OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 22, 2014, 07:15:35 PM *
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 10168 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Fr. George
formerly "Cleveland"
Administrator
Stratopedarches
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox (Catholic) Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Metropolis of Pittsburgh
Posts: 19,903


May the Lord bless you and keep you always!


« Reply #135 on: November 03, 2010, 02:08:17 PM »

Quote
If the EO laity decide to reject a council, then the Church rejects it. Good example of this is the council of Florence. While their Bishops signed on, the laity rejected it.

As someone posted 18 bishops (though it might be 30) the Emperor was able to drag over to be shut up in duress in Italy-the Vatican ever selective in its condemnation of caesaro-papism-and have sign. One, St. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign, and the 18/30 bishops who did did so contingent on a synod being held in the East and ratifying the document.  God struck the EP who signed dead within 24 hours, and the synod in the East was never held.

That doesn't say what happened with the hundreds of Orthodox bishops who were not in the grasp of the Emperor and what they did.

Not to "pile on" the issue, but most of the bishops who signed repudiated their signatures within a very brief time of returning to their sees - IIRC, they didn't wait for popular opinion, they only paused long enough to be away from the Imperial guards.  Most of the hierarchs thought it was an abomination, but signed out of fear of repercussions coming from the throne.  Many of those who genuinely wanted the union no matter what ended up with RC sees later on.
Logged

"The man who doesn't read good books has no advantage over the one who can't read them." Mark Twain
---------------------
Ordained on 17 & 18-Oct 2009. Please forgive me if earlier posts are poorly worded or incorrect in any way.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #136 on: November 03, 2010, 02:20:38 PM »

Quote
If the EO laity decide to reject a council, then the Church rejects it. Good example of this is the council of Florence. While their Bishops signed on, the laity rejected it.

As someone posted 18 bishops (though it might be 30) the Emperor was able to drag over to be shut up in duress in Italy-the Vatican ever selective in its condemnation of caesaro-papism-and have sign. One, St. Mark of Ephesus refused to sign, and the 18/30 bishops who did did so contingent on a synod being held in the East and ratifying the document.  God struck the EP who signed dead within 24 hours, and the synod in the East was never held.

That doesn't say what happened with the hundreds of Orthodox bishops who were not in the grasp of the Emperor and what they did.

Not to "pile on" the issue, but most of the bishops who signed repudiated their signatures within a very brief time of returning to their sees - IIRC, they didn't wait for popular opinion, they only paused long enough to be away from the Imperial guards.  Most of the hierarchs thought it was an abomination, but signed out of fear of repercussions coming from the throne.  Many of those who genuinely wanted the union no matter what ended up with RC sees later on.
...and a cardinal's hat.

the apostate metropolitan of Kiev, Isodore was allowed to escape to Italy.  I don't recall anyone being killed over Florence-at least by us (I might be wrong on that).  The same cannot be said of Brest, Uzhhorod and Alba Iulia.
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
prodromos
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,463

Sydney, Australia


« Reply #137 on: November 03, 2010, 03:19:37 PM »

God struck the EP who signed dead within 24 hours, and the synod in the East was never held.

Patriarch Joseph died before the signing of the declaration took place
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #138 on: November 05, 2010, 03:31:54 AM »

The First Ecumenical Council, Canon 6.
previous | next
6.

Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail.

(Ap. c. XXXIV; cc. II of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; c. XXXVI of the 6th; c. XIX of Laodicea; c. XIII of Carthage.)

Interpretation.[6]

The present Canon ordains that the old customs of the three Patriarchs are to be kept in vogue, chiefly and mainly as regarding the Patriarch of Alexandria, and secondly as regarding the Patriarch of Antioch, and the Patriarch of Rome, succinctly and comprehensively. (Concerning the Patriarch of Jerusalem the present Council devote special and separate treatment in its c. VII; and concerning the Patriarch of Constantinople the Second Council set forth its views in its c. III). So that the Patriarch (whom it calls a Bishop here, owing to the fact that it had not yet become customary to designate one by calling him the Patriarch[7]) of Alexandria came to have authority over all the bishops and metropolitans in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis. In fact, the same custom also came to prevail with regard to the Patriarch of Rome[8] in that he was allowed to have authority and presidency over all the occidental bishops and metropolitans. Likewise the Patriarch of Antioch is given authority over the bishops and metropolitans of Syria, of Middle Syria, of each of the two regions called Cilicia, of Mesopotamia, and of all the other dioceses subject to his jurisdiction. The present Canon, in fact, commands that not only the privileges of these Patriarchs are to be preserved, but even the privileges of other provinces and churches that are subject to the metropolitans. What is said of the Patriarchs in existence is also true of the independent Patriarchs, then and now — that is to say, the autocephalous Patriarchs, such as those of Asia, of Pontus, of Thrace, of Cyprus, of Africa, and of other countries. (Though others say that the Canon names here also other provinces, embraced, concisely speaking, in the dioceses subordinate to the other two Patriarchs, of Constantinople and of Jerusalem; and that of metropolitans it names only patriarchs. But the first interpretation is better; see also Dositheus, in the Dodecabiblus, pp. 117, 123.) Thus the effect of this Canon is that nothing relating to the administration of church affairs can be done without their consent and approval or sanction. Now, inasmuch as the greatest and chiefest of all ecclesiastical affairs is ordination, the Canon accordingly adds that if anyone is made a bishop without the approval of his own metropolitan, as this great Council has decreed, he is not to be a bishop, because in spite of the fact that the multitude of bishops voted for the bishop, the ratification of the election had to be made by the Metropolitan, and whoever was approved by the Metropolitan had to be made a bishop (and see the footnote to the present Council’s c. IV). Yet if all the bishops in common elect a candidate to an episcopate in accordance with ecclesiastical Canons, but two or three object to his election, not for a good reason and justly, but cavilously and spitefully, the vote of the majority shall decide the matter.[9] Canon XIX of Antioch decrees the same thing. Canon XIII of Carthage says that if any one of those who took part in the voting and signed should afterwards oppose his own confession and signature, he shall deprive himself of the honor of (being) a bishop. Read also the Interpretation of Ap. c. XXXIV.

Notes

[6] The reason why the present Canon was issued by the Council was as follows. It used to be the custom with bishops of Egypt and of Libya and of Pentapolis to have the bishop of Alexandria as their chief, and without his approval not to engage in any ecclesiastical action, as Epiphanius says in his Haer. 61. By exercising this authority, Peter the sacred martyr, who was Bishop of Alexandria, deposed Meletius, a Bishop of Lycopolis in Thebais, as Athanasius the Great bears witness in his second apology. The same saint notes further that before Peter’s time, since some bishops in Pentapolis in Upper Libya had accepted the opinion of Sabellius, and his spurious doctrines came to prevail so widely that the Son of God was hardly being preached in the churches, when Dionysius of Alexandria learned about this, he dispatched envoys to them for the purpose of converting them to the orthodox doctrine of the Church. From these facts it becomes evident indeed that even before this First Council was held the Bishop of Alexandria enjoyed Patriarchal privileges also by virtue of an ancient custom (which, in fact, prevailed in consequence of Ap. c. XXXIV, which says that the bishops of each nation ought to recognize one of their number as their chief, and so forth). He had authority not only to govern the ecclesiastical affairs of the provinces and dioceses there, but also to depose bishops and metropolitans of that clime. But because the said Meletius had been deposed by the Bishop of Alexandria, he attempted to violate this custom and to dare to ordain other bishops in the diocese of Alexandria, this present Nicene Council renewed the ancient custom by the terms of the present Canon and again ratified the rule giving the Bishop of Alexandria authority over all the bishops in Egypt, etc. And this was the meaning attached to the present Canon by the Bishops from Egypt at the Council held in Chalcedon, in Act 4 (according to Dositheus, in the Dodecabiblus). This authority is also conferred in c. XXX of the 4th.

[7] For the name Patriarch first began being used in the time of Theodosius the Little. For seeing that the Patriarchs had formerly been called specially Bishops of the Apostolic thrones, this Theodosius first called the Biship of Rome a Patriarch, and also applied the term to St. Chrysostom, according to what is stated by Socrates in Book VII, ch. 31. This appellation was also mentioned in the Council held in Chalcedon; and it was indeed by Justinian that patriarchs were actually and officially called Patriarchs. This noun signifies two different things: either the bishops who were made superintendents and exarchs in some provinces and dioceses by a common synod, as this was done also by the Second Ecum. Council, according to Socrates (Book V, ch. Cool. One of such bishops was St. Gregory of Nyssa, being subject to the Bishop of Caesarea. These prelates were called Patriarchs not by reason of any superiority of their throne, but as a result of a conciliar decision in order that they might have greater authority to exercise for the purpose of implanting and uprooting, because of their being equal to the other Patriarchs. That is why, in writing to Flavian of Antioch, against the Bishop of Caesarea who had treated him scornfully, the Bishop of Nyssa said: “If the dignity be judged sacerdotally, the privilege of both of us has been made equal and one by the Council, but rather it may be said that the care taken in correcting common matters depends upon having the benefit of equality. Or it properly signifies the bishops who have the first honor in the Church by reason of the superiority of their own thrones and the chief office, not being a personal one like that of those, but belonging to their thrones by succession, which were five in number, namely, that of Rome, that of Constantinople, that of Alexandria, that of Antioch, and that of Jerusalem. These bishops were called on the principle of acrostic, Caraj (or in Greek, Karai). For the letter C stands for Constantinople, the first letter a for Alexandria, the letter r for Rome, the second letter a for Antioch, and the letter j for Jerusalem. But because of the fact that the one first mentioned (i.e., the so-called Pope of Rome) bolted the reins, the Patriarch of Constantinople was left as the first among the remaining four. Later a fifth Patriarch was added, namely, the Patriarch of Greater Moscow (i.e., of Russia). But he too is no longer. Although it is a fact that Peter of Antioch in writing to the Bishop of Aquileia said that he alone was specially designated as Patriarch, to which Balsamon assented, yet we do not pay regard to what bishops say about themselves, but to what the catholic Church says about them. Dionysius, too, and Timothy Ailourus called the Bishop of Ephesus a Patriarch, but the Fourth Ecumenical Council disregarded this. Theodore the historian also called the Bishop of Thessalonica a Patriarch, but he addressed him thus either in accordance with the style of address accorded to exarchs, as did the Second Council, as we have said, or, as others say, on account of the many episcopates which he had, totalling some forty in all. (Dositheus in the Dodecabiblus.)

[8] Those belonging to the Roman Church do not interpret this Canon correctly. Hence Pope Felix in a dispute with the Patriarch of Constantinople Acacius, after corrupting it, asserted that the Bishop of Rome possessed sovereign authority in every council, as the Canon (meaning the present one) of the Council in Nicaea intended. Even before him Paschasinus, the legate of Pope Leo, cited the same Canon pervertedly in the Fourth Council. Nevertheless, we can ascertain the true meaning of this Council by considering the words themselves of the Canon. We assert, then, because Meletius trespassed upon the rights of the Bishop of Alexandria, as we have said, he gave occasion to this Council to formulate the present Canon and to ordain nothing new, but merely to confirm the practices which had been preserved from an ancient custom, not only in connection with Patriarchs, but also in connection with Metropolitans, and not only in connection with ordinations, which Meletius had abused, but also in the matter of every other right that belongs to Patriarchs and Metropolitans with respect to the churches subject to their jurisdiction. These facts being presupposed, the Canon says: Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, so that the Bishop in Alexandria will enjoy the privilege of exercising authority over all these territories, since this sort of privilege is allowed also to the Bishop in Rome. At this point note that the pronoun “touto” in the Greek text of the Canon, translated hereinabove “this,” refers to nothing else than the custom, for the sake of brevity of speech. “Since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the Bishop of Rome,” it says. What treatment is that? That of allowing him to have authority over all persons and territories subject to his jurisdiction. For just as the Bishop of Rome possesses this customary privilege like the Bishop of Alexandria, in like manner he possesses the same authority as does the latter. That this is the meaning of the Canon is attested also by the Arabic translation of the same Canons, available in the Alexandrian edition. Joseph the Egyptian also attests the same fact, who is an ancient annotator of the Canons of this Council. The same fact is also attested by Dionysius Exiguus in the Latin translation which he made. The fact is further attested and confirmed by the edition of Isidorus of Mercantor; and lastly it is also confirmed by the translation made by Tyrannius Rufinus the presbyter of Aquileia. So, inasmuch as this is the truth of the matter, and the diocese of Rome is limited like that of Alexandria, it is in vain that the Romans imagine that this Canon entitles them to unlimited authority over the whole world. Note further that owing to the fact that the seniority of Rome had remained intact, the present Canon did not renew it. If it had not been the same as it said concerning the Bishop of Alexandria, it would have explained the matter as concerning Rome too. (Dositheus, in the Dodecabiblus.)

[9] Note that the seniority and privileges of the Bishops of Rome, of Alexandria, and of Antioch spoken of by the Canon here are not those of a metropolitan, as certain writers have asserted, but those of a patriarch; for both Balsamon and the Anonymous annotator of the Canons assert that the Canons are speaking of patriarchs. Moreover, John of Antioch, in the Collection of the Canons, and John Scholasticus, in the Nomocanon, in reference to the present Canon, as well as (the same Council’s) c. VII, and c. II of the 2nd, and c. VIII of the 3rd, use the heading: “Concerning the honor accorded to Patriarchs by the Canons,” and the paraphrasis which Joseph the Egyptian made of the present Canon says the same thing. And the edition of Melchitae of the Arabic text calls the bishops of Alexandria and of Rome patriarchs here (Dositheus, ibid.). Only the Patriarchs were privileged to wear sacks, chasubles adorned with multiple crucifixes, and tunics bearing letters of the alphabet and triangles, and not any other persons, according to Balsamon (p. 449 of the Juris). (According to Zonaras, however, chasubles adorned with multiple crucifixes alone were allowed also to the bishops of Caesarea, of Cappadocia, of Ephesus, of Thessalonica, and of Corinth; and see the footnote to c. IX of the 4th). They held divine services (i.e., celebrated liturgy) but thrice a year with the sacks, to wit, on Easter Sunday, on the day of Pentecost, and on Christmas, according to Demetrius Chomatianus (p. 318 of the Juris). The word patriarch is defined by Leo and Constantine the emperors thus: “A patriarch is a living image of Christ and animate, therein characterizing the truth by deeds and words. Finally, upon the patriarch depends the salvation of the souls entrusted to him, and it is for him to live according to Christ and to be crucified to the world. It is the nature of the patriarch to be didactic, and to level himself to equality without embarrassment with all other men high as well as low” (Title III of the selection of laws, p. 8, of the second book of the Juris).

http://jbburnett.com/resources/canons/1can/1can06.html
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 #139 on: November 10, 2010, 10:16:45 PM »

I apologize in advance for my ignorence, and for offending any non-Calcedonian Orthodox here, but I have a question regarding the ancient view that the throne of Peter was in three locations (and I don't know how to ask it any other way.)

Did Gregory I state that theory before or after Calcedon, and (from an Orthodox point of view) didn't Antioch and Alexandria fall into heresy or schisim after Calcedon?

If one accepts the three location theory, wouldn't that leave Peter's throne only in Rome?
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #140 on: November 10, 2010, 10:38:28 PM »

I apologize in advance for my ignorence, and for offending any non-Calcedonian Orthodox here, but I have a question regarding the ancient view that the throne of Peter was in three locations (and I don't know how to ask it any other way.)

Did Gregory I state that theory before or after Calcedon, and (from an Orthodox point of view) didn't Antioch and Alexandria fall into heresy or schisim after Calcedon?

If one accepts the three location theory, wouldn't that leave Peter's throne only in Rome?

No, because Orthodox patriarchs were elevated and remain in Antioch and Alexandria.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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: 37,124



« Reply #141 on: November 10, 2010, 10:57:31 PM »

I apologize in advance for my ignorence, and for offending any non-Calcedonian Orthodox here, but I have a question regarding the ancient view that the throne of Peter was in three locations (and I don't know how to ask it any other way.)

Did Gregory I state that theory before or after Calcedon, and (from an Orthodox point of view) didn't Antioch and Alexandria fall into heresy or schisim after Calcedon?
No. Even if you think the non-Chalcedonians are heretics (I do not), the Chalcedonian line of popes in Alexandria and the line of patriarchs in Antioch continued to this day.

In the day of Archbishop Gregory I (I don't think Rome had appropriated the title "pope" by then), Pope (that title had been bestowed on Alexandria over 3 centuries before) St. Eulogios I of Alexandria, and Patriarchs Anastasius I, Gregory and St. Anastasius II, all adherents of Chalcedon, were in the diptychs.

Quote
Saint Eulogius of Alexandria was Greek Patriarch of that see (Eulogius I) from 580 to 608. He is regarded as a saint, with a feast day of September 13.

He was a successful combatant of the heretical errors then current in Egypt, notably the various phases of Monophysitism. He was a warm friend of Pope St. Gregory the Great, who corresponded with him, and received from that pope many flattering expressions of esteem and admiration. Among other merits the pope makes special mention of his defence of the primacy of the Roman See[1].

St. Eulogius refuted the Novatians, some communities of which ancient sect still existed in his diocese, and vindicated the hypostatic union of the two natures in Christ, against both Nestorius and Eutyches. Cardinal Baronius[2] says that Gregory wished Eulogius to survive him, recognizing in him the voice of truth.

It has been rightly said that he restored for a brief period to the Church of Alexandria that life and youthful vigour characteristic of those churches only which remain closely united to Rome.
Roll Eyes
Quote
Besides the above works and a commentary against various sects of Monophysites (Severians, Theodosians, Cainites and Acephali) he left eleven discourses in defence of Pope Leo I and the Council of Chalcedon, also a work against the Agnoetae, submitted by him before publication to Pope Gregory I, who after some observations authorized it unchanged. With exception of one sermon and a few fragments, all the writings of St. Eulogius have perished.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriarch_Eulogius_I_of_Alexandria
It is the letter of St. Gregory to Pope St. Eulogius which is the most famous expression of the three Petrine Sees.

Quote
Anastasius I the Sinaite was the Greek Patriarch of Antioch twice (561–571 and 593–599).

He was a friend of Pope Gregory I, and aroused the enmity of the Emperor Justinian by opposing certain imperial doctrines about the Body of Christ (Justinian favoured the Aphthartodocetae). He was to be deposed from his See and exiled when Justinian died; but Justin II carried out his uncle's purpose five years later in 570, and another bishop, Gregory of Antioch, was put in his place. But when Gregory died in 593, Anastasius was restored to his See. This was chiefly due to Pope Gregory the Great, who interceded with the Emperor Maurice and his son Theodosius, asking that Anastasius be sent to Rome, if not reinstated at Antioch. He was killed by a Jewish mob in 599. His feast day is 21 April.

From some letters sent to him by Gregory, it is thought that he was not sufficiently vigorous in denouncing the claims of the Patriarch of Constantinople to be a universal bishop. Anastasius died in 598, and another bishop of the same name is said to have succeeded him in 599, to whom the translation Gregory's Regula Pastoralis is attributed, and who is recorded as having been put to death in an insurrection of the Jews. Nicephorus (Hist. Eccl., XVIII, xliv) declares that these two are one and the same person. The same difficulty occurs with regard to certain Sermones de orthodoxâ fide, some ascribing them to the latter Anastasius; others claiming that there was but one bishop of that name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasius_I_of_Antioch

Quote
Gregory of Antioch was the Greek Patriarch of Antioch from 571 to 593.

Gregory of Antioch began as a monk in the monastery of the Byzantines in Jerusalem, or so we learn from Evagrius Scholasticus. He was transferred by the emperor Justin II (565-578 ) to Sinai. He was abbot there when the monastery was attacked by Arabs. John Moschus mentions he was also abbot of Pharan in Palestine. In 569-70 he became Patriarch of Antioch after Justin II deposed the Patriarch Anastasius I of Antioch.

Gregory was an influential figure, who quarrelled with the Count of the East and was subjected to official harassment and "enquiries" in consequence, including a appearance in court in Constantinople some time before 588. The charges were trumped up, it seems, and he was acquitted. When Roman troops fighting the Persians mutinied in the time of the emperor Maurice, Gregory was asked to mediate.

When Chosroes II of Persia was obliged to flee to the Romans for safety early in his reign, Gregory of Antioch and Domitian, metropolitan of Melitene, were sent to meet him. His services were evidently acceptable; when Chosroes regained his kingdom, he sent Gregory the cross which had been earlier carried off from Sergiopolis by Chosroes I. After this, Gregory made a tour of the border lands to convert Monophysites to the Chalcedonian definitions. He died in 593-4 from taking a drug, intended to relieve gout. His predecessor Anastasius I of Antioch then become Patriarch once more.

Five homilies have reached us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Antioch

Quote
Anastasius II of Antioch, also known as Anastasius the Younger, succeeded Anastasius of Antioch as Bishop of Antioch, in 599. He is known for his opposition and suppression of simony in his diocese, with the support of Pope Gregory the Great. In 609 Anastasius was murdered during an uprising of Syrian Jews against Emperor Phocas.

Anastasius is one of the 140 Colonnade saints which adorn St. Peter's Square.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anastasius_II_of_Antioch


Quote
If one accepts the three location theory, wouldn't that leave Peter's throne only in Rome?
LOL. And what would it mean if all three, Rome falling to heresy 1015 at the latest, fell. Nothing. The Church would still stand.
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 #142 on: November 11, 2010, 08:35:59 AM »

I apologize in advance for my ignorence, and for offending any non-Calcedonian Orthodox here, but I have a question regarding the ancient view that the throne of Peter was in three locations (and I don't know how to ask it any other way.)

Did Gregory I state that theory before or after Calcedon, and (from an Orthodox point of view) didn't Antioch and Alexandria fall into heresy or schisim after Calcedon?

If one accepts the three location theory, wouldn't that leave Peter's throne only in Rome?

No, because Orthodox patriarchs were elevated and remain in Antioch and Alexandria.
Thank you.

My next question would be whether an argument could be made (from a Roman Catholic point of view) that those statements made by Gregory I (in letters to his fellow bishops) were made "ex cathedra"?

(I mean given their own doctrinal standards of what constitutes an ex cathedra pronouncement.)
Logged
Iconodule
Uranopolitan
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA (Diocese of Eastern Pennsylvania)
Posts: 6,861


"My god is greater."


« Reply #143 on: November 11, 2010, 08:44:22 AM »

My next question would be whether an argument could be made (from a Roman Catholic point of view) that those statements made by Gregory I (in letters to his fellow bishops) were made "ex cathedra"?

What exactly makes an "ex cathedra" statement is an infamously (and for Roman Catholics, conveniently) slippery question.
Logged

"A riddle or the cricket's cry
Is to doubt a fit reply." - William Blake

Quote from: Byron
Just ignore iconotools delusions. He is the biggest multiculturalist globalist there is due to his unfortunate background.
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 0.087 seconds with 36 queries.