OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 02:06:58 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  All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Eastern Catholic Ecclesiology  (Read 4711 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
FormerReformer
Convertodox of the convertodox
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #45 on: November 04, 2010, 01:25:13 PM »

Rome holds primacy both because St. Peter was there longer and because SS. Peter and Paul were martyred there so it is a very holy place.

Longer than what?  We know St Peter went to Antioch fairly soon (within a few years) after Pentecost, we know he was still in Antioch at the time of the council in Jerusalem around AD 50 and we know he was martyred around AD 60.  That leaves him maybe a decade in Rome, assuming he left for Rome right after the council (which we can be fairly certain he didn't, all evidence points to St Paul being in Rome for a few years before St Peter).  St Peter would have been a tourist in Rome compared to Antioch.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 01:29:20 PM by FormerReformer » Logged

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

Oh, no: I've succumbed to Hyperdoxy!
Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #46 on: November 04, 2010, 01:57:03 PM »

Rome holds primacy both because St. Peter was there longer and because SS. Peter and Paul were martyred there so it is a very holy place.

Longer than what?  We know St Peter went to Antioch fairly soon (within a few years) after Pentecost, we know he was still in Antioch at the time of the council in Jerusalem around AD 50 and we know he was martyred around AD 60.  That leaves him maybe a decade in Rome, assuming he left for Rome right after the council (which we can be fairly certain he didn't, all evidence points to St Paul being in Rome for a few years before St Peter).  St Peter would have been a tourist in Rome compared to Antioch.
Here is an interesting article about what RCs believe about St. Peter and the Papacy: http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp

I admittedly only skimmed it for now and did not see any mention of how long St. Peter was in Rome before being martyred, but perhaps if there are any other RCs on here who are more well-versed in the subject than I am they could offer more information. It seems from that article, however, that the unique role of the Bishop of Rome due to SS. Peter and Paul being there and being martyred there was understand as fact from pretty early on. This is especially evident from the words of St. Ignatius of Antioch which is seen in the article where he mentions that he could not command the Christians in Rome as Peter and Paul once did.
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 #47 on: November 04, 2010, 02:20:59 PM »


To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?
I have a question, who in 19th century Russia chose the bishops, a synod or the Tsar?

Both. The Holy Governing Synod presented three candidates for a bishoprick, and the Tsar would approve one.

Btw, among others the Austrian Emperor/Hungarian "apostolic king" exercised the same control over episcopal appointments even for the Vatican's bishoprick's, e.g.
Quote
The third Bishop of Linz, Sigismund von Hohenwart (1809-25), had been a cathedral canon of Gurk and Vicar-General of Klagenfurt. He was appointed by the emperor on 10 January, 1809, but the appointment did not receive papal approbation until December, 1814, on account of the imprisonment of the pope...Although the Church throughout Austria at this date was still dependent to a very great degree on the government in ecclesiastical matters, the bishop knew how to revive and strengthen the ecclesiastical spirit in his clergy and people.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09273a.htm

Amongst other parrallels which can be multiplied in Austria-Hungary and elsehwere:
Quote
....On the 21st of December, 1867, the new fundamental laws received the imperial approval. The first granted full freedom of faith and conscience and freedom in scientific opinion. The second declared: "All jurisdiction in the state is exercised in the name of the emperor". Thereby the Church's exclusive jurisdiction over marriage was impugned. The third law obliged all officials to take an oath to support the constitution. Two professors of dogmatics did not take the oath; these were Schrader, the Jesuit, and Hyacinth Pellgrinetti, the Dominican successor of Guidi. They were obliged to resign their professorships, and their places have not yet [40 years later] been filled....After a long struggle the emperor signed, 25 May, 1808, the laws concerning marriage, schools, and the status of the several denominations. The first of these laws declares marriage to be a civil contract, makes the civil marriage obligatory, and takes from the Church the judicial power pro foro externo in matrimonial suits. The law concerning schools takes from the bishop any control of the management as well as the right of supervision. These powers are given to an official school committee of the district and town, of which committee ecclesiastics can be chosen members...The third law grants everyone the right to choose his own religion on attaining the age of fourteen years, but a child between seven and fourteen years of age cannot change his or her religion even at the wish of the parents. As these laws infringed the Concordat in essentials, a secret consistory was held at Rome, 22 June, at which the pope declared: "Leges auctoritate Nostrâ apostolicâ reprobamus, damnamus et decreta ipsa irrita proursus nulliusque roboris fuisse ac fore declaramus." ("By the Apostolic authority we reprobate and condemn these laws and declare that their purport was, and shall be, wholly invalid and of no force.") The bishops upon this issued pastorals. The joint letter of 3 June issued by the Bohemian bishops to the clergy and their joint pastoral of 24 June were condemned by the imperial civil courts of all three instances, on the ground that they were a disturbance of the public peace, and suppressed. Penal proceedings were not brought against Cardinal Schwarzenberg, but Bishop Francis Joseph Rudigier, of Linz, was prosecuted for his pastoral of 7 September. "On account of the misdemeanour committed in the pastoral letter"—of calling the law of 24 May a lie—he was brought before the Supreme Court, found guilty by the jury, and condemned to fourteen days' imprisonment with costs. The pastoral was ordered to be destroyed...The definition of the pope's infallibility afforded von Stremayr, the Austrian Minister of Instruction, a pretext to demand the abrogation of the Concordat, on the plea that the pope, one of the contracting parties, had received from the definition a new character, which invalidated the original agreement. Beust, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed to Palomba a note which declared: "The Concordat exists no longer; it is annulled." The abrogation of the Concordat produced a gap in religious legislation. To remedy this four bills were introduced January, 1874, for regulating the legal status of the Catholic Church, the taxing of the fund for the support of religion, the legal status of monasteries, and the recognition of new religious societies. The pope expressed, on the 7th of March, his grief at the attack on the rights of the Church, implied in the assertion that the supreme power in all matters concerning the external life belonged to the State...The bishops again and again begged for a relaxation of the provisions of the law. But they had, for the time being, no redress except to appeal in individual cases to the indulgence of the emperor. When the bills reached the upper house the bishops defended themselves bravely. Rauscher closed his address of 10 April with these words: "So-called progress no longer considers it necessary to conceal its real aim, and has unmasked its hate against God and eternal truth. But Providence has set a natural limit to all things. The destruction of Christianity is impossible, but Austria may be destroyed if the war against religion is not checked in good time." Yet, for all this, the first two bills became law, 7 May, 1874. Among other things, the law concerning the legal status of the Church declares that: In order to obtain any ecclesiastical appointment or living, a candidate's record of past conduct must be blameless when judged by the standard of the civil law (§1); if the Government finds that an ecclesiastical regulation respecting a public church service is not consistent with the public interest, the Government shall then forbid it (§17); the total number of Catholics living in the district of a parish form the parish community (§35); in order to cover the expenses of a parish a tax is to be laid on its members (§36); the ministry of public worship and instruction is authorized to oversee the management of the funds of the churches and church instituitions (§38); the ministry of public workship and instruction is to take care that the ecclesiastical journals do not go beyond the sphere of their proper activity (§60)...The law (signed 20 May) in regard to the legal recognition of religious societies "accepts in full" the principle of religious equality...A law of 1868 enacted that in the case of mixed marriages the boys should be brought up in the faith of the father, the girls in that of the mother, even if this were contrary to the desire of the parents. But, when parents so requested, Catholic priests baptized those children who according to the law should be brought up non-Catholic. This practice was called Wegtaufen. Even when, in 1879, the criminal code made the conferring of baptism under such circumstances punishable, the priests were not dismayed—"Go, baptize". Besides this, they were regularly acquitted by the court of last resort in the suits which were brought against them by the Protestant pastors. In 1890 "dununciation" of such baptisms was forbidden by Rome, and the excitement gradually subsided....This decree provided that any priest who performed a baptism according to Art. LIII of 1868 must send a certificate of baptism to the legally responsible clergyman within eight days. Neglect to obey this law was to be considered a misdemeanour, and punished accordingly. This decree, called the Wegtaufung Decree (baptism away from the other side) marked the beginning of a new ecclesiastico-political conflict. According to this edict a Catholic priest when he baptized a child belonging to another faith must send the certificate of baptism to the minister of the other denomination; such an enactment was regarded by the Catholic clergy as contrary to conscience and the canonical ordinances. The bishops did not order that the law be carried out, although they declared that for a time it could be tolerated; the greater part of the parish priests, however, refused to obey it. A Catholic agitation for the modification in the interest of the Church of Art. LIII of 1868, and for the repeal of the decree issued by Csáky, did not succeed, while the supporters of the Government soon made use of the movement to further the introduction of obligatory civil marriage, civil registration, and the free exercise of religion. These latter proposals became law during the premiership of Alexander Wekerle. In 1893 the ecclesiastical bills were laid before the Diet, and after long debates, being once rejected by the House of Magnates, they became law in 1894 and took effect 1 October, 1895. Articles XXXI and XXXIII of 1894 contain enactments regarding marriage and registration. Civil marriage is made compulsory, and government recognition is only given to civil registration. Article XXXII of 1894 enacts that the parents can enter into an agreement before the registrar as to the religion of the children. Registrars are appointed by the minister of the interior and are responsible to him; a parish priest cannot be appointed to this office....Article 26 of the Diet of 1790 guaranteed to the Protestants of Hungary the entire control of the affairs of their religion. The Government has hardly any power in regard to either their churches, their schools, or religious foundations. Since 1848 the Catholics have been endeavouring to obtain autonomy. The Catholic congress of 1870 prepared a bill to this end...In 1906 the turning-point in the history of the autonomy question was probably reached in the address from the throne. The Minister of Public worship and Instruction, Count Albert Apponyi, has already requested the primate to state the position of the bishops in regard to autonomy, so that the bill may be properly prepared...The appointment of bishops, canons, abbots, etc. belongs to the king and follows upon the presentation of the names, with ministerial approval, by the minister of education and public worship. The bishops enter upon their office, take their seats in the House of Magnates, and receive their revenues without awaiting the papal confirmation. A royal edict of 1870 revived the old royal jus placeti and ordained that only after receiving royal approval could decisions, constitutions, and decrees of councils and popes be promulgated...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02121b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07547a.htm

Not so different from what you are insinuating for Russia (not to say that you are correct on your charecterization of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Holy Governing Synod).

Quote
What is so good in an autocratic Tsar or Party Secretary and bad in the Bishop of Rome?

His Most Orthodox Imperial Majesty, "by the Grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, Grand Duke of Finland and King/Tsar of Poland, and so forth..." confessed the Orthodox Faith. The bishop in the Vatican falls under the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils. Bishop Siluan doesn't have the primacy, but otherwise is fine.  As for party secretarys:


Quote
The Ultramontanist epitet: The older generation of socialists used the word ultramontanist to describe conservatives here. In American terms the word ultramontanist is equivalent to "right wing nut job". Please rephrase from using political phrases outside of the Politics forum.
Please read up:Ultramontanism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

The minutiae of Polish political culture isn't determinative here.
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 #48 on: November 04, 2010, 02:32:58 PM »

Please read up:Ultramontanism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm
That isn't the common usage of the word ultramontanism even if it may be a meaning of the word. It is most often used to describe the RC position as heretical. There is a schismatic on the Catholic forum I am a member of who is one of those who believes the "post-conciliar" Church is an entirely new religion altogether (i.e. Vatican II corrupted the True Church) and he refers to all of us who accept Vatican II and are in Full Communion with Rome as ultramontanists. He, like you, is clearly using that terminology because the word itself implies heresy.
Logged
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #49 on: November 04, 2010, 02:36:22 PM »

There never seems to be a point with this endless cutting and pasting.


To the Orthodox, the part about '...for the most part...' is the fly in the ointment in terms of 'self-governing' and the role of Papal primacy.  For example, the Ruthenian Metropolitan  Eparchy of Pittsburgh has been without a Metropolitan since the death of +Metropolitan Basil earlier this year. I have not heard of any plans for a meeting of the synod ( if there is one ) of the Ruthenian Bishops in America, an eparchy 'sobor' of the clergy and laity or any semi-transparent process regarding the selection and enthronement of a presiding hierarch. I am not being sarcastic since we all know that is not the way Bishops are chosen in the Church of Rome.  But, did not the treaties of union (Brest and Uzhorod) grant the right of episcopal selection to the local Church in the same manner as had been historically exercised within their Orthodox history?
I have a question, who in 19th century Russia chose the bishops, a synod or the Tsar?

Both. The Holy Governing Synod presented three candidates for a bishoprick, and the Tsar would approve one.

Btw, among others the Austrian Emperor/Hungarian "apostolic king" exercised the same control over episcopal appointments even for the Vatican's bishoprick's, e.g.
Quote
The third Bishop of Linz, Sigismund von Hohenwart (1809-25), had been a cathedral canon of Gurk and Vicar-General of Klagenfurt. He was appointed by the emperor on 10 January, 1809, but the appointment did not receive papal approbation until December, 1814, on account of the imprisonment of the pope...Although the Church throughout Austria at this date was still dependent to a very great degree on the government in ecclesiastical matters, the bishop knew how to revive and strengthen the ecclesiastical spirit in his clergy and people.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09273a.htm

Amongst other parrallels which can be multiplied in Austria-Hungary and elsehwere:
Quote
....On the 21st of December, 1867, the new fundamental laws received the imperial approval. The first granted full freedom of faith and conscience and freedom in scientific opinion. The second declared: "All jurisdiction in the state is exercised in the name of the emperor". Thereby the Church's exclusive jurisdiction over marriage was impugned. The third law obliged all officials to take an oath to support the constitution. Two professors of dogmatics did not take the oath; these were Schrader, the Jesuit, and Hyacinth Pellgrinetti, the Dominican successor of Guidi. They were obliged to resign their professorships, and their places have not yet [40 years later] been filled....After a long struggle the emperor signed, 25 May, 1808, the laws concerning marriage, schools, and the status of the several denominations. The first of these laws declares marriage to be a civil contract, makes the civil marriage obligatory, and takes from the Church the judicial power pro foro externo in matrimonial suits. The law concerning schools takes from the bishop any control of the management as well as the right of supervision. These powers are given to an official school committee of the district and town, of which committee ecclesiastics can be chosen members...The third law grants everyone the right to choose his own religion on attaining the age of fourteen years, but a child between seven and fourteen years of age cannot change his or her religion even at the wish of the parents. As these laws infringed the Concordat in essentials, a secret consistory was held at Rome, 22 June, at which the pope declared: "Leges auctoritate Nostrâ apostolicâ reprobamus, damnamus et decreta ipsa irrita proursus nulliusque roboris fuisse ac fore declaramus." ("By the Apostolic authority we reprobate and condemn these laws and declare that their purport was, and shall be, wholly invalid and of no force.") The bishops upon this issued pastorals. The joint letter of 3 June issued by the Bohemian bishops to the clergy and their joint pastoral of 24 June were condemned by the imperial civil courts of all three instances, on the ground that they were a disturbance of the public peace, and suppressed. Penal proceedings were not brought against Cardinal Schwarzenberg, but Bishop Francis Joseph Rudigier, of Linz, was prosecuted for his pastoral of 7 September. "On account of the misdemeanour committed in the pastoral letter"—of calling the law of 24 May a lie—he was brought before the Supreme Court, found guilty by the jury, and condemned to fourteen days' imprisonment with costs. The pastoral was ordered to be destroyed...The definition of the pope's infallibility afforded von Stremayr, the Austrian Minister of Instruction, a pretext to demand the abrogation of the Concordat, on the plea that the pope, one of the contracting parties, had received from the definition a new character, which invalidated the original agreement. Beust, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, addressed to Palomba a note which declared: "The Concordat exists no longer; it is annulled." The abrogation of the Concordat produced a gap in religious legislation. To remedy this four bills were introduced January, 1874, for regulating the legal status of the Catholic Church, the taxing of the fund for the support of religion, the legal status of monasteries, and the recognition of new religious societies. The pope expressed, on the 7th of March, his grief at the attack on the rights of the Church, implied in the assertion that the supreme power in all matters concerning the external life belonged to the State...The bishops again and again begged for a relaxation of the provisions of the law. But they had, for the time being, no redress except to appeal in individual cases to the indulgence of the emperor. When the bills reached the upper house the bishops defended themselves bravely. Rauscher closed his address of 10 April with these words: "So-called progress no longer considers it necessary to conceal its real aim, and has unmasked its hate against God and eternal truth. But Providence has set a natural limit to all things. The destruction of Christianity is impossible, but Austria may be destroyed if the war against religion is not checked in good time." Yet, for all this, the first two bills became law, 7 May, 1874. Among other things, the law concerning the legal status of the Church declares that: In order to obtain any ecclesiastical appointment or living, a candidate's record of past conduct must be blameless when judged by the standard of the civil law (§1); if the Government finds that an ecclesiastical regulation respecting a public church service is not consistent with the public interest, the Government shall then forbid it (§17); the total number of Catholics living in the district of a parish form the parish community (§35); in order to cover the expenses of a parish a tax is to be laid on its members (§36); the ministry of public worship and instruction is authorized to oversee the management of the funds of the churches and church instituitions (§38); the ministry of public workship and instruction is to take care that the ecclesiastical journals do not go beyond the sphere of their proper activity (§60)...The law (signed 20 May) in regard to the legal recognition of religious societies "accepts in full" the principle of religious equality...A law of 1868 enacted that in the case of mixed marriages the boys should be brought up in the faith of the father, the girls in that of the mother, even if this were contrary to the desire of the parents. But, when parents so requested, Catholic priests baptized those children who according to the law should be brought up non-Catholic. This practice was called Wegtaufen. Even when, in 1879, the criminal code made the conferring of baptism under such circumstances punishable, the priests were not dismayed—"Go, baptize". Besides this, they were regularly acquitted by the court of last resort in the suits which were brought against them by the Protestant pastors. In 1890 "dununciation" of such baptisms was forbidden by Rome, and the excitement gradually subsided....This decree provided that any priest who performed a baptism according to Art. LIII of 1868 must send a certificate of baptism to the legally responsible clergyman within eight days. Neglect to obey this law was to be considered a misdemeanour, and punished accordingly. This decree, called the Wegtaufung Decree (baptism away from the other side) marked the beginning of a new ecclesiastico-political conflict. According to this edict a Catholic priest when he baptized a child belonging to another faith must send the certificate of baptism to the minister of the other denomination; such an enactment was regarded by the Catholic clergy as contrary to conscience and the canonical ordinances. The bishops did not order that the law be carried out, although they declared that for a time it could be tolerated; the greater part of the parish priests, however, refused to obey it. A Catholic agitation for the modification in the interest of the Church of Art. LIII of 1868, and for the repeal of the decree issued by Csáky, did not succeed, while the supporters of the Government soon made use of the movement to further the introduction of obligatory civil marriage, civil registration, and the free exercise of religion. These latter proposals became law during the premiership of Alexander Wekerle. In 1893 the ecclesiastical bills were laid before the Diet, and after long debates, being once rejected by the House of Magnates, they became law in 1894 and took effect 1 October, 1895. Articles XXXI and XXXIII of 1894 contain enactments regarding marriage and registration. Civil marriage is made compulsory, and government recognition is only given to civil registration. Article XXXII of 1894 enacts that the parents can enter into an agreement before the registrar as to the religion of the children. Registrars are appointed by the minister of the interior and are responsible to him; a parish priest cannot be appointed to this office....Article 26 of the Diet of 1790 guaranteed to the Protestants of Hungary the entire control of the affairs of their religion. The Government has hardly any power in regard to either their churches, their schools, or religious foundations. Since 1848 the Catholics have been endeavouring to obtain autonomy. The Catholic congress of 1870 prepared a bill to this end...In 1906 the turning-point in the history of the autonomy question was probably reached in the address from the throne. The Minister of Public worship and Instruction, Count Albert Apponyi, has already requested the primate to state the position of the bishops in regard to autonomy, so that the bill may be properly prepared...The appointment of bishops, canons, abbots, etc. belongs to the king and follows upon the presentation of the names, with ministerial approval, by the minister of education and public worship. The bishops enter upon their office, take their seats in the House of Magnates, and receive their revenues without awaiting the papal confirmation. A royal edict of 1870 revived the old royal jus placeti and ordained that only after receiving royal approval could decisions, constitutions, and decrees of councils and popes be promulgated...
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02121b.htm
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07547a.htm

Not so different from what you are insinuating for Russia (not to say that you are correct on your charecterization of the Russian Orthodox Church under the Holy Governing Synod).

Quote
What is so good in an autocratic Tsar or Party Secretary and bad in the Bishop of Rome?

His Most Orthodox Imperial Majesty, "by the Grace of God, Emperor and Autocrat of All the Russias, Grand Duke of Finland and King/Tsar of Poland, and so forth..." confessed the Orthodox Faith. The bishop in the Vatican falls under the anathemas of the Ecumenical Councils. Bishop Siluan doesn't have the primacy, but otherwise is fine.  As for party secretarys:


Quote
The Ultramontanist epitet: The older generation of socialists used the word ultramontanist to describe conservatives here. In American terms the word ultramontanist is equivalent to "right wing nut job". Please rephrase from using political phrases outside of the Politics forum.
Please read up:Ultramontanism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm

The minutiae of Polish political culture isn't determinative here.
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 #50 on: November 04, 2010, 02:41:42 PM »

I was taught that St. Peter wasn't the Bishop of Rome at all.
As an Apostle, he wasn't bishop anywhere.
Yeah he was. Antioch and Rome.
No. Bishops succeed Apostles. That's why they call it Apostolic succession.

The closest St. Peter comes is when, introduding himself as "an [note, btw: "a," not "the"] Apostle of Jesus Christ," identifies himself as a "fellow presbyter" when he invokes himself as a witness of Christ and a partaker of His glory, to exhort his fellow presbyters, whom he identifies as the bishops (5:1-2).  The Apostle John, the disciple whom Christ loved, doesn't give his autority to his second and third epistles as neither the Disciple nor Apostle, but as "the presbyter" i.e. bishop, signifying the final transition of the Apostolate fully and completely into the episcopate. Only the Desposynoi, the Lord's Brethren, were ordained bishops but were accounted Apostles.

Btw, there are several families, the Sema'ans, who claim descent from St. Peter in Antioch, spread through out the Levant, Egypt and Iraq, and now throughout the world.
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 #51 on: November 04, 2010, 02:43:59 PM »

There never seems to be a point with this endless cutting and pasting.

That you do not want to get it doesn't obviate it.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #52 on: November 04, 2010, 02:49:29 PM »

There never seems to be a point with this endless cutting and pasting.

That you do not want to get it doesn't obviate it.

Can't receive that which is not delivered. 

What you do with all that cutting and pasting is generally too vague and full of insinuendo to be of much use at all. 

Logged

mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,539


« Reply #53 on: November 04, 2010, 03:49:59 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #54 on: November 04, 2010, 03:53:27 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #55 on: November 04, 2010, 03:55:48 PM »

"Put not your trust in Princes....." You can't make the argument about the error of Tsarist influence in the naming of Russian Bishops without acknowledging that the Pope was often equally subject to the whims of Kings and Princes in the selection of Roman bishops. Do the Medicis ring a bell, as one such example, or the Avignon papacy?
That is so easy to say today..
Actually the Pope many, many times during the Middle Ages went against the will of the Kings and Princes.
The Roman Catholic Church chose the way of sovereignty while the Orthodox and Protestant Churches of Europe chose servility.
Yes, the "servant of the servants of Christ" chose to act on his title of pontifex maximus (the office of pagan high priest of the state cult since the time of the Kings of Rome) as an emperor among emperors, digging up fragments of a voided council held in Constantinople in 869 and discarding the universal Council held in the same city in 879, in order to score propaganda points against the "Holy Roman Emperors" (the same "Holy Roman Emperors" who ordered the pope at their coronation to insert the filioque, after Pope Leo III forbade the same Franks from inserting it, and had affixed the original Orthodox Creed without it on the doors of St. Peter's and St Paul Outside the Walls, with the inscription "HAEC LEO POSUI AMORE ET CAUTELA ORTHODOXAE FIDEI» (I, Leo, put here for love and protection of Orthodox Faith")
This was one of the results:

and others

and another

which led to this

and then this (until held off by Grand Prince St. Alexander at the Neva, hence Nevsky)

which led to this

which is still with us it seems

http://delong.typepad.com/egregious_moderation/2009/01/an-imperial-palimpsest-on-polands-electoral-map.html

Quote
The Roman Catholic Church choose the so-called French model of Church-State relations, which was based on the separation of church and state.
Oh? When did the Vatican do that? When the French state seperated Vatican control of it? When Mussolini signed the Lateran Treaty?

As for sovereignty
Quote
When Leo XIII died in 1903, it was widely expected that Rampolla would be elected pope. His candidacy gained momentum until the last moment, but the Austrian Emperor Francis Joseph I (one of the three Catholic powers with pretensions to such a capacity) imposed a veto, the "Jus Exclusivæ", right in the middle of the Conclave, through the agency of Cardinal Jan Puzyna de Kosielsko, Prince-Archbishop of Kraków, who was subsequently awarded the highest Austro-Hungarian decoration, the Grand Cross of State. The Austrian Cardinal Anton Josef Gruscha refused to express the veto of his emperor, who turned then to the Polish Cardinal of Krakow. The Polish cardinal was booed by the others with pudeat te pudeat te, shame on you shame on you, when he announced the veto...While formally protesting this intrusion, the Cardinals recognized the existing legal right of the emperor and would not specifically offend such a prominent Catholic power, and support for Rampolla [who had received 29 of 60 votes] dissipated, leading to the election of Giuseppe Sarto as Pope Pius X. Explicitly abolishing any veto rights was one of the new Pope's first official acts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariano_Rampolla
 
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 03:58:39 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
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,539


« Reply #56 on: November 04, 2010, 03:59:30 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.

I deny the fact that Church in Rome was established by St. Peter and that St. Peter was a Bishop of Rome.

I can't imagine anyone who can agree to the first statement. It's illogical.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 04:00:18 PM by Michał Kalina » 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: November 04, 2010, 04:00:38 PM »

There never seems to be a point with this endless cutting and pasting.

That you do not want to get it doesn't obviate it.

Can't receive that which is not delivered. 

What you do with all that cutting and pasting is generally too vague and full of insinuendo to be of much use at all. 
And you post replys too vague and full of insinuendo to be of much use at all why?
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: November 04, 2010, 04:03:53 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.
The papacy as an institution, and office originated in Alexandria, not Rome.  Alexandria was given it long before Nicea I, and Rome did appropriate to itself until centuries after Nicea I.
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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #59 on: November 04, 2010, 04:10:29 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.
The papacy as an institution, and office originated in Alexandria, not Rome.  Alexandria was given it long before Nicea I, and Rome did appropriate to itself until centuries after Nicea I.

Right, it started in Alexandria. St Peter then moved to Antioch, and eventually to Rome.

Before debating on who holds keys, if any. It is often shown that ECF recognized the Apostolic Succession of St. Peter within those three Sees. I believe even you have point out those quotes.

So, not only has Rome an Apostolic Succession, but it is understood to have also had the presence of St Peter to lay his hands on Bishops toward the end of his life.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #60 on: November 04, 2010, 04:11:30 PM »

Isa,

The last post of pretty colors made be giddy and I ran to get my crayons. By the time I got back, I couldn't remember your point.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #61 on: November 04, 2010, 04:35:45 PM »

Isa,

The last post of pretty colors made be giddy and I ran to get my crayons. By the time I got back, I couldn't remember your point.

 laugh  I think you chose the better part!!

M.
Logged

Wyatt
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Posts: 2,395


« Reply #62 on: November 04, 2010, 04:41:32 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?
Do you believe that St. Peter being the FIRST Christian in Rome is a prerequisite for Primacy being passed on in Rome? I don't think anyone here is saying that.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #63 on: November 04, 2010, 04:56:47 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.

I deny the fact that Church in Rome was established by St. Peter and that St. Peter was a Bishop of Rome.

I can't imagine anyone who can agree to the first statement. It's illogical.

Does Peter need to be physically present in Rome to establish the Church? Were there the Apostles the only ones capable of evangelizing the Gospel?

If Peter was always the Pope, Rome is secondary. Rome doesn't make the Pope. So, St Peter only needed to be succeeded there to pass his primacy.


Do you deny that Ss Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome?

It is recorded in multiple places that Linus succeeded St Peter as Bishop in Rome:

Quote
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
 
"[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).


1 Peter 5:
Quote
[11] To him be glory and empire for ever and ever. Amen. [12] By Sylvanus, a faithful brother unto you, as I think, I have written briefly: beseeching and testifying that this is the true grace of God, wherein you stand. [13] The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark. [14] Salute one another with a holy kiss. Grace be to all you, who are in Christ Jesus. Amen.

Do you think St Peter was referring to Babylon? The city long destroyed of glory by war? Rome had been repeatedly referred to as Babylon. It is even repeated several times in Revelations. Why? Because, with Peter in Rome, and actively seen as in opposition of Rome due to persecution, it was necessary for him to make his whereabouts doubtful.

Logged


I'm going to need this.
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #64 on: November 04, 2010, 05:13:21 PM »

I think that this mode of discussion is faulty.  In others thread this might work.

I suggest that one moderator suggests topics, giving the sides some time to work on polemical essays.
The essays should be about 2000-10000 words long, in English, following the 11th commandment "thou shalt not make the quotation mark in vain".
The sides post their essays, then each poster has the right to post a 100-1000 word response to the essays aforementioned, within a week.
Finally, there will be a summary of various view points mentioned and the topic will remain closed.

Possible topics:
 1.The sources of Marian devotion: liturgical and scriptural, or, mystical and symbolic
 2.The Christian personalist revolution of the early 20th century:
             subtopics: a.What separates us more, dogma or our existential condition
                            b. Are we under the rule of determinism or can we create a new theological reality
                            c. Berdiaev, Shestov v. Maritain, Gilson, Marcel: similarities and differences
                            d. Traditional Christianity in the face of Revolution: defensive or offensive strategies
 3. The Holy Trinity: supernatural phaenomenon or internal revelation
             subtopics: a. Is the Triune God worshipped by or does the Triune God worship us
                            b. Can we proceed into the Holy Trinity or does the Holy Trinity proceed into us    
                                  ba. Are we a byproduct of the love of the Trinity per se and in se or are we a product of the strife between    the vacuum of space and light, the light being the Trinity        
                            c. The Trinity is a symbol of unity: is humanity a symbol of the Trinity
                                 ca. is the Church the incarnation of the Trinity
                                 cb. the pan-Christian folk description of the strife amongst the Three Persons/Hypostases
                                
I think that we should try to civilise the debate here. This is my input in the perfection of our Christianity.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #65 on: November 04, 2010, 05:19:56 PM »

I think that we should try to civilise the debate here.

Incoming!!!
Logged


I'm going to need this.
synLeszka
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Posts: 532


« Reply #66 on: November 04, 2010, 05:24:01 PM »


Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.

I deny the fact that Church in Rome was established by St. Peter and that St. Peter was a Bishop of Rome.

I can't imagine anyone who can agree to the first statement. It's illogical.
[/quote]
Kolego, udowodnij to co mówisz! Jak poddasz 50 dowodów na to twierdzenie, to ja ci uwierzę! Ja mogę też tak powiedzieć, nio, że widziałem moją stryjenkę w łóżku z jakimś tam bliżej nieokreślonego wyznawcy prawosławia w sutannie z pektorałem... Ale jak się nie ma 50 stron dowodów, to nie można mówić że jesteś pewny w tym co mówisz. Przecież, gdyby takowy św.Piotr żył dzisiej i tutej, to on mógłby cię oskarżyć o pomówienie!

Forgive I had to start in Polish, I just had to

Friend, provide proof of your claims. If you can provide 50 pieces of evidence to back your claim, then I shall believe you! I can also say that I saw my uncle's wife with a guy who is Orthodox and wears a soutanne and pectoral ... But if you do not have 50 pages of proof, then you can state that you yourself are sre of what you are talking about. Obviously, if st.Peter was around here and now, then he could accuse you of calumny.
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 #67 on: November 04, 2010, 05:37:40 PM »

Do you really believe that when after 60 AD (more than 20 years after the emergent of Christianity) St. Peter arrived to Rome (capital city of the empire) there had no been Christian at all?

Are you denying even Orthodox tradition that holds the Latin Patriarch to be Apostolic? Not to mention the more pro-patrine Orthodox (non-supremacy) hold that the West held the Papacy (just not with supreme authority) or, more common, the West held the highest place of the three Sees of St Peter.
The papacy as an institution, and office originated in Alexandria, not Rome.  Alexandria was given it long before Nicea I, and Rome did appropriate to itself until centuries after Nicea I.

Right, it started in Alexandria. St Peter then moved to Antioch, and eventually to Rome.

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

Quote
Before debating on who holds keys, if any. It is often shown that ECF recognized the Apostolic Succession of St. Peter within those three Sees. I believe even you have point out those quotes.


The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

Quote
So, not only has Rome an Apostolic Succession, but it is understood to have also had the presence of St Peter to lay his hands on Bishops toward the end of his life.
He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution), he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.
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 #68 on: November 04, 2010, 05:40:09 PM »

Isa,

The last post of pretty colors made be giddy and I ran to get my crayons. By the time I got back, I couldn't remember your point.
Maybe for the best...can you color within the lines?
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 #69 on: November 04, 2010, 05:47:44 PM »

Please read up:Ultramontanism
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15125a.htm
That isn't the common usage of the word ultramontanism even if it may be a meaning of the word. It is most often used to describe the RC position as heretical.

Then the most often usage is correct.

Quote
There is a schismatic on the Catholic forum I am a member of who is one of those who believes the "post-conciliar" Church is an entirely new religion altogether (i.e. Vatican II corrupted the True Church) and he refers to all of us who accept Vatican II and are in Full Communion with Rome as ultramontanists. He, like you, is clearly using that terminology because the word itself implies heresy.

Your point?

So, has he renounced the papacy of Vatican I?
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
mike
Warned
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,539


« Reply #70 on: November 04, 2010, 05:55:24 PM »

Does Peter need to be physically present in Rome to establish the Church? Were there the Apostles the only ones capable of evangelizing the Gospel?

Yes. He needed to be there to establish the Church there.

Quote
Do you deny that Ss Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome?

No.

edit:

I believe that St. Peter visited Rome where there had already been a local Church with her own Boshop (St. Linus ?). He was captured there an martyred.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 05:59:12 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #71 on: November 04, 2010, 07:03:36 PM »

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

I'll provide a quote at the end for this. Alexandria inherited the "faith of St Peter" from the evangelist St Mark, who was St Peter's disciple. A line of Apostolic succession, though not physical presence.

The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

You're correct. St Mark, St Peter's disciple, brought "St Peter's faith" to Alexandria. This is why is is recognized as such.

He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

Debatable due to resources.

The Apostolic Constitutions says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and others (St Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liber Pontificalis, etc) who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution),

Rome has never had anything to do with the Papacy, other that that being the current seat. The papacy isn't Rome, the papacy is in Rome. If the Patriarch of Moscow became Pope, he could sit in Russia all day long, and still be the Pope.

he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.

It wasn't mentioned to support the papacy. It was mentioned to support that he was ever in Rome. That was doubted by the previous poster.

Quote from St Gregory:
Quote
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”
(Book VII, Epistle XL of St Gregory I, Pope of Rome to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria)

It was said that the three original Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were given primacy in their respective regions partly due to their Petrine origins.

Additionally, the Arabic Hudoyo Canons gives the Patriarch of Patriarchs role to the Pope of Rome. (since we seem to be arguing papacy AND St Peter in Rome)
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #72 on: November 04, 2010, 07:04:39 PM »

Isa,

The last post of pretty colors made be giddy and I ran to get my crayons. By the time I got back, I couldn't remember your point.
Maybe for the best...can you color within the lines?

Rarely...  Cry It's worse than Vatican II art.   Grin
Logged


I'm going to need this.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #73 on: November 04, 2010, 11:02:27 PM »

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

I'll provide a quote at the end for this. Alexandria inherited the "faith of St Peter" from the evangelist St Mark, who was St Peter's disciple. A line of Apostolic succession, though not physical presence.

The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

You're correct. St Mark, St Peter's disciple, brought "St Peter's faith" to Alexandria. This is why is is recognized as such.

He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

Debatable due to resources.

The Apostolic Constitutions says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and others (St Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liber Pontificalis, etc) who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution),

Rome has never had anything to do with the Papacy, other that that being the current seat. The papacy isn't Rome, the papacy is in Rome. If the Patriarch of Moscow became Pope, he could sit in Russia all day long, and still be the Pope.

he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.

It wasn't mentioned to support the papacy. It was mentioned to support that he was ever in Rome. That was doubted by the previous poster.

Quote from St Gregory:
Quote
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”
(Book VII, Epistle XL of St Gregory I, Pope of Rome to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria)

It was said that the three original Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were given primacy in their respective regions partly due to their Petrine origins.

Additionally, the Arabic Hudoyo Canons gives the Patriarch of Patriarchs role to the Pope of Rome. (since we seem to be arguing papacy AND St Peter in Rome)

LOL. The Arabic Canons of Nicea I, so called.  Even the sola scripturists can handle exposing them.
Quote
"The Peter Syndrome: Roman Catholic Writers See Papal Supremacy Behind Every Bush, or In Every Early Father: An Initial Review of Some Problems in the Newly Published Book, 'Jesus, Peter & the Keys' By Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, and David Hess" by James White

Jesus, Peter & the Keys provides us with a glaring example of how the "Peter Syndrome" can cause one to develop massive blind spots when it comes to historical data. One of the great problems that has faced Roman Catholic apologists over the centuries is found in the 6th Canon of the Council of Nic�a. This canon specifically limits the prerogatives of the bishop of Rome: an action utterly contrary to Roman claims of universal jurisdiction. To the honest or unbiased student of history, this canon tells us that three centuries into the Christian era the bishop of Rome held a high position in the Church's view. However, it was a limited position, one commensurate with the political and geographical factors that gave rise to the prominence first of the church at Rome, and eventually to the bishop of the Church itself. At this time the transition from the importance of the church to the bishop is taking place, but the church still holds the primary position. In any case, there is no Papacy functioning in the modern sense at all, despite all of Vatican I's claims to the contrary, and it is plain that the Christian Church as a whole sees no need for a monarchial leader in the bishop of Rome.

Many centuries after the Council of Nic�a, long after the rise of the Papacy into prominence (and just before its fall into the Pornocracy), supporters of this institution began the process of changing history through the use of forgeries. Documents like the famous Donation of Constantine began to circulate. The very fact that men had to create such documents tells us something very important: the belief they wished to substantiate in history could not be substantiated any other way. That is, if people had always believed in the Papacy as it was developing in later centuries, there would be no need to create forgeries to make it look otherwise. One of the forgeries that can be traced to this period involves an expansion in the canons that were passed at the Council of Nic�a. Originally the council passed twenty canons, including the famous 6th canon. Yet, centuries later, other collections began to appear. There is no question that these other canons are forgeries-fakes. Yet, amazingly enough, Scott Butler and his co-authors cite from these forgeries in an attempt to substantiate their position! They are not alone here, and in fact, as the quotation below shows, they at least admitted that these canons are not part of the "generally accepted" list. I have heard other apologists, such as Tim Staples, quote Canon 39 of the Arabic canons as if it were a part of the original Council of Nic�a, a tremendously dishonest thing to do. On page 308 of Jesus, Peter & the Keys, we find the following:
(From the Arabic Canons of the Council of Nicaea):

"[CANON XXXIX] Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.

"Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit; for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishop as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under this power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; inasmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod. [While not a part of the generally accepted canons of the Council of Nic�a, these canons promulgated from the Eastern Church give a mind's eye view of the thinking of Eastern Christianity.]" Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds., Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers--The Seven Ecumenical Councils, vol.14, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994), 48.


The reader should note a few things. First, in the interest of charity, we will assume that the placement of the closing quotation is a simple error: the material enclosed in the brackets which states, "While not a part of the generally accepted canons of the Council of Nic�a, these canons promulgated from the Eastern Church gives a mind's eye view of the thinking of Eastern Christianity" is not a part of what is found in Schaff and Wace. It is, instead, the editorial comment of the authors of Jesus, Peter & the Keys. We only note that such a statement flies in the face of the Eastern Church's resistance of Papal claims over the centuries. We also note that the authors did not include the footnote attached to the canon in the source they themselves use: "I have translated the whole canon literally; the reader will judge of its antiquity." It should be noted that in context, the author is indicating that the canon is not ancient.

But much more importantly is what the citation of such a source tells us about the mindset of the authors and their drive to find anything in history that seems to be supportive of their claims. Allegiance to Papal authority seems to create a blind spot in this area. It seems rather obvious, to those who are not committed to such an allegiance, that the quotation of forgeries that date from half a millennium after the fact is hardly helpful to one's cause, but is, in fact, detrimental. But to those who seek any positive mention of Peter or Rome, it fits the bill, despite its lack of historical credibility. The Peter Syndrome functions in full here, for if one has to include materials with no more historical basis than the Donation of Constantine in one's work, it seems clear that the real sources of real history do not provide much in the way of meaningful support for one's thesis. For those interested in the issue of the Arabic canons, we provide, appended to the end of this article, an entire discussion of the subject, taken from the very same source (Schaff and Wace) used in Jesus, Peter & the Keys.

It is striking to note, however how the book handles a far more relevant and important historical fact, that being the 28th canon of the Council of Chalcedon. Note the words of this ecumenical council:

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read...we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honored with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her.
Note that here we have the real view of "Eastern Christianity" as expressed in a Council of the Church. This appears in the records centuries before the Arabic canons. We know who promulgated this canon (we don't know who created the Arabic canons). Yet, Jesus, Peter & the Keys does everything it can to down-play the canon from Chalcedon, while presenting the Arabic canons as being relevant! Such an action shows that this book is not, as Patrick Madrid has said (citation below), an evenhanded or complete iteration of historical facts. It is anything but.

Regarding the Arabic Canons of Nic�a:

Let us see first what is the testimony of those Greek and Latin authors who lived about the time of the Council, concerning the number.

a. The first to be consulted among the Greek authors is the learned Theodoret, who lived about a century after the Council of Nic�a. He says, in his History of the Church: "After the condemnation of the Arians, the bishops assembled once more, and decreed twenty canons on ecclesiastical discipline."

b. Twenty years later, Gelasius, Bishop of Cyzicus, after much research into the most ancient documents, wrote a history of the Nicene council Gelasius also says expressly that the Council decreed twenty canons; and, what is more important, he gives the original text of these canons exactly in the same order, and according to the tenor which we find elsewhere.

C. Rufinus is more ancient than these two historians. He was born near the period when the Council of Nic�a was held, and about half a century after he wrote his celebrated history of the Church, in which he inserted a Latin translation of the Nicene canons. Rufinus also knew only of these twenty canons; but as he has divided the sixth and the eighth into two parts, he has given twenty-two canons, which are exactly the same as the twenty furnished by the other historians.

d. The famous discussion between the African bishops and the Bishop of Rome, on the subject of appeals to Rome, gives us a very important testimony on the true number of the Nicene canons. The presbyter Apiarius of Sicca in Africa, having been deposed for many crimes, appealed to Rome. Pope Zosimus (417-418) took the appeal into consideration, sent legates to Africa; and to prove that he had the right to act thus, he quoted a canon of the Council of Nic�a, containing these words: "When a bishop thinks he has been unjustly deposed by his colleagues he may appeal to Rome, and the Roman bishop shall have the business decided by judices in partibus." The canon quoted by the Pope does not belong to the Council of Nicea, as he affirmed; it was the fifth canon of the Council of Sardica (the seventh in the Latin version). What explains the error of Zosimus is that in the ancient copies the canons of Nic�a and Sardica are written consecutively, with the same figures, and under the common title of canons of the Council of Nic�a; and Zosimus might optima fide fall into an error-which he shared with Greek authors, his contemporaries, who also mixed the canons of Nicea with those of Sardica. The African bishops, not finding the canon quoted by the Pope either in their Greek or in their Latin copies, in vain consulted also the copy which Bishop Cecilian, who had himself been present at the Council of Nic�a, had brought to Carthage. The legates of the Pope then declared that they did not rely upon these copies, and they agreed to send to Alexandria and to Constantinople to ask the patriarchs of these two cities for authentic copies of the canons of the Council of Nic�a. The African bishops desired in their turn that Pope Boniface should take the same step (Pope Zosimus had died meanwhile in 418)-that he should ask for copies from the Archbishops of Constantinople, Alexandria, and Antioch. Cyril of Alexandria and Atticus of Constantinople, indeed, sent exact and faithful copies of the Creed and canons of Nic�a; and two learned men of Constantinople, Theilo and Thearistus, even translated these canons into Latin. Their translation has been preserved to us in the acts of the sixth Council of Carthage, and it contains only the twenty ordinary canons. It might be thought at first sight that it contained twenty-one canons; but on closer consideration we see, as Hardoum has proved, that this twenty-first article is nothing but an historical notice appended to the Nicene canons by the Fathers of Carthage. It is conceived in these terms: "After the bishops had decreed these rules at Nicea, and after the holy Council had decided what was the ancient rule for the celebration of Easter, peace and unity of faith were re-established between the East and the West. This is what we (the African bishops) have thought it right to add according to the history of the Church.'

The bishops of Africa dispatched to Pope Boniface the copies which had been sent to them from Alexandria and Constantinople, in the month of November 419; and subsequently in their letters to Celestine I (423432), successor to Boniface, they appealed to the text of these documents.

& All the ancient collections of canons, either in Latin or Greek, composed in the fourth, or quite certainly at least in the fifth century, agree in giving only these twenty canons to Nicea. The most ancient of these collections were made in the Greek Church, and in the course of time a very great number of copies of them were written. Many of these copies have descended to us; many libraries possess copies; thus Montfaucon enumerates several in his Bibliotheca Coisliniana. Fabricius makes a similar catalogue of the copies in his Bibliotheca Graeca to those found in the libraries of Turin, Florence, Venice, Oxford, Moscow, etc.; and he adds that these copies also contain the so-called apostolic canons, and those of the most ancient councils. The French bishop John Tilius presented to Paris, in 1540, a MS. of one of these Greek collections as it existed in the ninth century. It contains exactly our twenty canons of Nicea, besides the so-called apostolic canons, those of Ancyra, etc. Elias Elunger published a new edition at Wittenberg in 1614, using a second MS. which was found at Augsburg; but the Roman collection of the Councils had before given in 1608, the Greek text of the twenty canons of Nicea. This text of the Roman editors, with the exception of some insignificant variations, was exactly the same as that of the edition of Tilius. Neither the learned Jesuit Sirmond nor his coadjutors have mentioned what manuscripts were consulted in preparing this edition; probably they were manuscripts drawn from several libraries, and particularly from that of the Vatican. The text of this Roman edition passed into all the following collections, even into those of Hardoum and Mansi while Justell in his Bibliotheca juris Canonici and Beveridge in his Synodicon (both of the eighteenth century), give a somewhat different text, also collated from MSS., and very similar to the text given by Tilius. Bruns, in his recent Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, compares the two texts. Now all these Greek MSS. consulted at such different times, and by all these editors, acknowledge only twenty canons of Nicea, and always the same twenty which we possess.

The Latin collections of the canons of the Councils also give the same result-for example, the most ancient and the most remarkable of all, the Prisca, and that of Dionvsius the Less, which was collected about the year 500. The testimony of this latter collection is the more important for the number twenty, as Dionysius refers to the Graeca auctoritas.

f. Among the later Eastern witnesses we may further mention Photius, Zonaras and Balsamon. Photius, in his Collection of the Canons, and in his Nomocanon, as well as the two other writers in their commentaries upon the canons of the ancient Councils, quote only and know only twenty canons of Nicea, and always those which we possess.

g. The Latin canonists of the Middle Ages also acknowledge only these twenty canons of Nic�a. We have proof of this in the celebrated Spanish collection, which is generally but erroneously attributed to St. Isidore (it was composed at the commencement of the seventh century), and in that of Adrian (so called because it was offered to Charles the Great by Pope Adrian I). The celebrated Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, the first canonist of the ninth century, in his turn attributes only twenty canons to the Council of Nicea, and even the pseudo-Isidore assigns it no more.
http://vintage.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html

Yet Apologist for the Vatican keep on recycling this "canon"
Quote
CANON XXXIX.
"Of the care and power which a Patriarch has over the bishops and archbishops of his patriarchate; and of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome over all.
Let the patriarch consider what things are done by the archbishops and bishops in their provinces; and if he shall find anything done by them otherwise than it should be, let him change it, and order it, as seemeth him fit: for he is the father of all, and they are his sons. And although the archbishop be among the bishops as an elder brother, who hath the care of his brethren, and to whom they owe obedience because he is over them; yet the patriarch is to all those who are under his power, just as he who holds the seat of Rome, is the head and prince of all patriarchs; in-asmuch as he is first, as was Peter, to whom power is given over all Christian princes, and over all their peoples, as he who is the Vicar of Christ our Lord over all peoples and over the whole Christian Church, and whoever shall contradict this, is excommunicated by the Synod.
[I add Canon XXXVII. of Echellensis's Nova Versio LXXXIV. Arabic. Canonum Conc. Nicoeni, that the reader may compare it with the foregoing.]
Let there be only four patriarchs in the whole world as there are four writers of the Gospel, and four rivers, etc. And let there be a prince and chief over them, the lord of the see of the Divine Peter at Rome, according as the Apostles commanded. And after him the lord of the great Alexandria, which is the see of Mark. And the third is the lord of Ephesus, which is the see of John the Divine who speaks divine things. And the fourth and last is my lord of Antioch, which is another see of Peter. And let all the bishops be divided under the hands of these four patriarchs; and the bishops of the little towns which are under the dominion of the great cities let them be under the authority of these metropolitans. But let every metropolitan of these great cities appoint the bishops of his province, but let none of the bishops appoint him, for he is greater than they. Therefore let every man know his own rank, and let him not usurp the rank of another. And whosoever shall contradict this law which we have established the Fathers of the Synod subject him to anathema.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vii.html

As Schaff shows, this fraud has been exposed well over a century ago
The Academy, Issue 3 (1872)
Quote
The Tradition of the Syriac Church of Antioch concerning the Primacy and the Prerogatives of St. Peter, and of his Successors, the Roman Pontiffs. By the Most Rev. Cyril Behnam Benni, Syriac Archbishop of Mossul. Translated under the Direction of the Author by the Rev. Joseph Gagliardi. Burns, Oates, and Co.

Archbishop Benni, a Syrian prelate, who took part in the Vatican Council, has published a collection of extracts from Eastern (chiefly Syriac) documents in behalf of papal authority. His readers are expected to look upon these extracts as exhibiting the primitive tradition of the East, as shown " by a diligent enquiry into the teaching of its great writers; who faithfully handed on to their successors those inviolable truths which they had received from their forefathers, in whose ears was still ringing the voice of the Apostles," &c.

If the book were intended for the learned, Archbishop Benni's preface might easily awaken the suspicion of being ironically written, for it is impossible, in fact, to display the nakedness of the land to intelligent eyes more completely than is done by this collection of extracts. But the majority of its readers must necessarily be incompetent critics of the evidence put before them, and if we may judge of them by the list of subscribers, they will have but little hesitation in concluding that the Eastern Church has always taught the dogmas lately denned in the Vatican Council...

...If we exclude the irrevelant evidence, and that which is manifestly purely Roman, there slil remains that of the spurious Arabic canons attributed Shocked the Council of Nice. The importance of these has been much exaggerated in consequence of their being accepted by the different Eastern communions. Erom the hostile feeling which keeps these communions apart, it has been argued that none of them would borrow from another, and that what is common to them all must be anterior to the schism. But a priori arguments like this require to be very rigorously verified. It was on exactly similar grounds that the Samaritan recension of the Pentateuch was formerly supposed (but most erroneously, as every scholar is now aware) to be of the utmost antiquity and purity. These Arabic canons contain gross anachronisms which prove them to be of much more recent date than the beginning of the schism. The hostile feeling referred to has not, in fact, been of a nature to prevent borrowings, especially of forgeries bearing names which did not awaken sectarian animosity. Nor has it been as persistent as is commonly thought. The Moslem invasion was productive of pacific and even kindly intercourse, sometimes closely approaching to religious intercommunion, between the separated churches, and great writers like Elias of Damascus on the Nestorian and Barhebraeus on the Jacobite side wrote treatises to prove that the great Eastern communities were equally orthodox in fact, that their differences were verbal, and that party spirit alone kept them asunder. There are repeated instances on record (see Lacroze, Histoire du Christianisme des Indes, torn. ii. p. 115) of Nestorians applying to Jacobites for bishops; the identity of rite being considered by them as of greater importance than the difference of dogmatic formula. And as for borrowing of literary forgeries, there is the well-known case of the Jacobites adopting the Nestorian fable of the transfer of the patriarchal dignity to the see of Seleucia. There is nothing in the Arabic canons on the dignity of the Roman see to shock either Nestorians or Jacobites, because they all consider that see as having disappeared from the Church many centuries ago. The canons therefore merely represent to them fragments of ecclesiastical discipline which have long since become obsolete. We have at present no means of determining the date of this forgery. The manuscripts which contain the canons are not of very great antiquity. The earliest writer who can be referred to as recognising their existence is Elias of Damascus; but no sensible person will accept such a reference as extract as a proof that they existed at the time of this writer. A collection of canons admits of an indefinite amount of increase, for which the author whose name it bears is in no way responsible. A very large number of the MSS. of Dionysius Exiguus contain documents which he certainly had not included in his collection. We require, then, to see the collection of Elias of Damascus as a whole, and to know its literary history as we know that of Dionysius Exiguus, before we can be sure that he really knew of the spurious Arabic canons of Nice. As to the propagation of canons supposed to be favourable to Rome, there is no historical difficulty whatever. The Catholicism of Rome was for a long time most powerful, nay dominant, in the East Besides the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem, there were the principalities of Tripoli and Edessa, the latter extending beyond the Euphrates. The principality of Antioch lasted for more than a century and a half. There was the nation of the Maronites, and there was the Armenian kingdom under the house of Rupen. In Alexandria one of the Melchite patriarchs was in communion with Rome, and sent a deputy to the Lateran Council. It is not improbably to his influence that the " Filioque " has found its way into the canons attributed to St Hippolytus. This, too, is the time of the daring fraud of the " ancient missionaries" denounced by the learned Dominican Lequien in his Panoplia contra Graecos (p. xiv), and of those " spurious and lying testimonies " forged in support of papal authority which imposed upon St Thomas Aquinas and all Latin theologians for many centuries.

The Arabic canons themselves, however, furnish us with a clue which enables us to conjecture their origin with a great amount of probability. De Marca long ago called attention to the canon which placed the island of Cyprus under the jurisdiction of the patriarch of Antioch. Is fecit cut prodest. The Maronite patriarchs of Antioch exercised jurisdiction in Cyprus over several bishops and churches of their own communion, and it was most probably in their interest that the canpn was forged in justification of an ecclesiastical arrangement directly at variance with ancient rule. If the fraud owes its origin to a Maronite hand, it is not to be wondered at if in some of the canons great authority is ascribed to the Bishop of Rome.

Fraud and forgery are not pleasant words, but they are unfortunately unavoidable in a discussion of the pontifical claims which Archbishop Benni has at heart. And if the whole truth must be spoken, his own book is itself no better than a pious fraud ; in saying which I do not wish to imply that the Archbishop is not the dupe of his own legerdemain. Far less would I wish to make any imputation on the excellent Italian priest by whom the book has been made accessible to English readers, and whose perfect sincerity in the pursuit of truth and knowledge is beyond all suspicion.
http://books.google.com/books?id=SIMNAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA454&dq=%22Fraud+and+forgery+are+not+pleasant+words%22&hl=en&ei=oGLTTJbJFIa9nAfasfjnBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22Fraud%20and%20forgery%20are%20not%20pleasant%20words%22&f=false

Even the Vatican's experts have admitted the same (although not with imprimatur):
A History of the Councils of the Church: From the Original Documents To the close of the Council of Nicea By Karl Joseph von Hefele, William Robinson Clark, Henry Nutcombe Oxenham, Edward Hayes Plumptre
Quote
In the following century, the Maronite Abraham Echellensis made the deepest researches with reference to the Arabic canons of the Council of Nicaea; and they led him to the opinion that these canons must have been collected from different Oriental nations, from the Syrians, Chaldeans, Maronites, Copts, Jacobites, and Nestorians, and that they had been translated into many Oriental languages. At the same time he started, and with truth, the suggestion that these Oriental collections were simply translations of ancient Greek originals, and that consequently in the Greek Church too they must have reckoned more than twenty canons of Nicuaa.3 After having compared other Arabian Mss. which he had obtained, Echellensis gave a fresh Latin translation of these canons at Paris in 1645. According to these Mss., there were eightyfour canons instead of eighty. However, this difference arose much more from the external arrangement than from the canons themselves. Thus the thirteenth, seventeenth, thirtysecond, and fifty-sixth canons of Turrianus were each divided into two in the translation by Abraham Echellensis; on the other hand, the forty-third and eighty-third of Echellensis each formed two canons in the work of Turrianus. The twenty-ninth, thirty-seventh, and forty-first of A Echellensis are wanting in Turrianus; but, again, Echellensis has not the forty-fifth canon of Turrianus. A superficial study of these two collections of canons would lead to the conclusion that they were almost identical; but it is not so. The corresponding canons in the two translations sometimes have an entirely different meaning. We can but conclude either that the Arabian translators understood the Greek original differently, or else that the MSS. which they used showed considerable variations. The latter supposition is the most probable; it would explain how the eighty-four Arabian canons contain the twenty genuine canons of Nicaea, but often with considerable changes. Without reckoning these eighty-four canons, Echellensis has also translated into Latin, and published, a considerable number of ecclesiastical decrees, Butrvn-waets, constitutiones, also attributed to the Nicene Council . He added to this work a Latin translation of the Arabic preface, which preceded the entire collection in the MS., together with a learned dissertation in defence of the eighty-four canons, with a good many notes. Mansi1 has retained all these articles, and Hardouin2 has also reproduced the principal part of them.

However it may be as to the latter point, it is certain that these Arabic canons are not the work of the Council of Nicaea: their contents evidently prove a much more recent origin. Thus:

a. The thirty-eighth canon (the thirty-third in Tumanus) ordains that the Patriarch of Ephesus should proceed to Constantinople, which is the urbs regia, ut honor sit regno et sacerdotio simul. This decree therefore supposes that Byzantium was then changed into Constantinople, and that it had become the imperial residence. Now this change did not take place until about five years after the Council of Nictea. At the period when the Council was held, Byzantium was still quite an insignificant town, almost reduced to ruins by a previous devastation.6 The bishopric of Constantinople was only raised to the dignity of a patriarchate by the second and fourth (Ecumenical Councils.6 Therefore this canon, translated into Arabic, could not have belonged to the Council of Nicaea, and does not date back further than the fourth (Ecumenical Council.

b. The forty-second canon of A. Echellensis (thirty-sixth in Turrianus) forbids the Ethiopians to, elect a patriarch : their spiritual head was to bear only the title of Catholicus, and to be under the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Alexandria, etc. This canon also betrays a more recent origin than the time of the Council of Nicaea. At that period, indeed, Ethiopia had no bishop ; hardly had S. Frumentius begun the conversion of its people; and it was only subsequently, when S. Athanasius was already Archbishop of Alexandria, that S. Frumentius made him acquainted with the good results of his missions, and was consecrated by him bishop to the new converts.1 Our canon, on the contrary, supposes a numerous episcopate to be then existing in Ethiopia, and its head, the Catholicus, to be desirous to free himself from the mother church of Alexandria. This canon, as well as others quoted by Turrianus and by A Echellensis, assumes that the institution of patriarchates was then in full vigour, which was not the case at the time of the Council of Nicaea.'

c. Peter de Marca3 has already proved the forty-third canon of the text of A. Echellensis (thirty-seventh in Turr.) to be more recent than the third (Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (431). This Council of Ephesus rejected the pretensions of the Patriarch of Antioch respecting the choice of the bishops of Cyprus.4 According to Marca's demonstration, this dependence of Cyprus upon the see of Antioch cannot be verified before the year 900 : for in the time of the Emperor Leo the Wise (911), we know, from the Notitia of his reign, that Cyprus was not then dependent upon Antioch; whilst this Arabian canon makes out that this submission was already an accomplished fact, disputed by no one.6

d. The fifty-third canon (forty-ninth in Turr.), which condemns simony, has its origin from the second canon of the fourth (Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.6 It is therefore evident that it was not formed at Mcaea.

e. In the thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, and forty-second canons (c. 33, 34, and 36 in Turr.), the Bishop of Seleucia, Ahnodajen, is already called Catholicus,—a dignity to which he did not attain until the sixth century, under the Emperor Justinian.1 In this canon, as Seleucia has the Arabian name of Almodajen, Eenaudot concludes that these canons were not formed until the time of Mahomet.

We may therefore sum up the certain proofs resulting from all these facts, by affirming that these Arabic canons are not genuine; and all the efforts of Turrianus, Abraham Echellensis, and Cardinal d'Aguirre, cannot prevent an impartial observer from coming to this opinion even with regard to some of those canons which they were anxious to save, while abandoning the others.2 Together with the authenticity of these canons, the hypothesis of Abraham Echellensis also vanishes, which supposes them to have been collected by Jacob, the celebrated Bishop of Nisibis, who was present at the Nicene Synod. They belong to a later period. Assemani offers another supposition, supporting it by this passage from Ebed-jesu :3 " Bishop Maruthas of Tagrit * translated the seventy-three canons of Nicaea."6 Assemani believes these seventy-three canons to be identical with the eighty-four Arabic canons, but such identity is far from being proved. Even the number of the canons is different; and if it were not so, we know, from what we saw above, that several of the Arabic canons indicate a more recent period than those of Bishop Maruthas. It is probable that Maruthas really translated seventy-three canons, supposed to be Nicene; that is to say, that he had in his hands one of those Mss. spoken of above, which contained various collections of canons falsely attributed to the Council of Nicaea
http://books.google.com/books?output=text&id=ifECAAAAQAAJ&dq=Arabic+canons+nicea&q=Rome+four+patriarchs#v=snippet&q=four%20patriarchs&f=false

Btw, I take that by "Arabic Hudoyo Canons" you mean these "Arabic Canons of Nicea." Hudoyo isn't an Arabic word.

Do you post at Byzcath under Michael Thoma? There is a post on this very close to your post
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/353810/The%20Primacy%20of%20Saint%20Peter

If so, we're both in Chicago.
« Last Edit: November 04, 2010, 11:05:02 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
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #74 on: November 05, 2010, 12:39:35 AM »

Btw, I take that by "Arabic Hudoyo Canons" you mean these "Arabic Canons of Nicea." Hudoyo isn't an Arabic word.

Do you post at Byzcath under Michael Thoma? There is a post on this very close to your post
http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/353810/The%20Primacy%20of%20Saint%20Peter

If so, we're both in Chicago.

Quote from St Gregory:
Quote
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”
(Book VII, Epistle XL of St Gregory I, Pope of Rome to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria)

It was said that the three original Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were given primacy in their respective regions partly due to their Petrine origins.

Additionally, the Arabic Hudoyo Canons gives the Patriarch of Patriarchs role to the Pope of Rome. (since we seem to be arguing papacy AND St Peter in Rome)


I was trying to find a St Pope Gregory quote and ran into this last part. The quote I copied, the first sentence was what I was saying the whole time, and the last sounded interesting so I left it to see what you had to say.

Lol, did you.

So no, I'm not in Chicago, unfortunately. I'm on the other side of the country.

You always amaze me with the library of quotes you can grab. Do you have these things bookmarked?
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Tags: catholic  eastern  ecclesiology 
Pages: « 1 2  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 0.204 seconds with 58 queries.