes with goats' hair, so they may be distinguished by gleaming linen; in order that, as the celestial beings, so the terrestrial may be adorned to the glory of God. Above all things, moreover, we give permission to that same most holy one our father Sylvester, bishop of the city of Rome and pope, and to all the most blessed pontiffs who shall come after him and succeed him in all future times-for the honour and glory of Jesus Christ our Lord,-to receive into that great Catholic and apostolic church of God, even into the number of the monastic clergy, any one from our senate, who, in free choice, of his own accord, may wish to become- a cleric; no one at all presuming thereby to act in a haughty manner.

We also decreed this, that this same venerable one our father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, and all the pontiffs his successors, might use and bear upon their heads-to the Praise of God and for the honour of St. Peter-the diadem; that is, the crown which we have granted him from our own head, of purest gold and precious gems.

Quote
But he, the most holy pope, did not at all allow that crown of gold to be used over the clerical crown which he wears to the glory of St. Peter; but we placed upon his most holy head, with our own hands, a tiara of gleaming splendour representing the glorious resurrection of our Lord. And, holding the bridle of his horse, out of reverence for St. Peter we performed for him the duty of groom; decreeing that all the pontiffs his successors, and they alone, may use that tiara in processions.

In imitation of our own power, in order that for that cause the supreme pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with power and glory even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule: behold we-giving over to the oft-mentioned most blessed pontiff, our father Sylvester the universal pope, as well our palace, as has been said, as also the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts and cities of Italy or of the western regions; and relinquishing them, by our inviolable gift, to the power and sway of himself or the pontiffs his successors-do decree, by this our godlike charter and imperial constitution, that it shall be (so) arranged; and do concede that they (the palaces, provinces etc.) shall lawfully remain with the holy Roman church.

Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire and the power of our kingdom should be transferred and changed to the regions of the East; and that, in the province of Byzantium, in a most fitting place, a city should be built in our name; and that our empire should there be established. For, where the supremacy of priests and the bead of the Christian religion has been established by a heavenly ruler, it is not just that there an earthly ruler should have jurisdiction.

We decree, moreover, that all these things which, through this our imperial charter and through other godlike commands, we have established and confirmed, shall remain uninjured and unshaken until the end of the world. Wherefore, before the living God, who commanded us to reign, and in the face of his terrible judgment, we conjure, through this our imperial decree, all the emperors our successors, and all our nobles, the satraps also and the most glorious senate, and all the people in the ,A-hole world now and in all times previously subject to our rule: that no one of them, in any way allow himself to oppose or disregard, or in any way seize, these things which, by our imperial sanction, have been conceded to the holy Roman church and to all its pontiffs. If anyone, moreover,-which we do not believe - prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject and bound over to eternal damnation; and shall feel that the holy chiefs of the apostles of God, Peter and Paul, will be opposed to him in the present and in the future life. And, being burned in the nethermost hell, he shall perish with the devil and all the impious.
[by what authority St. Constantine had authority over hell is not explained]

The page, moreover, of this our imperial decree, we, confirming it with our own hands, did place above the venerable body of St. Peter chief of the apostles; and there, promising to that same apostle of God that we would preserve inviolably all its provisions, and would leave in our commands to all the emperors our successors to preserve them, we did hand it over, to be enduringly and happily possessed, to our most blessed father Sylvester the supreme pontiff and universal pope, and, through him, to all the pontiffs his successors -God our Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ consenting.

And the imperial subscription: May the Divinity preserve you for many years, oh most holy and blessed fathers.

Given at Rome on the third day before the Kalends of April, our master the august Flavius Constantine, for the fourth time, and Galligano, most illustrious men, being consuls.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html

Btw, the Donation was forged it seems to legitimize the pope's grab for power in Italy in exchange for the supreme pontiff's legitimizing of the grab of the Frankish emperors (who spread the filioque faith) for power in Paris. The same Lateran palace was the same place where supreme pontiff Innocent III has his rubber stamp council legitimize the sack of Constantinople.

Quote
The Vatican is a City-State in Italy.


Yes. I know. I've been there. Its in the middle of all those lands Constantine donated to the supreme pontiffs on pain of hellfire (the House of Savoy and the Italian state must be worried), confirmed by Mussolini.

Quote
It's impossible to be in communion with the Vatican.

Your supreme pontiff calls the Crusader state a member of the "Roman church" and ex cathedra claims the temporal sword by which it forces communion.  The "holy Roman empeor" Leopold by his decree made the Orthodox Church of Transylvania in communion with the Vatican.  Your suprem pontiffs created and embraced Cuius regio, eius religio, and declared Henry VIII Defender of the Faith (ironic, no?). And the Vatican's perennial attempt to get the Emperor of the Romans to sign the Catholic Church of the Orthodox over to the Vatican. Etc.

Quote
You must be confused.

One need only look at the above to see who is confused.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #117 on: November 02, 2010, 11:08:10 PM »

Why are you so dependent on cutting and pasting?

You cut and paste huge amounts of text and then toss in a one line comment that may or may not have anything to do with Catholic reality or the text that you've cut and pasted.

Its like teaching by innuendo...It's not particularly instructive or intellectually honest...or interesting.

M.

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
No, the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church, which is made up of shepherds and sheep under the Good Shepherd, not wolves and lemmings and the cliff overlooking the Abyss.

The gymnastics of apologetics for the Vatican have shown that its magisterium is a useless concept.
I've been passionately Catholic for three years now and I have not seen anything wrong with our apologetics.
A fish spends its whole life not knowing it is wet.

Passionately Catholic? Since when have you professed the Orthodox Faith?
Probably since he came into cummion with Rome. Smiley
You mean cummion with the Vatican. Orthodox Catholics are in communion with Bp. Siluan.
http://cidadededeus.wordpress.com/2010/04/05/scrisoare-pastorala-la-praznicul-invierii-domnului-a-ps-siluan-roma-2010/

How can some one be in communion with The Vatican?

How can one be the sovereign of a state on the basis of the claim of acting as vicar of Him Who said "My Kingdom is not of this world?" Sort of like how the communist party ruled the Soviet state like a hand in a glove.  Your supreme pontiffs (what's a bishop of Christ's Church doing holding the office of pagan high priest of the Roman state, an office founded by the Roman kings?) have some interesting ideas, which they evidently picked up when St. Constantine donated (LOL) the papal state:

From your supreme pontiffs and there party congress, er, council:

The Vatican lost no time in profitting from it. The same Pope Innocent (what a misnomer!) III called a "ecumenical" council to "legitimize" the spoils.  Imposing a Latin Patriarchate on Constantinople, he finally formally accepted Constantinople as a Patriarchate and in second place, after it had moved to first place, due to Rome's apostasy.  The Vatican convened its so called 12th "Ecumenical" council of Lateran IV-which it has not repudiated-which stated:
Quote
3. On Heretics

We excommunicate and anathematize every heresy raising itself up against this holy, orthodox and catholic faith which we have expounded above [the Ultramontanist filioque faith]. We condemn all heretics, whatever names they may go under. They have different faces indeed but their tails are tied together inasmuch as they are alike in their pride. Let those condemned be handed over to the secular authorities present, or to their bailiffs, for due punishment. Clerics are first to be degraded from their orders. The goods of the condemned are to be confiscated, if they are lay persons, and if clerics they are to be applied to the churches from which they received their stipends. Those who are only found suspect of heresy are to be struck with the sword of anathema, unless they prove their innocence by an appropriate purgation, having regard to the reasons for suspicion and the character of the person. Let such persons be avoided by all until they have made adequate satisfaction. If they persist in the excommunication for a year, they are to be condemned as heretics. Let secular authorities, whatever offices they may be discharging, be advised and urged and if necessary be compelled by ecclesiastical censure, if they wish to be reputed and held to be faithful, to take publicly an oath for the defence of the faith to the effect that they will seek, in so far as they can, to expel from the lands subject to their jurisdiction all heretics designated by the church in good faith. Thus whenever anyone is promoted to spiritual or temporal authority, he shall be obliged to confirm this article with an oath. If however a temporal lord, required and instructed by the church, neglects to cleanse his territory of this heretical filth, he shall be bound with the bond of excommunication by the metropolitan and other bishops of the province. If he refuses to give satisfaction within a year, this shall be reported to the supreme pontiff so that he may then declare his vassals absolved from their fealty to him and make the land available for occupation by Catholics so that these may, after they have expelled the heretics, possess it unopposed and preserve it in the purity of the faith — saving the right of the suzerain provided that he makes no difficulty in the matter and puts no impediment in the way. The same law is to be observed no less as regards those who do not have a suzerain.

Catholics who take the cross and gird themselves up for the expulsion of heretics shall enjoy the same indulgence, and be strengthened by the same holy privilege, as is granted to those who go to the aid of the holy Land. Moreover, we determine to subject to excommunication believers who receive, defend or support heretics. We strictly ordain that if any such person, after he has been designated as excommunicated [and remeber, the bull of 1054 so designated the Orthodox Catholics], refuses to render satisfaction within a year, then by the law itself he shall be branded as infamous and not be admitted to public offices or councils or to elect others to the same or to give testimony. He shall be intestable, that is he shall not have the freedom to make a will nor shall succeed to an inheritance. Moreover nobody shall be compelled to answer to him on any business whatever, but he may be compelled to answer to them. If he is a judge sentences pronounced by him shall have no force and cases may not be brought before him; if an advocate, he may not be allowed to defend anyone; if a notary, documents drawn up by him shall be worthless and condemned along with their condemned author; and in similar matters we order the same to be observed. If however he is a cleric, let him be deposed from every office and benefice, so that the greater the fault the greater be the punishment. If any refuse to avoid such persons after they have been pointed out by the church, let them be punished with the sentence of excommunication until they make suitable satisfaction. Clerics should not, of course, give the sacraments of the church to such pestilent people nor give them a Christian burial nor accept alms or offerings from them; if they do, let them be deprived of their office and not restored to it without a special indult of the apostolic see. Similarly with regulars, let them be punished with losing their privileges in the diocese in which they presume to commit such excesses.

"There are some who holding to the form of religion but denying its power (as the Apostle says) , claim for themselves the authority to preach, whereas the same Apostle says, How shall they preach unless they are sent? Let therefore all those who have been forbidden or not sent to preach, and yet dare publicly or privately to usurp the office of preaching without having received the authority of the apostolic see or the catholic bishop of the place", be bound with the bond of excommunication and, unless they repent very quickly, be punished by another suitable penalty. We add further that each archbishop or bishop, either in person or through his archdeacon or through suitable honest persons, should visit twice or at least once in the year any parish of his in which heretics are said to live. There he should compel three or more men of good repute, or even if it seems expedient the whole neighbourhood, to swear that if anyone knows of heretics there or of any persons who hold secret conventicles or who differ in their life and habits from the normal way of living of the faithful, then he will take care to point them out to the bishop. The bishop himself should summon the accused to his presence, and they should be punished canonically if they are unable to clear themselves of the charge or if after compurgation they relapse into their former errors of faith. If however any of them with damnable obstinacy refuse to honour an oath and so will not take it, let them by this very fact be regarded as heretics. We therefore will and command and, in virtue of obedience, strictly command that bishops see carefully to the effective execution of these things throughout their dioceses, if they wish to avoid canonical penalties. If any bishop is negligent or remiss in cleansing his diocese of the ferment of heresy, then when this shows itself by unmistakeable signs he shall be deposed from his office as bishop and there shall be put in his place a suitable person who both wishes and is able to overthrow the evil of heresy

4. On the pride of the Greeks towards the Latins

Although we would wish to cherish and honour the Greeks who in our days are returning to the obedience of the apostolic see, by preserving their customs and rites as much as we can in the Lord, nevertheless we neither want nor ought to defer to them in matters which bring danger to souls and detract from the church's honour. For, after the Greek church together with certain associates and supporters withdrew from the obedience of the apostolic see, the Greeks began to detest the Latins so much that, among other wicked things which they committed out of contempt for them, when Latin priests celebrated on their altars they would not offer sacrifice on them until they had washed them, as if the altars had been defiled thereby. The Greeks even had the temerity to rebaptize those baptized by the Latins; and some, as we are told, still do not fear to do this. Wishing therefore to remove such a great scandal from God's church, we strictly order, on the advice of this sacred council, that henceforth they do not presume to do such things but rather conform themselves like obedient sons to the holy Roman church, their mother, so that there may be one flock and one shepherd. If anyone however does dare to do such a thing, let him be struck with the sword of excommunication and be deprived of every ecclesiastical office and benefice. [of course, the Orthodox Catholics did and continue to "dare to do such a thing."]

5. The dignity of the patriarchal sees

Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him [no such thing ever happened from the time of the Apostles until the Crudaders came] they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.[dream on]

71. Crusade to recover the holy Land

It is our ardent desire to liberate the holy Land from infidel hands. We therefore declare, with the approval of this sacred council and on the advice of prudent men who are fully aware of the circumstances of time and place, that crusaders are to make themselves ready so that all who have arranged to go by sea shall assemble in the kingdom of Sicily on 1 June after next : some as necessary and fitting at Brindisi and others at Messina and places neighbouring it on either side, where we too have arranged to be in person at that time, God willing, so that with our advice and help the Christian army may be in good order to set out with divine and apostolic blessing. Those who have decided to go by land should also take care to be ready by the same date. They shall notify us meanwhile so that we may grant them a suitable legate a latere for advice and help. Priests and other clerics who will be in the Christian army, both those under authority and prelates, shall diligently devote themselves to prayer and exhortation, teaching the crusaders by word and example to have the fear and love of God always before their eyes, so that they say or do nothing that might offend the divine majesty. If they ever fall into sin, let them quickly rise up again through true penitence. Let them be humble in heart and in body, keeping to moderation both in food and in dress, avoiding altogether dissensions and rivalries, and putting aside entirely any bitterness or envy, so that thus armed with spiritual and material weapons they may the more fearlessly fight against the enemies of the faith, relying not on their own power but rather trusting in the strength of God. We grant to these clerics that they may receive the fruits of their benefices in full for three years, as if they were resident in the churches, and if necessary they may leave them in pledge for the same time.

To prevent this holy proposal being impeded or delayed, we strictly order all prelates of churches, each in his own locality, diligently to warn and induce those who have abandoned the cross to resume it, and them and others who have taken up the cross, and those who may still do so, to carry out their vows to the Lord. And if necessary they shall compel them to do this without any backsliding, by sentences of excommunication against their persons and of interdict on their lands, excepting only those persons who find themselves faced with an impediment of such a kind that their vow deservedly ought to be commuted or deferred in accordance with the directives of the apostolic see. In order that nothing connected with this business of Jesus Christ be omitted, we will and order patriarchs, archbishops, bishops, abbots and others who have the care of souls to preach the cross zealously to those entrusted to them. Let them beseech kings, dukes, princes, margraves, counts, barons and other magnates, as well as the communities of cities, vills and towns — in the name of the Father, Son and holy Spirit, the one, only, true and eternal God — that those who do not go in person to the aid of the holy Land should contribute, according to their means, an appropriate number of fighting men together with their necessary expenses for three years, for the remission of their sins in accordance with what has already been explained in general letters and will be explained below for still greater assurance. We wish to share in this remission not only those who contribute ships of their own but also those who are zealous enough to build them for this purpose. To those who refuse, if there happen to be any who are so ungrateful to our lord God, we firmly declare in the name of the apostle that they should know that they will have to answer to us for this on the last day of final judgment before the fearful judge.

In other words, THE SWORD THAT ST. PETER PUT INTO THE SHEATH AT THE LORD'S COMMAND, POPE INNOCENT III ON HIS OWN COMMAND PICKED UP AND SWUNG, AND SWUNG HARD.

Quote
Let them consider beforehand, however with what conscience and with what security it was that they were able to confess before the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus Christ, to whom the Father gave all things into his hands, if in this business, which is as it were peculiarly his, they refuse to serve him who was crucified for sinners, by whose beneficence they are sustained and indeed by whose blood they have been redeemed.

Lest we appear to be laying on men's shoulders heavy and unbearable burdens which we are not willing to lighten, like those who say yes but do nothing behold we, from what we have been able to save over and above necessities and moderate expenses, grant and give thirty thousand pounds to this work, besides the shipping which we are giving to the crusaders of Rome and neighbouring districts. We will assign for this purpose, moreover, three thousand marks of silver, which we have left over from the alms of certain of the faithful, the rest having been faithfully distributed for the needs and benefit of the aforesaid Land by the hands of the abbot patriarch of Jerusalem, of happy memory, and of the masters of the Temple and of the Hospital. We wish, however, that other prelates of churches and all clerics may participate and share both in the merit and in the reward. We therefore decree, with the general approval of the council, that all clerics, both those under authority and prelates, shall give a twentieth of their ecclesiastical revenues for three years to the aid of the holy Land, by means of the persons appointed by the apostolic see for this purpose; the only exceptions being certain religious who are rightly to be exempted from this taxation and likewise those persons who have taken or will take the cross and so will go in person. We and our brothers, cardinals of the holy Roman church, shall pay a full tenth. Let all know, moreover, that they are obliged to observe this faithfully under pain of excommunication, so that those who knowingly deceive in this matter shall incur the sentence of excommunication. Because it is right that those who persevere in the service of the heavenly ruler should in all justice enjoy special privilege, and because the day of departure is somewhat more than a year ahead, crusaders shall therefore be. exempt from taxes or levies and other burdens. We take their persons and goods under the protection of St Peter and ourself once they have taken up the cross. We ordain that they are to be protected by archbishops, bishops and all prelates of the church, and that protectors of their own are to be specially appointed for this purpose, so that their goods are to remain intact and undisturbed until they are known for certain to be dead or to have returned. If anyone dares to act contrary to this, let him be curbed by ecclesiastical censure.

If any of those setting out are bound by oath to pay interest, we ordain that their creditors shall be compelled by the same punishment to release them from their oath and to desist from exacting the interest; if any of the creditors does force them to pay the interest, we command that he be forced by similar punishment to restore it. We order that Jews be compelled by the secular power to remit interest, and that until they do so all intercourse shall be denied them by all Christ's faithful under pain of excommunication. Secular princes shall provide a suitable deferral for those who cannot now pay their debts to Jews, so that after they have undertaken the journey and until there is certain knowledge of their death or of their return, they shall not incur the inconvenience of paying interest. The Jews shall be compelled to add to the capital, after they have deducted their necessary expenses, the revenues which they are meanwhile receiving from property held by them on security. For, such a benefit seems to entail not much loss, inasmuch as it postpones the repayment but does not cancel the debt. Prelates of churches who are negligent in showing justice to crusaders and their families should know that they will be severely punished.

Furthermore, since corsairs and pirates greatly impede help for the holy Land, by capturing and plundering those who are travelling to and from it, we bind with the bond of excommunication everyone who helps or supports them. We forbid anyone, under threat of anathema, knowingly to communicate with them by contracting to buy or to sell; and we order rulers of cities and their territories to restrain and curb such persons from this iniquity. Otherwise, since to be unwilling to disquiet evildoers is none other than to encourage them, and since he who fails to oppose a manifest crime is not without a touch of secret complicity, it is our wish and command that prelates of churches exercise ecclesiastical severity against their persons and lands. We excommunicate and anathematize, moreover, those false and impious Christians who, in opposition to Christ and the Christian people, convey arms to the Saracens and iron and timber for their galleys. We decree that those who sell them galleys or ships, and those who act as pilots in pirate Saracen ships, or give them any advice or help by way of machines or anything else, to the detriment of the holy Land, are to be punished with deprivation of their possessions and are to become the slaves of those who capture them. We order this sentence to be renewed on Sundays and feast-days in all maritime towns; and the bosom of the church is not to be opened to such persons unless they send in aid of the holy Land the whole of the damnable wealth which they received and the same amount of their own, so that they are punished in proportion to their offence. If perchance they do not pay, they are to be punished in other ways in order that through their punishment others may be deterred from venturing upon similar rash actions. In addition, we prohibit and on pain of anathema forbid all Christians, for four years, to send or take their ships across to the lands of the Saracens who dwell in the east, so that by this a greater supply of shipping may be made ready for those wanting to cross over to help the holy Land, and so that the aforesaid Saracens may be deprived of the not inconsiderable help which they have been accustomed to receiving from this.

Although tournaments have been forbidden in a general way on pain of a fixed penalty at various councils, we strictly forbid them to be held for three years, under pain of excommunication, because the business of the crusade is much hindered by them at this present time. Because it is of the utmost necessity for the carrying out of this business that rulers of the Christian people keep peace with each other, we therefore ordain, on the advice of this holy general synod, that peace be generally kept in the whole Christian world for at least four years, so that those in conflict shall be brought by the prelates of churches to conclude a definitive peace or to observe inviolably a firm truce. Those who refuse to comply shall be most strictly compelled to do so by an excommunication against their persons and an interdict on their lands, unless their wrongdoing is so great that they ought not to enjoy peace. If it happens that they make light of the church's censure, they may deservedly fear that the secular power will be invoked by ecclesiastical authority against them as disturbers of the business of him who was crucified.

[Pope Innocent III thinking Christ the Redeemer was Christ the butcher].

We therefore, trusting in the mercy of almighty God and in the authority of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul, do grant, by the power of binding and loosing that God has conferred upon us, albeit unworthy, unto all those who undertake this work in person and at their own expense, full pardon for their sins about which they are heartily contrite and have spoken in confession, and we promise them an increase of eternal life at the recompensing of the just; also to those who do not go there in person but send suitable men at their own expense, according to their means and status, and likewise to those who go in person but at others' expense, we grant full pardon for their sins. We wish and grant to share in this remission, according to the quality of their help and the intensity of their devotion, all who shall contribute suitably from their goods to the aid of the said Land or who give useful advice and help. Finally, this general synod imparts the benefit of its blessings to all who piously set out on this common enterprise in order that it may contribute worthily to their salvation.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#67

Rather than turnign from the sack of Constantinople, the Vatican then later convened its so called 13th "ecumenical" council of Lyons I, with its Latin emperor and its Latin patriarchs it imposed (Alexandria and Jerusalem, however, being outside the Crusaders reach) in session to try to solidify Crusader control when the armies of the Orthodox sovereigns laid seige to Constatinople to retake her and place the Orthodox EP in exile back on the cathedra of SS. Andrew, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom and Photios:

Quote
2. {47} On help for the empire of Constantinople

Though we are engaged in difficult matters and distracted by manifold anxieties, yet among those things which demand our constant attention is the liberation of the empire of Constantinople. [the armies of the Orthodox had surrounded the capital] This we desire with our whole heart, this is ever the object of our thoughts. Yet though the apostolic see has eagerly sought a remedy on its behalf by earnest endeavour and many forms of assistance, though for long Catholics have striven by grievous toils, by burdensome expense, by care, sweat, tears and bloodshed, yet the hand that extended such aid could not wholly, hindered by sin, snatch the empire from the yoke of the enemy [i.e. the Orthodox]. Thus not without cause we are troubled with grief. But because the body of the church would be shamefully deformed by the lack of a loved member, namely the aforesaid empire [that it calls the empire, rather than the patriarchate, a member of the church is telling], and be sadly weakened and suffer loss; and because it could rightly be assigned to our sloth and that of the church, if it were deprived of the support of the faithful, and left to be freely oppressed by its enemies; we firmly propose to come to the help of the empire with swift and effective aid. Thus at the same time as the church eagerly rises to its assistance and stretches out the hand of defence, the empire can be saved from the dominion of its foes, and be brought back by the Lord's guidance to the unity of that same body, and may feel after the crushing hammer of its enemies the consoling hand of the church its mother, and after the blindness of error regain its sight by the possession of the catholic faith [the surrounding armies, not the Crusaders, professed the Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church]. It is the more fitting that prelates of churches and other ecclesiastics should be watchful and diligent for its liberation, and bestow their help and assistance, the more they are bound to work for the increase of the faith and of ecclesiastical liberty, which could chiefly come about from the liberation of the empire; and especially because while the empire is helped, assistance is consequently rendered to the holy Land.

Indeed, so that the help to the empire may be speedy and useful, we decree, with the general approval of the council, that half of all incomes of dignities parsonages and ecclesiastical prebends, and of other benefices of ecclesiastics who do not personally reside in them for at least six months, whether they hold one or more, shall be assigned in full for three years to the help of the said empire, having been collected by those designated by the apostolic see. Those are exempt who are employed in our service or in that of our brother cardinals and of their prelates, those who are on pilgrimages or in schools, or engaged in the business of their own churches at their direction, and those who have or will take up the badge of the cross for the aid of the holy Land or who will set out in person to the help of the said empire; but if any of these, apart from the crusaders and those setting out, receive from ecclesiastical revenues more than a hundred silver marks, they should pay a third part of the remainder in each of the three years. This is to be observed notwithstanding any customs or statutes of churches to the contrary, or any indulgences granted by the apostolic see to these churches or persons, confirmed by oath or any other means. And if by chance in this matter any shall knowingly be guilty of any deceit, they shall incur the sentence of excommunication.

We ourselves, from the revenues of the church of Rome, after first deducting a tenth from them to be assigned to the aid of the holy Land, will assign a tenth part in full for the support of the said empire. Further, when help is given to the empire, assistance is given in a very particular way and directed to the recovery of the holy Land, while we are striving for the liberation of the empire itself. Thus trusting in the mercy of almighty God and the authority of his blessed apostles Peter and Paul, from the power of binding and loosing which he conferred upon us though unworthy, we grant pardon of their sins to all those who come to the help of the said empire, and we desire they may enjoy that privilege and immunity which is granted to those who come to the help of the holy Land.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM13.HTM#202

This council had not been repudiated by the Vatican.  So the heirs of Nero, speaking ex cathedra, can stop protesting their "innocence." 

The Crusaders, when they sacked Constantinople, placed a prostitute (literally) on the throne of SS. Andrew, Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom and Photios.  We need no love from the whores of Rome.

Quote
UNAM SANCTAM (Promulgated November 18, 1302)

Urged by faith, we are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles [Sgs 6:8] proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God [1 Cor 11:3]. In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, i.e., Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.

We venerate this Church as one, the Lord having said by the mouth of the prophet: 'Deliver, O God, my soul from the sword and my only one from the hand of the dog.' [Ps 21:20] He has prayed for his soul, that is for himself, heart and body; and this body, that is to say, the Church, He has called one because of the unity of the Spouse, of the faith, of the sacraments, and of the charity of the Church. This is the tunic of the Lord, the seamless tunic, which was not rent but which was cast by lot [Jn 19:23-24]. Therefore, of the one and only Church there is one body and one head, not two heads like a monster; that is, Christ and the Vicar of Christ, Peter and the successor of Peter, since the Lord speaking to Peter Himself said: 'Feed my sheep' [Jn 21:17], meaning, my sheep in general, not these, nor those in particular, whence we understand that He entrusted all to him [Peter]. Therefore, if the Greeks
i.e. the Orthodox Catholics
Quote
or others should say that they are not confided to Peter and to his successors, they must confess not being the sheep of Christ, since Our Lord says in John 'there is one sheepfold and one shepherd.' We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.

For, according to the Blessed Dionysius, it is a law of the divinity that the lowest things reach the highest place by intermediaries. Then, according to the order of the universe, all things are not led back to order equally and immediately, but the lowest by the intermediary, and the inferior by the superior. Hence we must recognize the more clearly that spiritual power surpasses in dignity and in nobility any temporal power whatever, as spiritual things surpass the temporal. This we see very clearly also by the payment, benediction, and consecration of the tithes, but the acceptance of power itself and by the government even of things. For with truth as our witness, it belongs to spiritual power to establish the terrestrial power and to pass judgement if it has not been good. Thus is accomplished the prophecy of Jeremias concerning the Church and the ecclesiastical power: 'Behold to-day I have placed you over nations, and over kingdoms' and the rest. Therefore, if the terrestrial power err, it will be judged by the spiritual power; but if a minor spiritual power err, it will be judged by a superior spiritual power; but if the highest power of all err, it can be judged only by God, and not by man, according to the testimony of the Apostle: 'The spiritual man judgeth of all things and he himself is judged by no man' [1 Cor 2:15]. This authority, however, (though it has been given to man and is exercised by man), is not human but rather divine, granted to Peter by a divine word and reaffirmed to him (Peter) and his successors by the One Whom Peter confessed, the Lord saying to Peter himself, 'Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in Heaven' etc., [Mt 16:19]. Therefore whoever resists this power thus ordained by God, resists the ordinance of God [Rom 13:2], unless he invent like Manicheus two beginnings, which is false and judged by us heretical, since according to the testimony of Moses, it is not in the beginnings but in the beginning that God created heaven and earth [Gen 1:1]. Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
The blood of the sack of Constantinople is on that sword, and any hand that lays claim to the authority that issued Unam Sanctam.

Quote
The Donation of Constantine (c.750-800)
In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, the Father, namely, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine in Christ Jesus, the Lord I God our Saviour, one of that same holy Trinity,-faithful merciful, supreme, beneficent, Alamannic, Gothic, Sarmatic, Germanic, Britannic, Hunic, pious, fortunate, victor and triumpher, always august: to the most holy and blessed father of fathers Sylvester, bishop of the city of and to all his successors the pontiffs , who are about to sit upon Rome and pope, the chair of St. Peter until the end of time - also to all the most reverend and of God beloved catholic bishops, subjected by this our imperial decree throughout the whole world to this same holy, Roman church, who have been established now and in all previous times-grace, peace, charitv, rejoicing, long-suffering, mercv, be with you all from God the Father almighty and from Jesus Christ his Son and from the Holy Ghost. Our most gracious serenity desires, in clear discourse, through the page of this our imperial decree, to bring to the knowledge of all the people in the whole world what things our Saviour and Redeemer the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the most High Father, has most wonderfully seen fit to bring about through his holy apostles Peter and Paul and by the intervention of our father Sylvester, the highest pontiff and the universal pope. First, indeed, putting forth, with the inmost confession of our heart, for the purpose of instructing the mind of all of you, our creed which we have learned from the aforesaid most blessed father and our confessor, Svlvester the universal pontiff; and then at length announcing the mercy of God which has been poured upon us.

For we wish you to know,, as we have signified through our former imperial decree, that we have gone away, from the worship of idols, from mute and deaf images made by hand, from devilish contrivances and from all the pomps of Satan; and have arrived at the pure faith of the Christians, which is the true light and everlasting life. Believing, according to what he-that same one, our revered supreme father and teacher, the pontiff Sylvester - has taught us, in God the Father, the almighty maker of Heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord God, through whom all things are created; and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord and vivifier of the whole creature. We confess these, the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, in such way that, in the perfect Trinity, there shall also be a fulness of divinity and a unity of power. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God; and these three are one in Jesus Christ.

There are therefore three forms but one power. For God, wise in all previous time, gave forth from himself the word through which all future ages were to be born; and when, by that sole word of His wisdom, He formed the whole creation from nothing, He was with it, arranging all things in His mysterious secret place.

Therefore, the virtues of the Heavens and all the material part of the earth having been perfected, by the wise nod of His wisdom first creating man of the clay of the earth in His own image and likeness, He placed him in a paradise of delight. Him the ancient serpent and envious enemy, the devil, through the most bitter taste of the forbidden tree, made an exile from these joys; and, be being expelled, did not cease in many ways to cast his poisonous darts; in order that, turning the human race from the way of truth to the worship of idols, he might persuade it, namely to worship the creature and not the creator; so that, through them (the idols), he might cause those whom he might be able to entrap in his snares to be burned with him in eternal punishment. But our Lord, pitying His creature, sending ahead His holy prophets, announcing through them the light of the future life-the coming,' that is, of His Son our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ-sent that same only begotten Son and Word of wisdom: He descending from Heaven on account of our salvation, being born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary,-the word was made flesh and d welt among us. He did not cease to be what He had been, but began to be what He had not been, perfect God and perfect man: as God, performing miracles; as man, sustaining human sufferings. We so learned Him to be very man and very God by the preaching of our father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, that we can in no wise doubt that He was very, God and very man. And, having chosen twelve apostles, He shone with miracles before them and an innumerable multitude of people. We confess that this same Lord Jesus Christ fulfilled the law and the prophets; that He suffered, was crucified, on the third day arose from the dead according to the Scriptures; was received into Heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father. Whence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. For this is our orthodox creed, placed before us by our most blessed father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff. We exhort, therefore, all people, and all the different nations, to hold, cherish and preach this faith; and, in the name of the Holy Trinity, to obtain the grace of baptism; and, with devaout heart, to adore the Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour, who with the Father and the Holy Spirit, lives and reigns through infinite ages; whom Sylvester our father, the universal pontiff, preaches. For He himself, our Lord God, having pit on me a sinner, sent His holy apostles to visit us, and caused the light of his splendour to shine upon us. And do ye rejoice that I, having been withdrawn from the shadow, have come to the true light and to the knowledge of truth. For, at a time when a mighty and filthy leprosy had invaded all the flesh of my, body, and the care was administered of many physicians who came together, nor by that of any one of them did I achieve health: there came hither the priests of the Capitol, saving to me that a font should be made on the Capitol, and that I should fill this with the blood of innocent infants; and that, if I bathed in it while it was warm, I might be cleansed. And very many innocent infants having been brought together according to their words, when the sacrilegious priests of the pagans wished them to be slaughtered and the font to be filled with their blood: Our Serenity perceiving the tears of the mothers, I straightway abhorred the deed. And, pitying them, I ordered their own sons to be restored to them; and, giving them vehicles and gifts, sent them off rejoicing to their own. That day having passed therefore-the silence of night having come upon us-when the time of sleep had arrived, the apostles St. Peter and Paul appear, saying to me: "Since thou hast placed a term to thy vices, and hast abhorred the pouring forth of innocent blood, we are sent by, Christ the Lord our God, to give to thee a plan for recovering thy health. Hear, therefore, our warning, and do what we indicate to thee. Sylvester - the bishop of the city of Rome - on Mount Serapte, fleeing they persecutions, cherishes the darkness with his clergy in the caverns of the rocks. This one, when thou shalt have led him to thyself, will himself show thee a pool of piety; in which, when he shall have dipped thee for the third time, all that strength of the leprosy will desert thee. And, when this shall have been done, make this return to thy Saviour, that by thy order through the whole world the churches may be restored. Purify thyself, moreover, in this way, that, leaving all the superstition of idols, thou do adore and cherish the living and true God -- who is alone and true -- and that thou attain to the doing of His will.

Rising, therefore, from sleep, straightway I did according to that which I bad been advised to do by, the holy apostles; and, having summoned that excellent and benignant father and our enlightener - Svlvester the universal pope-I told him all the words that had been taught me by the holy apostles; and asked him who where those gods Peter and Paul. But he said that they where not really called gods, but apostles of our Saviour the Lord God Jesus Christ. And again we began to ask that same most blessed pope whether he had some express image of those apostles; so that, from their likeness, we might learn that they were those whom revelation bad shown to us. Then that same venerable father ordered the images of those same apostles to be shown by his deacon. And, when I had looked at them, and recognized, represented in those images, the countenances of those whom I had seen in my dream: with a great noise, before all my satraps*, I confessed that they were those whom I had seen in my dream.
[* there were no such Roman officials]

Hereupon that same most blessed Sylvester our father, bishop of the city of Rome, imposed upon us a time of penance-within our Lateran palace, in the chapel, in a hair garment,-so that I might obtain pardon from our Lord God Jesus Christ our Saviour by vigils, fasts, and tears and prayers, for all things that had been impiously done and unjustly ordered by me. Then through the imposition of the hands of the clergy, I came to the bishop himself; and there, renouncing the pomps of Satan and his works, and all idols made by hands, of my own will before all the people I confessed: that I believed in God the Father almighty, maker of Heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in Jesus Christ, His only Son our Lord, who was born of the Holy Spirit and of the Virgin Mary. And, the font having been blessed, the wave of salvation purified me there with a triple immersion. For there 1, being placed at the bottom of the font, saw with my own eyes a band from Heaven touching me; whence rising, clean, know that I was cleansed from all the squalor of leprosy. And, I being raised from the venerable font-putting on white raiment, be administered to me the sign of the seven-fold holy Spirit, the unction of the holy oil; and he traced the sign of the holy cross on my brow, saying: God seals thee with the seal of His faith in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, to signalize thy faith. All the clergy replied: "Amen." The bishop added, "peace be with thee."

And so, on the first day after receiving the mystery of the holy baptism, and after the cure of my body from the squalor of the leprosy, I recognized that there was no other God save the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; whom the most blessed Sylvester the pope doth preach; a trinity in one, a unity in three. For all the gods of the nations, whom I have worshipped up to this time, are proved to be demons; works made by the hand of men; inasmuch as that same venerable father told to us most clearly how much power in Heaven and on earth He, our Saviour, conferred on his apostle St. Peter, when finding him faithful after questioning him He said: "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock (petrani) shall I build My Church, and the gates of bell shall not prevail against it." Give heed ye powerful, and incline the ear of .your hearts to that which the good Lord and Master added to His disciple, saying: and I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven; and whatever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." This is very wonderful and glorious, to bind and loose on earth and to have it bound and loosed in Heaven.

And when, the blessed Sylvester preaching them, I perceived these things, and learned that by the kindness of St. Peter himself I had been entirely restored to health: I together with all our satraps and the whole senate and the nobles and all the Roman people, who are subject to the glory of our rule -considered it advisable that, as on earth he (Peter) is seen to have been constituted vicar of the Son of God, so the pontiffs, who are the representatives of that same chief of the apostles, should obtain from us and our empire the power of a supremacy greater than the earthly clemency of our imperial serenity is seen to have had conceded to it,-we choosing that same prince of the apostles, or his vicars, to be our constant intercessors with God. And, to the extent of our earthly imperial power, we decree that his holy Roman church shall be honoured with veneration; and that, more than our empire and earthly throne, the most sacred seat of St. Peter shall be gloriously exalted; we giving to it the imperial power, and dignity of glory, and vigour and honour.

And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople* and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the -whole world. And he who for the time being shall be pontiff of that holy Roman church shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world; and, according to his judgment, everything which is to be provided for the service of God or the stability of the faith of the Christians is to be administered. It is indeed just, that there the holy law should have the seat of its rule where the founder of holy laws, our Saviour, told St. Peter to take the chair of the apostleship; where also, sustaining the cross, he blissfully took the cup of death and appeared as imitator of his Lord and Master; and that there the people should bend their necks at the confession of Christ's name, where their teacher, St. Paul the apostle, extending his neck for Christ, was crowned with martyrdom. There, until the end, let them seek a teacher, where the holy body of the teacher lies; and there, prone and humiliated, let them perform I the service of the heavenly king, God our Saviour Jesus Christ, where the proud were accustomed to serve under the rule of an earthly king.
[*at the time of the supposed date of the document, Constantinople had not been founded. Its position as "chief seat" was two centuries away.]

Meanwhile we wish all the people, of all the races and nations throughout the whole world, to know: that we have constructed within our Lateran palace, to the same Saviour our Lord God Jesus Christ, a church with a baptistry from the foundations. And know that we have carried on our own shoulders from its foundations, twelve baskets weighted with earth, according to the number of the holy apostles. Which holy church we command to be spoken of, cherished, venerated and preached of, as the head and summit of all the churches in the whole world-as we have commanded through our other imperial decrees. We have also constructed the churches of St. Peter and St. Paul, chiefs of the apostles, which we have enriched with gold and silver; where also, placing their most sacred bodies with great honour, we have constructed their caskets of electrum, against which no force of the elements prevails. And we have placed a cross of purest gold and precious gems on each of their caskets, and fastened them with golden keys. And on these churches for the endowing of divine services we have conferred estates, and have enriched them with different objects; and, through our sacred imperial decrees, we have granted them our gift of land in the East as well as in the West; and even on the northern and southern coast;-namely in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa and Italy and the various islands: under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered by the hand of our most blessed father the pontiff Sylvester and his successors.

For let all the people and the nations of the races in the whole world rejoice with us; we exhorting all of you to give unbounded thanks, together with us, to our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. For He is God in Heaven above and on earth below, who, visiting us through His holy apostles, made us worthy to receive the holy sacrament of baptism and health of body. In return for which, to those same holy apostles, my masters, St. Peter and St. Paul; and, through them, also to St. Sylvester, our father,-the chief pontiff and universal pope of the city of Rome,-and to all the pontiffs his successors, who until the end of the world shall be about to sit in the seat of St. Peter: we concede and, by this present, do confer, our imperial Lateran palace, which is preferred to, and ranks above, all the palaces in the whole world; then a diadem, that is, the crown of our head, and at the same time the tiara; and, also, the shoulder band,-that is, the collar that usually surrounds our imperial neck; and also the purple mantle, and crimson tunic, and all the imperial raiment; and the same rank as those presiding over the imperial cavalry; conferring also the imperial sceptres, and, at the same time, the spears and standards; also the banners and different imperial ornaments, and all the advantage of our high imperial position, and the glory of our power.

And we decree, as to those most reverend men, the clergy who serve, in different orders, that same holy Roman church, that they shall have the same advantage, distinction, power and excellence by the glory of which our most illustrious senate is adorned; that is, that they shall be made patricians and consuls,-we commanding that they shall also be decorated with the other imperial dignities. And even as the imperial soldiery, so, we decree, shall the clergy of the holy Roman church be adorned. And I even as the imperial power is adorned by different offices-by the distinction, that is, of chamberlains, and door keepers, and all the guards,-so we wish the holy Roman church to be adorned. And, in order that the pontifical glory may shine forth more fully, we decree this also: that the clergy of this same holy Roman church may use saddle cloths of linen of the whitest colour; namely that their horses may be adorned and so be ridden, and that, as our senate uses shoes with goats' hair, so they may be distinguished by gleaming linen; in order that, as the celestial beings, so the terrestrial may be adorned to the glory of God. Above all things, moreover, we give permission to that same most holy one our father Sylvester, bishop of the city of Rome and pope, and to all the most blessed pontiffs who shall come after him and succeed him in all future times-for the honour and glory of Jesus Christ our Lord,-to receive into that great Catholic and apostolic church of God, even into the number of the monastic clergy, any one from our senate, who, in free choice, of his own accord, may wish to become- a cleric; no one at all presuming thereby to act in a haughty manner.

We also decreed this, that this same venerable one our father Sylvester, the supreme pontiff, and all the pontiffs his successors, might use and bear upon their heads-to the Praise of God and for the honour of St. Peter-the diadem; that is, the crown which we have granted him from our own head, of purest gold and precious gems.

Quote
But he, the most holy pope, did not at all allow that crown of gold to be used over the clerical crown which he wears to the glory of St. Peter; but we placed upon his most holy head, with our own hands, a tiara of gleaming splendour representing the glorious resurrection of our Lord. And, holding the bridle of his horse, out of reverence for St. Peter we performed for him the duty of groom; decreeing that all the pontiffs his successors, and they alone, may use that tiara in processions.

In imitation of our own power, in order that for that cause the supreme pontificate may not deteriorate, but may rather be adorned with power and glory even more than is the dignity of an earthly rule: behold we-giving over to the oft-mentioned most blessed pontiff, our father Sylvester the universal pope, as well our palace, as has been said, as also the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts and cities of Italy or of the western regions; and relinquishing them, by our inviolable gift, to the power and sway of himself or the pontiffs his successors-do decree, by this our godlike charter and imperial constitution, that it shall be (so) arranged; and do concede that they (the palaces, provinces etc.) shall lawfully remain with the holy Roman church.

Wherefore we have perceived it to be fitting that our empire and the power of our kingdom should be transferred and changed to the regions of the East; and that, in the province of Byzantium, in a most fitting place, a city should be built in our name; and that our empire should there be established. For, where the supremacy of priests and the bead of the Christian religion has been established by a heavenly ruler, it is not just that there an earthly ruler should have jurisdiction.

We decree, moreover, that all these things which, through this our imperial charter and through other godlike commands, we have established and confirmed, shall remain uninjured and unshaken until the end of the world. Wherefore, before the living God, who commanded us to reign, and in the face of his terrible judgment, we conjure, through this our imperial decree, all the emperors our successors, and all our nobles, the satraps also and the most glorious senate, and all the people in the ,A-hole world now and in all times previously subject to our rule: that no one of them, in any way allow himself to oppose or disregard, or in any way seize, these things which, by our imperial sanction, have been conceded to the holy Roman church and to all its pontiffs. If anyone, moreover,-which we do not believe - prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject and bound over to eternal damnation; and shall feel that the holy chiefs of the apostles of God, Peter and Paul, will be opposed to him in the present and in the future life. And, being burned in the nethermost hell, he shall perish with the devil and all the impious.
[by what authority St. Constantine had authority over hell is not explained]

The page, moreover, of this our imperial decree, we, confirming it with our own hands, did place above the venerable body of St. Peter chief of the apostles; and there, promising to that same apostle of God that we would preserve inviolably all its provisions, and would leave in our commands to all the emperors our successors to preserve them, we did hand it over, to be enduringly and happily possessed, to our most blessed father Sylvester the supreme pontiff and universal pope, and, through him, to all the pontiffs his successors -God our Lord and our Saviour Jesus Christ consenting.

And the imperial subscription: May the Divinity preserve you for many years, oh most holy and blessed fathers.

Given at Rome on the third day before the Kalends of April, our master the august Flavius Constantine, for the fourth time, and Galligano, most illustrious men, being consuls.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.html

Btw, the Donation was forged it seems to legitimize the pope's grab for power in Italy in exchange for the supreme pontiff's legitimizing of the grab of the Frankish emperors (who spread the filioque faith) for power in Paris. The same Lateran palace was the same place where supreme pontiff Innocent III has his rubber stamp council legitimize the sack of Constantinople.

Quote
The Vatican is a City-State in Italy.


Yes. I know. I've been there. Its in the middle of all those lands Constantine donated to the supreme pontiffs on pain of hellfire (the House of Savoy and the Italian state must be worried), confirmed by Mussolini.

Quote
It's impossible to be in communion with the Vatican.

Your supreme pontiff calls the Crusader state a member of the "Roman church" and ex cathedra claims the temporal sword by which it forces communion.  The "holy Roman empeor" Leopold by his decree made the Orthodox Church of Transylvania in communion with the Vatican.  Your suprem pontiffs created and embraced Cuius regio, eius religio, and declared Henry VIII Defender of the Faith (ironic, no?). And the Vatican's perennial attempt to get the Emperor of the Romans to sign the Catholic Church of the Orthodox over to the Vatican. Etc.

Quote
You must be confused.

One need only look at the above to see who is confused.
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #118 on: November 03, 2010, 12:43:38 AM »

Why are you so dependent on cutting and pasting?


Not dependent at all. I find repeating myself tedious.

Quote
You cut and paste huge amounts of text and then toss in a one line comment that may or may not have anything to do with Catholic reality or the text that you've cut and pasted.

Your Ultramontanist reality has little connnection to reality. Perhaps that is why you have a hard time seeing the connections.

Quote
Its like teaching by innuendo...It's not particularly instructive or intellectually honest...or interesting.
I'm sorry. How did I mislead you to think that I was here to entertain you?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 12:44:12 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #119 on: November 03, 2010, 12:49:24 AM »

Your Ultramontanist reality has little connnection to reality. Perhaps that is why you have a hard time seeing the connections.
Stop referring to us as ultramontanists. No one else on this forum persists in only using offensive terminology except you. If you cannot make your point without using derogatory terms, one wonders how strong your point actually is.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 12:52:13 AM by Wyatt » Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #120 on: November 03, 2010, 01:25:35 AM »

Your Ultramontanist reality has little connnection to reality. Perhaps that is why you have a hard time seeing the connections.
Stop referring to us as ultramontanists. No one else on this forum persists in only using offensive terminology except you. If you cannot make your point without using derogatory terms, one wonders how strong your point actually is.

Ultramontanism
A term used to denote integral and active Catholicism, because it recognizes as its spiritual head the pope, who, for the greater part of Europe, is a dweller beyond the mountains (ultra montes), that is, beyond the Alps...For Catholics it would be superfluous to ask whether Ultramontanism and Catholicism are the same thing: assuredly, those who combat Ultramontanis are in fact combating Catholicism, even when they disclaim the desire to oppose it...The war against Ultramontanism is accounted for not merely by its adversaries' denial of the genuine Catholic doctrine of the Church's power and that of her supreme ruler, but also, and even more, by the consequences of that doctrine...
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #121 on: November 03, 2010, 01:27:23 AM »

Honest question here, really. How is "ultramontanist" derogatory? I've read books by Roman Catholics that use that term a lot. Can only Roman Catholics use it to refer to other Roman Catholics? (I also don't understand about "Uniate," since my Ukrainian Eastern Catholic adviser readily called herself that, but that's another story.)
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #122 on: November 03, 2010, 01:47:32 AM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?

A total of 18 bishops from the East signed the declarations of Florence. A few hundred bishops in the East rejected the same.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #123 on: November 03, 2010, 01:54:12 AM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?

A total of 18 bishops from the East signed the declarations of Florence. A few hundred bishops in the East rejected the same.

But those 18 were obeying the Emperor....

The Vatican is selective in its condemnation of "Caesaro-papism."
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #124 on: November 03, 2010, 08:58:42 AM »

Why are you so dependent on cutting and pasting?


Not dependent at all. I find repeating myself tedious.

Quote
You cut and paste huge amounts of text and then toss in a one line comment that may or may not have anything to do with Catholic reality or the text that you've cut and pasted.

Your Ultramontanist reality has little connnection to reality. Perhaps that is why you have a hard time seeing the connections.

Quote
Its like teaching by innuendo...It's not particularly instructive or intellectually honest...or interesting.
I'm sorry. How did I mislead you to think that I was here to entertain you?

Items of interest are in no way inherently entertaining. 

Again you define things, not in terms of reality and shared communication, but to deride and dismiss.

As I said, it is an appropriate course for monologue, but an intellectually dishonest one for dialogue.
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #125 on: November 03, 2010, 09:27:08 AM »

I'm sorry. How did I mislead you to think that I was here to entertain you?

Isa, you're both entertaining and informative. They should make you into a Leap Frog game for children!  Grin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #126 on: November 03, 2010, 12:38:18 PM »

Why are you so dependent on cutting and pasting?


Not dependent at all. I find repeating myself tedious.

Quote
You cut and paste huge amounts of text and then toss in a one line comment that may or may not have anything to do with Catholic reality or the text that you've cut and pasted.

Your Ultramontanist reality has little connnection to reality. Perhaps that is why you have a hard time seeing the connections.

Quote
Its like teaching by innuendo...It's not particularly instructive or intellectually honest...or interesting.
I'm sorry. How did I mislead you to think that I was here to entertain you?

Items of interest are in no way inherently entertaining. 

Again you define things, not in terms of reality and shared communication, but to deride and dismiss.

As I said, it is an appropriate course for monologue, but an intellectually dishonest one for dialogue.

False statements of agreement do not dialogue make. It's dishonest, and not only intellectually, as history shows.

We don't have "shared communication." The office of the papacy is an office just like the patriarchate of the Maronites, Majorarchbishop of the Ukrainians in submission to the Vatican, the Archbishop of MIilan, the Metropolitan of the Ruthenians in Pittsburgh, but the Vatican has transformed it into a supra-order of Holy Orders. Yes, I am aware that it hasn't stated that so officially-that would be too intellectually honest-but we look at the substance of the claims, something we know from the Vatican forbidding its primates at Alexandria from taking the traditional title of that see "pope" (predating Rome's appropriating that title to itself by centuries). "Pope" doesn't mean the same for us and you, which is why your ecclesiastical community is not big enough for two popes , although you often had two or more:


Keeping it honest is the basis of honest dialogue. Not a lumpy rug.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #127 on: November 03, 2010, 01:15:14 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
They have no Magisterium. They look for "Patristic consensus," which can pretty much mean whatever they want it to mean. I remember a post awhile back where someone posted quotes by several Early Church Fathers regarding SS. Peter and Paul in Rome and Fabio came on and dismissed them all as unreliable. They look to the Fathers, but only the ones that back up modern day Eastern Orthodoxy.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 01:15:35 PM by Wyatt » Logged
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,975


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #128 on: November 03, 2010, 01:22:36 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
They have no Magisterium. They look for "Patristic consensus," which can pretty much mean whatever they want it to mean. I remember a post awhile back where someone posted quotes by several Early Church Fathers regarding SS. Peter and Paul in Rome and Fabio came on and dismissed them all as unreliable. They look to the Fathers, but only the ones that back up modern day Eastern Orthodoxy.

And, from our point of view, your people do the same with your Development of Doctrine thing.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,142



« Reply #129 on: November 03, 2010, 01:30:01 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
They have no Magisterium. They look for "Patristic consensus," which can pretty much mean whatever they want it to mean.

If that were true, we would be more fractured than you and your Protestant kin.

Quote
I remember a post awhile back where someone posted quotes by several Early Church Fathers regarding SS. Peter and Paul in Rome and Fabio came on and dismissed them all as unreliable.

I'd have to see the specific quotes and response.

Quote
They look to the Fathers, but only the ones that back up modern day Eastern Orthodoxy.

LOL. The Orthodox Church Fathers.  All of them.

As for your much vaunted magiserium, with all its wrangling it still hasn't managed to agree on what is an ex cathedra statement, a list of infallible statement, etc.  A total waste of time, besides making themselves look busy and authoritative.
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 01:30:37 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #130 on: November 03, 2010, 01:31:01 PM »



If that were true, we would be more fractured than you and your Protestant kin.


You are fractured.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #131 on: November 03, 2010, 01:31:54 PM »

^So the laity, not the bishops, form you magesterium?
They have no Magisterium. They look for "Patristic consensus," which can pretty much mean whatever they want it to mean. I remember a post awhile back where someone posted quotes by several Early Church Fathers regarding SS. Peter and Paul in Rome and Fabio came on and dismissed them all as unreliable. They look to the Fathers, but only the ones that back up modern day Eastern Orthodoxy.

And, from our point of view, your people do the same with your Development of Doctrine thing.
The difference is we do not deny doctrinal development. We believe revealed truth comes to us in three ways (Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterial Teaching). You guys claim you have kept everything totally the same and in tact and also that you don't require a Magisterium, but then you deny certain things that were traditionally believed like that St. Peter founded the See of Rome and SS. Peter and Paul were martyred there. This is the traditional teaching, but it is conveniently sidestepped.

How can you determine what teachings of the Fathers of the Church must be believed and what are just pious opinions? For us, those teachings which the Magisterium has consistently upheld are the ones which must be believed, but how is this dealt with in Eastern Orthodoxy? I get the impression it's similar to sola scriptura, only adding Ecumenical Councils and Patristics (i.e. the faithful can interp