OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 22, 2014, 08:03:50 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 11385 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 643


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: 30,534


« 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

Large Marge sent me...
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: 643


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: 1,238


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: 643


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
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,513


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
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,513


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
*********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 3,513


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: 643


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: 643


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: 11,833


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: 11,833


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: 30,534


« 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

Large Marge sent me...
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
Tags: Petrine Primacy patristics 
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 »  All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.237 seconds with 72 queries.