Topic: Pope is Antichrist yet again

[ChristusDominus]

Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), 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 (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured 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; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?

Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon

It does not alter the fact that the council clearly believed that there could be a bishop with equal authority to Rome. The Illyrians actually did subscribe to the 28th Canon. The issue was finally brought back to the table in the Quinisext Council, which approved it. Of course, the Pope rejected that council, so that makes little difference to you.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

The point is that is shows that the bishops outside of Old Rome's archdiocese did not believe in exclusive rights for the Papacy.

Of course it makes very little difference to me. Just like what Tertullian and St Irenaenus say about the Bishop of Rome make very little difference to you.

The famous third canon reads:
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople

[Irish Hermit]

What is your response/understanding of the Orthodox Wiki articles regarding the Primacy among Patriarchs?

Dear Azurestone,

Orthodoxwiki is a good starting point when looking for information.  But it reflects the frailties and preferences of its anonymous contributors.

As a monk of the Russian Orthodox Church I naturally turn to my Church and its bishops for some guidance.  TThe Russian Orthodox Church is implacably opposed to the institution of the papacy and to any attempt to introduce into Orthodoxy a level of global supremacy/jurisdiction.   It is Metropolitan Hilarion (Alfeyev) who represents this teaching at international meetings with the Roman Catholics in the name of the Russian Patriarch and Synod of Bishops and for this he is 200% correct and we should all kiss his toes for his courage in standing up to such as Cardinal Kasper and Metropolitan Ioannis Zizioulas at Belgrade and Cyprus.  The latter two wish to foist upon the Orthodox an innovative concept of a "Global Protos" within Orthodoxy.


Primacy on a regional level and at the level of Local Churches is catered for in the canons. The Orthodox do not dispute that. But primacy on a global level does not exist.

Here are the words of Cardinal Kasper on Ravenna 2007:

"But the real breakthrough, he said, was that "the Orthodox agreed to speak
about the universal level -- because before there were some who denied that
there could even be institutional structures on the universal level. The
second point is that we agreed that at the universal level there is a
primate. It was clear that there is only one candidate for this post, that
is the Bishop of Rome, because according to the old order -- "taxis" in
Greek -- of the Church of the first millennium the see of Rome is the first
among them."


Here is the response of the Orthodox Church of Russia. This is Bishop Hilarion, speaking to "Inside The Vatican", 15 November 2007:

"We do not have any theology of the Petrine office on the level of the
Universal Church. Our ecclesiology does not have room for such a concept.
This is why the Orthodox Church has for centuries opposed the idea of the
universal jurisdiction of any bishop, including the Bishop of Rome.

"We recognize that there is a certain order in which the primates of the
Local Churches should be mentioned. In this order the Bishop of Rome
occupied the first place until 1054, and then the primacy of order in the
Orthodox Church was shifted to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who until
the schism had been the second in order. But we believe that all primates of
the Local Churches are equal to one another, and none of them has
jurisdiction over any other."

From
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1925822/posts

And elsewhere he speaks even more strongly of the Russian Church NEVER accepting any concept of global primacy and papal primacy..

[Rufus]

Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), 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 (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured 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; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?

Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon

It does not alter the fact that the council clearly believed that there could be a bishop with equal authority to Rome. The Illyrians actually did subscribe to the 28th Canon. The issue was finally brought back to the table in the Quinisext Council, which approved it. Of course, the Pope rejected that council, so that makes little difference to you.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

The point is that is shows that the bishops outside of Old Rome's archdiocese did not believe in exclusive rights for the Papacy.

Of course it makes very little difference to me. Just like what Tertullian and St Irenaenus say about the Bishop of Rome make very little difference to you.

The famous third canon reads:
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople

Why does it make very little difference to you?

What did St. Irenaeus say that makes little difference to me?

What does the canon you invoked have to do with anything?

[Irish Hermit]

I agree with you Irish on this (good to see you again by the way!)

   Good to see you too. Where have you been?

[ialmisry]

Canon XXVIII.

Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), 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 (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured 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; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxviii.html

If New Rome was given equal privileges with Old Rome, then on what basis does the Papacy claim exclusive privileges?

Here you go :

The Council of Chalcedon was convened by Flavian's successor, Anatolius, at Pope Leo I's urging, to set aside the 449 Second Council of Ephesus, better known as the "Robber Council". The Council of Chalcedon repudiated the idea that Jesus had only one nature, and stated that Christ has two natures in one person. The Chalcedonian Creed describes the "full humanity and full divinity" of Jesus, the second person of the Holy Trinity. The council also issued 27 disciplinary canons governing church administration and authority. In the famous 28th canon passed by the council, the bishops sought to raise the See of Constantinople (New Rome) in stature, claiming that Constantinople enjoyed honor and authority similar to that of the See of (the older) Rome. Pope Leo's legate opposed the canon but in 453, Leo confirmed all the canons, except the 28th.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_chalcedon

It does not alter the fact that the council clearly believed that there could be a bishop with equal authority to Rome. The Illyrians actually did subscribe to the 28th Canon. The issue was finally brought back to the table in the Quinisext Council, which approved it. Of course, the Pope rejected that council, so that makes little difference to you.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

The point is that is shows that the bishops outside of Old Rome's archdiocese did not believe in exclusive rights for the Papacy.

Of course it makes very little difference to me. Just like what Tertullian and St Irenaenus say about the Bishop of Rome make very little difference to you.

The famous third canon reads:
The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Constantinople

Notice, not "because Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew."

What  St. Irenaeus says about the Bishop of Rome matters a great deal to us. The Vatican's misrepresentation of what St. Irenaeus says makes no difference to us.  But as great as St. Irenaeus was, he was not above the Fathers of an Ecumenical Council.

[Aindriú]

Notice, not "because Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew."

It's my understanding that Constantinople was not, in fact, founded by St. Andrew. Constantinople was merely a Metropolitan See until the significance of the city increase due to secular movement. Do you have any direct text to gaze upon?

What St. Irenaeus says about the Bishop of Rome matters a great deal to us. The Vatican's misrepresentation of what St. Irenaeus says makes no difference to us.  But as great as St. Irenaeus was, he was not above the Fathers of an Ecumenical Council.

In what way?

[ialmisry]

Notice, not "because Constantinople was founded by St. Andrew."

It's my understanding that Constantinople was not, in fact, founded by St. Andrew. Constantinople was merely a Metropolitan See until the significance of the city increase due to secular movement. Do you have any direct text to gaze upon?

It wasn't even a Metropolitan see, just a suffragan of Herakleia.

Somewhere here I posted a series of quotes (there are many) which place St. Andrew in Byzantium, there are many predating 306, including Syriac ones preserved by the ACE, which had no reason to magnify Constantinople.  A lot of them are summarized here:
http://www.roadtoemmaus.net/back_issue_articles/RTE_19/The_Astonishing_Missionary_Journeys.pdf
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/actsandrew.html

The fact that it remained a suffragan doesn't vacate that its founder was St. Andrew the Apostle.

The point I was making is that the Fathers didn't attribute the perogatives of honor to Rome because of being founded by St. Peter, as the Vatican would have it.

What St. Irenaeus says about the Bishop of Rome matters a great deal to us. The Vatican's misrepresentation of what St. Irenaeus says makes no difference to us.  But as great as St. Irenaeus was, he was not above the Fathers of an Ecumenical Council.

In what way?

St. Irenaeus witnesses to the Church. In the Fathers of the Ecumenical Council, the Church speaks.

[Irish Hermit]

It's my understanding that Constantinople was not, in fact, founded by St. Andrew. Constantinople was merely a Metropolitan See until the significance of the city increase due to secular movement. Do you have any direct text to gaze upon?

It seems that there are texts in Greek to be gazed upon.....

This is from Halsall at Fordham:

Demetrius Kymenas, deriving his comments from the Thriskeftiki kai Ethiki Encyclopaedia (Athens 1962-8) sums up the situation as follows:-

It is difficult to say where the legend stops and where reality begins. However, the Apostle Andrew preached in the general area and according to the tradition he ordained the first bishop of Byzantium (Stachys), the first  bishop of Nicaea (Drakonteios), the first bishop of Chalkedon (Tychikos), the first bishop of Sinope (Philologos), the first bishop of Thracian Herakliea (Apellis), etc. (He ordained many of the Seventy Apostles as bishops in cities of Asia Minor, Thrace and Greece).

Because the lord of the small city of Byzantium, Xeuxikus, was brutal and a fanatic pagan who used to tie and throw in the sea any Christian who visited his city,  Andrew resided in nearby Argyroupolis (later a suburb of Constantinople), and there he stayed for two years during which time he managed to create a Christian community of 2000 people along with their church and episcopate. It is not clear if Stachys is the same person with the one the Apostle Peter calls "dear" in his letter to the Romans, but his memory is celebrated by the Orthodox church on October 31.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/byzantium/texts/byzpatcp.html

Byzantium, out of which Constantinople sprang, was a small, well-fortified town, occupying most of the territory comprised in the two hills nearest the head of the promontory, and in the level ground at their base. The landward wall started from a point near the present Stamboul custom-house, and reached the ridge of the 2nd hill, a little to the east of the point marked by Chemberli Tash (the column of Constantine). There the principal gate of the town opened upon the Egnatian road. From that gate the wall descended towards the Sea of Marmora, touching the water in the neighbourhood of the Seraglio lighthouse. The Acropolis, enclosing venerated temples, crowned the summit of the first hill, where the Seraglio stands....

http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Constantinople

In the time of Saint Andrew Byzantium was a very busy mercantile and maritime city, full of loose sailors and bad women, and it makes perfect sense that it would have been a place to go and preach the Gospel.

[Aindriú]

Thank you, both.

[deusveritasest]

You have to accept the Pope (as an office) as attempting to destroy the Church of Christ.

Some/many may agree that there have been anti-popes (those not fitting for the magnitude of responsibility and position of Pope), but to claim the office is in and of itself an attempt to destroy the Church of Christ can be construed as nonsensical.

I see what you're trying to get at.

No, I don't think the See of Rome in its origins is anti-Christ.

However, my point was that its incumbents and the institution that has developed around it for the past 1500 years have been exclusively opposed to the Church of Christ. In this sense the Papacy of the past 1500 years has been anti-Christ.

Also, some aspects, even, of what have come to define the Papacy, such as papal supremacy and papal infallibility, are anti-Christ as well. Thus, some of what are now understood as aspects fundamental to the institution are anti-Christ.

[deusveritasest]

You wrote an inaccurate outburst.

What was inaccurate about it?

If you want to push people out of the body of Christ, go ahead and do that, but say that's what you want to do, beforehand.

It is indeed not. Who exactly were you imagining me pushing out anyway?

Would you talk to all of them the way you talked to me?

What exactly do you have in mind that is disturbing of what I have said to you?

But how much do you think you are going to grow the Orthodox faith by what you've said?

As much as is allowed by confession of the truth. Someone asked me if I thought the papacy was anti-Christ. I gave my honest answer. To avoid having done that would be to have avoided the truth, and Orthodoxy cannot be served by avoiding the truth.

[deusveritasest]

Why does this topic need to keep coming up?  The Pope isn't "the Antichrist," and therefore, IMO, we shouldn't use constructions like, "The Pope is Anti-Christ," or "The Pope is Antichrist," or "The Papacy is anti-Christ."  I'm the first to admit (and my sig bears this out) that I think the Papacy has been divisive throughout Christian history; but this does not, methinks, reflect a purposeful and continued desire or intent to rend the Church of Christ.  Thus, I'd be hesitant to use such charged language regarding the Papacy... Right or wrong, we'll be called to account for it some day.

Using the term anti-Christ only to refer to the Anti-Christ is actually anti-biblical, so far as I can tell.

[deusveritasest]

Of course the Papacy as it exists now is anti-Christ.

So think feminist, Marxist, atheist, and homosexual activist groups. Hope you're enjoying the company! 

But beware, he has his Eye on you.

What about these activist groups?

[deusveritasest]

The councils don't speak of Mary's sinlessness either, but it is still  a belief held by the Eastern Orthodox. Fr. Ambrose, when you sound the call for the dogma of "Councils alone!" you sound like the protestants who cry, "Scripture alone!"

Mary's personal sinlessness is not a dogma.

[deusveritasest]

This was when the East tried to adopt this idea that the primacy was based on politics rather than on the keys given to St. Peter.

The keys were the possession of the Apostles collectively, held by Saint Peter as their president.

The Apostles did not have anything beyond the episcopacy to give to their successors. There is no individual charismatic succession.

Saint Peter was not supreme or infallible.

Saint Peter was not the founder of the Holy Church of Rome. Saint Paul was.

[Papist]

Deusveritasest,  so you think Mary's sinlessness is up for debate? Tell your priest that and see what happens.

[deusveritasest]

There has never been any Patriarch who had a primacy over other Patriarchs,

Primacy of honor and presidency.

[Papist]

Deusveritasest, the only person in the bible that Jesus gives the keys to is peter. The Gospels never mention the Aposltes receiving the keys collectively... Nice try though.

[Papist]

There has never been any Patriarch who had a primacy over other Patriarchs,

Primacy of honor and presidency.

lol. That is not what St. Iranaeus says.  Also where did this idea of predisidency suddenly come from? According to Fr. Ambrose it's nothing more than primacy of honor. Is this concept of presidency just one of your pet theories?

[Ortho_cat]

Deusveritasest,  so you think Mary's sinlessness is up for debate? Tell your priest that and see what happens.

I did. He said it isn't a big deal and people believe different things about it. He in fact said it may be dangerous to say that she was entirely without sin because that removes the uniqueness of Jesus being the only sinless one. Not to mention, the liturgy refers to Christ as 'the only sinless one' so there is room for differing opinions here.

[Rufus]

Saint Peter was not the founder of the Holy Church of Rome. Saint Paul was.

Then how did Paul write a letter to the Romans before he'd ever been there?

It would be interesting if someone got to Rome before both Peter and Paul!!

But this is all beside the point: the see of Rome was founded by Peter.

[Irish Hermit]

Saint Peter was not the founder of the Holy Church of Rome. Saint Paul was.

Then how did Paul write a letter to the Romans before he'd ever been there?

It would be interesting if someone got to Rome before both Peter and Paul!!

But this is all beside the point: the see of Rome was founded by Peter.

Point of interest.  This is strenously denied by some Orthodox including Pope Shenouda.

See message 37
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,28604.msg451939.html#msg451939

[Irish Hermit]

I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Dear Azurestone,

Please see  "Popes and Councils Reject Appeals to Rome"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31519.new.html

[Aindriú]

I'm not an expert on canon law, so I would need some help with a discussion here. However, if the east steadily grew opposed to the papacy, and the west grew in it's support of the papacy, then the lack of canon law specifics (as there is certainly a Papacy of some level in the early church)

There are a couple of canons which touch on the Bishop of Rome. 

The earliest is Canon 6 of Nicea from 325 AD.  It proclaims that both the Bishop of Alexandria and the Bishop of Rome have their traditional territory of authority and to confine themselves within its boundaries. It sees the Bishop Of Rome as a major bishop in his area but of equal authority with other major bishops in their own respective areas.  The canon is a denial of any wider authority than that, whether for Rome or Alexandria.  There is no concept of even the most rudimentary papacy.

Dear Azurestone,

Please see  "Popes and Councils Reject Appeals to Rome"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,31519.new.html

I will, Father.

[Ortho_cat]

I wonder how many times the See of Rome has been accused of being the antichrist?

[biro]

I wonder how many times the See of Rome has been accused of being the antichrist?

They probably just laugh by now. It's like some string of prank phone calls.