OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 19, 2014, 07:04:49 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Kinks in the Chain:Weak Links in the Succession of Supreme Pontiffs  (Read 8441 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 38,135



« on: December 31, 2010, 09:39:31 PM »

The Vatican prides itself on an unbroken succession of supreme pontiffs at Rome from St. Peter to Pope Benedict XVI.

Besides the problems that St. Peter did not found the See of Jerusalem (Tradition does tell us, though, that he consecrated its founder, St. James the Brother of God) and founded the See of Antioch, that the Papacy was at Avignon for perhaps a century, and the existence of the concept of an Antipope, there have been several succession crises which do not prove fatal for an Orthodox Patriarch-as the Orthodox episcopate stands as an ontological whole not dependent on any one member-but prove fatal to Ultramontanist claims predicating the whole of the Faith and Church on the "visible head." Some highlights:

the first century has some questions about the number of successors, with some indication that St. Linus predeceased St. Peter, and his successors were consecrated by St. Paul. There is also the problem that the early centuries speak of St. Paul as cofounder with St. Peter of the Church of Rome.

Pope Felix c. 530 tried to appoint Boniface as successor, something which was rejected an a Pope Damasus elected, who was anathematized by Pope Boniface II as an antipope. Pope Boniface followed suit by appoiting his successor Vigilius, but then burned it.  Vigilius succeeed Pope Boniface's successor, Pope Agapetus, who burned Pope Bonfiace's anathema of Pope Damasus as an Antipope.  Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs for opposing the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which was not implimented until his successor Pope Pelagius I, coloring the succession of infallible "supreme pontiff" 530-555.

The anathematization of Pope Honorius by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and in the papal oath taken by his successors until after the Schism.

There is the excommunication of Pope Nicholas I for heresy.

The bizarre events focused on the Cadaver Synod colors the succession 891-911, at least.

The Great Schism, which had serveral popes at one time, replaced by another pope set up by a council which, according to Ultramontanist claims, could not have the authority to do so.

Given that and more, I hardly know where to begin.

since the Vatican doesn't publish an official list (how convenient Roll Eyes ), we have to go with the most authoritative, the  Annuario Pontificio,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_popes
and the one with the "Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York." of NewAdvent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm
« Last Edit: December 31, 2010, 09:42:35 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #1 on: January 04, 2011, 01:21:36 PM »

^Since this brought this up:
Quote
Canon 23 of the Council of Antioch (340)
It shall not be lawful for a bishop, even at the close of life, to appoint another as successor to himself; and if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void. But the ecclesiastical law must be observed, that a bishop must not be appointed otherwise than by a synod and with the judgment of the bishops, who have the authority to promote the man who is worthy, after the falling asleep of him who has ceased from his labours.

Nothing could be more important than the provision of this canon. It is evidently intended to prevent nepotism in every form, and to leave the appointment to the vacant see absolutely to the free choice of the Metropolitan and his synod. The history of the Church, and its present practice, is a curious commentary upon the ancient legislation, and the appointment of coadjutor bishops cum jure successionis, so common in later days, seems to be a somewhat ingenious way of escaping the force of the canon. Van Espen, however, reminds his readers of the most interesting case of St. Augustine of Hippo (which he himself narrates in his Epistle CCXIII.) of how he was chosen by his predecessor as bishop of Hippo, both he and the then bishop being ignorant of the fact that it was prohibited by the canons. And how when in his old age the people wished him to have one chosen bishop to help him till his death and to succeed him afterwards, he declined saying: What was worthy of blame in my own case, shall not be a blot likewise upon my son. He did not hesitate to say who he thought most worthy to succeed him, but he added, he shall be a presbyter, as he is, and when God so wills he shall be a bishop. Van Espen adds; All this should be read carefully that thence may be learned how St. Augustine set an example to bishops and pastors of taking all the pains possible that after their deaths true pastors, and not thieves and wolves, should enter into their flocks, who in a short time would destroy all they had accomplished by so much labour in so long a time. (Cf. Eusebius. H. E., Lib. VI., cap. xj. and cap. xxxij.)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3805.htm

Quote
The Regional Council of Antioch.


Prolegomena.

The regional Council held in Antioch, Syria, was convened in A.D.341 in the reign of Constantius (a son of Constantine the Great), who was present in person in Antioch. It was attended, according to Socrates (Book II, ch. 8 of his Ecclesiastical History) by ninety Fathers, but, according to Theophanes, one hundred and twenty; the leader of whom was Eusebius, formerly bishop of Beyrut, later of Nicomedia, and after serving as bishop of Nicomedia having become bishop of Constantinople. The bishop of Antioch at that time was a man by the name of Placotus. But the bishop of Rome, Julius, was not present at this Council, either in person or by legates; but neither was Maximus, the bishop of Jerusalem. Thus this Council issued the present twenty-five Canons, which are indeed necessary to the good order and constitution of the Church, though for the most part they not only agree in import with the Apostolic Canons (see the Prolegomena to the Apostolic Canons), but even use the same words that those Canons contain. They are confirmed in addition indefinitely by c. I of the 4th (though the latter in its fourth Act cites the fourth and the fifth Canons of this Council verbatim, as we shall have occasion to assert) and by c. I of the 7th; and definitely by c. II of the 6th, and by virtue of the confirmation afforded by this latter Council, they have acquired a force which, in a way, is ecumenical.

23. No Bishop shall be permitted to appoint another as his successor in office, even though he be approaching the end of his life. But if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void and of no effect. The ecclesiastical law shall be kept which declares that only with a synod and the decision of bishops, and not otherwise, may a worthy one be promoted to take over the authority held by the one who has been laid to rest in sleep.

(Ap. c. LXXVI.)


Interpretation.

In agreement with Ap. c. LXXVI this Canon also decrees to the effect that no bishop shall have permission to ordain a successor to his own throne whomsoever he may wish and of his own accord, even though he be at the point of death. If, nevertheless, any bishop should do so, the ordination shall be invalid. The Canon of the Church providing for this contingency must be kept which decrees that in no other way may anyone become a successor than by judgment and vote of a synod or council of bishops, who have authority after the death of the predecessor to ordain one worthy to succeed him. See also said Ap. c. LXXVI
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635082

Quote
Apostolic Canon 76. It is decreed that no Bishop shall be allowed to ordain whomsoever he wishes to the office of the Episcopate as a matter of concession to a brother, or to a son, or to a relative. For it is not right for heirs to the Episcopate to be created, by subjecting God’s things to human passion; for God’s Church ought not to be entrusted to heirs. If anyone shall do this, let the ordination remain invalid and void, and let the bishop himself be penanced with excommunication.

(c. XXIII of Antioch; c. XL of Carthage.).


Interpretation.

Prelatical authority is admittedly a grace and gift of the Holy Spirit. So how can anyone bestow it upon another as an inheritable right? Wherefore the present Apostolical Canon decrees that a bishop ought not to favor any of his brothers or sons or relatives by ordaining him as his successor to the office of the episcopate, because it is not right for one to create heirs to the episcopate and prelacy (as is done, that is to say, in the case of other affairs among seculars), and to bestow the gracious gifts of God upon another as a favor, such as the prelatical authority, on account of human passion, or, in other words, on account of considerations of relationship or of friendship. Nor ought anyone to subject the Church of God to inheritance, by so acting as to cause it to be called a patrimony. But if any one of the bishops should do this and ordain any relative of his as his successor to the episcopate, the ordination so performed shall be invalid and of no effect, while he himself who ordained that person shall be excommunicated; for bishops must be made by a synod. Accordingly if, as declared in c. XL of Carthage, bishops have no authority to leave to their relatives, or to anyone else they may choose, any property that they acquired after the episcopate, by way of legacy (except only whatever they have acquired by inheritance from relatives or any bestowed upon them by someone else in token of honor), how can they leave as a legacy to their relatives, or to anyone else they may wish, the episcopate itself?


Concord.

Wherefore consistently herewith c. XXIII of Antioch commands that no bishop shall have authority to appoint a successor to himself even though he be at the point of death on the contrary, the synod and the judgment of the bishops composing it shall have sole authority to appoint whomsoever they find to be worthy, after the decease of the defunct bishop. Hence it was that this very same thing was prohibited also in connection with ancient Israel. It was on this ground that they laid an accusation against Moses charging that he appointed his brother Aaron to the office of high priest, and the latter’s sons too. Accordingly, had not God Himself confirmed their appointment to holy orders by means of the sign of the rod which sprouted and blossomed, there is little doubt that they would have been deposed from office.
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 01:36:24 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
Monk Vasyl
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: UOC of USA
Posts: 623


Monk Vasyl
WWW
« Reply #2 on: January 04, 2011, 01:37:02 PM »

 Its interesting to know that before Pope John XXIII (1958-63), there was an antipope John XXIII (1400-1415). 
« Last Edit: January 04, 2011, 01:37:51 PM by Monk Vasyl » Logged

The unworthy hierodeacon, Vasyl
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: 38,135



« Reply #3 on: January 04, 2011, 02:06:45 PM »

 Its interesting to know that before Pope John XXIII (1958-63), there was an antipope John XXIII (1400-1415). 
LOL. "Antipope."

That depends on your viewpoint: Pope John XXIII opened the Council of Constance, which the Vatican claims as ecumenical, and claims that it elected the real Pope Martin V.
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 #4 on: January 04, 2011, 03:46:18 PM »

 Its interesting to know that before Pope John XXIII (1958-63), there was an antipope John XXIII (1400-1415). 

When the latter-day John the Twenty-Third took that name, he was telling the world something about the false John XXIII.   Had the earlier claimant been legitimate then the later claimant would never have been able to rightfully take his name.

There are Orthodox who arrogate to themselves some particular talent in Catholic canon law, doctrine and ecclesial history and theology.

Fortunately for the Catholic Church they are few in number and only really broadcast on a very narrow band.  OrthoChicks if you will...
Logged

Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #5 on: January 04, 2011, 09:35:38 PM »

Pope Felix c. 530 tried to appoint Boniface as successor, something which was rejected an a Pope Damasus elected, who was anathematized by Pope Boniface II as an antipope. Pope Boniface followed suit by appoiting his successor Vigilius, but then burned it.  Vigilius succeeed Pope Boniface's successor, Pope Agapetus, who burned Pope Bonfiace's anathema of Pope Damasus as an Antipope.  Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs for opposing the Fifth Ecumenical Council, which was not implimented until his successor Pope Pelagius I, coloring the succession of infallible "supreme pontiff" 530-555.

Pope St Felix did appoint Pope Boniface II.  Roman presbyters responded by electing Dioscorus, who died 22 days later and Pope Boniface II remained.  Pope Boniface II attempted to appoint Vigilius as his succesor but opposition made him recant.  Popes John II, St. Agapetus I, and St. Silverius followed.  St. Justinian the Great deposed Pope St. Silverius and appointed Pope Vigilius in his place beginning the time of the Byzantine Papacy.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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: 38,135



« Reply #6 on: January 04, 2011, 09:55:05 PM »

 Its interesting to know that before Pope John XXIII (1958-63), there was an antipope John XXIII (1400-1415). 

When the latter-day John the Twenty-Third took that name, he was telling the world something about the false John XXIII.   Had the earlier claimant been legitimate then the later claimant would never have been able to rightfully take his name.
LOL. And what do you say about Pope John XX of Rome?

And do correct Thomist on his counting of Pope Adrians.
-Adrian V: Even if your argument were correct (It isn't) your example would still fail. In order to become Pope, one must be invested with the Pallium. Adrian was not. He is generally listed as a courtesy:

Quote
There are Orthodox who arrogate to themselves some particular talent in Catholic canon law, doctrine and ecclesial history and theology.

Just exercising their God given intellect and reason in the service of the gift of Faith.

Quote
Fortunately for the Catholic Church they are few in number and only really broadcast on a very narrow band.  OrthoChicks if you will...
Enough to save the Catholic Church from the council of Ravenna.
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
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #7 on: January 04, 2011, 10:36:09 PM »

LOL. And what do you say about Pope John XX of Rome?

You mean John XXI who should have been John XX?  What of Sergius III, John X, John XII, Benedict IX and Alexander VI?  All immoral men who are bigger kinks than anyone mentioned so far.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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: 38,135



« Reply #8 on: January 05, 2011, 12:42:10 AM »

LOL. And what do you say about Pope John XX of Rome?

You mean John XXI who should have been John XX?  What of Sergius III, John X, John XII, Benedict IX and Alexander VI?  All immoral men who are bigger kinks than anyone mentioned so far.
"Patience is beautiful"-Arab proverb.

I haven't gotten even started. We have to start with St. Peter first, and that in Jerusalem, not Rome. Lord willing, we will get to all the pillars of the Vatican.  Btw Pope Sergius is in the Cadaver Synod Suit, mentioned above. Pope Alexander VI is a personal favorite.
Quote
Such was Alexander VI's unpopularity that the priests of St. Peter's Basilica refused to accept the body for burial until forced to do so by papal staff. Only four prelates attended the Requiem Mass. Alexander's successor on the Throne of St. Peter, Francesco Todeschini-Piccolomini, who assumed the name of Pope Pius III (1503), forbade the saying of a Mass for the repose of Alexander VI's soul, saying, "It is blasphemous to pray for the damned".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_VI#Death

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 12:44:10 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #9 on: January 05, 2011, 01:09:57 AM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
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: 38,135



« Reply #10 on: January 05, 2011, 01:13:43 AM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.
That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.
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
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #11 on: January 05, 2011, 01:14:22 AM »

My Church (i.e., the Melkite Catholic Church) claims that it is also an historic petrine Church.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,050


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #12 on: January 05, 2011, 01:25:44 AM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.
That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.
My Church is predicated on Christ first and foremost.  The Church doesn't cease when  a pope dies or when it takes years to elect a new one.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #13 on: January 05, 2011, 01:27:31 AM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.
That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.
My Church is predicated on Christ first and foremost.  The Church doesn't cease when  a pope dies or when it takes years to elect a new one.
Fr. Deacon,

I agree with you.  Christ, not the pope, is the source of the Church's unity.

God bless.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #14 on: January 05, 2011, 07:28:49 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.
That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.
My Church is predicated on Christ first and foremost.  The Church doesn't cease when  a pope dies or when it takes years to elect a new one.
Fr. Deacon,

I agree with you.  Christ, not the pope, is the source of the Church's unity.

God bless.
Just as Christ, not the priest, is the source of the sacraments, and The Holy Spirit, not human writers, is the source of the Holy Scriptures. Yet, the priest is necessry, and so are the human authors. The Pope is necessary as well.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #15 on: January 05, 2011, 08:17:57 PM »

LOL. And what do you say about Pope John XX of Rome?

You mean John XXI who should have been John XX? 

This reminds me of the one lightbulb joke:

How many popes does it take to screw in a lightbulb:

One to screw it in, and 15 others to take his name in honor of the great deed
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #16 on: January 05, 2011, 08:26:44 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   
Logged
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #17 on: January 05, 2011, 08:28:40 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   
Ummmm, what? The Peterine succession, in this case, has to do with ruling of the Catholic Roman See. Not with which particular bishops select the Pope.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #18 on: January 05, 2011, 08:50:28 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #19 on: January 05, 2011, 08:59:02 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.
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: 38,135



« Reply #20 on: January 05, 2011, 09:01:19 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.
That doesn't present a problem in the other sees, as they do not predicate the Church on the patriarch.
My Church is predicated on Christ first and foremost.  The Church doesn't cease when  a pope dies or when it takes years to elect a new one.
Fr. Deacon,

I agree with you.  Christ, not the pope, is the source of the Church's unity.

God bless.
Just as Christ, not the priest, is the source of the sacraments, and The Holy Spirit, not human writers, is the source of the Holy Scriptures. Yet, the priest is necessry, and so are the human authors. The Pope is necessary as well.
Then you have a problem every interregnum. How is a pontificate resurrected when it has died.  There is no "the Pope is dead, long live the Pope!"
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: 38,135



« Reply #21 on: January 05, 2011, 09:02:43 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   
You have nailed the OP right on the head, Father.
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: 38,135



« Reply #22 on: January 05, 2011, 09:04:28 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.
Hmmm. Sounds dangerously close to the Orthodox dogma that all bishops succeed St. Peter. But then that raises those 'uniqueness' claims the Vatican makes.
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:05:11 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #23 on: January 05, 2011, 09:05:09 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

There would seem to be no ceremony or moment when the powers of Peter are entrusted to a new Pope from the Almighty.   We may find that Ialmisry is right and the power resides in the chair itself.  So when God sees a man sitting in that special chair He knows that He must take care to prevent him speaking any error.  Could the chair itself be sentient, could it be one of the energies of God?  Rather like the power that existed in the Ark of the Covenant?
« Last Edit: January 05, 2011, 09:08:57 PM by Irish Hermit » 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: 38,135



« Reply #24 on: January 05, 2011, 09:15:04 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

There would seem to be no ceremony or moment when the powers of Peter are entrusted to a new Pope from the Almighty.   We may find that Ialmisry is right and the power resides in the chair itself.  So when God sees a man sitting in that special chair He knows that He must take care to prevent him speaking any error.  Could the chair itself be sentient, could it be one of the energies of God?  Rather like the power that existed in the Ark of the Covenant?
Maybe it works like Blue's Thinking Chair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue%27s_Clues#Format
Logged

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

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #25 on: January 05, 2011, 09:33:44 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome
Whether or not Peter himself ever ordained a particular bishop has nothing to do with whether or not the See of Rome is a Petrine See or even the Peterine See. It's The Aposotlic See because that's where St. Peter ended his ministry, where he and St. Paul were martyred.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #26 on: January 05, 2011, 09:36:13 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.
Hmmm. Sounds dangerously close to the Orthodox dogma that all bishops succeed St. Peter. But then that raises those 'uniqueness' claims the Vatican makes.

In part, but not entirely.

For example, Pope Leo the Great said the Petrine Sees are special unto themselves, and not due to the Bishop.

Letter CVI
Pope Leo to Anatolius of Constantinople
Quote
The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity.  The See of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through S. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may the splendour of so great a church be obscured by another’s clouds, Dioscorus having fallen through his persistence in impiety.  The church of Antioch too, in which first at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter the Christian name arose458, must continue in the position assigned it by the Fathers, and being set in the third place must never be lowered therefrom.  For the See is on a different footing to the holders of it; and each individual’s chief honour is his own integrity.  And since that does not lose its proper worth in any place, how much more glorious must it be when placed in the magnificence of the city of Constantinople, where many priests may find both a defence of the Fathers’ canons and an example of uprightness in observing you?
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.ii.iv.ci.html

The two theories, despite the positions of the strongest polemics of both sides, aren't mutually exclusive. Where the Orthodox position understand's Peter's primacy as the unity of faith between Presbyters, where one has been recognized over the others (reference His Broken Body). The R Catholics understand it on a larger scale, where Peter's primacy represents the unity of primates, where one is senior.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #27 on: January 05, 2011, 09:39:19 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.
Hmmm. Sounds dangerously close to the Orthodox dogma that all bishops succeed St. Peter. But then that raises those 'uniqueness' claims the Vatican makes.
There is a sense in which Catholics could agree with you. All Bishops are the successors of all the Apostles. In fact, Rome is not the only see that can lay claim to being Peterine. But it is in Rome that St. Peter laid down his life, and ended his earthly ministry. As St. Iranaeus says,


"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). "

Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #28 on: January 05, 2011, 10:56:25 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:
Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome
Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.
Unfortunately this does not solve the problem that the pope, prior to the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, was not elected by those ordained by another pope, so still falls short of succession. 
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 05, 2011, 11:13:51 PM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:
Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome
Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.
Unfortunately this does not solve the problem that the pope, prior to the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, was not elected by those ordained by another pope, so still falls short of succession. 


I think you skipped everything, but the last sentence. The last sentence was just "gee wiz" information.

I would be as bold to state as many as all the bishops and priest in the Roman church and many among the other churches within the communion are ordained from the line of Peter.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #30 on: January 06, 2011, 12:49:07 AM »

Pope Honorius I was anathematized for his sympathy towards the monothelites. So what? Care to point to any dogmatic definitions he issued that you feel were heretical? Pope Boniface VIII was posthumously tried for heresy well after the Papal Supremacy had been established in the west. If anything, the anger incurred against Honorius was not for any vigorous advancement of the monothelite cause, but for his refusal to act as Pope to suppress them. It strengthens, not weakens, the case for the unique prerogatives of the papal office.

Your arguments on the Western Schism and Pope Adrian were dealt with in the other thread, and you offer no new opinions on them here that weren't corrected there.

As for the excommunication of Pope Saint Nicholas I, you leave out the tiny little problem that Pope Nicholas won that argument. Basil I the Macedonian expelled Photios, restored Ignatios, and the Churches returned to communion for 187 years. Photios' council had no right to excommunicate anyone, having been summoned by an illegal and illegitimate pretender to the Patriarchal throne.

And what about Dioscorus? He was an antipope. Yes, and?

Heaven knows why you feel the cadaver synod "Colored the succession". It may be a strange story, but it presents no legal challenges whatsoever to the papal succession.

« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 01:01:22 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #31 on: January 06, 2011, 12:58:36 AM »

Whether or not Peter himself ever ordained a particular bishop has nothing to do with whether or not the See of Rome is a Petrine See or even the Peterine See. It's The Aposotlic See because that's where St. Peter ended his ministry, where he and St. Paul were martyred.


The Pope Proclaims:  There are Three Petrine Sees, with Equal Authority and with the Keys

Pope Saint Gregory the Great believed that the Blessed Peter had established
three Petrine Sees of equal authority - Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

This Triptarchy existed prior to the now familiar Pentarchy, and it is connected
with a belief in a Petrine foundation for each of these three major Sees.


Note well what the Pope says here in his letter to Eulogius of Alexandria:

1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing
the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and
Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one
See of Peter over which the three bishops preside.

-oOo-

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Pope Eulogius
Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius of Alexandria] has spoken
much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince
of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the
persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the
dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand.
But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to
me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. …And to him it is
said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the
kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And
when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once
more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi.
17).

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 [Peter] 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)
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #32 on: January 06, 2011, 01:06:16 AM »

Pope Honorius I was anathematized for his sympathy towards the monothelites. So what?


Honorius, anathematized for being a Monothelite sympathizer !!?   Methinks you do not know the truth about it.  He was anathematized for being a heretic.

The Sad Tale of Pope Honorius

1. His condemnation is found in the Acts of the 13th Session of the 6th Ecumenical Council.

2. His two letters were ordered to be burned at the same Session.

3. In the 17th session of the 6th Ecumenical Council, the Council Fathers proclaimed:

........................"Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius,..."

........................The above clinches it, unless we want to argue that an Ecumenical Council and the Popes who ratified it may err but in that case the burden of proof is on the person who opposes the Council and the papal ratification.


4. In the decree of faith published at the 17th Session it is stated that "the originator of all evil the Devil...found a fit tool for his will in...Honorius, Pope of Old Rome..."

5. The report of the Council to the Emperor says that "Honorius, formerly bishop of Rome" they had "punished with exclusion and anathema" because he followed the monothelites.

6. In its letter to Pope Agatho the Council says it "has slain Honorius with an anathema"

7. The imperial decree speaks of the "unholy priests who
infected the Church and falsely governed" and mentions among them "Honorius, the Pope of Old Rome, the confirmer of heresy who contradicted himself."

The Emperor goes on to anathematize "Honorius who was Pope of Old Rome, who in everything agreed with them, went with them, and strengthened the heresy."

8. Pope Leo II confirmed the decrees of the Council and expressly says that he too anathematized Honorius.

9. That Honorius was anathematized by the Sixth Council is
mentioned in the Trullan Canons.

10. So too the Seventh Council declares its adhesion to the
anathema in its decree of faith, and in several places in the acts the same is said.

11. Honorius's name was found in the Roman copy of the Acts. This is evident from Anastasius's life of Leo II. (Vita Leonis II.)

12. The Papal Oath as found in the Liber Diurnus taken by
each new Pope from the fifth to the eleventh centuries, in the form probably prescribed by Gregory II:

............................."...smites with eternal anathema the originators of the new heresy, Sergius, together with Honorius because he assisted the base assertion of the heretics."

13. In the lesson for the feast of St. Leo II. in the Roman Breviary the name of Pope Honorius occurs among those excommunicated by the Sixth Synod. This reference to Honorius was removed before the definition of papal infallibility.

14. The Catholic Encylopedia says that no Catholic may deny that Pope Honorius was a heretic.

"It is clear that no Catholic has the right to defend Pope Honorius. He was a heretic, not in intention, but in fact..."

This statement has the Imprimatur of John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm

With such an array of proof no conservative historian, it would seem, can question the fact that Honorius, the Pope of Rome, was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Sixth Ecumenical Council and that the Popes after him used their authority to uphold the decision against him.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 01:14:32 AM by Irish Hermit » 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: 38,135



« Reply #33 on: January 06, 2011, 01:17:23 AM »

Is starting a new thread when you've lost the argument in another a standard practice of yours, Ialmisry?

I'd have to lose an argument to try it first, let alone adopt it as a standard practice.

Pope Honorius I was anathematized for his sympathy towards the monothelites. So what? Care to point to any dogmatic definitions he issued that you feel were heretical?

Read the anathematization of him by the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the in the papal oath.

Pope Boniface VIII was posthumously tried for heresy well after the Papal Supremacy had been established in the west.

The Vatican claims to be judged by no one.

f anything, the anger incurred against Honorius was not for any vigorous advancement of the monothelite cause, but for his refusal to act as Pope to suppress them. It strengthens, not weakens, the case for the unique prerogatives of the papal office.

2+2=/=6

Your arguments on the Western Schism and Pope Adrian were dealt with in the other thread, and you offer no new opinions on them here that weren't corrected there.
You tried to spin them out of orbit from the Truth, but the facts remained firmly in place.

As for the excommunication of Pope Saint Nicholas I, you leave out the tiny little problem that Pope Nicholas won that argument. Basil I the Macedonian expelled Photios, restored Ignatios, and the Churches returned to communion for 187 years. Photios' council had no right to excommunicate anyone, having been summoned by an illegal and illegitimate pretender to the Patriarchal throne.
I haven't replied to your question on EP St. Photios yet, so I've left everthing out. But for a preview: Bulgaria became its own Orthodox Church, the filioque was condemned, the acts of 869 voided, the Balkans remained in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and were not returned to Rome as Pope Nicholas I demanded. Pope Nicholas ended up empty handed, like Pope Hormisdas and his son Pope Silverius.

And what about Dioscorus? He was an antipope. Yes, and?
According to the canons, no he was not. "Pope" Boniface II was.

Heaven knows why you feel the cadaver synod "Colored the succession". It may be a strange story, but it presents no legal challenges whatsoever to the papal succession.
Lord willing, when I get there we'll go into detail-though I've gone over most of them already here and elsewhere.  In brief, a succession of Popes alternately nullified the acts of their predecessors, including their ordinations.
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: 38,135



« Reply #34 on: January 06, 2011, 01:23:05 AM »

^Please define the "Catholic Roman See."  Please tell me what Peter ordaining the first bishops of Rome has to do with other bishops who are not successors of Peter nor successors of the Bishops of Rome ordained by Peter choosing the supposed sole successor of Peter?   Let me make it simple:

Then:  Peter chooses Clement
Now:  Bishops (Cardinals) who are not successors of Clement or Peter choose the Pope of Rome

Even if this was about "passing the torch", all the bishops in the Roman See have been ordained by the Apostolic Succession of Peter, as have most of the other bishops in the Catholic Communion. Especially, since the change in Canon Law 100 years ago, where new bishops are ordained by the Pope.
Hmmm. Sounds dangerously close to the Orthodox dogma that all bishops succeed St. Peter. But then that raises those 'uniqueness' claims the Vatican makes.
There is a sense in which Catholics could agree with you. All Bishops are the successors of all the Apostles. In fact, Rome is not the only see that can lay claim to being Peterine. But it is in Rome that St. Peter laid down his life, and ended his earthly ministry. As St. Iranaeus says,


"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). "
If you read it in his book, and not a quote mine, you will  see that he goes on to list other Churches.

Note "the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul,
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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #35 on: January 06, 2011, 01:30:44 AM »

What does it clinch, Irish Hermit?

Honorius' crime was in ordering silence on the issue. Thus Saint Maximus the Confessor says that the heretics: "Lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause." (Ad petrum illustrem)

Honorius may personally have been a monothelite. It isn't relevant. He issued no dogmatic definition in favor of monothelitism; rather he committed gross negligence by his failure to actively suppress it.

Quote from: ialmisry
The Vatican claims to be judged by no one.

Vague and meaningless statement. The Vatican claims to be the Church's supreme court on matters of canon law and to be infallible in dogmatic definitions. Neither are applicable to the case of Honorius.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Read the anathematization of him by the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the in the papal oath.

Inapplicable, it concerns no dogmatic definition.

Quote from: Ialmisry
2+2=/=6

See above.

Quote from: Ialmisry
You tried to spin them out of orbit from the Truth, but the facts remained firmly in place.

Then instead of going away to a new thread and repeating your arguments without reference to my counter-arguments, reply to them.

Quote from: ialmisry
I haven't replied to your question on EP St. Photios yet, so I've left everthing out. But for a preview: Bulgaria became its own Orthodox Church, the filioque was condemned, the acts of 869 voided, the Balkans remained in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and were not returned to Rome as Pope Nicholas I demanded. Pope Nicholas ended up empty handed, like Pope Hormisdas and his son Pope Silverius.

I'm sorry, your argument was regards the excommunication of Pope Saint Nicholas I for heresy. Please stick to statements that are relevant to what is being discussed. Nicholas got involved in a conflict with Photios because of the illegal deposition of Ignatios, and was dead when those issues were settled.

Quote from: Ialmisry
According to the canons, no he was not. "Pope" Boniface II was.

Nope.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Lord willing, when I get there we'll go into detail-though I've gone over most of them already here and elsewhere.  In brief, a succession of Popes alternately nullified the acts of their predecessors, including their ordinations.

Lord willing, you can reply in one post in the future, as you've been asked to do in the past.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 01:42:22 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #36 on: January 06, 2011, 01:36:20 AM »

What does it clinch, Irish Hermit?

Honorius' crime was in ordering silence on the issue. Thus Saint Maximus the Confessor says that the heretics: "Lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause." (Ad petrum illustrem)

Saint Maximus was in a tight spot. Three Catholic Patriarchs of the East (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria) had fallen in with the monothelite heresy. Saint Maximus was so upset that he went and made his residence in Rome. He pinned all his hope on Rome upholding and restoring orthodoxy. But even the Pope of Rome, Pope Honorius, succumbed to the monothelite heresy. So there was a time when four of the five Patriarchs (excluding Jerusalem) were heretical (Catholics shudder to hear that Honorius was a heretic but even the staunchly pro-papal Catholic Encyclopedia says, No Catholic may deny that Honorius was a heretic.)

From The Life of Our Holy Father St. Maximus the Confessor


The life of Saint Maximus is also instructive for us. Saint Maximus, though only a simple monk, resisted and cut off communion with every patriarch, metropolitan, archbishop and bishop in the East because of their having been infected with the heresy of Monothelitism. During the first imprisonment of the Saint, the messengers from the Ecumenical Patriarch asked him,

"To which church do you belong? To that of Byzantium, of Rome, Antioch, Alexandria, or Jerusalem? For all these churches, together with the provinces in subjection to them, are in unity. Therefore, if you also belong to the Catholic Church, enter into communion with us at once, lest fashioning for yourself some new and strange pathway, you fall into that which you do not even expect!"

To this the righteous man wisely replied, "Christ the Lord called that Church the Catholic Church which maintains the true and saving confession of the Faith. It was for this confession that He called Peter blessed, and He declared that He would found His Church upon this confession."

The confession which they were proposing to the Saint was not Orthodox, of course, and so he refused to comply with their coercions. Furthermore, they were lying about the See of Rome which, in fact, had remained Orthodox.

As history has demonstrated, Saint Maximus—who was only a simple monk and not even ordained—and his two disciples were the ones who were Orthodox, and all those illustrious, famous and influential Patriarchs and Metropolitans whom the Saint had written against were the ones who were in heresy.

When the Sixth Ecumenical Synod was finally convened, among those condemned for heresy were four Patriarchs of Constantinople, one Pope of Rome, one Patriarch of Alexandria, two Patriarchs of Antioch and a multitude of other Metropolitans, Archbishops and Bishops. During all those years, that one simple monk was right, and all those notable bishops were wrong. (pp. 60-62)

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/ecum_canons.aspx
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #37 on: January 06, 2011, 01:38:49 AM »

Lord willing, you can reply in one post in the future, as you've been asked to do in the past.


Please God, Iamisry will divide his posts a little.  I find his lengthy ones hard to follow and prefer shorter ones.
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #38 on: January 06, 2011, 01:40:29 AM »

I have not denied Honorius' heresy. The issue at hand is how that related to his actions in his official Papal capacity. In that dimension it only extended to his urging of silence on the issue, not any dogmatic definition of heretical beliefs, which is what would be relevant. This is why Maximus can say the heretics have lied against the Apostolic See in claiming Honorius to be "one with their cause".
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 01:40:59 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
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: 38,135



« Reply #39 on: January 06, 2011, 02:15:36 AM »

What does it clinch, Irish Hermit?

Honorius' crime was in ordering silence on the issue. Thus Saint Maximus the Confessor says that the heretics: "Lie against the Apostolic See itself in claiming Honorius to be one with their cause." (Ad petrum illustrem)

The Holy Spirit and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council found otherwise, and anathematized accordingly.

Honorius may personally have been a monothelite. It isn't relevant. He issued no dogmatic definition in favor of monothelitism; rather he committed gross negligence by his failure to actively suppress it.
Thereby demonstrating how vaccuous and  bankrupt the dogma of Pastor Aeternus. Utterly worthless.

Quote from: ialmisry
The Vatican claims to be judged by no one.

Vague and meaningless statement.


Your supreme pontiffs repeat it often enough. Take it up with them.

The Vatican claims to be the Church's supreme court on matters of canon law and to be infallible in dogmatic definitions. Neither are applicable to the case of Honorius.
Honorius was judged and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Read the anathematization of him by the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council and the in the papal oath.

Inapplicable, it concerns no dogmatic definition.
Obviously you have not read it.

Quote from: Ialmisry
You tried to spin them out of orbit from the Truth, but the facts remained firmly in place.

Then instead of going away to a new thread and repeating your arguments without reference to my counter-arguments, reply to them.

This thread?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,32425.225.html

I have. I haven't gotten to finishing the one on Pope Gelesius and Pope Nicholas, and I won't be on that thread but on another more appropriate (that thread seems to have wandered from its OP), and your posts there since then.  Sorry if it isn't my highest priority.

You will also note that I have replied to you on that thread since I opened this one, on which I have barely gotten started.

Quote from: ialmisry
I haven't replied to your question on EP St. Photios yet, so I've left everthing out. But for a preview: Bulgaria became its own Orthodox Church, the filioque was condemned, the acts of 869 voided, the Balkans remained in the Patriarchate of Constantinople and were not returned to Rome as Pope Nicholas I demanded. Pope Nicholas ended up empty handed, like Pope Hormisdas and his son Pope Silverius.

I'm sorry, your argument was regards the excommunication of Pope Saint Nicholas I for heresy. Please stick to statements that are relevant to what is being discussed.
When I get to it. I haven't yet.

Nicholas got involved in a conflict with Photios because of the illegal deposition of Ignatios,
Quote

EP St. Ignatius' deposition was completely legal. The question was how canonical, and the councils of 859 and 861 found it canonical. Pope Nicholas' 863 council found otherwise, but it had no jurisdiction and was therefore void.  The council of 869 repeated the same mistake, and was vacated by the Council of Constantinople IV in 879.

and was dead when those issues were settled.
I know: his successor Pope John VIII was reperesented at Constantinople IV. EP St. Photios had condemned Pope Nicholas and deposed him for heresy before the latter died, never having seen EP St. Photios removed from his cathedra.

Quote from: Ialmisry
According to the canons, no he was not. "Pope" Boniface II was.

Nope.
Whoah! Take it easy on the Kool-Aid!  If you guzzle it down so fast you'll get sick. Tongue

Quote from: Ialmisry
Lord willing, when I get there we'll go into detail-though I've gone over most of them already here and elsewhere.  In brief, a succession of Popes alternately nullified the acts of their predecessors, including their ordinations.
Lord willing, you can reply in one post in the future, as you've been asked to do in the past.

Time and how my computer is working dictate that before requests.  Btw, others prefer they be broken down.
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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #40 on: January 06, 2011, 02:25:18 AM »

Quote from: ialmisry
The Holy Spirit and the Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council found otherwise, and anathematized accordingly.

Nope. But your failure to take account of the nature of Papal dogmatic definition does render the words of the Saint incomprehensible to you.

Quote from: ialmisry
Thereby demonstrating how vaccuous and  bankrupt the dogma of Pastor Aeternus. Utterly worthless.

Nope.

Quote from: ialmisry
Honorius was judged and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Yep. The Vatican took part in doing so, so that has no bearing on the question of the Vatican's court jurisdiction.

Quote from: ialmisry
Obviously you have not read it.

No dogmatic definition made by Honorius, as context made clear.

Quote from: ialmisry
I have. I haven't gotten to finishing the one on Pope Gelesius and Pope Nicholas, and I won't be on that thread but on another more appropriate (that thread seems to have wandered from its OP), and your posts there since then.  Sorry if it isn't my highest priority.

You will also note that I have replied to you on that thread since I opened this one, on which I have barely gotten started.

I don't have displayed any post from you responding to my most recent post. My most recent post in the thread is on Jan. 3rd 2011 at 5:52:46 AM, and the only post I have displayed that you have made since is on January 3rd, 2011 at 7:56:39pm, in which you only address elijahmaria.

Quote from: Ialmisry
EP St. Ignatius' deposition was completely legal. The question was how canonical, and the councils of 859 and 861 found it canonical. Pope Nicholas' 863 council found otherwise, but it had no jurisdiction and was therefore void.  The council of 869 repeated the same mistake, and was vacated by the Council of Constantinople IV in 879.

And yet the schism ended with Photios deposed, Ignatios reinstated, and his view that the filioque constituted a heresy ignored for nearly 200 years, when it again became fashionable after the Churches went in to schism once more, for a different reason. It appears your councils didn't do too well on that whole "reception" thing.

Quote from: ialmisry
Whoah! Take it easy on the Kool-Aid!  If you guzzle it down so fast you'll get sick. Tongue

More vagueness.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 02:29:28 AM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
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: 38,135



« Reply #41 on: January 06, 2011, 12:45:15 PM »

Quote from: ialmisry
Thereby demonstrating how vaccuous and  bankrupt the dogma of Pastor Aeternus. Utterly worthless.

Nope.


That inscrutible dognamtic definition of Pastor Aeternus hasn't clarified anything for you.  If it had, we would have a list of ex cathedra statements, and no debate on what one is (e.g. is Humanae Vitae "infallible"?).

Quote from: ialmisry
Honorius was judged and anathematized by the Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Yep. The Vatican took part in doing so, so that has no bearing on the question of the Vatican's court jurisdiction.

He wasn't not judged in the Vatican by the supreme pontiff, and according to the Vatican's rules, the supreme pontiff did not participate: Pope St. Agatho died during the Council, and his successor Pope St. Leo II was not consecrated until almost a year after the Ecumenical Council had passed its sentences, issued its anathemas, wrote its definitions, and closed on September 16, 681.
Quote
Pope (682-83), date of birth unknown; d. 28 June, 683. He was a Sicilian, and son of one Paul. Though elected pope a few days after the death of St. Agatho (10 January, 681), he was not consecrated till after the lapse of a year and seven months (17 Aug., 682). Under Leo's predecessor St. Agatho, negotiations had been opened between the Holy See and Emperor Constantine Pogonatus concerning the relations of the Byzantine Court to papal elections. Constantine had already promised Agatho to abolish or reduce the tax which for about a century the popes had had to pay to the imperial treasury on the occasion of their consecration, and under Leo's successor he made other changes in what had hitherto been required of the Roman Church at the time of a papal election. In all probability, therefore, it was continued correspondence on this matter which caused the delay of the imperial confirmation of Leo's election, and hence the long postponement of his consecration.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09157a.htmWe have LOTS of threads on Pastor Aeternus, Honorius, etc. Please do respond on one.
Please do respond on the linked thread. On this one I am focusing on the alleged transmission of the imagined pontificate, and will Lord willing deal with Pope Honorius from that perspective in due time, although I'll note that it is interesting that we have in Leo II another unconsecrated supreme pontiff elect who is exercising the powers of the office, here negotiating the transmission of the alleged pontificate.

I have. I haven't gotten to finishing the one on Pope Gelesius and Pope Nicholas, and I won't be on that thread but on another more appropriate (that thread seems to have wandered from its OP), and your posts there since then.  Sorry if it isn't my highest priority.

You will also note that I have replied to you on that thread since I opened this one, on which I have barely gotten started.

I don't have displayed any post from you responding to my most recent post. My most recent post in the thread is on Jan. 3rd 2011 at 5:52:46 AM, and the only post I have displayed that you have made since is on January 3rd, 2011 at 7:56:39pm, in which you only address elijahmaria.

Do note the boldface, please.

You appear to have diverted the discussion away from the Meletian, Acacian, and Photian schisms and the roles played in them by Saint Innocent I, Saint Gelasius I, and Nicholas I.
no. Fatherhood, sonship and Vespers called.  I do have priorities.

Care to give your thoughts on them?
Sure do, but I have to catch up on sleep now. Lord willing tommorrow.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 01:01:57 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #42 on: January 06, 2011, 01:30:10 PM »

Quote from: Ialmisry
EP St. Ignatius' deposition was completely legal. The question was how canonical, and the councils of 859 and 861 found it canonical. Pope Nicholas' 863 council found otherwise, but it had no jurisdiction and was therefore void.  The council of 869 repeated the same mistake, and was vacated by the Council of Constantinople IV in 879.

And yet the schism ended with Photios deposed, Ignatios reinstated, and his view that the filioque constituted a heresy ignored for nearly 200 years, when it again became fashionable after the Churches went in to schism once more, for a different reason. It appears your councils didn't do too well on that whole "reception" thing.

No, it ended with EP St. Photios reconciled with EP St. Ignatius, EP St. Photios vindicated in 879, the acts of 869 voided. And all Orthodox Churches receive the Council of Constantinople IV (879) as authorititative, if not ecumenical.

We have LOTS of threads on EP St. Photios. Please do reply on one of them.
Do reply on the linked thread.  Here, my interest on Pope Nicholas I is going to only be on any effect he had on his succession, compromised by his uncanonical behavior and heresy.

Quote from: ialmisry
Whoah! Take it easy on the Kool-Aid!  If you guzzle it down so fast you'll get sick. Tongue

More vagueness.

No, the canon is very precise:
Quote
Canon 23 of the Council of Antioch (340)
It shall not be lawful for a bishop, even at the close of life, to appoint another as successor to himself; and if any such thing should be done, the appointment shall be void.
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
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #43 on: January 06, 2011, 04:59:22 PM »

Firstly we should note as an aside that your arguments regarding 'weak links' would prove nothing, even if they were all correct. If there is a long dispute about who the proper priest of a given parish is, this does not change the fact that a parish ought to have a priest. If there is a long dispute about who the proper bishop of a given diocese is, this does not change the fact that a diocese ought to have a bishop. And so on up the chain. There isn't some point at which this just arbitrarily ceases. Social organizations have laws, and laws require governors.

Quote from: ialmisry
That inscrutible dognamtic definition of Pastor Aeternus hasn't clarified anything for you.  If it had, we would have a list of ex cathedra statements, and no debate on what one is (e.g. is Humanae Vitae "infallible"?).

Certainly doesn't lead me to the conclusion, as it must for you, that Saint Maximus didn't know what he was talking about.

However a thorough study was made on the subject by Church historian Klaus Schatz, which identifies the following as the exercises of Papal infallibility:

Pope Saint Leo I's Tome to Flavian
Pope Saint Agatho's letter to the Council of Chalcedon on the two wills of Christ
Pope Benedict XII's Benedictus Deus
Pope Innocent X's Cum Occasione
Pope Pius VI's Auctorem fidei
Pope Pius IX's Ineffabilis Deus
Pope Pius XII's Municifentissimus Deus

Quote from: Ialmisry
He wasn't not judged in the Vatican by the supreme pontiff, and according to the Vatican's rules, the supreme pontiff did not participate: Pope St. Agatho died during the Council, and his successor Pope St. Leo II was not consecrated until almost a year after the Ecumenical Council had passed its sentences, issued its anathemas, wrote its definitions, and closed on September 16, 681.

The confirmations of Leo II, and in the synod held at Toledo, at which the Sixth Ecumenical Council was accepted, made quite clear that Honorius was condemned for his failure to suppress heresy (profana proditione immaculatem fidem subverti permisit, in the letter to the Emperor). No objection was raised to this in the east. It was a matter of course that Leo had to confirm the council's rulings, and indeed Leo did amend and further define the rulings of the council, expressing more clearly that Honorius was being condemned for a failure to suppress. Leo's amendment of the council's ruling was accepted.

Quote from: Ialmisry
Please do respond on the linked thread. On this one I am focusing on the alleged transmission of the imagined pontificate, and will Lord willing deal with Pope Honorius from that perspective in due time, although I'll note that it is interesting that we have in Leo II another unconsecrated supreme pontiff elect who is exercising the powers of the office, here negotiating the transmission of the alleged pontificate.

He could not be consecrated due to the threat of violence from the Byzantine Empire. His case is unlike that of Adrian, as he was being prevented from receiving the normal consecration under duress.

Quote from: ialmisry
Do reply on the linked thread.  Here, my interest on Pope Nicholas I is going to only be on any effect he had on his succession, compromised by his uncanonical behavior and heresy.

I will indeed be interested to hear your argument for why every eastern patriarch between Photios and Cerularius was a heretic for maintaining communion with the west, including many, like Patriarch Saint Ignatios, that the eastern orthodox regard as Saints! What I'll be especially interested to hear is how it was that Photios himself was a heretic for maintaining communion with the west after having himself been the one to first discover the heretical nature of the filioque. To think this heresy spread for almost 300 years before Photios was able to realize it was heretical, it certainly shakes one's confidence in the church. And then that Photios himself should plunge in to heresy by recognizing Nicholas' successors as valid Bishops of Rome, despite their continued adherence to the filioque? My, my.

Photios' position on the filioque was a political move that was backed by no serious religious belief. That is why after he was deposed, nobody was particularly worried about ignoring it for the next two centuries. Whereas he did refuse to retract his stance to Pope John VIII officially, in substance he did just that; whereas he had earlier, when it was politically convenient, argued that the filioque constituted a heresy which made communion impossible, he never raised the question of breaking communion again now that doing so was no longer politically opportune.

Quote from: ialmisry
No, the canon is very precise:

Antioch wasn't ecumenical, and laws are subject to change. There is no single written constitution for the Church.
« Last Edit: January 06, 2011, 05:06:58 PM by Thomist » Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #44 on: January 06, 2011, 05:44:18 PM »

^Antioch is recognized by the 7th Ec. as universally binding
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #45 on: January 06, 2011, 05:55:20 PM »

Peter died in Rome.  The Lord died rose and ascended and sent forth His Holy Spirit on the Apostles to the Oikoumene in Jerusalem. 

If the argument that Peter died in Rome is the reason for an exclusive succession, then would it not be logical that those who preceded his death as bishops of Rome were not his special successors?   You cannot have it both ways.   
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #46 on: January 06, 2011, 06:03:17 PM »

Procedural canon law is always subject to change. Where does the council say its canons shall be universally binding for all time?


Quote
Peter died in Rome.  The Lord died rose and ascended and sent forth His Holy Spirit on the Apostles to the Oikoumene in Jerusalem.

If the argument that Peter died in Rome is the reason for an exclusive succession, then would it not be logical that those who preceded his death as bishops of Rome were not his special successors?   You cannot have it both ways.

You'll have to rephrase, I didn't understand you.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #47 on: January 06, 2011, 08:20:57 PM »

Peter died in Rome.  The Lord died rose and ascended and sent forth His Holy Spirit on the Apostles to the Oikoumene in Jerusalem. 

If the argument that Peter died in Rome is the reason for an exclusive succession, then would it not be logical that those who preceded his death as bishops of Rome were not his special successors?   You cannot have it both ways.   

The reason isn't for his death per se. When someone says that they are referring to that See being the last Petrine See, and the seat of Peter's work and "rule" (by tradition). For example, there are three Petrine Sees, but the Church Tradition has an order to their "status". Rome is the seat of the Primate, by tradition, but "special" because it is a Petrine See.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #48 on: January 06, 2011, 11:06:57 PM »

Requested rephrase: 
So the Bishops of Rome prior to St. Clement were successors of Peter but not special successors of Peter because Peter hadn't died in Rome yet?
Logged
Thomist
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite: Archdiocese of Baltimore
Posts: 203



« Reply #49 on: January 06, 2011, 11:13:10 PM »

Huh? Peter died in AD 67, Clement became Pope in AD 92.  However I did not mean that Rome is the petrine see because Peter died there, but rather simply that Peter and Paul's deaths there are signs of it. The first millenium tradition always understood Rome to be the see of Peter over and above even Antioch and Alexandria. That is why the fathers regularly refer to it with such titles as "The Apostolic See". One does not have to believe in Papal Supremacy to see this.
Logged

"Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" - Saint Cyprian of Carthage
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: 38,135



« Reply #50 on: January 07, 2011, 12:51:10 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   
Ummmm, what? The Peterine succession, in this case, has to do with ruling of the Catholic Roman See. Not with which particular bishops select the Pope.
Might as well get started.

For the purposes of this thread, I am going to lean heavily to this side of absurdity on accepting as a given that St. Peter had some special charism given him directly by Christ to be transmitted to succeeding generations in the Church, the "Petrine succession' as papist has called it here.  I understand the artificality, the anachronism, the projection back etc of arguing the circumstances of something that didn't exist, but the supreme pontiff and his petrine succession exist now, and are derived from things that did and do exist, e.g. St. Peter, the Apostolate, the Orthodox episcopate and its Apostolic succession, the see of Rome, the Apostles at Rome, their followers at Rome, the Orthodox bishops, then Orthodox Archbishops, then Orthodox Popes of Rome before they gave way to Ultramontanist supreme pontiffs, etc... So combining Orthodox facts in the past with present Ultramontanist projection on them, a sort of proof by contradiction or indirect proof, the truth of the matter might be shown.

So although Scripture and Tradition explictely give the qualifications of bishop (and the presbyters derived from them) and deacon, but nothing about the qualifications for pontiff, I will not dwell on such points, just to contrast what we should see if Ultramontanism were true, and what the facts of Orthodoxy show us. Hence I will deal only with the claims made for St. Peter only as far as it has implications of the question of the transmission of those claims to his "successors" (the two issues are not one and the same, though related).

The Ultramontanists tell us that the pontificate is an office, not an order (of the clergy), which carries the grace of infallibility and the power of universal juridiction. Of course, as Orthodoxy teaches, this is utter nonsense:grace is concrete, not an abstraction. But for the sake of argument, we will assume the office of pontificate exists like the order of the episcopate. So what makes up that office? The Petrine succession. But succession to what? St. Peter's evangelization? St. Peter foundng the see? Being consecrated by St. Peter? Being consecrated as successor of St. Peter? Being enthroned in the Petrine See?  Possession of St. Peter's relics?

Any other options?
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: 38,135



« Reply #51 on: January 07, 2011, 01:46:41 PM »

^I thought of another:election by a Holy Synod set up by St. Peter (yes, a superb anachronism, as St. Peter makes clear that St. Matthias is elected to take Judas office, and no one outside of the Patriarchate of the West took part in the election of a bishop of Rome before the invention of the college of cardinals).
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 #52 on: January 07, 2011, 04:23:57 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   
Ummmm, what? The Peterine succession, in this case, has to do with ruling of the Catholic Roman See. Not with which particular bishops select the Pope.
Might as well get started.

For the purposes of this thread, I am going to lean heavily to this side of absurdity on accepting as a given that St. Peter had some special charism given him directly by Christ to be transmitted to succeeding generations in the Church, the "Petrine succession' as papist has called it here.  I understand the artificality, the anachronism, the projection back etc of arguing the circumstances of something that didn't exist, but the supreme pontiff and his petrine succession exist now, and are derived from things that did and do exist, e.g. St. Peter, the Apostolate, the Orthodox episcopate and its Apostolic succession, the see of Rome, the Apostles at Rome, their followers at Rome, the Orthodox bishops, then Orthodox Archbishops, then Orthodox Popes of Rome before they gave way to Ultramontanist supreme pontiffs, etc... So combining Orthodox facts in the past with present Ultramontanist projection on them, a sort of proof by contradiction or indirect proof, the truth of the matter might be shown.

So although Scripture and Tradition explictely give the qualifications of bishop (and the presbyters derived from them) and deacon, but nothing about the qualifications for pontiff, I will not dwell on such points, just to contrast what we should see if Ultramontanism were true, and what the facts of Orthodoxy show us. Hence I will deal only with the claims made for St. Peter only as far as it has implications of the question of the transmission of those claims to his "successors" (the two issues are not one and the same, though related).

The Ultramontanists tell us that the pontificate is an office, not an order (of the clergy), which carries the grace of infallibility and the power of universal juridiction. Of course, as Orthodoxy teaches, this is utter nonsense:grace is concrete, not an abstraction. But for the sake of argument, we will assume the office of pontificate exists like the order of the episcopate. So what makes up that office? The Petrine succession. But succession to what? St. Peter's evangelization? St. Peter foundng the see? Being consecrated by St. Peter? Being consecrated as successor of St. Peter? Being enthroned in the Petrine See?  Possession of St. Peter's relics?

Any other options?


My vote is a successor to "the Apostolic See" as St Peter's successor. (not as St Peter himself, per se, but as his position through tradition)
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: 38,135



« Reply #53 on: January 07, 2011, 04:46:19 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   
Ummmm, what? The Peterine succession, in this case, has to do with ruling of the Catholic Roman See. Not with which particular bishops select the Pope.
Might as well get started.

For the purposes of this thread, I am going to lean heavily to this side of absurdity on accepting as a given that St. Peter had some special charism given him directly by Christ to be transmitted to succeeding generations in the Church, the "Petrine succession' as papist has called it here.  I understand the artificality, the anachronism, the projection back etc of arguing the circumstances of something that didn't exist, but the supreme pontiff and his petrine succession exist now, and are derived from things that did and do exist, e.g. St. Peter, the Apostolate, the Orthodox episcopate and its Apostolic succession, the see of Rome, the Apostles at Rome, their followers at Rome, the Orthodox bishops, then Orthodox Archbishops, then Orthodox Popes of Rome before they gave way to Ultramontanist supreme pontiffs, etc... So combining Orthodox facts in the past with present Ultramontanist projection on them, a sort of proof by contradiction or indirect proof, the truth of the matter might be shown.

So although Scripture and Tradition explictely give the qualifications of bishop (and the presbyters derived from them) and deacon, but nothing about the qualifications for pontiff, I will not dwell on such points, just to contrast what we should see if Ultramontanism were true, and what the facts of Orthodoxy show us. Hence I will deal only with the claims made for St. Peter only as far as it has implications of the question of the transmission of those claims to his "successors" (the two issues are not one and the same, though related).

The Ultramontanists tell us that the pontificate is an office, not an order (of the clergy), which carries the grace of infallibility and the power of universal juridiction. Of course, as Orthodoxy teaches, this is utter nonsense:grace is concrete, not an abstraction. But for the sake of argument, we will assume the office of pontificate exists like the order of the episcopate. So what makes up that office? The Petrine succession. But succession to what? St. Peter's evangelization? St. Peter foundng the see? Being consecrated by St. Peter? Being consecrated as successor of St. Peter? Being enthroned in the Petrine See?  Possession of St. Peter's relics?

Any other options?


My vote is a successor to "the Apostolic See" as St Peter's successor. (not as St Peter himself, per se, but as his position through tradition)

The signature on the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, anathematizing Pope Honorius of Rome, is signed  "Peter a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city Alexandria," a common designation.
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
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #54 on: January 07, 2011, 04:48:06 PM »

The Apostle Peter was in Babylon (Seleukia-Ctsephon, known as Babylon to the ancients) 30 years before he was in Rome. He preached to the hundreds of thousands of Jews living under the Persian empire (Apostle to the circumcised).

Here is the Truth on this issue from the previous Patriarch of the ACOE, His Holiness Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII :

Question 209.

Q. Can Simon Peter or anybody else be the "foundation" or the "foundation stone" or the  "Chief Corner Stone" of the Church ?

A. No. If my reply is not convincing, hear : Those who make such a claim are begotten enemies of God and Truth ; for St. Paul the Master Builder of the Church of God asserts that "According to the grace of God which is given to me, as a wise master-builder, I have laid the foundation...for other foundation can no man lay than which is already laid, which is Jesus Christ. " (1 Cor. 3:9-11) He also says : "But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any gospel to you than that which we have preached to you let him be Khrim (anathema) ". Galatians 1:8



also :


Question 163. [this question concerns individuals giving the High Priesthood of Christ to a mere man, ie: the so called "pope"]

Q. Do not some people who worship idols and serve the goddess give these authorities to a sinful man now ?

A. Yes. They give all these authorities to a "man of sins" now. But they go astray from the truth ; because, they could not have said or done so if they had believed that our High Priest lives with life for ever and ever.



[]=my note



Taken from the Yulpana M'Shikhay  (The Messianic Teaching of the Holy Apostolic and Catholic Assyrian Church of the East, written by His Holiness Patriarch Mar Eshai Shimun XXIII)

http://www.marshimun.com/new/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=28&Itemid=28
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 04:50:14 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #55 on: January 07, 2011, 05:08:53 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   
Ummmm, what? The Peterine succession, in this case, has to do with ruling of the Catholic Roman See. Not with which particular bishops select the Pope.
Might as well get started.

For the purposes of this thread, I am going to lean heavily to this side of absurdity on accepting as a given that St. Peter had some special charism given him directly by Christ to be transmitted to succeeding generations in the Church, the "Petrine succession' as papist has called it here.  I understand the artificality, the anachronism, the projection back etc of arguing the circumstances of something that didn't exist, but the supreme pontiff and his petrine succession exist now, and are derived from things that did and do exist, e.g. St. Peter, the Apostolate, the Orthodox episcopate and its Apostolic succession, the see of Rome, the Apostles at Rome, their followers at Rome, the Orthodox bishops, then Orthodox Archbishops, then Orthodox Popes of Rome before they gave way to Ultramontanist supreme pontiffs, etc... So combining Orthodox facts in the past with present Ultramontanist projection on them, a sort of proof by contradiction or indirect proof, the truth of the matter might be shown.

So although Scripture and Tradition explictely give the qualifications of bishop (and the presbyters derived from them) and deacon, but nothing about the qualifications for pontiff, I will not dwell on such points, just to contrast what we should see if Ultramontanism were true, and what the facts of Orthodoxy show us. Hence I will deal only with the claims made for St. Peter only as far as it has implications of the question of the transmission of those claims to his "successors" (the two issues are not one and the same, though related).

The Ultramontanists tell us that the pontificate is an office, not an order (of the clergy), which carries the grace of infallibility and the power of universal juridiction. Of course, as Orthodoxy teaches, this is utter nonsense:grace is concrete, not an abstraction. But for the sake of argument, we will assume the office of pontificate exists like the order of the episcopate. So what makes up that office? The Petrine succession. But succession to what? St. Peter's evangelization? St. Peter foundng the see? Being consecrated by St. Peter? Being consecrated as successor of St. Peter? Being enthroned in the Petrine See?  Possession of St. Peter's relics?

Any other options?


My vote is a successor to "the Apostolic See" as St Peter's successor. (not as St Peter himself, per se, but as his position through tradition)

The signature on the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, anathematizing Pope Honorius of Rome, is signed  "Peter a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city Alexandria," a common designation.

That may be, but it is also used to describe the Roman See.
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: 38,135



« Reply #56 on: January 07, 2011, 05:30:57 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   
Ummmm, what? The Peterine succession, in this case, has to do with ruling of the Catholic Roman See. Not with which particular bishops select the Pope.
Might as well get started.

For the purposes of this thread, I am going to lean heavily to this side of absurdity on accepting as a given that St. Peter had some special charism given him directly by Christ to be transmitted to succeeding generations in the Church, the "Petrine succession' as papist has called it here.  I understand the artificality, the anachronism, the projection back etc of arguing the circumstances of something that didn't exist, but the supreme pontiff and his petrine succession exist now, and are derived from things that did and do exist, e.g. St. Peter, the Apostolate, the Orthodox episcopate and its Apostolic succession, the see of Rome, the Apostles at Rome, their followers at Rome, the Orthodox bishops, then Orthodox Archbishops, then Orthodox Popes of Rome before they gave way to Ultramontanist supreme pontiffs, etc... So combining Orthodox facts in the past with present Ultramontanist projection on them, a sort of proof by contradiction or indirect proof, the truth of the matter might be shown.

So although Scripture and Tradition explictely give the qualifications of bishop (and the presbyters derived from them) and deacon, but nothing about the qualifications for pontiff, I will not dwell on such points, just to contrast what we should see if Ultramontanism were true, and what the facts of Orthodoxy show us. Hence I will deal only with the claims made for St. Peter only as far as it has implications of the question of the transmission of those claims to his "successors" (the two issues are not one and the same, though related).

The Ultramontanists tell us that the pontificate is an office, not an order (of the clergy), which carries the grace of infallibility and the power of universal juridiction. Of course, as Orthodoxy teaches, this is utter nonsense:grace is concrete, not an abstraction. But for the sake of argument, we will assume the office of pontificate exists like the order of the episcopate. So what makes up that office? The Petrine succession. But succession to what? St. Peter's evangelization? St. Peter foundng the see? Being consecrated by St. Peter? Being consecrated as successor of St. Peter? Being enthroned in the Petrine See?  Possession of St. Peter's relics?

Any other options?


My vote is a successor to "the Apostolic See" as St Peter's successor. (not as St Peter himself, per se, but as his position through tradition)

The signature on the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, anathematizing Pope Honorius of Rome, is signed  "Peter a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city Alexandria," a common designation.

That may be, but it is also used to describe the Roman See.
Supreme pontiffs brook no "also." It is also used to describe the see of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and her daughter Church of Antioch, the Mother of the Church of Rome.
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #57 on: January 07, 2011, 06:51:28 PM »

But the kinks here are breaks in the alleged chain of transmission of the pontificate, not twisted individuals.

My Church does not claim a direct laying on of hands from St. Peter to St. Linus down to Benedict XVI, only that there has been a bishop elected (or sometimes placed) to St. Peter's See in Rome since St. Peter, which there has been with brief interregnums, as have the other Patriarchal Sees.

I would actually like to see an official ruling on this, though.  Besides, there are some problems with it:
1.  The bishop who is to become pope was not laid hands on by a successor of Peter by Vatican definition, and thus does not have petrine succession in the sense of ordination.  No problem, right, since there is election, except that... 
2.  The pope is not elected by anyone with petrine succession, and thus they cannot pass it on, and thus it is not "succession"
How then, does the pope have "Petrine succession"?   If the cardinals represent the "other apostles," since when did they have the authority to pass on petrine succession, since in order to pass it on, you have to have it?   
Ummmm, what? The Peterine succession, in this case, has to do with ruling of the Catholic Roman See. Not with which particular bishops select the Pope.
Might as well get started.

For the purposes of this thread, I am going to lean heavily to this side of absurdity on accepting as a given that St. Peter had some special charism given him directly by Christ to be transmitted to succeeding generations in the Church, the "Petrine succession' as papist has called it here.  I understand the artificality, the anachronism, the projection back etc of arguing the circumstances of something that didn't exist, but the supreme pontiff and his petrine succession exist now, and are derived from things that did and do exist, e.g. St. Peter, the Apostolate, the Orthodox episcopate and its Apostolic succession, the see of Rome, the Apostles at Rome, their followers at Rome, the Orthodox bishops, then Orthodox Archbishops, then Orthodox Popes of Rome before they gave way to Ultramontanist supreme pontiffs, etc... So combining Orthodox facts in the past with present Ultramontanist projection on them, a sort of proof by contradiction or indirect proof, the truth of the matter might be shown.

So although Scripture and Tradition explictely give the qualifications of bishop (and the presbyters derived from them) and deacon, but nothing about the qualifications for pontiff, I will not dwell on such points, just to contrast what we should see if Ultramontanism were true, and what the facts of Orthodoxy show us. Hence I will deal only with the claims made for St. Peter only as far as it has implications of the question of the transmission of those claims to his "successors" (the two issues are not one and the same, though related).

The Ultramontanists tell us that the pontificate is an office, not an order (of the clergy), which carries the grace of infallibility and the power of universal juridiction. Of course, as Orthodoxy teaches, this is utter nonsense:grace is concrete, not an abstraction. But for the sake of argument, we will assume the office of pontificate exists like the order of the episcopate. So what makes up that office? The Petrine succession. But succession to what? St. Peter's evangelization? St. Peter foundng the see? Being consecrated by St. Peter? Being consecrated as successor of St. Peter? Being enthroned in the Petrine See?  Possession of St. Peter's relics?

Any other options?


My vote is a successor to "the Apostolic See" as St Peter's successor. (not as St Peter himself, per se, but as his position through tradition)

The signature on the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, anathematizing Pope Honorius of Rome, is signed  "Peter a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city Alexandria," a common designation.

That may be, but it is also used to describe the Roman See.
Supreme pontiffs brook no "also." It is also used to describe the see of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and her daughter Church of Antioch, the Mother of the Church of Rome.

Maybe if the Pope's authority was based on the title of the See...

From the language I've seen in pre-4EC documents, the Apostolic See title is usually reserved for Rome specifically or in reference to the Petrine Sees. I'm surprised to hear it in reference to Jerusalem.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 06:52:56 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #58 on: January 07, 2011, 08:24:07 PM »


From the language I've seen in pre-4EC documents, the Apostolic See title is usually reserved for Rome specifically or in reference to the Petrine Sees. I'm surprised to hear it in reference to Jerusalem.

I think that the Western Church has only two apostolic sees - Rome where Peter and Paul preached and Compostela where James preached.

The Eastern Church has several dozen apostolic sees.  There are many Churches founded by the Apostles, in Greece, Cyprus, Crete, Egypt, Syria, etc.
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 08:24:40 PM by Irish Hermit » 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: 38,135



« Reply #59 on: January 07, 2011, 09:13:12 PM »

My vote is a successor to "the Apostolic See" as St Peter's successor. (not as St Peter himself, per se, but as his position through tradition)
The signature on the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, anathematizing Pope Honorius of Rome, is signed  "Peter a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city Alexandria," a common designation.
That may be, but it is also used to describe the Roman See.
Supreme pontiffs brook no "also." It is also used to describe the see of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and her daughter Church of Antioch, the Mother of the Church of Rome.
Maybe if the Pope's authority was based on the title of the See...

From the language I've seen in pre-4EC documents, the Apostolic See title is usually reserved for Rome specifically or in reference to the Petrine Sees. I'm surprised to hear it in reference to Jerusalem.
LOL. It is Jerusalem that sent the Apostles, as Scripture amply attests.
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: 38,135



« Reply #60 on: January 07, 2011, 09:16:33 PM »


From the language I've seen in pre-4EC documents, the Apostolic See title is usually reserved for Rome specifically or in reference to the Petrine Sees. I'm surprised to hear it in reference to Jerusalem.

I think that the Western Church has only two apostolic sees - Rome where Peter and Paul preached and Compostela where James preached.
Don't forget little Malta! The most Christian nation, in many ways, on earth.  Oddly enough, they speak a version of Arabic.
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 #61 on: January 07, 2011, 09:23:57 PM »

My vote is a successor to "the Apostolic See" as St Peter's successor. (not as St Peter himself, per se, but as his position through tradition)
The signature on the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, anathematizing Pope Honorius of Rome, is signed  "Peter a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city Alexandria," a common designation.
That may be, but it is also used to describe the Roman See.
Supreme pontiffs brook no "also." It is also used to describe the see of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and her daughter Church of Antioch, the Mother of the Church of Rome.
Maybe if the Pope's authority was based on the title of the See...

From the language I've seen in pre-4EC documents, the Apostolic See title is usually reserved for Rome specifically or in reference to the Petrine Sees. I'm surprised to hear it in reference to Jerusalem.
LOL. It is Jerusalem that sent the Apostles, as Scripture amply attests.
"LOL" No kidding?!?

I sited my reason for my word choice. What's yours? You know, besides ridicule that doesn't advance any argument.
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: 38,135



« Reply #62 on: January 07, 2011, 10:22:29 PM »

My vote is a successor to "the Apostolic See" as St Peter's successor. (not as St Peter himself, per se, but as his position through tradition)
The signature on the Definition of the Sixth Ecumenical Council, anathematizing Pope Honorius of Rome, is signed  "Peter a presbyter and holding the place of the Apostolic See of the great city Alexandria," a common designation.
That may be, but it is also used to describe the Roman See.
Supreme pontiffs brook no "also." It is also used to describe the see of the Mother Church of Jerusalem, and her daughter Church of Antioch, the Mother of the Church of Rome.
Maybe if the Pope's authority was based on the title of the See...

From the language I've seen in pre-4EC documents, the Apostolic See title is usually reserved for Rome specifically or in reference to the Petrine Sees. I'm surprised to hear it in reference to Jerusalem.
LOL. It is Jerusalem that sent the Apostles, as Scripture amply attests.
"LOL" No kidding?!?

I sited my reason for my word choice. What's yours?
This starts out fine:
Quote
An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm
and then ends in nonsense
Quote
the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name.
Wishful thinking.  I've been to Jerusalem, Antioch, Damasucs, Alexandria, etc. all of which are very much alive (well, jerusalem does have its problems), as is their Orthodoxy.  Btw, it is mistaken, even in the West, as the EC elsewhere admits
Quote
Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction.
Quote
Hence, if probable breaks in the episcopate be no bar to their claim, the Maltese can boast of belonging to the only extant Apostolic see, with the single exception of Rome.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09574a.htm

You know, besides ridicule that doesn't advance any argument.
Exposing fallacies to the ridicule they deserve always advances the argument for Truth.

So the Vatican arrogates to itself the title "Apostolic See." So what? It also arrogated to itself the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria, upon which the Church bestowed the title of "Pope."

I don't recall the usage applied to Rome before the Third Ecumenical Council. By that time Rome had been sacked and was well on its way devolving into a clump of huts among ruins of its past splendor. It wouldn't return to a city of any note for a millenium. (btw, Alexandria has made a similar transformation, but its nadir lasted only a few centuries).

btw, the EC article has these pertinent claims
Quote
cathedra Petri, the chair of St. Peter, is but another expression for the sedes apostolica, cathedra denoting the chair of the teacher. Hence the limitation of papal infallibility to definitions ex cathedra amounts to this: papal definitions can claim inerrancy or infallibility only when pronounced by the pope as the holder of the privileges granted by Christ to Peter, the Rock upon which He built His Church. The same formula conveys the meaning that the pope's infallibility is not personal, but derived from, and coextensive with, his office of visible Head of the Universal Church, in virute of which he sits in the Chair of Peter and Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians. (See INFALLIBILITY.) From ancient times a distinction has been made between the Apostolic See and its actual occupant: between sedes and sedens. The object of the distinction is not to discriminate between the two nor to subordinate one to the other, but rather to set forth their intimate connection. The See is the symbol of the highest papal authority; it is, by its nature, permanent, whereas its occupant holds that authority but for a time and inasmuch as he sits in the Chair of Peter. It further implies that take supreme authority is a supernatural gift, the same in all successive holders, independent of their personal worth, and inseparable from their ex-officio definitions and decisions. The Vatican definition of the pope's infallibility when speaking ex cathedra does not permit of the sense attached to the distinction of sedes and sedens by the Gallicans, who claimed that even in the official use of the authority vested in the See, with explicit declaration of its exercise, the sedens was separate from the sedes.

Avignon is definitely not an Apostolic see, unless you believe Dan Brown (I don't).
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 10:24:49 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
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #63 on: January 07, 2011, 11:06:31 PM »

The 6th Council refers to 'the most holy and apostolic sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City [Jerusalem]."   That the Holy City was established by Christ and was first in honor is undisputed.   Of course, the Orthodox holder of the see of Jerusalem is called 'Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem' (6th Ecumenical Council, Session 13).

The rest of the sees are "Apostolic," but the see of Jerusalem is that of our Lord and all the 12. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #64 on: January 07, 2011, 11:14:07 PM »

"There is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist, nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop "  St. Ignatius of Antioch, to the Smyrneans

Got it?  Besides Christ, there is no office or person greater in the Church than the Bishop. 

It is ridiculous to say that the Church is a two-headed monster.   It is the Body of Christ because Christ is the head.  If Christ and Peter were dual heads of the body, then it would be the "Body of Christ and Peter," the two headed body monster.  But that is not what Christ founded.   
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #65 on: January 07, 2011, 11:20:32 PM »

Maybe if the Pope's authority was based on the title of the See...

From the language I've seen in pre-4EC documents, the Apostolic See title is usually reserved for Rome specifically or in reference to the Petrine Sees. I'm surprised to hear it in reference to Jerusalem.
LOL. It is Jerusalem that sent the Apostles, as Scripture amply attests.
"LOL" No kidding?!?

I sited my reason for my word choice. What's yours?
This starts out fine:
Quote
An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm
and then ends in nonsense
Quote
the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name.

You may have noticed the distinction, that is, between "an Apostolic See" and "the Apostolic See".

A larger portion of the text:
Quote
This is a metaphorical term, used, as happens in all languages, to express the abstract notion of authority by the concrete name of the place in which it is exercised. Such phrases have the double advantage of supplying a convenient sense-image for an idea purely intellectual and of exactly defining the nature of the authority by the addition of a single adjective. An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder; the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name. But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East. Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction; but Rome is the Apostolic See, because its occupant perpetuates the Apostolate of Blessed Peter extending over the whole Church....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm



Wishful thinking.  I've been to Jerusalem, Antioch, Damasucs, Alexandria, etc. all of which are very much alive (well, jerusalem does have its problems), as is their Orthodoxy.  Btw, it is mistaken, even in the West, as the EC elsewhere admits
Quote
Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction.
Quote
Hence, if probable breaks in the episcopate be no bar to their claim, the Maltese can boast of belonging to the only extant Apostolic see, with the single exception of Rome.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09574a.htm


The claim of barbarians and heresy in the East does not entail ultimate elimination, only a larger struggle.



You know, besides ridicule that doesn't advance any argument.
Exposing fallacies to the ridicule they deserve always advances the argument for Truth.

You exposed nothing with those comments. Only fulfilled your desire to belittle.



So the Vatican arrogates to itself the title "Apostolic See." So what? It also arrogated to itself the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria, upon which the Church bestowed the title of "Pope."

During the Undivided Church (3EC) and then the 4EC, the term "the Apostolic See" was used specifically to refer to Rome. Therefore, it's not a matter of "the Vatican" stealing titles.

Extracts from the Acts. (Third Ecumenical Council, 431)
Quote
The most pious and God-beloved bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, as also the most beloved-of-God Philip, a presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, then entered and took their seats.258
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said:  We bless the holy and adorable Trinity that our lowliness has been deemed worthy to attend your holy Synod.  For a long time ago (πάλαι) our most holy and blessed pope Cœlestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, through his letters to that holy and most pious man Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, gave judgment concerning the present cause and affair (ὥρισεν) which letters have been shown to your holy assembly.  And now again for the corroboration of the Catholic (καθολικῆς) faith, he has sent through us letters to all your holinesses, which you will bid (κελούσατε) to be read with becoming reverence (πρεπόντως) and to be entered on the ecclesiastical minutes.
Arcadius, a bishop and legate of the Roman Church said:  May it please your blessedness to give order that the letters of the holy and ever-to-be-mentioned-with-veneration Pope Cœlestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, which have been brought by us, be read, from which your reverence will be able to see what care he has for all the Churches.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xii.html

From the Fourth Ecumenical Council
Quote
Session III.
[The imperial representatives do not seem to have been present, and after Aëtius the Archdeacon of Constantinople had opened the Session,]

Paschasinus the bishop of Lilybæum, in the province of Silicia, and holding the place of the most holy Leo, archbishop of the Apostolic see of old Rome, said in Latin what being interpreted is as follows:  It is well known to this beloved of God synod, that divine285 letters were sent to the blessed and apostolic pope Leo, inviting him to deign to be present at the holy synod.  But since ancient custom did not sanction this, nor the general necessity of the time seemed to permit it, our littleness in the place of himself he τὰ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου επέτρεψε, and therefore it is necessary that whatever things are brought into discussion should be examined by our interference (διαλαλιᾶς).  [The Latin reads where I have placed the Greek of the ordinary text, thus, “commanded our littleness to preside in his place over this holy council.”]  Therefore let the book presented by our most beloved-of-God brother, and fellow-bishop Eusebius be received, and read by the beloved of God archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, Aëtius.

And Aëtius, the archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, took the book and read as follows.

[Next follows the petition of Eusebius et post nonnulla four petitions each addressed to “The most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome Leo, and to the holy and ecumenical Synod assembled at Chalcedon, etc., etc.;”  The first two by deacons of Alexandria, the third by a quondam presbyter of the diocese, and the fourth by a layman also of Alexandria.  After this Dioscorus was again summoned and, as he did not come, sentence was given against him, which was communicated to him in a letter contained in the acts.  (L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 418.)  The Bishops expressed their opinions for the most part one by one, but the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following (Col. 426:)]

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with286 the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.  Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ix.html



I don't recall the usage applied to Rome before the Third Ecumenical Council. By that time Rome had been sacked and was well on its way devolving into a clump of huts among ruins of its past splendor. It wouldn't return to a city of any note for a millenium. (btw, Alexandria has made a similar transformation, but its nadir lasted only a few centuries).


The term seems to become popular sometime around the time of the second EC, though I have not noticed it's use, nor Rome addressed in this way during that council. St. Jerome used the term in his letter against Pelagianism (about that same period), but then again, it was only about 60 years prior to this that Christianity became legal.

The term is historic to Rome (my argument), but not an end in itself.


btw, the EC article has these pertinent claims
Quote
cathedra Petri, the chair of St. Peter, is but another expression for the sedes apostolica, cathedra denoting the chair of the teacher. Hence the limitation of papal infallibility to definitions ex cathedra amounts to this: papal definitions can claim inerrancy or infallibility only when pronounced by the pope as the holder of the privileges granted by Christ to Peter, the Rock upon which He built His Church. The same formula conveys the meaning that the pope's infallibility is not personal, but derived from, and coextensive with, his office of visible Head of the Universal Church, in virute of which he sits in the Chair of Peter and Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians. (See INFALLIBILITY.) From ancient times a distinction has been made between the Apostolic See and its actual occupant: between sedes and sedens. The object of the distinction is not to discriminate between the two nor to subordinate one to the other, but rather to set forth their intimate connection. The See is the symbol of the highest papal authority; it is, by its nature, permanent, whereas its occupant holds that authority but for a time and inasmuch as he sits in the Chair of Peter. It further implies that take supreme authority is a supernatural gift, the same in all successive holders, independent of their personal worth, and inseparable from their ex-officio definitions and decisions. The Vatican definition of the pope's infallibility when speaking ex cathedra does not permit of the sense attached to the distinction of sedes and sedens by the Gallicans, who claimed that even in the official use of the authority vested in the See, with explicit declaration of its exercise, the sedens was separate from the sedes.

I think I would agree with this definition, at this time. Was there something in it that you thought was contradictory?


Avignon is definitely not an Apostolic see, unless you believe Dan Brown (I don't).

Certainly not.

Though, if someone wanted to do mental gymnastics, you could claim the location doesn't make the See. After all, if the EP was to relocate (I KNOW, the EP is not Rome), as other Sees have changed cities, does the move change the primate authority of the sitting bishop?
Logged


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

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



WWW
« Reply #66 on: January 07, 2011, 11:23:45 PM »

"There is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist, nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop "  St. Ignatius of Antioch, to the Smyrneans

Got it?  Besides Christ, there is no office or person greater in the Church than the Bishop. 

It is ridiculous to say that the Church is a two-headed monster.   It is the Body of Christ because Christ is the head.  If Christ and Peter were dual heads of the body, then it would be the "Body of Christ and Peter," the two headed body monster.  But that is not what Christ founded.   

This keeps getting restated...


The office of the papacy isn't above a bishop. It is held by a bishop. The administrative position is one of authority, that is, primacy.

There are no two heads, any more than the local church's bishop takes the place of God. "Got it?"
« Last Edit: January 07, 2011, 11:24:14 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #67 on: January 08, 2011, 12:40:31 AM »


You may have noticed the distinction, that is, between "an Apostolic See" and "the Apostolic See".

An argument based on modern orthography won't work

Latin does not make a distinction between "a" and "the."  These articles are absent.


Also, capital letters don't indicate anything either; Latin did not have upper and lower case letters until the 12th century.

Other languages, Old English for example, developed upper and lower case letters centuries later.  Irish still does not have any distinction and these days lower case letters are simply written larger for capitals.
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #68 on: January 08, 2011, 12:47:37 AM »


The office of the papacy isn't above a bishop. It is held by a bishop. The administrative position is one of authority, that is, primacy.


When push comes to shove, there is no such beast as the papacy or the office of the papacy (papatia in Latin.).  Letting go of the concept and practice of papacy will be another of the difficult mind-shifts which Rome needs to achieve in order to come into unity with the Church.  It could take centuries <sigh>.
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: 38,135



« Reply #69 on: January 08, 2011, 12:57:49 AM »

Maybe if the Pope's authority was based on the title of the See...

From the language I've seen in pre-4EC documents, the Apostolic See title is usually reserved for Rome specifically or in reference to the Petrine Sees. I'm surprised to hear it in reference to Jerusalem.
LOL. It is Jerusalem that sent the Apostles, as Scripture amply attests.
"LOL" No kidding?!?

I sited my reason for my word choice. What's yours?
This starts out fine:
Quote
An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm
and then ends in nonsense
Quote
the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name.

You may have noticed the distinction, that is, between "an Apostolic See" and "the Apostolic See".

LOL. Latin, the Vatican's official language, makes no distinction, lacking the words "a" and "the."

Greek does have the word "the" and Medieval/Modern Greek has "a" (Classical lacks it, but writing closer to the vernacular has it). Coptic has both "the" and "a." Hence "the Apostpolic See of the Great City of Alexandria."  Since there is no distinction between "an Apostolic See" and an imagined "the Apostolic See," we don't have to make the distinction in Greek, Coptic, Arabic or English.

A larger portion of the text:
Quote
This is a metaphorical term, used, as happens in all languages, to express the abstract notion of authority by the concrete name of the place in which it is exercised. Such phrases have the double advantage of supplying a convenient sense-image for an idea purely intellectual and of exactly defining the nature of the authority by the addition of a single adjective. An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder; the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles.
The underlined above is as accurate as the underlined below, i.e. not very:
Quote
Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name. But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East. Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction; but Rome is the Apostolic See, because its occupant perpetuates the Apostolate of Blessed Peter extending over the whole Church....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm
Lord willing we will get to the particulars, but a problem is that the Book of Acts portrays St. Peter as beginning his career in Jerusalem, yet Jerusalem in no sense is ever seen as a Petrine See, although it is always (and NOT in a lesser degree) an Apostolic See.

So the Vatican, claims that "the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East," eh? We don't jump to rapt attention to every cock that crows.

Wishful thinking.  I've been to Jerusalem, Antioch, Damasucs, Alexandria, etc. all of which are very much alive (well, jerusalem does have its problems), as is their Orthodoxy.  Btw, it is mistaken, even in the West, as the EC elsewhere admits
Quote
Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction.
Quote
Hence, if probable breaks in the episcopate be no bar to their claim, the Maltese can boast of belonging to the only extant Apostolic see, with the single exception of Rome.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09574a.htm
The claim of barbarians and heresy in the East does not entail ultimate elimination, only a larger struggle.
What part of "until...alone remained" did you miss?

You know, besides ridicule that doesn't advance any argument.
Exposing fallacies to the ridicule they deserve always advances the argument for Truth.
You exposed nothing with those comments. Only fulfilled your desire to belittle.
Belittling arrogance serves virtue.


So the Vatican arrogates to itself the title "Apostolic See." So what? It also arrogated to itself the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria, upon which the Church bestowed the title of "Pope."

During the Undivided Church (3EC) and then the 4EC, the term "the Apostolic See" was used specifically to refer to Rome. Therefore, it's not a matter of "the Vatican" stealing titles.
LOL. Acutally, it is.
The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.).
Odd, I haven't found any such thing in the Acts of Chalcedon
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA217&dq=Acts+of++Chalcedon+universal+bishop&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Acts%20of%20%20Chalcedon%20universal%20bishop&f=false
Btw, it seems the Latin embellishes the titles of the Pope, I mean bishop, of Rome (which hadn't taken the title then born by the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria yet) amongst other things, not found in the Greek (which was the offical language of the proceedings).
The comprehensive Latin edition of the text of the Acts of Chalcedon was translated by deacon Rusticus, a nephew of Pope Vigilius who was excommunicated for his vigorous defense of the Three Chapters. The Latin, for instance, changes the Greek "bishop" to Latin "pope" when it refers to the bishop of Rome, but not otherwise. A lot of the flowerly language the Latin delegates from Rome heap on their primate, favorites of Ultramontanist quote mines, were not delivered in Greek-the language of the Councils-and are not in the Greek edition of the Acts.

Extracts from the Acts. (Third Ecumenical Council, 431)
Quote
The most pious and God-beloved bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, as also the most beloved-of-God Philip, a presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, then entered and took their seats.258
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said:  We bless the holy and adorable Trinity that our lowliness has been deemed worthy to attend your holy Synod.  For a long time ago (πάλαι) our most holy and blessed pope Cœlestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, through his letters to that holy and most pious man Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, gave judgment concerning the present cause and affair (ὥρισεν) which letters have been shown to your holy assembly.  And now again for the corroboration of the Catholic (καθολικῆς) faith, he has sent through us letters to all your holinesses, which you will bid (κελούσατε) to be read with becoming reverence (πρεπόντως) and to be entered on the ecclesiastical minutes.
Arcadius, a bishop and legate of the Roman Church said:  May it please your blessedness to give order that the letters of the holy and ever-to-be-mentioned-with-veneration Pope Cœlestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, which have been brought by us, be read, from which your reverence will be able to see what care he has for all the Churches.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xii.html

From the Fourth Ecumenical Council
Quote
Session III.
[The imperial representatives do not seem to have been present, and after Aëtius the Archdeacon of Constantinople had opened the Session,]

Paschasinus the bishop of Lilybæum, in the province of Silicia, and holding the place of the most holy Leo, archbishop of the Apostolic see of old Rome, said in Latin what being interpreted is as follows:  It is well known to this beloved of God synod, that divine285 letters were sent to the blessed and apostolic pope Leo, inviting him to deign to be present at the holy synod.  But since ancient custom did not sanction this, nor the general necessity of the time seemed to permit it, our littleness in the place of himself he τὰ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου επέτρεψε, and therefore it is necessary that whatever things are brought into discussion should be examined by our interference (διαλαλιᾶς).  [The Latin reads where I have placed the Greek of the ordinary text, thus, “commanded our littleness to preside in his place over this holy council.”]  Therefore let the book presented by our most beloved-of-God brother, and fellow-bishop Eusebius be received, and read by the beloved of God archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, Aëtius.

And Aëtius, the archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, took the book and read as follows.

[Next follows the petition of Eusebius et post nonnulla four petitions each addressed to “The most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome Leo, and to the holy and ecumenical Synod assembled at Chalcedon, etc., etc.;”  The first two by deacons of Alexandria, the third by a quondam presbyter of the diocese, and the fourth by a layman also of Alexandria.  After this Dioscorus was again summoned and, as he did not come, sentence was given against him, which was communicated to him in a letter contained in the acts.  (L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 418.)  The Bishops expressed their opinions for the most part one by one, but the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following (Col. 426:)]

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with286 the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.  Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ix.html
You did notice that it was Rome's legates, and not the Council, speakng here, no?

Do note also that both Popes Celestine and Leo ordered the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon not to seat Nestorius and Pope Dioscoros, and yet both Nestorius and Pope Dioscoros were seated in the first sessions.

Extracts from the Acts Session I (Fourth Ecumenical Council);
Quote
The most glorious judges and the full senate said:  What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said:  Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said:  In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said:  Let him give a reason for his judgment.  For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction.  And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

(This statement, so absolutely contrary to fact, has been a sore difficulty to the commentators.  Arendt (Leo the Great and his Times, § 270) says that this meant only that “he had, without permission of the Pope, taken the presidency there, and conducted the proceedings, for Leo himself had acknowledged the synod by the fact that he allowed his legates to be present at it.”  Almost the same is the explanation of the Ballerini (Leo M. Opera, Tom. ii. 460, n. 15.))

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:  We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop ["Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iii.html

Eveidently Rome's legates had no problem making blanket contrary to fact statements, especially in a language most did not understand at the Councils.

Btw
Extracts from the Acts: Session I (Seventh Ecumenical Council):
Quote
I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.v.html?highlight=apostolic,see,dared#highlight

I don't recall the usage applied to Rome before the Third Ecumenical Council. By that time Rome had been sacked and was well on its way devolving into a clump of huts among ruins of its past splendor. It wouldn't return to a city of any note for a millenium. (btw, Alexandria has made a similar transformation, but its nadir lasted only a few centuries).
The term seems to become popular sometime around the time of the second EC, though I have not noticed it's use, nor Rome addressed in this way during that council. St. Jerome used the term in his letter against Pelagianism (about that same period), but then again, it was only about 60 years prior to this that Christianity became legal.

The term is historic to Rome (my argument), but not an end in itself.
Historic only in the sense that Rome began to put a lot of stock in such terms when it was painfully aware that history had passed it by, while Alexandria, Antioch and even Jerusalem, and worse, New Rome were important cities in that day.  Rome had already been sacked and passed its prime when it ceased to serve as capital.  Sort of reminds me of Betty Davis in "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?"


btw, the EC article has these pertinent claims
Quote
cathedra Petri, the chair of St. Peter, is but another expression for the sedes apostolica, cathedra denoting the chair of the teacher. Hence the limitation of papal infallibility to definitions ex cathedra amounts to this: papal definitions can claim inerrancy or infallibility only when pronounced by the pope as the holder of the privileges granted by Christ to Peter, the Rock upon which He built His Church. The same formula conveys the meaning that the pope's infallibility is not personal, but derived from, and coextensive with, his office of visible Head of the Universal Church, in virute of which he sits in the Chair of Peter and Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians. (See INFALLIBILITY.) From ancient times a distinction has been made between the Apostolic See and its actual occupant: between sedes and sedens. The object of the distinction is not to discriminate between the two nor to subordinate one to the other, but rather to set forth their intimate connection. The See is the symbol of the highest papal authority; it is, by its nature, permanent, whereas its occupant holds that authority but for a time and inasmuch as he sits in the Chair of Peter. It further implies that take supreme authority is a supernatural gift, the same in all successive holders, independent of their personal worth, and inseparable from their ex-officio definitions and decisions. The Vatican definition of the pope's infallibility when speaking ex cathedra does not permit of the sense attached to the distinction of sedes and sedens by the Gallicans, who claimed that even in the official use of the authority vested in the See, with explicit declaration of its exercise, the sedens was separate from the sedes.
I think I would agree with this definition, at this time. Was there something in it that you thought was contradictory?
We'll get to that, Lord willing.

Avignon is definitely not an Apostolic see, unless you believe Dan Brown (I don't).
Certainly not.

Though, if someone wanted to do mental gymnastics, you could claim the location doesn't make the See. After all, if the EP was to relocate (I KNOW, the EP is not Rome), as other Sees have changed cities, does the move change the primate authority of the sitting bishop?
Lord willing, we will be getting to that.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 01:00:11 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #70 on: January 08, 2011, 12:59:46 AM »

"There is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist, nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop "  St. Ignatius of Antioch, to the SmyrneansGot it?  Besides Christ, there is no office or person greater in the Church than the Bishop.  It is ridiculous to say that the Church is a two-headed monster.   It is the Body of Christ because Christ is the head.  If Christ and Peter were dual heads of the body, then it would be the "Body of Christ and Peter," the two headed body monster.  But that is not what Christ founded.  
This keeps getting restated...The office of the papacy isn't above a bishop. It is held by a bishop. The administrative position is one of authority, that is, primacy.There are no two heads, any more than the local church's bishop takes the place of God. "Got it?"

Then you have completely no idea what the papacy is about. Vatican I:"Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:let him be anathema."
"For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body"

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

And so,
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #71 on: January 08, 2011, 01:05:20 AM »


The office of the papacy isn't above a bishop. It is held by a bishop. The administrative position is one of authority, that is, primacy.


When push comes to shove, there is no such beast as the papacy or the office of the papacy (papatia in Latin.).  Letting go of the concept and practice of papacy will be another of the difficult mind-shifts which Rome needs to achieve in order to come into unity with the Church.  It could take centuries <sigh>.

(to the first) Of course not.  Its an invention.  (to the latter) I hope it doesn't take centuries.     
Logged
Apotheoun
"Three realities pertain to God: essence, energy, and the triad of divine hypostaseis." St. Gregory Palamas
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic
Jurisdiction: Melkite Catholic
Posts: 1,420


St. John Maximovitch


WWW
« Reply #72 on: January 08, 2011, 01:18:35 AM »

There are many apostolic sees, which is why people can speak of the apostolic see of Rome, or the apostolic see of Alexandria, or the apostolic see of Antioch, etc., and so I don't see why some people are trying to claim a unique status in that regard for any particular church.
Logged

"All that the Father has belongs likewise to the Son, except Causality."
St. Gregory Nazianzen

"We should believe that divine grace is present in the icon of Christ and that it communicates sanctification to those who draw near with faith."
St. Theodore Studite
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #73 on: January 08, 2011, 06:29:18 PM »

"There is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist, nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop "  St. Ignatius of Antioch, to the SmyrneansGot it?  Besides Christ, there is no office or person greater in the Church than the Bishop.  It is ridiculous to say that the Church is a two-headed monster.   It is the Body of Christ because Christ is the head.  If Christ and Peter were dual heads of the body, then it would be the "Body of Christ and Peter," the two headed body monster.  But that is not what Christ founded.  
This keeps getting restated...The office of the papacy isn't above a bishop. It is held by a bishop. The administrative position is one of authority, that is, primacy.There are no two heads, any more than the local church's bishop takes the place of God. "Got it?"

Then you have completely no idea what the papacy is about. Vatican I:"Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:let him be anathema."
"For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body"

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

And so,
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.


So... where's the problem? He is a Bishop. A bishop in the position of authority, but still a bishop.
Logged


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

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



WWW
« Reply #74 on: January 08, 2011, 06:59:27 PM »

Maybe if the Pope's authority was based on the title of the See...

From the language I've seen in pre-4EC documents, the Apostolic See title is usually reserved for Rome specifically or in reference to the Petrine Sees. I'm surprised to hear it in reference to Jerusalem.
LOL. It is Jerusalem that sent the Apostles, as Scripture amply attests.
"LOL" No kidding?!?

I sited my reason for my word choice. What's yours?
This starts out fine:
Quote
An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder
Nihil Obstat. March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm
and then ends in nonsense
Quote
the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles. Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name.

You may have noticed the distinction, that is, between "an Apostolic See" and "the Apostolic See".

LOL. Latin, the Vatican's official language, makes no distinction, lacking the words "a" and "the."

Greek does have the word "the" and Medieval/Modern Greek has "a" (Classical lacks it, but writing closer to the vernacular has it). Coptic has both "the" and "a." Hence "the Apostpolic See of the Great City of Alexandria."  Since there is no distinction between "an Apostolic See" and an imagined "the Apostolic See," we don't have to make the distinction in Greek, Coptic, Arabic or English.


The Latin is irrelevant since we're talking about the Greek. Good chaff though.

The comparison with your quote is a false comparison.

It didn't say "The great city of Alexandria, THE Apostolic See", which is how Rome is addressed. Also, it would have been nonsensical and ambiguous to say "An Apostolic See of the Great City of Alexandria".


A larger portion of the text:
Quote
This is a metaphorical term, used, as happens in all languages, to express the abstract notion of authority by the concrete name of the place in which it is exercised. Such phrases have the double advantage of supplying a convenient sense-image for an idea purely intellectual and of exactly defining the nature of the authority by the addition of a single adjective. An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder; the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles.
The underlined above is as accurate as the underlined below, i.e. not very:
Quote
Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name. But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East. Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction; but Rome is the Apostolic See, because its occupant perpetuates the Apostolate of Blessed Peter extending over the whole Church....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm
Lord willing we will get to the particulars, but a problem is that the Book of Acts portrays St. Peter as beginning his career in Jerusalem, yet Jerusalem in no sense is ever seen as a Petrine See, although it is always (and NOT in a lesser degree) an Apostolic See.

So the Vatican, claims that "the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East," eh? We don't jump to rapt attention to every cock that crows.

Of course it's not a Petrine See. St. James was bishop of Jerusalem, not St. Peter. Peter may have been chief, but in Jerusalem, it was St. James' See.



Wishful thinking.  I've been to Jerusalem, Antioch, Damasucs, Alexandria, etc. all of which are very much alive (well, jerusalem does have its problems), as is their Orthodoxy.  Btw, it is mistaken, even in the West, as the EC elsewhere admits
Quote
Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction.
Quote
Hence, if probable breaks in the episcopate be no bar to their claim, the Maltese can boast of belonging to the only extant Apostolic see, with the single exception of Rome.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09574a.htm
The claim of barbarians and heresy in the East does not entail ultimate elimination, only a larger struggle.
What part of "until...alone remained" did you miss?

You know, besides ridicule that doesn't advance any argument.
Exposing fallacies to the ridicule they deserve always advances the argument for Truth.
You exposed nothing with those comments. Only fulfilled your desire to belittle.
Belittling arrogance serves virtue.

Keep telling yourself that. Though, childish behavior does little for your credibility.


So the Vatican arrogates to itself the title "Apostolic See." So what? It also arrogated to itself the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria, upon which the Church bestowed the title of "Pope."

During the Undivided Church (3EC) and then the 4EC, the term "the Apostolic See" was used specifically to refer to Rome. Therefore, it's not a matter of "the Vatican" stealing titles.
LOL. Acutally, it is.

Can't steal something that is given freely.


The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.).
Odd, I haven't found any such thing in the Acts of Chalcedon
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA217&dq=Acts+of++Chalcedon+universal+bishop&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Acts%20of%20%20Chalcedon%20universal%20bishop&f=false
Btw, it seems the Latin embellishes the titles of the Pope, I mean bishop, of Rome (which hadn't taken the title then born by the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria yet) amongst other things, not found in the Greek (which was the offical language of the proceedings).
The comprehensive Latin edition of the text of the Acts of Chalcedon was translated by deacon Rusticus, a nephew of Pope Vigilius who was excommunicated for his vigorous defense of the Three Chapters. The Latin, for instance, changes the Greek "bishop" to Latin "pope" when it refers to the bishop of Rome, but not otherwise. A lot of the flowerly language the Latin delegates from Rome heap on their primate, favorites of Ultramontanist quote mines, were not delivered in Greek-the language of the Councils-and are not in the Greek edition of the Acts.

Though this isn't from me, I fail to see how "bishop of Rome" changed to "Pope" in the Latin versions is a viscous slight of hand that you are claiming. My own reading has shown this the only crazy "flowery additions" that you claim.


Extracts from the Acts. (Third Ecumenical Council, 431)
Quote
The most pious and God-beloved bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, as also the most beloved-of-God Philip, a presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, then entered and took their seats.258
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said:  We bless the holy and adorable Trinity that our lowliness has been deemed worthy to attend your holy Synod.  For a long time ago (πάλαι) our most holy and blessed pope Cœlestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, through his letters to that holy and most pious man Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, gave judgment concerning the present cause and affair (ὥρισεν) which letters have been shown to your holy assembly.  And now again for the corroboration of the Catholic (καθολικῆς) faith, he has sent through us letters to all your holinesses, which you will bid (κελούσατε) to be read with becoming reverence (πρεπόντως) and to be entered on the ecclesiastical minutes.
Arcadius, a bishop and legate of the Roman Church said:  May it please your blessedness to give order that the letters of the holy and ever-to-be-mentioned-with-veneration Pope Cœlestine, bishop of the Apostolic See, which have been brought by us, be read, from which your reverence will be able to see what care he has for all the Churches.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xii.html

From the Fourth Ecumenical Council
Quote
Session III.
[The imperial representatives do not seem to have been present, and after Aëtius the Archdeacon of Constantinople had opened the Session,]

Paschasinus the bishop of Lilybæum, in the province of Silicia, and holding the place of the most holy Leo, archbishop of the Apostolic see of old Rome, said in Latin what being interpreted is as follows:  It is well known to this beloved of God synod, that divine285 letters were sent to the blessed and apostolic pope Leo, inviting him to deign to be present at the holy synod.  But since ancient custom did not sanction this, nor the general necessity of the time seemed to permit it, our littleness in the place of himself he τὰ τῆς ἁγίας συνόδου επέτρεψε, and therefore it is necessary that whatever things are brought into discussion should be examined by our interference (διαλαλιᾶς).  [The Latin reads where I have placed the Greek of the ordinary text, thus, “commanded our littleness to preside in his place over this holy council.”]  Therefore let the book presented by our most beloved-of-God brother, and fellow-bishop Eusebius be received, and read by the beloved of God archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, Aëtius.

And Aëtius, the archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, took the book and read as follows.

[Next follows the petition of Eusebius et post nonnulla four petitions each addressed to “The most holy and beloved-of-God ecumenical archbishop and patriarch of great Rome Leo, and to the holy and ecumenical Synod assembled at Chalcedon, etc., etc.;”  The first two by deacons of Alexandria, the third by a quondam presbyter of the diocese, and the fourth by a layman also of Alexandria.  After this Dioscorus was again summoned and, as he did not come, sentence was given against him, which was communicated to him in a letter contained in the acts.  (L. and C., Conc., Tom. IV., col. 418.)  The Bishops expressed their opinions for the most part one by one, but the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following (Col. 426:)]

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with286 the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.  Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ix.html
You did notice that it was Rome's legates, and not the Council, speakng here, no?

So what? That's irrelevant.

Whether the Pope himself was present, or his proxy, has no bearing on the title's use. Especially since they are introduced as legates of the "bishop of Rome, of THE Apostolic See".


Do note also that both Popes Celestine and Leo ordered the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon not to seat Nestorius and Pope Dioscoros, and yet both Nestorius and Pope Dioscoros were seated in the first sessions.


Extracts from the Acts Session I (Fourth Ecumenical Council);
Quote
The most glorious judges and the full senate said:  What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said:  Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said:  In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said:  Let him give a reason for his judgment.  For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction.  And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

(This statement, so absolutely contrary to fact, has been a sore difficulty to the commentators.  Arendt (Leo the Great and his Times, § 270) says that this meant only that “he had, without permission of the Pope, taken the presidency there, and conducted the proceedings, for Leo himself had acknowledged the synod by the fact that he allowed his legates to be present at it.”  Almost the same is the explanation of the Ballerini (Leo M. Opera, Tom. ii. 460, n. 15.))

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:  We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop ["Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iii.html

Eveidently Rome's legates had no problem making blanket contrary to fact statements, especially in a language most did not understand at the Councils.

You read the whole thing right?

Quote
Quote
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said:* Let him give a reason for his judgment.* For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction.* And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:* We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop [“Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:* We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment].
The glorious judges and the whole senate said:* If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged. And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence, Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylæum, stepping into the midst, said: [He then presented a petition, and the Acts of the Latrocinium were read.* Also the Acts of the council of Constantinople under Flavian against Eutyches (col. 175).]

Quote
Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith.* His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome. Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople said; The blessed Flavian hath beautifully and orthodoxly set forth the faith of our fathers.
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said; Since the faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See and the tradition of the fathers it is just that the sentence by which he was condemned by the heretics should be turned back upon them by this most holy synod. Maximus the most reverend bishop of Antioch in Syria, said:* Archbishop Flavian of blessed memory hath set forth the faith orthodoxly and in accordance with the most beloved-of-God and most holy Archbishop Leo.* And this we all receive with zeal. Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia said; Flavian of blessed memory hath spoken in accordance with Cyril of blessed memory.
[And so, one after another, the bishops expressed their opinions.* The reading of the acts of the Council of Constantinople was then continued.]
And at this point of the reading, Dioscorus, the most reverend Archbishop of Alexandria said, I receive “the of two;” “the two” I do not receive (τὸ ἐκ δύο δέχομαι· τὸ δύο, οὐ δέχομαι).* I am forced to be impudent, but the matter is one which touches my soul. [After a few remarks the reading was continued and the rest of the acts of the Latrocinium of Ephesus completed.* The judges then postponed to the morrow the setting forth a decree on the faith but intimated that Dioscorus and his associates should suffer the punishment to which they unjustly sentenced Flavian.* This met with the approval of all the bishops except those of Illyrica who said:* “We all have erred, let us all be pardoned.”* (col. 323.) ]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iii.html

So in summary, he came in sat down, was judged, and punished. Notice how the council supported THE Apostolic See. Not at all what you're trying to portray.


Btw
Extracts from the Acts: Session I (Seventh Ecumenical Council):
Quote
I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.v.html?highlight=apostolic,see,dared#highlight

I don't recall the usage applied to Rome before the Third Ecumenical Council. By that time Rome had been sacked and was well on its way devolving into a clump of huts among ruins of its past splendor. It wouldn't return to a city of any note for a millenium. (btw, Alexandria has made a similar transformation, but its nadir lasted only a few centuries).
The term seems to become popular sometime around the time of the second EC, though I have not noticed it's use, nor Rome addressed in this way during that council. St. Jerome used the term in his letter against Pelagianism (about that same period), but then again, it was only about 60 years prior to this that Christianity became legal.

The term is historic to Rome (my argument), but not an end in itself.
Historic only in the sense that Rome began to put a lot of stock in such terms when it was painfully aware that history had passed it by, while Alexandria, Antioch and even Jerusalem, and worse, New Rome were important cities in that day.  Rome had already been sacked and passed its prime when it ceased to serve as capital.  Sort of reminds me of Betty Davis in "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?"

Unlike Constantinople, Rome's significance does not lie in it's economic market, and while Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were important, they still weren't the See of the primate.. the topic of the conversation.


btw, the EC article has these pertinent claims
Quote
cathedra Petri, the chair of St. Peter, is but another expression for the sedes apostolica, cathedra denoting the chair of the teacher. Hence the limitation of papal infallibility to definitions ex cathedra amounts to this: papal definitions can claim inerrancy or infallibility only when pronounced by the pope as the holder of the privileges granted by Christ to Peter, the Rock upon which He built His Church. The same formula conveys the meaning that the pope's infallibility is not personal, but derived from, and coextensive with, his office of visible Head of the Universal Church, in virute of which he sits in the Chair of Peter and Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians. (See INFALLIBILITY.) From ancient times a distinction has been made between the Apostolic See and its actual occupant: between sedes and sedens. The object of the distinction is not to discriminate between the two nor to subordinate one to the other, but rather to set forth their intimate connection. The See is the symbol of the highest papal authority; it is, by its nature, permanent, whereas its occupant holds that authority but for a time and inasmuch as he sits in the Chair of Peter. It further implies that take supreme authority is a supernatural gift, the same in all successive holders, independent of their personal worth, and inseparable from their ex-officio definitions and decisions. The Vatican definition of the pope's infallibility when speaking ex cathedra does not permit of the sense attached to the distinction of sedes and sedens by the Gallicans, who claimed that even in the official use of the authority vested in the See, with explicit declaration of its exercise, the sedens was separate from the sedes.
I think I would agree with this definition, at this time. Was there something in it that you thought was contradictory?
We'll get to that, Lord willing.

Avignon is definitely not an Apostolic see, unless you believe Dan Brown (I don't).
Certainly not.

Though, if someone wanted to do mental gymnastics, you could claim the location doesn't make the See. After all, if the EP was to relocate (I KNOW, the EP is not Rome), as other Sees have changed cities, does the move change the primate authority of the sitting bishop?
Lord willing, we will be getting to that.

Not really sure what you meant here.
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: 38,135



« Reply #75 on: January 08, 2011, 07:17:20 PM »

So... where's the problem? He is a Bishop. A bishop in the position of authority, but still a bishop.

So... where's the problem? He is a Leader (excuse me, Supreme Leader, since 2009). A "dear" leader in the position of authority, but still a leader.

He can't be president, because the presidency of the Democratic [see? it's a democracy. Even says so in the name] People's [see? This power of the Supreme and Eternal leader by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of popular sovereignty, by which the people, tend and govern them selves. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Eternal Leader. Says so in the title] Republic [see? a republc, although its leadership is inherited. Says so in the name] of Korea was abolished, and replaced by the "Eternal President" by the Constitution stating "Under the leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Korean people will hold the great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung in high esteem as the eternal President of the Republic."  What he was supposed to do with said office was not clarified, as the "Great Leader" was already dead for years at the time, and yet holds the office "for eternity."
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 #76 on: January 08, 2011, 07:30:19 PM »

So... where's the problem? He is a Bishop. A bishop in the position of authority, but still a bishop.

So... where's the problem? He is a Leader (excuse me, Supreme Leader, since 2009). A "dear" leader in the position of authority, but still a leader.

He can't be president, because the presidency of the Democratic [see? it's a democracy. Even says so in the name] People's [see? This power of the Supreme and Eternal leader by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of popular sovereignty, by which the people, tend and govern them selves. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Eternal Leader. Says so in the title] Republic [see? a republc, although its leadership is inherited. Says so in the name] of Korea was abolished, and replaced by the "Eternal President" by the Constitution stating "Under the leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Korean people will hold the great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung in high esteem as the eternal President of the Republic."  What he was supposed to do with said office was not clarified, as the "Great Leader" was already dead for years at the time, and yet holds the office "for eternity."


See, when you do that, all I read is "Isa's post.... sigh... words... words.. WTF is he saying?... words... whatever".

Seriously, just say what you mean. I feel like I'm arguing with my wife.

What I THINK you're trying to say is "the Pope is a dictator". But you don't really say how or why, your just making an elaborate way to broadcast your statement... that I already knew was your position.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #77 on: January 08, 2011, 07:40:16 PM »


Unlike Constantinople, Rome's significance does not lie in it's economic market, and while Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were important, they still weren't the See of the primate.. the topic of the conversation.

.

Within the Orthodox Christian world there is no place for a global primate.  This has been reiterated several times by the Russian Church since Ravenna 2007.  There is no possibility that we could introduce one.  It would entail a break with Tradition and a radical innovation in our ecclesiastical structure.  One corollary would be large scale schism within our Church.

You can turn up more in the forum's past messages by doing a search with hilarion and kasper and ravenna
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #78 on: January 08, 2011, 07:55:10 PM »


Unlike Constantinople, Rome's significance does not lie in it's economic market, and while Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were important, they still weren't the See of the primate.. the topic of the conversation.

.

Within the Orthodox Christian world there is no place for a global primate.  This has been reiterated several times by the Russian Church since Ravenna 2007.  There is no possibility that we could introduce one.  It would entail a break with Tradition and a radical innovation in our ecclesiastical structure.  One corollary would be large scale schism within our Church.

You can turn up more in the forum's past messages by doing a search with hilarion and kasper and ravenna

I've listened to Met Hilarion say this a few times now, but I've never been able (personally) to understand this. Both in the text I've read (and personally interpreted) and through my own (falliable) understanding of organizational structure (admittedly, not structures guided by God Himself).

(in other words) When I read things, I only see the contrary, and it only makes sense to me, as well.

Where can I see the lack of such?
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: 38,135



« Reply #79 on: January 08, 2011, 09:19:28 PM »

You may have noticed the distinction, that is, between "an Apostolic See" and "the Apostolic See".
LOL. Latin, the Vatican's official language, makes no distinction, lacking the words "a" and "the."

Greek does have the word "the" and Medieval/Modern Greek has "a" (Classical lacks it, but writing closer to the vernacular has it). Coptic has both "the" and "a." Hence "the Apostpolic See of the Great City of Alexandria."  Since there is no distinction between "an Apostolic See" and an imagined "the Apostolic See," we don't have to make the distinction in Greek, Coptic, Arabic or English.
The Latin is irrelevant since we're talking about the Greek.
Are we? Because you seem to be talking about the English, translated from the Latin.

Unfortunately the Mansi volume slows my computer down, so I don't have the time to compare his Latin and Greek texts, but there is no need.  The US Ambassador to the Vatican is officially "to the Holy See," just like the US Ambassador is to Great Britain is officially "to the Court of St. James," although the US Constitution prevents recognizing either a church or a monarch.  We had no reason to reject Rome from calling itself "the Apostolic See" within Orthodoxy, and would have no problem recognizing Bp. Siluan as bishop of the Apostolic See.  Just like we in Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem tolerate and humor the EP when he refers to Constantinople as the "Mother Church."

Good chaff though.
Title inflation is all chaff.  No wheat.

The comparison with your quote is a false comparison.

It didn't say "The great city of Alexandria, THE Apostolic See", which is how Rome is addressed. Also, it would have been nonsensical and ambiguous to say "An Apostolic See of the Great City of Alexandria".
You are going to have to cough up the Greek text to make this argument.

In the meantime, you can say "an Apostolic See of the Great City of Constantinople" refering, for instance, to Ephesus, Caesarea, Iconia, etc. AFAIK, Alexadna is its own only apostolic see. Antioch and Jerusalem have several, as does Constantinople.

A larger portion of the text:
Quote
This is a metaphorical term, used, as happens in all languages, to express the abstract notion of authority by the concrete name of the place in which it is exercised. Such phrases have the double advantage of supplying a convenient sense-image for an idea purely intellectual and of exactly defining the nature of the authority by the addition of a single adjective. An Apostolic see is any see founded by an Apostle and having the authority of its founder; the Apostolic See is the seat of authority in the Roman Church, continuing the Apostolic functions of Peter, the chief of the Apostles.
The underlined above is as accurate as the underlined below, i.e. not very:
Quote
Heresy and barbarian violence swept away all the particular Churches which could lay claim to an Apostolic see, until Rome alone remained; to Rome, therefore, the term applies as a proper name. But before heresy, schism, and barbarian invasions had done their work, as early as the fourth century, the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East. Antioch, Alexandria, and, in a lesser degree, Jerusalem were called Apostolic sees by reason of their first occupants, Peter, Mark, and James, from whom they derived their patriarchal honour and jurisdiction; but Rome is the Apostolic See, because its occupant perpetuates the Apostolate of Blessed Peter extending over the whole Church....
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01640c.htm
Lord willing we will get to the particulars, but a problem is that the Book of Acts portrays St. Peter as beginning his career in Jerusalem, yet Jerusalem in no sense is ever seen as a Petrine See, although it is always (and NOT in a lesser degree) an Apostolic See.

So the Vatican, claims that "the Roman See was already the Apostolic See par excellence, not only in the West but also in the East," eh? We don't jump to rapt attention to every cock that crows.

Of course it's not a Petrine See. St. James was bishop of Jerusalem, not St. Peter. Peter may have been chief, but in Jerusalem, it was St. James' See.
I'm going to go into this next, but for a preview, St. James was consecrated bishop of Jerusalem by SS. Peter, John and James the Greater. And if Alexandria-a city that we have no positive proof St. Peter ever saw-can be a petrine see, what of a see that Scripture itself records as the scence of the beginnings of St. Peter's apostolate, where he was a (not "the") pillar?

Belittling arrogance serves virtue.
Keep telling yourself that. Though, childish behavior does little for your credibility.
Keep telling yourself that. Though, it won't make the facts I post go away.

So the Vatican arrogates to itself the title "Apostolic See." So what? It also arrogated to itself the title of the Patriarch of Alexandria, upon which the Church bestowed the title of "Pope."
During the Undivided Church (3EC) and then the 4EC, the term "the Apostolic See" was used specifically to refer to Rome. Therefore, it's not a matter of "the Vatican" stealing titles.
LOL. Acutally, it is.
Can't steal something that is given freely.
No, you can't. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

The earliest references we have to the Pope of Alexandria, others are calling him by that title.  The earliest usage of that title by Rome, its bishop is calling himself by that title.  Rome progressively restricted the title and insisted on being refered to by it, until the pontiff "Gregory VII finally prescribed that it should be confined to the successors of Peter" by which the EC (article "Pope" Nihil Obstat. June 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York) means your supreme pontiff, I'm sure: the Vatican banns its Coptic and Melkite patriarchs in Alexandria in submission from using it.

The pope expressly disclaims the name "universal" for any bishop, including himself. He says that the Council of Chalcedon had wanted to give it to Leo I, but he had refused it (Epp., V, xviii, ibid., 740, xx, 747, etc.).
Odd, I haven't found any such thing in the Acts of Chalcedon
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA217&dq=Acts+of++Chalcedon+universal+bishop&cd=2#v=onepage&q=Acts%20of%20%20Chalcedon%20universal%20bishop&f=false
Btw, it seems the Latin embellishes the titles of the Pope, I mean bishop, of Rome (which hadn't taken the title then born by the Pope and Patriarch of Alexandria yet) amongst other things, not found in the Greek (which was the offical language of the proceedings).
The comprehensive Latin edition of the text of the Acts of Chalcedon was translated by deacon Rusticus, a nephew of Pope Vigilius who was excommunicated for his vigorous defense of the Three Chapters. The Latin, for instance, changes the Greek "bishop" to Latin "pope" when it refers to the bishop of Rome, but not otherwise. A lot of the flowerly language the Latin delegates from Rome heap on their primate, favorites of Ultramontanist quote mines, were not delivered in Greek-the language of the Councils-and are not in the Greek edition of the Acts.
Though this isn't from me, I fail to see how "bishop of Rome" changed to "Pope" in the Latin versions is a viscous slight of hand that you are claiming.
Ask your supreme pontiff Gregory VII.

This is a procedure which happens today: many times an ultramontanist apologist has made much of the reference to "pope" as opposed to mere "bishop," and when you look at the original you see that the English has been edited in the light (or rather darkness) of Pastor Aeternus.  Before Pope Siricius of Rome, 399, refering to any bishop of Rome as "Pope" is an anachronism.

My own reading has shown this the only crazy "flowery additions" that you claim.
The Gaddis and Price edition makes notes here and there, when the Latin embellishes. It is by far not the only place where putting the Latin and Greek editions of the same document show significant inflation on the Latin side. Heck, you can get that today in English-look how the letter of Pope St. Gregory on the "petrine" see is butchered for service for ultramontanist quote mines.

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with286 the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.  Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ix.html
You did notice that it was Rome's legates, and not the Council, speakng here, no?
So what? That's irrelevant.
Not if you are trying to make out that you are quoting the ultramontanism of the Council. As Gaddis and Price point out, the Greek translation of the Latin speech of the legates "is less effussive about papal primacy'
http://books.google.com/books?id=6IUaOOT1G3UC&pg=RA1-PA70&dq=acts+of+chalcedon+less+effusive+about+papal+primacy&hl=en&ei=AAMpTdLLBtGgnwfJlaD4AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Whether the Pope himself was present, or his proxy, has no bearing on the title's use. Especially since they are introduced as legates of the "bishop of Rome, of THE Apostolic See".
Yeah, and the US Senate recognizes that Holy See and the Queen of England. Had the legates introduced themselves as legates of the Supreme Pontiff, it might have been different in the record.


Do note also that both Popes Celestine and Leo ordered the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon not to seat Nestorius and Pope Dioscoros, and yet both Nestorius and Pope Dioscoros were seated in the first sessions.

Extracts from the Acts Session I (Fourth Ecumenical Council);
Quote
The most glorious judges and the full senate said:  What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said:  Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said:  In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said:  Let him give a reason for his judgment.  For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction.  And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

(This statement, so absolutely contrary to fact, has been a sore difficulty to the commentators.  Arendt (Leo the Great and his Times, § 270) says that this meant only that “he had, without permission of the Pope, taken the presidency there, and conducted the proceedings, for Leo himself had acknowledged the synod by the fact that he allowed his legates to be present at it.”  Almost the same is the explanation of the Ballerini (Leo M. Opera, Tom. ii. 460, n. 15.))

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:  We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop ["Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iii.html

Eveidently Rome's legates had no problem making blanket contrary to fact statements, especially in a language most did not understand at the Councils.

You read the whole thing right?
Yes. Have you?

Quote
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said:* Let him give a reason for his judgment.* For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction.* And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place.

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:* We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop [“Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.
Lucentius, the venerable bishop and holding the place of the Apostolic See, said:* We will not suffer so great a wrong to be done us and you, as that he who is come to be judged should sit down [as one to give judgment].
The glorious judges and the whole senate said:* If you hold the office of judge, you ought not to defend yourself as if you were to be judged. And when Dioscorus the most religious bishop of Alexandria at the bidding of the most glorious judges and of the sacred assembly had sat down in the midst, and the most reverend Roman bishops also had sat down in their proper places, and kept silence, Eusebius, the most reverend bishop of the city of Dorylæum, stepping into the midst, said: [He then presented a petition, and the Acts of the Latrocinium were read.* Also the Acts of the council of Constantinople under Flavian against Eutyches (col. 175).]

Quote
Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, representing the Apostolic See, said; Flavian of blessed memory hath most holily and perfectly expounded the faith.* His faith and exposition agrees with the epistle of the most blessed and apostolic man, the bishop of Rome. Anatolius the most reverend archbishop of Constantinople said; The blessed Flavian hath beautifully and orthodoxly set forth the faith of our fathers.
Lucentius, the most reverend bishop, and legate of the Apostolic See, said; Since the faith of Flavian of blessed memory agrees with the Apostolic See and the tradition of the fathers it is just that the sentence by which he was condemned by the heretics should be turned back upon them by this most holy synod. Maximus the most reverend bishop of Antioch in Syria, said:* Archbishop Flavian of blessed memory hath set forth the faith orthodoxly and in accordance with the most beloved-of-God and most holy Archbishop Leo.* And this we all receive with zeal. Thalassius, the most reverend bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia said; Flavian of blessed memory hath spoken in accordance with Cyril of blessed memory.
[And so, one after another, the bishops expressed their opinions.* The reading of the acts of the Council of Constantinople was then continued.]
And at this point of the reading, Dioscorus, the most reverend Archbishop of Alexandria said, I receive “the of two;” “the two” I do not receive (τὸ ἐκ δύο δέχομαι· τὸ δύο, οὐ δέχομαι).* I am forced to be impudent, but the matter is one which touches my soul. [After a few remarks the reading was continued and the rest of the acts of the Latrocinium of Ephesus completed.* The judges then postponed to the morrow the setting forth a decree on the faith but intimated that Dioscorus and his associates should suffer the punishment to which they unjustly sentenced Flavian.* This met with the approval of all the bishops except those of Illyrica who said:* “We all have erred, let us all be pardoned.”* (col. 323.) ]
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iii.html
So in summary, he came in sat down, was judged, and punished. Notice how the council supported THE Apostolic See. Not at all what you're trying to portray.
No, not all what you're trying to portray.

Pope Leo claimed both that Pope Dioscoros held the council of Ephesus II "without the authority of the Apostolic see" while claiming that its legate to said council had nullified it (the famous "contradicitur" nonsense of which ultramontanists are so fond of claiming as evidence). (He also was claiming that ignorance of Constantinople's second rank from Constantinople I and that it couldn't take that place, while also accusing Pope Diosocoros of usurping EP St. Flavian's spot at Ephesus II).  The Council was supposed to just sentence Pope Dioscoros, and adopt the Tome of Leo as the profession of Faith.  Instead they reviewed the Council of Constantinople, upheld it, reviewed Ephesus II and voided it, wrote their own profession of Faith, and only declared the Tome Orthodox, after it was examined and compared with the writings of Pope St. Cyril etc. by a committee.

Btw
Extracts from the Acts: Session I (Seventh Ecumenical Council):
Quote
I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.v.html?highlight=apostolic,see,dared#highlight

I don't recall the usage applied to Rome before the Third Ecumenical Council. By that time Rome had been sacked and was well on its way devolving into a clump of huts among ruins of its past splendor. It wouldn't return to a city of any note for a millenium. (btw, Alexandria has made a similar transformation, but its nadir lasted only a few centuries).
The term seems to become popular sometime around the time of the second EC, though I have not noticed it's use, nor Rome addressed in this way during that council. St. Jerome used the term in his letter against Pelagianism (about that same period), but then again, it was only about 60 years prior to this that Christianity became legal.

The term is historic to Rome (my argument), but not an end in itself.
Historic only in the sense that Rome began to put a lot of stock in such terms when it was painfully aware that history had passed it by, while Alexandria, Antioch and even Jerusalem, and worse, New Rome were important cities in that day.  Rome had already been sacked and passed its prime when it ceased to serve as capital.  Sort of reminds me of Betty Davis in "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?"
Unlike Constantinople, Rome's significance does not lie in it's economic market,
So you claim. In the days of SS. Peter and Paul, Linus and Clement that was its significance, the reason why they came. By the time of Chalcedon, Rome's past was its only significance, as it had no other.  So too Constantinople, which now has its significance only as the See of SS. Gregory Nazianzus, John Chrysostom, Photios, the Ecumenical Councils etc., which came because of Constantinople's "economic market" it their day.

and while Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were important, they still weren't the See of the primate.. the topic of the conversation.
Each had, and have, a primate. What are you talking about?

Emperor Justinian enshrined these primates in the Code, he singling out the Patriarch of Jerusalem as the primate of the Mother Church from which none may be in schism.  In the nineth century the EP and Emperor gave the Pope of Alexandria the title "Judge of the World."

btw, the EC article has these pertinent claims
Quote
cathedra Petri, the chair of St. Peter, is but another expression for the sedes apostolica, cathedra denoting the chair of the teacher. Hence the limitation of papal infallibility to definitions ex cathedra amounts to this: papal definitions can claim inerrancy or infallibility only when pronounced by the pope as the holder of the privileges granted by Christ to Peter, the Rock upon which He built His Church. The same formula conveys the meaning that the pope's infallibility is not personal, but derived from, and coextensive with, his office of visible Head of the Universal Church, in virute of which he sits in the Chair of Peter and Shepherd and Teacher of all Christians. (See INFALLIBILITY.) From ancient times a distinction has been made between the Apostolic See and its actual occupant: between sedes and sedens. The object of the distinction is not to discriminate between the two nor to subordinate one to the other, but rather to set forth their intimate connection. The See is the symbol of the highest papal authority; it is, by its nature, permanent, whereas its occupant holds that authority but for a time and inasmuch as he sits in the Chair of Peter. It further implies that take supreme authority is a supernatural gift, the same in all successive holders, independent of their personal worth, and inseparable from their ex-officio definitions and decisions. The Vatican definition of the pope's infallibility when speaking ex cathedra does not permit of the sense attached to the distinction of sedes and sedens by the Gallicans, who claimed that even in the official use of the authority vested in the See, with explicit declaration of its exercise, the sedens was separate from the sedes.
I think I would agree with this definition, at this time. Was there something in it that you thought was contradictory?
We'll get to that, Lord willing.

Avignon is definitely not an Apostolic see, unless you believe Dan Brown (I don't).
Certainly not.
Though, if someone wanted to do mental gymnastics, you could claim the location doesn't make the See. After all, if the EP was to relocate (I KNOW, the EP is not Rome), as other Sees have changed cities, does the move change the primate authority of the sitting bishop?
Lord willing, we will be getting to that.
Not really sure what you meant here.
Avignon.
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 09:28:58 PM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #80 on: January 08, 2011, 09:33:21 PM »

So... where's the problem? He is a Bishop. A bishop in the position of authority, but still a bishop.

So... where's the problem? He is a Leader (excuse me, Supreme Leader, since 2009). A "dear" leader in the position of authority, but still a leader.

He can't be president, because the presidency of the Democratic [see? it's a democracy. Even says so in the name] People's [see? This power of the Supreme and Eternal leader by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of popular sovereignty, by which the people, tend and govern them selves. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Eternal Leader. Says so in the title] Republic [see? a republc, although its leadership is inherited. Says so in the name] of Korea was abolished, and replaced by the "Eternal President" by the Constitution stating "Under the leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Korean people will hold the great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung in high esteem as the eternal President of the Republic."  What he was supposed to do with said office was not clarified, as the "Great Leader" was already dead for years at the time, and yet holds the office "for eternity."


See, when you do that, all I read is "Isa's post.... sigh... words... words.. WTF is he saying?... words... whatever".

Seriously, just say what you mean. I feel like I'm arguing with my wife.

What I THINK you're trying to say is "the Pope is a dictator". But you don't really say how or why, your just making an elaborate way to broadcast your statement... that I already knew was your position.

"There is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist, nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop "  St. Ignatius of Antioch, to the SmyrneansGot it?  Besides Christ, there is no office or person greater in the Church than the Bishop.  It is ridiculous to say that the Church is a two-headed monster.   It is the Body of Christ because Christ is the head.  If Christ and Peter were dual heads of the body, then it would be the "Body of Christ and Peter," the two headed body monster.  But that is not what Christ founded. 
This keeps getting restated...The office of the papacy isn't above a bishop. It is held by a bishop. The administrative position is one of authority, that is, primacy.There are no two heads, any more than the local church's bishop takes the place of God. "Got it?"

Then you have completely no idea what the papacy is about. Vatican I:"Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:let him be anathema."
"For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body"

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

And so,
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.


So... where's the problem? He is a Bishop. A bishop in the position of authority, but still a bishop.
But you don't really say how or why, your just making a simplistic way to broadcast your statement... that I already knew was your position.
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: 38,135



« Reply #81 on: January 08, 2011, 09:37:51 PM »


Unlike Constantinople, Rome's significance does not lie in it's economic market, and while Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were important, they still weren't the See of the primate.. the topic of the conversation.

.

Within the Orthodox Christian world there is no place for a global primate.  This has been reiterated several times by the Russian Church since Ravenna 2007.  There is no possibility that we could introduce one.  It would entail a break with Tradition and a radical innovation in our ecclesiastical structure.  One corollary would be large scale schism within our Church.

You can turn up more in the forum's past messages by doing a search with hilarion and kasper and ravenna

I've listened to Met Hilarion say this a few times now, but I've never been able (personally) to understand this. Both in the text I've read (and personally interpreted) and through my own (falliable) understanding of organizational structure (admittedly, not structures guided by God Himself).

(in other words) When I read things, I only see the contrary, and it only makes sense to me, as well.

Where can I see the lack of such?
LOL. Rarely have I seen such incoherence so tersely expressed.

I am guessing, because it is not at all clear, that your interpretation substantiate a global primate. is that what you are trying to tell?
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 #82 on: January 08, 2011, 09:47:24 PM »

So... where's the problem? He is a Bishop. A bishop in the position of authority, but still a bishop.

So... where's the problem? He is a Leader (excuse me, Supreme Leader, since 2009). A "dear" leader in the position of authority, but still a leader.

He can't be president, because the presidency of the Democratic [see? it's a democracy. Even says so in the name] People's [see? This power of the Supreme and Eternal leader by no means detracts from that ordinary and immediate power of popular sovereignty, by which the people, tend and govern them selves. On the contrary, this power of theirs is asserted, supported and defended by the Supreme and Eternal Leader. Says so in the title] Republic [see? a republc, although its leadership is inherited. Says so in the name] of Korea was abolished, and replaced by the "Eternal President" by the Constitution stating "Under the leadership of the Workers' Party of Korea, the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Korean people will hold the great leader Comrade Kim Il-sung in high esteem as the eternal President of the Republic."  What he was supposed to do with said office was not clarified, as the "Great Leader" was already dead for years at the time, and yet holds the office "for eternity."


See, when you do that, all I read is "Isa's post.... sigh... words... words.. WTF is he saying?... words... whatever".

Seriously, just say what you mean. I feel like I'm arguing with my wife.

What I THINK you're trying to say is "the Pope is a dictator". But you don't really say how or why, your just making an elaborate way to broadcast your statement... that I already knew was your position.

"There is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist, nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop "  St. Ignatius of Antioch, to the SmyrneansGot it?  Besides Christ, there is no office or person greater in the Church than the Bishop.  It is ridiculous to say that the Church is a two-headed monster.   It is the Body of Christ because Christ is the head.  If Christ and Peter were dual heads of the body, then it would be the "Body of Christ and Peter," the two headed body monster.  But that is not what Christ founded. 
This keeps getting restated...The office of the papacy isn't above a bishop. It is held by a bishop. The administrative position is one of authority, that is, primacy.There are no two heads, any more than the local church's bishop takes the place of God. "Got it?"

Then you have completely no idea what the papacy is about. Vatican I:"Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:let him be anathema."
"For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body"

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

And so,
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.


So... where's the problem? He is a Bishop. A bishop in the position of authority, but still a bishop.
But you don't really say how or why, your just making a simplistic way to broadcast your statement... that I already knew was your position.

That's not a statement... that's a question...
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: 38,135



« Reply #83 on: January 08, 2011, 10:33:19 PM »

That's not a statement... that's a question...

No. It was a statement.

The rest there.
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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #84 on: January 08, 2011, 10:46:15 PM »

I've listened to Met Hilarion say this a few times now, but I've never been able (personally) to understand this. Both in the text I've read (and personally interpreted) and through my own (falliable) understanding of organizational structure (admittedly, not structures guided by God Himself).

(in other words) When I read things, I only see the contrary, and it only makes sense to me, as well.

Where can I see the lack of such?

Before there can be unity between us this institution (the papatia) must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.

Here are the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, and spiritual father to five of the senior bishops of today's
Serbian Church:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."


Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility, the two things which Mary finds
essential to our union.  If she consults her circle of learned Orthodox acquaintances she will find they agree
with Saint Justin.
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #85 on: January 08, 2011, 11:30:50 PM »

You said "there are not two heads" and that the office is merely episcopal.
I have showed you clearly that you are wrong, as Vatican I recognizes not only Christ as head, but also that the Bishop of Rome as vicar of the "first head" is a second "head of the whole church."  His office is defined not only as episcopal but as an "immediate...supreme shepherd."  It is both defined as episcopal and as supra-episcopal.   You have been shown here to be unambiguously wrong in your view of the papacy by vatican standard, so just admit it.   


"There is no one superior to God, or even like to Him, among all the beings that exist, nor is there any one in the Church greater than the bishop "  St. Ignatius of Antioch, to the SmyrneansGot it?  Besides Christ, there is no office or person greater in the Church than the Bishop.  It is ridiculous to say that the Church is a two-headed monster.   It is the Body of Christ because Christ is the head.  If Christ and Peter were dual heads of the body, then it would be the "Body of Christ and Peter," the two headed body monster.  But that is not what Christ founded.  
This keeps getting restated...The office of the papacy isn't above a bishop. It is held by a bishop. The administrative position is one of authority, that is, primacy.There are no two heads, any more than the local church's bishop takes the place of God. "Got it?"

Then you have completely no idea what the papacy is about. Vatican I:"Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself:let him be anathema."
"For this reason it has always been necessary for every church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body"

Chapter 3. On the power and character of the primacy of the Roman pontiff

And so,
supported by the clear witness of holy scripture, and
adhering to the manifest and explicit decrees both of our predecessors
the Roman pontiffs and of
general councils,
we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that
the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
the prince of the apostles,
true vicar of Christ,
head of the whole church and
father and teacher of all christian people.
To him, in blessed Peter, full power has been given by our lord Jesus Christ to
tend,
rule and govern
the universal church.
All this is to be found in the acts of the ecumenical councils and the sacred canons.

Wherefore we teach and declare that,
by divine ordinance,
the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
episcopal and
immediate.
Both clergy and faithful,
of whatever rite and dignity,
both singly and collectively,
are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this
not only in matters concerning faith and morals,
but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the church throughout the world.

In this way, by unity with the Roman pontiff in communion and in profession of the same faith , the church of Christ becomes one flock under one supreme shepherd .

This is the teaching of the catholic truth, and no one can depart from it without endangering his faith and salvation.


So... where's the problem? He is a Bishop. A bishop in the position of authority, but still a bishop.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #86 on: January 08, 2011, 11:38:29 PM »

A scary question :

If the Church depends on the office of a Bishop for it's sacraments, and the RCC eliminated the Episcopa of Rome (Orthodox Patriarch) and created something called a "pope" instead...are Roman Catholics receiving valid sacraments?

The office of pope is an abomination of desolation since it gives a mere man the office of High Priest which belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. The "pope" sounds familiar:

Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed,the son of destruction,

 who opposes and exalts himself above every so-called god or object of worship, so that he takes his seat in the temple of God, displaying himself as being God.


-2 Thessalonians 2:3-4
« Last Edit: January 08, 2011, 11:39:47 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #87 on: January 09, 2011, 12:03:02 AM »


Unlike Constantinople, Rome's significance does not lie in it's economic market, and while Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were important, they still weren't the See of the primate.. the topic of the conversation.

.

Within the Orthodox Christian world there is no place for a global primate.  This has been reiterated several times by the Russian Church since Ravenna 2007.  There is no possibility that we could introduce one.  It would entail a break with Tradition and a radical innovation in our ecclesiastical structure.  One corollary would be large scale schism within our Church.

You can turn up more in the forum's past messages by doing a search with hilarion and kasper and ravenna

I've listened to Met Hilarion say this a few times now, but I've never been able (personally) to understand this. Both in the text I've read (and personally interpreted) and through my own (falliable) understanding of organizational structure (admittedly, not structures guided by God Himself).

(in other words) When I read things, I only see the contrary, and it only makes sense to me, as well.

Where can I see the lack of such?
LOL. Rarely have I seen such incoherence so tersely expressed.


 laugh  You learned how to do that from one of your professors...right?
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #88 on: January 09, 2011, 12:03:03 AM »

I've listened to Met Hilarion say this a few times now, but I've never been able (personally) to understand this. Both in the text I've read (and personally interpreted) and through my own (falliable) understanding of organizational structure (admittedly, not structures guided by God Himself).

(in other words) When I read things, I only see the contrary, and it only makes sense to me, as well.

Where can I see the lack of such?

Before there can be unity between us this institution (the papatia) must be destroyed.  It has no place in the Church.

Here are the words of St. Justin (Popovich) the great modern Serbian
Teacher, and spiritual father to five of the senior bishops of today's
Serbian Church:

"...the Orthodox Church, in its nature and its dogmatically unchanging
constitution is episcopal and centered in the bishops. For the bishop and
the faithful gathered around him are the expression and
manifestation of the Church as the Body of Christ, especially in the Holy
Liturgy; the Church is Apostolic and Catholic only by virtue of its bishops,
insofar as they are the heads of true ecclesiastical
units, the dioceses.


"At the same time, the other, historically later and variable forms of
church organization of the Orthodox Church: the metropolias, archdioceses,
patriarchates, pentarchies, autocephalies, autonomies, etc., however many
there may be or shall be, cannot have and do not have a determining and
decisive significance in the conciliar system of the Orthodox Church.
Furthermore, they may constitute an obstacle in the correct functioning of
the conciliary principle if they obstruct and reject the episcopal character
and structure of the Church and of the Churches.


"Here, undoubtedly, is to be found the primary difference between Orthodox
and Papal ecclesiology."


-oOo-

"No heresy has ever raised up so radically and so completely against the God-Man Christ
and His Church as has the Papacy, with its dogma of the infallible Pope-man. There is no doubt:
this dogma is the heresy of heresies."


Archimandrite Justin Popovic, "Man and God-Man", Athens, 1987

Saint Justin dismisses out of hand both papal primacy and papal infallibility, the two things which Mary finds
essential to our union.  If she consults her circle of learned Orthodox acquaintances she will find they agree
with Saint Justin.

Not all of them do so at all, and not all of the rest do so in the extreme.

You always have a tendency to over-count in your own favor.
Logged

Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #89 on: January 09, 2011, 12:42:19 AM »

You said "there are not two heads" and that the office is merely episcopal.
I have showed you clearly that you are wrong, as Vatican I recognizes not only Christ as head, but also that the Bishop of Rome as vicar of the "first head" is a second "head of the whole church."  His office is defined not only as episcopal but as an "immediate...supreme shepherd."  It is both defined as episcopal and as supra-episcopal. 

Shepherd of one type or another is still a shepherd of a flock. A priest is the elder of a church, but replaced God? A bishop is the head of a local church, but replaced God? What about higher administrative bishops... Metropolitans? Patriarchs? ...the Pope?

Jurisdiction size doesn't equate replacement of God. This particular argument is flawed and weak, relying on distaste for the position as it's root. Unfortunately, distaste isn't a proof of falsehood.


You have been shown here to be unambiguously wrong in your view of the papacy by vatican standard, so just admit it.   

 Undecided
Yelling louder doesn't make it so.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #90 on: January 09, 2011, 01:07:42 AM »

If he doesn't claim to replace God, then why did a top RCC catechist once go to me and say that only God's opinion was above the pope's, and also how do you explain the blasphemous title of "Vicar of Christ" ? Latin Vicarius means "instead of" therefore your pope is instead of Christ on Earth which is a blasphemy since Christ is alive and presiding as our High Priest in heaven.
Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 30,498



« Reply #91 on: January 09, 2011, 01:27:09 AM »

There are about 1,437 passages in St. Ignatius that go something like this...

"For, since you are subject to the bishop as to Jesus Christ, you appear to me to live not after the manner of men, but according to Jesus Christ, who died for us, in order, by believing in His death, you may escape from death. It is therefore necessary that, as you indeed do, so without the bishop you should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found." - Epistle to the Trallians, 2
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 01:27:27 AM by Asteriktos » Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #92 on: January 09, 2011, 01:57:10 AM »

You said "there are not two heads" and that the office is merely episcopal.
I have showed you clearly that you are wrong, as Vatican I recognizes not only Christ as head, but also that the Bishop of Rome as vicar of the "first head" is a second "head of the whole church."  His office is defined not only as episcopal but as an "immediate...supreme shepherd."  It is both defined as episcopal and as supra-episcopal.  
Shepherd of one type or another is still a shepherd of a flock.
So, say, a German shepherd of one type or another

is still a shepherd of a flock.

A priest is the elder of a church, but replaced God?
If he arrogates to himself the power to transfer other priests to and from any parish at will, and dictate to any and all parishioners what is true, subject to no one's judgement nor question-yeah, pretty much.

A bishop is the head of a local church, but replaced God?
If he arrogates to himself the power to depose bishops and create and abolish dioceses wherever and whenever at will, and script the bishops teaching, subject to no one's judgement nor question-yeah, pretty much.

What about higher administrative bishops... Metropolitans? Patriarchs? ...the Pope?
You have already gotten the answer to the latter.

Jurisdiction size doesn't equate replacement of God.

When it claims universal jurisdiction, not only this world, but beyond (who holds the key to the "treasury of merits"?), subject to no oversight, yeah, pretty much it does for all practical purposes.

This particular argument is flawed and weak,
This particular defense of what can be plainly read in Pastor Aeternus is flawed and weak.

relying on distaste for the position as it's root. Unfortunately, distaste isn't a proof of falsehood.

Sorry, don't like the taste of your kool-aid. No sale.

So while you are busy telling us how we're all equal in the dictatorship of the proletariat, I'm paying more attention to the fact that Comrade Stalin has a tad more say about what goes on in the workers' paradise.

You have been shown here to be unambiguously wrong in your view of the papacy by vatican standard, so just admit it.  
Undecided
Yelling louder doesn't make it so.
Sticking your fingers in your ears doesn't make it not so.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 02:00:04 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #93 on: January 09, 2011, 09:37:37 AM »

If he doesn't claim to replace God, then why did a top RCC catechist once go to me and say that only God's opinion was above the pope's,

That's not quite right. If the "Church" is THE Church, then it's teachings are true. The only thing that can speak about God better then, is God Himself.

If the Pope is leader (CEO, Final authority) of His Church on Earth, He could speak for the Church, exercising the whole Church's "Truth", as leader and final word". That's Papal infalliability.

Other than in that way, his opinions are only opinions. Still those of "the earthly leader/head-bishop, but not infallible.

and also how do you explain the blasphemous title of "Vicar of Christ" ? Latin Vicarius means "instead of" therefore your pope is instead of Christ on Earth which is a blasphemy since Christ is alive and presiding as our High Priest in heaven.

Technically, all priests are vicars of Christ, especially during the Eucharist. The stand in His physical place, not "replacing" Him, but physically standing for Him, so the He may act through them a leader of flocks of the faithful.

In the same way, the Pope would not replace Jesus, but stand for Him, so as to be a physical voice and leader for the Church.
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: 38,135



« Reply #94 on: January 09, 2011, 10:50:35 AM »

If he doesn't claim to replace God, then why did a top RCC catechist once go to me and say that only God's opinion was above the pope's,

That's not quite right. If the "Church" is THE Church, then it's teachings are true. The only thing that can speak about God better then, is God Himself.

If the Pope is leader (CEO, Final authority) of His Church on Earth, He could speak for the Church, exercising the whole Church's "Truth", as leader and final word". That's Papal infalliability.
No, the CEO is responsible to the Board, must present facts with substantiation from the yearly reports, etc.

The General Secretary of the Party, dictating the results of the latest 5 year plan (which have no relationship to reality) to Party Congress, whose members lives depend on the favor of the GS, and so rubber stamp whatever the GS puts in front of them, THAT's "Papal Infalliability."

Other than in that way, his opinions are only opinions. Still those of "the earthly leader/head-bishop, but not infallible.

and also how do you explain the blasphemous title of "Vicar of Christ" ? Latin Vicarius means "instead of" therefore your pope is instead of Christ on Earth which is a blasphemy since Christ is alive and presiding as our High Priest in heaven.

Technically, all priests are vicars of Christ, especially during the Eucharist.[/quote]

Actually, no, they are not. That's another inovation of the Vatican to think that they are.

The stand in His physical place, not "replacing" Him, but physically standing for Him, so the He may act through them a leader of flocks of the faithful.
He also acts through the flocks of the Faithful.  Hence why an Orthodox priest does not celebrate DL by himself, and hence why, should he go into schism or heresy, he does not take the charism "to confect the eucharist" with him.

In the same way, the Pope would not replace Jesus, but stand for Him, so as to be a physical voice and leader for the Church.
You may have noticed the distinction, that is, between "a physical voice and leader" and "the physical voice and leader".
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 #95 on: January 09, 2011, 02:46:13 PM »

If he doesn't claim to replace God, then why did a top RCC catechist once go to me and say that only God's opinion was above the pope's,

That's not quite right. If the "Church" is THE Church, then it's teachings are true. The only thing that can speak about God better then, is God Himself.

If the Pope is leader (CEO, Final authority) of His Church on Earth, He could speak for the Church, exercising the whole Church's "Truth", as leader and final word". That's Papal infalliability.
No, the CEO is responsible to the Board, must present facts with substantiation from the yearly reports, etc.

The General Secretary of the Party, dictating the results of the latest 5 year plan (which have no relationship to reality) to Party Congress, whose members lives depend on the favor of the GS, and so rubber stamp whatever the GS puts in front of them, THAT's "Papal Infalliability."

Other than in that way, his opinions are only opinions. Still those of "the earthly leader/head-bishop, but not infallible.

and also how do you explain the blasphemous title of "Vicar of Christ" ? Latin Vicarius means "instead of" therefore your pope is instead of Christ on Earth which is a blasphemy since Christ is alive and presiding as our High Priest in heaven.

Technically, all priests are vicars of Christ, especially during the Eucharist.

Actually, no, they are not. That's another inovation of the Vatican to think that they are.

So you don't think that when the priest reenacts the last supper during the Eucharistic prayers, he is not speaking Jesus' word's for him?

I don't find this problematic.

The stand in His physical place, not "replacing" Him, but physically standing for Him, so the He may act through them a leader of flocks of the faithful.
He also acts through the flocks of the Faithful.  Hence why an Orthodox priest does not celebrate DL by himself, and hence why, should he go into schism or heresy, he does not take the charism "to confect the eucharist" with him.

The Orthodox's popular stance may be to view ordination as authority granted by the Church only, but the Roman Catholics view ordination as a Grace given (similar to Baptism, Chrismation, etc) that once given, is not retractable. You cannot be unbaptised, nor can you be unordained. You can removed yourself from the Church, but the grace has been given.

In the same way, the Pope would not replace Jesus, but stand for Him, so as to be a physical voice and leader for the Church.
You may have noticed the distinction, that is, between "a physical voice and leader" and "the physical voice and leader".
Cheesy

Yeah, I did. Of course, I would counter "a" is for every priest, while "the" is for the Primate.
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: 38,135



« Reply #96 on: January 09, 2011, 04:13:01 PM »

If he doesn't claim to replace God, then why did a top RCC catechist once go to me and say that only God's opinion was above the pope's,

That's not quite right. If the "Church" is THE Church, then it's teachings are true. The only thing that can speak about God better then, is God Himself.

If the Pope is leader (CEO, Final authority) of His Church on Earth, He could speak for the Church, exercising the whole Church's "Truth", as leader and final word". That's Papal infalliability.
No, the CEO is responsible to the Board, must present facts with substantiation from the yearly reports, etc.

The General Secretary of the Party, dictating the results of the latest 5 year plan (which have no relationship to reality) to Party Congress, whose members lives depend on the favor of the GS, and so rubber stamp whatever the GS puts in front of them, THAT's "Papal Infalliability."

Other than in that way, his opinions are only opinions. Still those of "the earthly leader/head-bishop, but not infallible.

and also how do you explain the blasphemous title of "Vicar of Christ" ? Latin Vicarius means "instead of" therefore your pope is instead of Christ on Earth which is a blasphemy since Christ is alive and presiding as our High Priest in heaven.

Technically, all priests are vicars of Christ, especially during the Eucharist.

Actually, no, they are not. That's another inovation of the Vatican to think that they are.
So you don't think that when the priest reenacts the last supper

the priest doesn't reenact the last supper. He enters into the Mystical Supper.

during the Eucharistic prayers, he is not speaking Jesus' word's for him?

Not relevant, as his reading of the Words of Institution do not make the Eucharist, but his speaking the prayer of the Epiclesis for the Church.

I don't find this problematic.
What is "this"?

The stand in His physical place, not "replacing" Him, but physically standing for Him, so the He may act through them a leader of flocks of the faithful.
He also acts through the flocks of the Faithful.  Hence why an Orthodox priest does not celebrate DL by himself, and hence why, should he go into schism or heresy, he does not take the charism "to confect the eucharist" with him.
The Orthodox's popular
, hierarchical and Apostolic
Quote
stance may be to view ordination as authority granted by the Church only, but the Roman Catholics view ordination as a Grace given (similar to Baptism, Chrismation, etc) that once given, is not retractable.
I am aware of the Vatican's misunderstanding on the matter.

We Orthodox have only one High Priest

Quote
You cannot be unbaptised, nor can you be unordained. You can removed yourself from the Church, but the grace has been given.
One can participate in the priesthood of the one High Priest only in His Church.

In the same way, the Pope would not replace Jesus, but stand for Him, so as to be a physical voice and leader for the Church.
You may have noticed the distinction, that is, between "a physical voice and leader" and "the physical voice and leader".
Cheesy
Yeah, I did. Of course, I would counter "a" is for every priest, while "the" is for the Primate.
"a" is for no priest, and "the" is for every primate, indeed every bishop.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 04:13:55 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
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #97 on: January 09, 2011, 04:30:30 PM »


The Orthodox's popular stance may be to view ordination as authority granted by the Church only, but the Roman Catholics view ordination as a Grace given (similar to Baptism, Chrismation, etc) that once given, is not retractable. You cannot be unbaptised, nor can you be unordained. You can removed yourself from the Church, but the grace has been given.


Dear Azurestone,

The idea of an indelible mark of the Priesthood is a fairly recent Roman Catholic thing.


No Indelible Mark of the Priesthood in Patristic Teaching

"....no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in
Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that
a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood."

___________________________________________

"Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity: Some Theological and Canonical
Considerations"


By Professor Constantine Scouteris
School of Theology of the University of Athens

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm

Please see message at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372.html#msg300372
Logged
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #98 on: January 09, 2011, 04:35:03 PM »

In the same way, the Pope would not replace Jesus, but stand for Him, so as to be a physical voice and leader for the Church.

And why do we need this?

A glorified Press Secretary for Jesus?
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #99 on: January 09, 2011, 07:38:36 PM »

In the same way, the Pope would not replace Jesus, but stand for Him, so as to be a physical voice and leader for the Church.

And why do we need this?

A glorified Press Secretary for Jesus?

One would probably argue for the same reasons we need bishops, and also, perhaps for a similar reason as the Sacrament of Confession, to hear physical words of guidance.

St. Jerome
Letter to Evangelus
Quote
When subsequently one presbyter was chosen to preside over the rest, this was done to remedy schism and to prevent each individual from rending the church of Christ by drawing it to himself. For even at Alexandria from the time of Mark the Evangelist until the episcopates of Heraclas and Dionysius the presbyters always named as bishop one of their own number chosen by themselves and set in a more exalted position, just as an army elects a general, or as deacons appoint one of themselves whom they know to be diligent and call him archdeacon. For what function, excepting ordination, belongs to a bishop that does not also belong to a presbyter? It is not the case that there is one church at Rome and another in all the world beside.
http://www1000.newadvent.org/fathers/3001146.htm

"In other words, presbyters (including the bishops) are "priests" (hiereus) in the sense that only they can offer the bloodless sacrifice on behalf of the people. Yet, a particular presbyter is set aside as visible and permanent sign of unity, as Peter was set aside among the Twelve." Laurent Cleenewerck, His Broken Body, p. 72

As has been also noted by Cleenewerck, (in short) a contribution to this is what one understands the words "whole catholic Church" to mean. To a Roman Catholic, this would likely mean all the faithful who are in communion with one another in unity. To an Eastern Orthodox, however, this would likely be everything from a local church in the country to all the right believing faithful who commune in the Eucharist. In other words, "unity through physical communion" verses "unity in the Eucharist". While not a black and white line between the traditions, it does propose a conversational barrier.

Therefore, a pope, under the Orthodox definition means little. However, to a Latin, the organizational structure as a whole needs a head, and therefore, the concept of the Church's primate comes up, with the same definition of the bishop for it's basis.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 07:41:35 PM by Azurestone » Logged


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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #100 on: January 09, 2011, 08:16:36 PM »


The Orthodox's popular stance may be to view ordination as authority granted by the Church only, but the Roman Catholics view ordination as a Grace given (similar to Baptism, Chrismation, etc) that once given, is not retractable. You cannot be unbaptised, nor can you be unordained. You can removed yourself from the Church, but the grace has been given.


Dear Azurestone,

The idea of an indelible mark of the Priesthood is a fairly recent Roman Catholic thing.

I prefer the following Orthodox understanding of the priesthood.  It is much more Catholic in its description of Holy Orders.  Also it seems to me that what you speak of as defrocking is what the Catholic Church speaks of as laicization.  However as the following description notes, Holy Orders establishes a relationship between the man and Christ that is ontological and I would imagine that those of this world cannot really touch that once it is done...so it seems to me from the article below.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/priesthood_symeon_thessalonica.htm

Quote
On the Priesthood

by St Symeon Archbishop of Thessalonica


What a Priest Is.

A priest, he says, has been deemed worthy to be a “minister” (διάκονος) of Christ and a “liturgist” (Λειτουργός), a “guardian” (παραστάτης) and a “beholder” (θεωρός) of the Mysteries, who draws near and communicates in them, and also a “preacher” (κήρυξ) of the Gospel. There are no veils any more interfering in this way, says St. Symeon, because a priest can behold the divine Light directly without any obstacle. He is no longer in need of a Seraph in order to receive the Mysteries, because he takes them with the tongs (λαβίς). Indeed, he himself is now the Seraph, by virtue of his consecration to the priesthood. He is the one that calls others to draw near to God, because he now holds in his hands the divine Mysteries and addresses the faithful, admonishing them to be attentive and offers them to Christ, and is actually the way and the guide of others towards the Light. Indeed, a priest is both a "Cherub," because he can see fully through the Mysteries the One, who sees all things, and a fire bearing "Seraph," because he holds the living Coal. Furthermore, a priest is a "throne," because through the Liturgy and the Communion, he has the One, who is present everywhere resting on himself; and he is also an angel, as God's servant and liturgist.

A priest is all the above, says St. Symeon, not in an imaginary way, but really and truly, because he does not serve the divine Mysteries "in a merely iconic or merely typical (symbolic) way," but truly serves the very Master, who is escorted in the heavens above by the immaterial powers. "Indeed, a priest does on earth what the immaterial powers do in heaven, because this is what the Designer of all was pleased with and wanted to establish, namely, that one and the same Liturgy should be observed both above and below."

Clearly, this description has two basic characteristics, both of which are tied to the Lord Jesus Christ. The first one is strictly connected with Christ's person, inasmuch as a priest belongs entirely to Christ through receiving his priestly identity from him, being constantly connected with him and having his reference always to him. The second characteristic is that a priest's service has a direct link and reference to Christ's work, which was accomplished for all creation, the realities above and the realities below. This close link of the priesthood with Christ's person and work is spelled out in the next paragraph, which explains how the priest's service truly reveals who Christ is and what he has done for the entire, created world in general and mankind in particular.

Christ's Work Extended Through the Priesthood.

The priest's service, says St. Symeon, reveals what Christ himself did for us when he appeared to the world as a man like us. This work can be described as follows:

Having procured his union with us, i.e. having willingly put on matter, Christ, who alone is immaterial, united himself with human beings, who are endowed with material senses. It is crucial here that He, who is by nature uncreated and without beginning, in his desire to be united with creation, was not united with the immaterial and creaturely nature of the angels — for angels were created out of nothing, immaterial and immortal by grace and participants of his Glory according to the measure of grace that was allotted to each of them. Rather, Christ put on our creaturely body and was united personally (ύποστατικώς) with us, without being separated from the Godhead and without being confused with the human nature, to which he transmitted the glories and benefits of the Godhead — "for in him," he says, "dwells the entire fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

Now, all this is related to the Priesthood, because just as Christ originally appeared to the world, according to his good pleasure, so now, he reveals himself through the sacred Mysteries (Sacraments) to the priests and through them to the world! Christ's amazing, divine work, which escapes the grasp of human reason, has been entrusted to the priest, who serves the Liturgy and initiates others to it. What a priest does is to reveal Christ again, i.e. to present him truly and fully to the world of his time through the sacred Mysteries, which he handles according to the divine ordinance. In other words, a priest represents Christ's perpetual and saving grace granted to the world through the celebration of Christ's mysteries.

Herein lies, according to St. Symeon, the great dignity of the priesthood, which is greater than that given to the angels. The Mysteries, which priests handle, have to do with the fact that the Master, who contains all things and is himself incomprehensible, becomes for us localized. Though he cannot be touched, human hands uphold him. Though he is invisible, he submits to the senses and become visible. Though he is inconceivable by the human mind, he is received by human beings through our humble and fallen nature, by means of the priesthood, which has been instituted by him. This is the miracle of miracles, that Christ appears through the Mysteries; that he is given, carried, communicated; that he indwells in us and brings us peace, expiation and sustenance.

This is, says St. Symeon, the most novel of all happenings, the greatest gift to humanity, the highest power, authority and grace. By this, the priests, who are human beings, made of soil and clay and resembling worms of the earth, appear as heavenly Authorities and Powers (Angels). Indeed, the power of the priesthood makes human beings greater than these heavenly hosts. Priests are partakers of a mightier creation through the administration of holy Baptism and the other Mysteries. They become fathers of sons of God, or fathers of those, who become gods by grace. They act in a way that cancels out the effects of sin and, thus, deliver the souls, unlock the gates of paradise, dissolve eternal bonds. Priests are empowered to perform divine acts, as God's collaborators for the salvation of human beings.

This being the case, it is obvious that priests have been granted the greatest charismas and gifts and, as such, are the greatest debtors to God. And it could not be otherwise, for they are compared to the heavenly Powers. These many-eyed orders of Angels behold God's glory all the time. They tremble and shudder at this sight, and yet, they are in greater awe when they observe the manifold Wisdom of God, which they come to know through the Church, as St. Paul says. These angelic orders are in awe, because of their creaturely nature and immeasurable goodness of God, but they are also amazed and fearful at the awesome, divine Mysteries performed by the priesthood.
Logged

biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #101 on: January 09, 2011, 10:14:12 PM »

Just to break in for a moment-- how long is this going to go on? Do you have any other shtick?

We get it. You don't accept the claims to legitimacy of the present conception of the RCC papacy. I don't think you need a lot more pages to show that. Even in high school on the debate team, they didn't let you repeat your point over and over.

Do you think doing things like putting pictures of the Pope next to Hitler and calling them "German shepherds of one type or another" is really going to help you convince people of your ideas, or drive them away?

Is that sort of thing allowed on this board? The Hitler picture thing? At the very least, in terms of Internet debate, you just "Godwinned" the argument, i.e., made it so overdone that you lost. (And not to mention very insulting to someone whose Catholic grandfather's brothers fought in Normandy. But I'm sure you'll say that is 'beside the point.'  Roll Eyes )

To someone who grew up Catholic, this just looks like a waste of time, because you're not going to un-convince the Catholics of issues they themselves think were settled hundreds of years ago.

What is the purpose of this thread? It isn't going to clear up anything, it only repeats claims the Catholics do not accept from the Orthodox, and vice versa; and it surely hasn't increased anybody's good will. Is this really in the Christian spirit?

I guess if you accept the idea that the Catholics don't have a Pope because there were times when there were false claimants to the rank, and the actual office holder had to live in a different city for a while, you may believe the United States has no current capital-- because it was at Philadelphia for some years, and now it's D.C., so D.C. can't possibly be the "real" capital. I guess nothing has changed since then...  Roll Eyes

Do you think you'll eventually make a rule that Catholics either shouldn't join this board, or should have to get used to deliberately being 'called out'? Adult Catholics are usually familiar with the Orthodox counters to their points of view. There is no need to rub their faces in them.

It's really a good thing that the people in my parish, the priest and the people in the congregation, are well-disposed toward me and treat me in a friendly way. Lately, I get the impression that if all I knew were this board, I wouldn't try to have any church home at all.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #102 on: January 09, 2011, 10:20:29 PM »


The Orthodox's popular stance may be to view ordination as authority granted by the Church only, but the Roman Catholics view ordination as a Grace given (similar to Baptism, Chrismation, etc) that once given, is not retractable. You cannot be unbaptised, nor can you be unordained. You can removed yourself from the Church, but the grace has been given.


Dear Azurestone,

The idea of an indelible mark of the Priesthood is a fairly recent Roman Catholic thing.


No Indelible Mark of the Priesthood in Patristic Teaching

"....no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in
Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that
a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood."

___________________________________________

"Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity: Some Theological and Canonical
Considerations"


By Professor Constantine Scouteris
School of Theology of the University of Athens

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm

Please see message at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372.html#msg300372



The indelible mark theory is a fabulous lie invented by scholastics. A recent statement of the Assyrian Church of the East re-affirmed this, because Roman Catholics are trying to re-ordain a disgraced cleric who was scamming money off the ACOE who went to them :

http://www.assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3443


Roman Catholics takings "sacraments" from deposed clerics of other churches are risking going to hell since the canons of Nicea FORBID wandering bishops. This is a monstrous thing to allow people to take sacraments from so called priests who were excommunicated in other churches. The "indelible mark" is a fiction as the article clearly shows.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 10:21:10 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #103 on: January 09, 2011, 10:25:29 PM »

An interesting point, from a Catholic missal I used to have: members of the Church of the East are permitted to receive Holy Communion in RCC churches.  Smiley
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #104 on: January 09, 2011, 10:27:55 PM »

An interesting point, from a Catholic missal I used to have: members of the Church of the East are permitted to receive Holy Communion in RCC churches.  Smiley

You are invited to the Qurbana Qadisha (Holy Eucharist) in the ACOE (all Christians baptized validly in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are). I don't know if somebody in the ACOE is allowed to partake of communion in the RCC. The ACOE does not accept the indelible mark theory though, in fact somebody taking "sacraments" from a priest defrocked in another Church is in grave danger, is not taking valid sacraments. This is accordance with the canons of Nicea.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 10:29:40 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #105 on: January 09, 2011, 10:33:23 PM »


The Orthodox's popular stance may be to view ordination as authority granted by the Church only, but the Roman Catholics view ordination as a Grace given (similar to Baptism, Chrismation, etc) that once given, is not retractable. You cannot be unbaptised, nor can you be unordained. You can removed yourself from the Church, but the grace has been given.


Dear Azurestone,

The idea of an indelible mark of the Priesthood is a fairly recent Roman Catholic thing.


No Indelible Mark of the Priesthood in Patristic Teaching

"....no evidence concerning the indelible mark theory can be found in
Patristic teaching. On the contrary, the canonical data leave no doubt that
a defrocked priest or bishop, after the decision of the Church to take back
his priesthood, returns to the rank of the laity. The anathematized or the
defrocked are in no way considered to maintain their priesthood."

___________________________________________

"Christian Priesthood and Ecclesial Unity: Some Theological and Canonical
Considerations"


By Professor Constantine Scouteris
School of Theology of the University of Athens

http://www.orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm

Please see message at
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20180.msg300372.html#msg300372



The indelible mark theory is a fabulous lie invented by scholastics. A recent statement of the Assyrian Church of the East re-affirmed this, because Roman Catholics are trying to re-ordain a disgraced cleric who was scamming money off the ACOE who went to them :

http://www.assyriatimes.com/engine/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3443


Roman Catholics takings "sacraments" from deposed clerics of other churches are risking going to hell since the canons of Nicea FORBID wandering bishops. This is a monstrous thing to allow people to take sacraments from so called priests who were excommunicated in other churches. The "indelible mark" is a fiction as the article clearly shows.

Aside from a using a news article as authoritive, the ACOE is not another church as the canon states. The ACOE is OUTSIDE the Catholic Church, therefore the priest would be returning to the Church, not leaving one local church for another.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #106 on: January 09, 2011, 10:36:41 PM »

Please stop hijacking the term "catholic", to be "Catholic" is not to be under the pope but to be part of the Universal Church...

It's not a news article only, it's a news article quoting an official document from the ACOE released on this issue. This document also shows how the position is in accordance with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox just like Father Ambrose argued for.

To take "sacraments" from a priest deposed in another Church is to take fake invalid sacraments, this is a life or death issue, people might be going to Hell over this.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 10:38:31 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #107 on: January 09, 2011, 10:39:29 PM »

Is that sort of thing allowed on this board?
AFAIK, yes it is. Isa's reductio ad Hitlerum argument certainly is a ridiculous comparison to make in this case, and I'm sure many will find it extremely offensive, but I'm not aware that such an argument is forbidden by the rules of our forum. However, since I'm only speaking for my own understanding of the rules and not representing a mod team consensus, don't hold me to be the authority on this question.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #108 on: January 09, 2011, 10:46:17 PM »

Please stop hijacking the term "catholic", to be "Catholic" is not to be under the pope but to be part of the Universal Church...

Looks like you just tried to 'hijack' it, then. I'm sure you're going to do a good job convincing the RCCs, who have a billion people in their church, that they have no right to the word. The Orthodox number 250 million, so who, literally, has more people, and by definition reaches more of the population? I see...

They've been using it for a long time. Whether you like this or don't, is a different issue. I really doubt they are going to drop the term. What else are they going to call themselves? They're not going to drop their name for themselves because other people don't like it. We have to have some colloquial term for them; everyone knows what you mean when you say "Roman Catholic," so I'm sorry, they're called that in the dictionary and I did not 'hijack' anything.

For a church that doesn't like to have a Pope, because there's too much danger he'd 'tell people what to do,' some folks sure like to, uh, tell other people what to do.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #109 on: January 09, 2011, 10:52:14 PM »

Isa's posted Picture Pope/Hitler , was right on the Mark......I liked it alot,Plus you won't get any complains from me......  Didn't the pope serve Hitler in his youth..... Grin
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 10:53:44 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #110 on: January 09, 2011, 10:54:06 PM »

Please stop hijacking the term "catholic", to be "Catholic" is not to be under the pope but to be part of the Universal Church...

Oh great, another claimant to the name.

I will often attempt to tack Roman or R. to the front of Catholic when referring to the Roman Catholic Church, but I'm not going to apologize to everyone who get's upset about stepping on their right's to the title. It's common usage, in that format. You'll figure it out.

Not going there again.

It's not a news article only, it's a news article quoting an official document from the ACOE released on this issue. This document also shows how the position is in accordance with the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox just like Father Ambrose argued for.


Since I find pretty much every "Church's" modern contrary statements speculative, you'll need to back up the statement with patristics. I'm not going to take a modern ACOE clergy as a definitive answer.

To take "sacraments" from a priest deposed in another Church is to take fake invalid sacraments, this is a life or death issue, people might be going to Hell over this.

Again... The ACOE is outside the Catholic Church. Therefore, it's rulings aren't binding or authoritative. A returning priest is of no consequence.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 10:54:53 PM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #111 on: January 09, 2011, 10:56:05 PM »

The patristics are in the article- the CANONS OF NICEA, the canons of the Eastern Orthodox churches, the canons contained in the  synodicon orientale (canons of the ACOE)...

Quote
Again... The ACOE is outside the Catholic Church.

The ACOE is part of the UNIVERSAL (Catholic) Church. It is not under the pope if that is what you mean. *Phew* thank God  Grin
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 10:59:13 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #112 on: January 09, 2011, 10:57:07 PM »

The then-Joseph Ratzinger was inducted not by choice but by a German law which also inducted everyone in his age group. They were declared members by fiat. He has always said this, and has repeatedly said how much he regretted it. Don't let the facts get in the way of your story, though.

If somebody repents, which he has, the Christian thing to do is forgive them. I guess the present fact doesn't enter into your concept of time and space, though.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #113 on: January 09, 2011, 10:58:09 PM »

The patristics are in the article- the CANONS OF NICEA, the canons of the Eastern Orthodox churches, the canons contained in the  synodicon orientale (canons of the ACOE)...

I've said it twice.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #114 on: January 09, 2011, 11:00:39 PM »

The patristics are in the article- the CANONS OF NICEA, the canons of the Eastern Orthodox churches, the canons contained in the  synodicon orientale (canons of the ACOE)...

Again, look in the Daily Roman Missal, published by the Midwest Theological Forum.

Do you choose to disagree with your own church, if they are allowed to take Communion in a RCC church? Your disagreement seems to have been obviated. Whether or not you like something, does not make it any less a fact.
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #115 on: January 09, 2011, 11:04:41 PM »

Isa's posted Picture Pope/Hitler , was right on the Mark......I liked it alot,Plus you won't get any complains from me......  Didn't the pope serve Hitler in his youth..... Grin
Drafted to serve in the Hitler Youth during WWII, but many German young men were at that time. I hardly see how that can be used as justification for your attempts to disparage the pope today, especially since the young Joseph Ratzinger was drafted against his will and really didn't want to be there. Then again, you look for any and all reasons to condemn the current pope, be they truthful or not, so why should I be surprised by this, your latest show of inanity?
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #116 on: January 09, 2011, 11:11:59 PM »

The patristics are in the article- the CANONS OF NICEA, the canons of the Eastern Orthodox churches, the canons contained in the  synodicon orientale (canons of the ACOE)...

I've said it twice.

Ok, I'll just copy it from the article:

Your own Canon law :
Quote
First, let us look at what the code of canon law which governs all of the Eastern Catholic Churches has to say in regards to a cleric losing his clerical status in the Catholic Church. Let me list these canons for your dear cor-bishop:

    1. Canon 394, par. 2: “A cleric, however, loses the clerical state…by the legitimate infliction of the penalty of dismissal…” [7]

    2. Canon 395: “A cleric loses the clerical state according to the norms of the law, loses with it the rights proper to the clerical state nor is he further bound by the obligations of the clerical state without prejudice, however, to cann. 396 (he may not be dispensed from celibacy); he is forbidden to exercise the power of order without prejudice to cann. 725 [the possibility to absolve sinners] and 735, par. 2 [the possibility to hear confessions]; he is by the law itself deprived of all offices, ministries, functions and any delegated power. ” [8]

    3. Canon 1433, par. 2: “A cleric deposed from the clerical state is deprived of all offices, ministries or other functions, ecclesiastical pensions and any delegated power; he becomes disqualified for them; he is forbidden to exercise the power of orders; he cannot be promoted to higher holy orders, and is equivalent to lay persons in respect to canonical affairs…” [9]

Second, let us take a look at what the canons of the Eastern Catholic Churches say in regards to excommunication:

    1. Canon 1434, par. 1: “In addition to all things mentioned in can. 1431, par. 1, a major excommunication forbids one to receive other sacraments, to administer sacraments and sacramentals, to exercise any offices, ministries and functions, to place acts of governance, which if they are nonetheless placed, are null by law itself.” [10]

    2. Canon 1434, par. 2: “One punished with a major excommunication is to be turned away from participating in the Divine Liturgy and in other public celebrations of divine worship.” [11]

    3. Canon 1434, par. 3: “One punished with a major excommunication is forbidden to make use of privileges previously granted. He cannot validly obtain dignities, offices, ministries, or any other function in the Church or a pension, and he cannot acquire the revenues attached to them…” [12]

Quote
Again, in the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, the canon against insubordination states:

    1. Canon 1437: “One who refuses subjection to the supreme authority of the Church, or who is subject to it refuses communion with the Christian faithful, though legitimately admonished does not obey, is to be punished as a schismatic with a major excommunication.” [13]

    2. Canon 1466: “One who disobeys his own hierarch when the latter legitimately issues orders or prohibitions, and who after a warning persists in such disobedience, is to be punished as delinquent with an appropriate penalty.” [14]

    3 Canon 1447, par. 1: “One who incites sedition and hatred toward any hierarch whatsoever or provokes his subjects to disobedience, is to be punished with an appropriate penalty, not excluding major excommunication, especially if the offense was committed against a patriarch (or indeed against the Roman Pontiff).” [15]

Now for the ACOE Canon law for the decree of excommunication and deposition from the priesthood (Qatharasis) :

Quote
The canon laws of the Assyrian Church of the East regarding Qatharasis are very clear; to name but a few:

    1. “Qatharais is the deposition from the clerical state, [as] one who is dead who does not receive life, and is only to be decreed concerning priests and the head of priests (i.e. bishops), and the one who is given Qatharasis, he shall not be clad with the dignity of which he formerly had, even after his repentance, at all” (Collection of Synodical Canons of Mar Abdisho of Nisibis: Part II, Memra I, Chapter 22).

    2. “Concerning those who are anathematized, excommunicated, and utterly dismissed from the ministry of their priesthood, that they may not be received. A bishop, then, or a metropolitan who once has been cut off and cast out by the great Synod, or a presbyter or deacon by their bishop in a council of priests and deacons, as those who have been tried and convicted for their faults, no longer ought to be admitted to the ministry of which they were justly stripped, and there may no longer be mercies for them—nor, indeed, when they go creeping round about and pestering and making helpers for themselves. There may not be helpers for them, and there may not be for them a hope of being accepted, nor may a place for compassion be found for them. The prior confusions which came about through the rebellious and worthless may no longer be, such a brought about the confusion of the divine laws and paternal canons. Those who are excommunicated and dismissed by the sentence which once went out against them from the great synod may not again be admitted in ecclesiastical assemblies by another synod, but all those as well who fellowship with them or help them shall receive the censure and suspension naturally fitting to them, especially (if), after having learned the judgment which went out against them, they still venture to assist them. This edict concerning these things was decreed also in an earlier synod by the blessed fathers” (Synod of Patriarch Mar Isho’yahb I, 587 AD, Canon 18).

Further, we read in the Synodicon Orientale (‘Eastern Synods’), that those clerics (in particular bishops) who have been bound, deposed and utterly laicized, they may continue to receive the Holy Eucharist only if they offer their penance and repent before the whole Church, to the satisfaction of and with a decree by the Holy Synod: “…may he be loosed and void from all the ranks of the priesthood, and may he be bound also from ecclesiastical fellowship until he offers repentance and it is seen to the Synod of Bishops, and he [may be] absolved unto the communion of the Holy Mysteries” (Synod of Patriarch Mar Yosip of 554 AD; Canon 5). [16]

and just read Father Ambrose's link to see that the indelible mark theory is a fable that never existed in the Orthodox Church. So your own church testifies against the "indelible mark", the ACOE which is truly Ancient and Apostolic does, the Eastern Orthodox Church does according to Father Ambrose and he can fill in some more for us, and the Canons of Nicea and Apostolic canons forbid the "indelible mark" satanic theory which is making people take invalid sacraments.


Churches ought not to receive priests, deacons, or other clergy, who without the fear of God and in disregard for church law, recklessly abandon their own churches. Such men should be encouraged by all available means to re-join their own parishes. If they will not return, they must be excommunicated. The ordination will be void if anyone dares to secretly ordain a man who belongs to another church without the consent of his bishop whose jurisdiction the latter has left, even if he had previously been enrolled on the list of clergy.
-Canon 16 of Nicea





So let it be written, so let it be done !
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 11:15:44 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #117 on: January 09, 2011, 11:14:21 PM »

How do you know The  Pope didn't want to join ,Plus
To fit in with his peers, he probably was Nazi number One
to show his peers he can do better then they can ,Must be a german thing...... Grin

« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 11:19:43 PM by stashko » Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #118 on: January 09, 2011, 11:17:09 PM »

How do you know The  Pope didn't want to join ,Plus
To fit in with his peers, he probably was Nazi number One
to show his peers he can do better ,Must be a german thing...... Grin



Anti-Catholic and racist. Stashko strikes again.  Cheesy
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 11:17:43 PM by Azurestone » Logged


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

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



WWW
« Reply #119 on: January 09, 2011, 11:18:42 PM »

Rafa, perhaps you can explain how those apply. Because I'm not seeing something that you are.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #120 on: January 09, 2011, 11:20:15 PM »

How do you know The  Pope didn't want to join

Because he was inducted by law; because he has repeatedly said so; because there is ample documentation of this fact; and because I can read.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #121 on: January 09, 2011, 11:22:51 PM »

And we Orthodox Christians have to take his word on it, because he says so.....
I don't think so...... Grin
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #122 on: January 09, 2011, 11:23:32 PM »

Rafa, perhaps you can explain how those apply. Because I'm not seeing something that you are.

Why does the RCC allow excommunicated clergy from the Eastern orthodox church, Oriental orthodox church, and ACOE, to be received and deliver invalid sacraments to Roman Catholics in U-branches of the Roman catholic church?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 11:25:04 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #123 on: January 09, 2011, 11:25:10 PM »

How do you know The  Pope didn't want to join ,
Pope Benedict has made public statements, to which others have alluded here, that he regretted ever joining the Hitler Youth. It has been documented that he didn't want to be in the Hitler Youth. It is also documented that his father opposed Nazism as something contrary to the Catholic faith. I think the onus is therefore on you to prove that he did want to join.

Plus
To fit in with his peers, he probably was Nazi number One
to show his peers he can do better ,
Pure conjecture that you're going to have to prove. We don't judge a person by what we think he might have done. We judge a person by what he did do. To speculate like this about someone is nothing short of libel.

Must be a german thing...... Grin
And that is about the most racist thing anything could ever say here. You should be ashamed of yourself.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 11:26:07 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #124 on: January 09, 2011, 11:31:55 PM »

Rafa, perhaps you can explain how those apply. Because I'm not seeing something that you are.

Why does the RCC allow excommunicated clergy from the Eastern orthodox church, Oriental orthodox church, and ACOE, to be received and deliver invalid sacraments to Roman Catholics in U-branches of the Roman catholic church?
How is that even relevant to the OP? Even though stashko's posts over the last few minutes were over the top in their libelous speculations, they were at least relevant to the topic of weak links in the chain of papal succession. I wouldn't grant that praise to your posts on RC-ACOE relations and intercommunion. ISTM that you've derailed this thread with a subject that would be addressed much more effectively on another thread. Can you explain to me how my perception is wrong?
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 11:32:31 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #125 on: January 09, 2011, 11:32:20 PM »

Rafa, perhaps you can explain how those apply. Because I'm not seeing something that you are.

Why does the RCC allow excommunicated clergy from the Eastern orthodox church, Oriental orthodox church, and ACOE, to be received and deliver invalid sacraments to Roman Catholics in U-branches of the RCC ?

Because the RCC doesn't recognize the EO, OO, or ACOE to be part of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". The RCC believes the these churches hold most/all of the necessities of the faith and have valid apostolic succession (thus valid sacraments), but they are still in schism to the RCC.

The canons were to keep (think pre-schism) presbyters from hopping from one church that is in the communion (say Antioch) that excommunicates them, to another church (say Constantinople). If a RCC example, it would be like an excommunicated Melkite trying to join the Roman Church. The priest would need to be received back into the Church.

Therefore, being excommunicated from the ACOE is not an actual excommunication (in the eyes of the RCC).
Logged


I'm going to need this.
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #126 on: January 09, 2011, 11:34:11 PM »

Actually I was born in Germany....
When Germans are at a Bus stop ,there all lined up in neat
soldiers line.. the Frist one there at the bus stop is the first one to
board the bus, it not like here in the U.S. where the First one may end up boarding last......
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #127 on: January 09, 2011, 11:36:35 PM »

Quote from: Rafa999
Why does the RCC allow excommunicated clergy from the Eastern orthodox church, Oriental orthodox church, and ACOE, to be received and deliver invalid sacraments to Roman Catholics in U-branches of the Roman catholic church?

Once clergy are received into a new communion, they are allowed to do what that church permits. They are not regarded as having two different status at the same time. What about 'received' do you not understand? When someone is received into a communion as a priest, he is permitted to serve in any branch. There is no more 'excommunication' operant.

I guess you think the Midwest Theological Forum made it up?

Again, just because you don't like something, does not make it any less of a fact.
Logged
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #128 on: January 09, 2011, 11:42:52 PM »

Rafa, perhaps you can explain how those apply. Because I'm not seeing something that you are.

Why does the RCC allow excommunicated clergy from the Eastern orthodox church, Oriental orthodox church, and ACOE, to be received and deliver invalid sacraments to Roman Catholics in U-branches of the Roman catholic church?
How is that even relevant to the OP? Even though stashko's posts over the last few minutes were over the top in their libelous speculations, they were at least relevant to the topic of weak links in the chain of papal succession. I wouldn't grant that praise to your posts on RC-ACOE relations and intercommunion. ISTM that you've derailed this thread with a subject that would be addressed much more effectively on another thread. Can you explain to me how my perception is wrong?

Father Ambrose brought the subject up on post 97. It is a serious subject since people in the Roman catholic church are taking invalid (fake) sacraments from clerics who were expelled from other churches. So you might have Orthodox priests who were defrocked who then go to the RCC to get accepted as "Eastern Catholic" priests. Such people cannot under any circumstances give sacraments because they have no such thing as an "indelible mark" or ordination as Father Ambrose noted...nor can they be re-ordained. I just wanted to give some documents re-affirming this truth from an ACOE perspective.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 11:43:33 PM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
Irish Hermit
Kibernetski Kaludjer
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,991


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us


« Reply #129 on: January 09, 2011, 11:45:04 PM »

The Pope has formally accepted the Assyrian Church of the East as a sister Church.


http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_11111994_assyrian-church_en.html
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #130 on: January 09, 2011, 11:50:02 PM »


They recognized their Truth of Christological faith. They are, like the EO and OO, in schism with the RCC.


Quote
Living by this faith and these sacraments, it follows as a consequence that the particular Catholic churches and the particular Assyrian churches can recognize each other as sister Churches. To be full and entire, communion presupposes the unanimity concerning the content of the faith, the sacraments and the constitution of the Church. Since this unanimity for which we aim has not yet been attained, we cannot unfortunately celebrate together the Eucharist which is the sign of the ecclesial communion already fully restored.

Nevertheless, the deep spiritual communion in the faith and the mutual trust already existing between our Churches, entitle us from now on to consider witnessing together to the Gospel message and cooperating in particular pastoral situations, including especially the areas of catechesis and the formation of future priests.

In thanking God for having made us rediscover what already unites us in the faith and the sacraments, we pledge ourselves to do everything possible to dispel the obstacles of the past which still prevent the attainment of full communion between our Churches, so that we can better respond to the Lord's call for the unity of his own, a unity which has of course to be expressed visibly. To overcome these obstacles, we now establish a Mixed Committee for theological dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the East.

Logged


I'm going to need this.
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #131 on: January 09, 2011, 11:51:34 PM »

Actually I was born in Germany....
When Germans are at a Bus stop ,there all lined up in neat
soldiers line.. the Frist one there at the bus stop is the first one to
board the bus, it not like here in the U.S. where the First one may end up boarding last......
Ohhh-kay... Undecided What does that have to do with the fact that my printer's out of ink?
Logged
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 33,153


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #132 on: January 09, 2011, 11:52:23 PM »

Rafa, perhaps you can explain how those apply. Because I'm not seeing something that you are.

Why does the RCC allow excommunicated clergy from the Eastern orthodox church, Oriental orthodox church, and ACOE, to be received and deliver invalid sacraments to Roman Catholics in U-branches of the Roman catholic church?
How is that even relevant to the OP? Even though stashko's posts over the last few minutes were over the top in their libelous speculations, they were at least relevant to the topic of weak links in the chain of papal succession. I wouldn't grant that praise to your posts on RC-ACOE relations and intercommunion. ISTM that you've derailed this thread with a subject that would be addressed much more effectively on another thread. Can you explain to me how my perception is wrong?

Father Ambrose brought the subject up on post 97. It is a serious subject since people in the Roman catholic church are taking invalid (fake) sacraments from clerics who were expelled from other churches. So you might have Orthodox priests who were defrocked who then go to the RCC to get accepted as "Eastern Catholic" priests. Such people cannot under any circumstances give sacraments because they have no such thing as an "indelible mark" or ordination as Father Ambrose noted...nor can they be re-ordained. I just wanted to give some documents re-affirming this truth from an ACOE perspective.
That's all well and good, but it doesn't have anything to do with the OP and would be better served on another thread. That's really my only complaint about your last few posts on this thread.
« Last Edit: January 09, 2011, 11:53:29 PM by PeterTheAleut » Logged
Schultz
Christian. Guitarist. Zymurgist. Librarian.
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,494


Scion of the McKeesport Becks.


WWW
« Reply #133 on: January 09, 2011, 11:55:05 PM »

Isa's posted Picture Pope/Hitler , was right on the Mark......I liked it alot,Plus you won't get any complains from me......  Didn't the pope serve Hitler in his youth..... Grin

Kind of like all those Serbian youth who led innocent Croats and Albanians to concentration camps in the 80s, 90s....and they were all communicants of the Holy Seriban Orthodox Church....which means you have innocent blood on your hands, too,,,, angel


Now that I've got that out my system, I say this with my moderator hat on.

ANY more talk that even toes the line using ethnic prejudice (and for the record, Isa's post did not dabble in this, but rather invoked Godwin's Law) in order to establish some sort of childish argument will earn the poster the strongest possible warning I can give out as a lowly moderator.  

DO NOT TEMPT ME
Logged

"Hearing a nun's confession is like being stoned to death with popcorn." --Abp. Fulton Sheen
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #134 on: January 10, 2011, 12:03:44 AM »

I know what this thread needs: kittens! 



Everyone loves kittens!
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #135 on: January 10, 2011, 12:06:30 AM »

Logged


I'm going to need this.
Rafa999
Warned
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Latin Rite
Posts: 1,600


« Reply #136 on: January 10, 2011, 12:10:51 AM »

Rafa, perhaps you can explain how those apply. Because I'm not seeing something that you are.

Why does the RCC allow excommunicated clergy from the Eastern orthodox church, Oriental orthodox church, and ACOE, to be received and deliver invalid sacraments to Roman Catholics in U-branches of the RCC ?

Because the RCC doesn't recognize the EO, OO, or ACOE to be part of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". The RCC believes the these churches hold most/all of the necessities of the faith and have valid apostolic succession (thus valid sacraments), but they are still in schism to the RCC.

The canons were to keep (think pre-schism) presbyters from hopping from one church that is in the communion (say Antioch) that excommunicates them, to another church (say Constantinople). If a RCC example, it would be like an excommunicated Melkite trying to join the Roman Church. The priest would need to be received back into the Church.

Therefore, being excommunicated from the ACOE is not an actual excommunication (in the eyes of the RCC).


The Assyrian Church of the East is NOT in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. An Assyrian defrocked cleric cannot give out valid sacraments in any church once he was been defrocked. No vagante bishops.  PERIOD.

the RCC defines "communion" as subjection to the pope. This is impossible for the Assyrian Church of the East. Of course all Roman catholics are invited to the Eucharist in the Assyrian Church of the East (as are Orthodox including the miaphysite churches such as Copts, Armenians, Ethiopans,etc.). Validly baptized Protestants are too.
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 12:12:56 AM by Rafa999 » Logged

I am NOT a representative of the ACOE. Ignore my posts
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


militantsparrow
« Reply #137 on: January 10, 2011, 12:13:02 AM »

Thank you! It needed to be said and you said it far better than I could have.

There was a time when I felt drawn to Eastern Orthodoxy but threads like this (and a number of others) make me wonder why I was once so enamored.

I do still believe Eastern Orthodoxy is a beautiful thing, but the types of "arguments" being used on this thread only serve to bring out the ugly. It really upsets me.

What happened to the reasoned, loving, intelligent debates?



Just to break in for a moment-- how long is this going to go on? Do you have any other shtick?

We get it. You don't accept the claims to legitimacy of the present conception of the RCC papacy. I don't think you need a lot more pages to show that. Even in high school on the debate team, they didn't let you repeat your point over and over.

Do you think doing things like putting pictures of the Pope next to Hitler and calling them "German shepherds of one type or another" is really going to help you convince people of your ideas, or drive them away?

Is that sort of thing allowed on this board? The Hitler picture thing? At the very least, in terms of Internet debate, you just "Godwinned" the argument, i.e., made it so overdone that you lost. (And not to mention very insulting to someone whose Catholic grandfather's brothers fought in Normandy. But I'm sure you'll say that is 'beside the point.'  Roll Eyes )

To someone who grew up Catholic, this just looks like a waste of time, because you're not going to un-convince the Catholics of issues they themselves think were settled hundreds of years ago.

What is the purpose of this thread? It isn't going to clear up anything, it only repeats claims the Catholics do not accept from the Orthodox, and vice versa; and it surely hasn't increased anybody's good will. Is this really in the Christian spirit?

I guess if you accept the idea that the Catholics don't have a Pope because there were times when there were false claimants to the rank, and the actual office holder had to live in a different city for a while, you may believe the United States has no current capital-- because it was at Philadelphia for some years, and now it's D.C., so D.C. can't possibly be the "real" capital. I guess nothing has changed since then...  Roll Eyes

Do you think you'll eventually make a rule that Catholics either shouldn't join this board, or should have to get used to deliberately being 'called out'? Adult Catholics are usually familiar with the Orthodox counters to their points of view. There is no need to rub their faces in them.

It's really a good thing that the people in my parish, the priest and the people in the congregation, are well-disposed toward me and treat me in a friendly way. Lately, I get the impression that if all I knew were this board, I wouldn't try to have any church home at all.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #138 on: January 10, 2011, 12:15:07 AM »

Rafa, perhaps you can explain how those apply. Because I'm not seeing something that you are.

Why does the RCC allow excommunicated clergy from the Eastern orthodox church, Oriental orthodox church, and ACOE, to be received and deliver invalid sacraments to Roman Catholics in U-branches of the RCC ?

Because the RCC doesn't recognize the EO, OO, or ACOE to be part of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church". The RCC believes the these churches hold most/all of the necessities of the faith and have valid apostolic succession (thus valid sacraments), but they are still in schism to the RCC.

The canons were to keep (think pre-schism) presbyters from hopping from one church that is in the communion (say Antioch) that excommunicates them, to another church (say Constantinople). If a RCC example, it would be like an excommunicated Melkite trying to join the Roman Church. The priest would need to be received back into the Church.

Therefore, being excommunicated from the ACOE is not an actual excommunication (in the eyes of the RCC).


The Assyrian Church of the East is NOT in communion with the Roman Catholic Church.

Um, yep. I said as much.

An Assyrian defrocked cleric cannot give out valid sacraments in any church once he was been defrocked. No vagante bishops.  PERIOD.

High five.

EDIT... this isn't even relevant. It's not even a valid comparison. A RCC laicized priest can't give sacraments in any other church either...
« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 12:27:47 AM by Azurestone » Logged


I'm going to need this.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #139 on: January 10, 2011, 12:20:24 AM »

Militantsparrow: thank you.
Logged
stashko
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: ИСТОЧНИ ПРАВОСЛАВНИ СРБИН
Jurisdiction: Non Ecumenist Free Serbian Orthodox Church
Posts: 4,998


Wonderworking Sitka Icon


« Reply #140 on: January 10, 2011, 12:37:33 AM »


So your basing your conversion or not ,upon what is being discussed on a religious forum Interesting.....shouldn't you be reading Orthodox Books ,and talking to a priest..... Grin




Thank you! It needed to be said and you said it far better than I could have.

There was a time when I felt drawn to Eastern Orthodoxy but threads like this (and a number of others) make me wonder why I was once so enamored.

I do still believe Eastern Orthodoxy is a beautiful thing, but the types of "arguments" being used on this thread only serve to bring out the ugly. It really upsets me.

What happened to the reasoned, loving, intelligent debates?



Just to break in for a moment-- how long is this going to go on? Do you have any other shtick?

We get it. You don't accept the claims to legitimacy of the present conception of the RCC papacy. I don't think you need a lot more pages to show that. Even in high school on the debate team, they didn't let you repeat your point over and over.

Do you think doing things like putting pictures of the Pope next to Hitler and calling them "German shepherds of one type or another" is really going to help you convince people of your ideas, or drive them away?

Is that sort of thing allowed on this board? The Hitler picture thing? At the very least, in terms of Internet debate, you just "Godwinned" the argument, i.e., made it so overdone that you lost. (And not to mention very insulting to someone whose Catholic grandfather's brothers fought in Normandy. But I'm sure you'll say that is 'beside the point.'  Roll Eyes )

To someone who grew up Catholic, this just looks like a waste of time, because you're not going to un-convince the Catholics of issues they themselves think were settled hundreds of years ago.

What is the purpose of this thread? It isn't going to clear up anything, it only repeats claims the Catholics do not accept from the Orthodox, and vice versa; and it surely hasn't increased anybody's good will. Is this really in the Christian spirit?

I guess if you accept the idea that the Catholics don't have a Pope because there were times when there were false claimants to the rank, and the actual office holder had to live in a different city for a while, you may believe the United States has no current capital-- because it was at Philadelphia for some years, and now it's D.C., so D.C. can't possibly be the "real" capital. I guess nothing has changed since then...  Roll Eyes

Do you think you'll eventually make a rule that Catholics either shouldn't join this board, or should have to get used to deliberately being 'called out'? Adult Catholics are usually familiar with the Orthodox counters to their points of view. There is no need to rub their faces in them.

It's really a good thing that the people in my parish, the priest and the people in the congregation, are well-disposed toward me and treat me in a friendly way. Lately, I get the impression that if all I knew were this board, I wouldn't try to have any church home at all.
Logged

ГОСПОДЕ ГОСПОДЕ ,ПОГЛЕДАЈ СА НЕБА ,ДОЂИ И ПОСЕТИ ТВОЈ ВИНОГРАД ТВОЈА ДЕСНИЦА ПОСАДИЛА АМИН АМИН.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 14,697



WWW
« Reply #141 on: January 10, 2011, 01:16:51 AM »

.....shouldn't you be reading Orthodox Books ,and talking to a priest..... Grin

I could say the same about you.




« Last Edit: January 10, 2011, 01:17:25 AM by biro » Logged
militantsparrow
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

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


militantsparrow
« Reply #142 on: January 10, 2011, 07:52:37 AM »


So your basing your conversion or not ,upon what is being discussed on a religious forum Interesting.....shouldn't you be reading Orthodox Books ,and talking to a priest..... Grin

You actually are the coolest guy in the room. Well done.
Logged

"Yeah, the sparrow hath found an house..." -Psalm 84:3
elijahmaria
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #143 on: January 10, 2011, 12:28:33 PM »

Could someone please address this Orthodox teaching with respect to the assertions made under this topic heading for priests moving from one confession to another and broken or unbroken lines of succession?

M.


The Orthodox's popular stance may be to view ordination as authority granted by the Church only, but the Roman Catholics view ordination as a Grace given (similar to Baptism, Chrismation, etc) that once given, is not retractable. You cannot be unbaptised, nor can you be unordained. You can removed yourself from the Church, but the grace has been given.


Dear Azurestone,

The idea of an indelible mark of the Priesthood is a fairly recent Roman Catholic thing.

I prefer the following Orthodox understanding of the priesthood.  It is much more Catholic in its description of Holy Orders.  Also it seems to me that what you speak of as defrocking is what the Catholic Church speaks of as laicization.  However as the following description notes, Holy Orders establishes a relationship between the man and Christ that is ontological and I would imagine that those of this world cannot really touch that once it is done...so it seems to me from the article below.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/priesthood_symeon_thessalonica.htm

Quote
On the Priesthood

by St Symeon Archbishop of Thessalonica


What a Priest Is.

A priest, he says, has been deemed worthy to be a “minister” (διάκονος) of Christ and a “liturgist” (Λειτουργός), a “guardian” (παραστάτης) and a “beholder” (θεωρός) of the Mysteries, who draws near and communicates in them, and also a “preacher” (κήρυξ) of the Gospel. There are no veils any more interfering in this way, says St. Symeon, because a priest can behold the divine Light directly without any obstacle. He is no longer in need of a Seraph in order to receive the Mysteries, because he takes them with the tongs (λαβίς). Indeed, he himself is now the Seraph, by virtue of his consecration to the priesthood. He is the one that calls others to draw near to God, because he now holds in his hands the divine Mysteries and addresses the faithful, admonishing them to be attentive and offers them to Christ, and is actually the way and the guide of others towards the Light. Indeed, a priest is both a "Cherub," because he can see fully through the Mysteries the One, who sees all things, and a fire bearing "Seraph," because he holds the living Coal. Furthermore, a priest is a "throne," because through the Liturgy and the Communion, he has the One, who is present everywhere resting on himself; and he is also an angel, as God's servant and liturgist.

A priest is all the above, says St. Symeon, not in an imaginary way, but really and truly, because he does not serve the divine Mysteries "in a merely iconic or merely typical (symbolic) way," but truly serves the very Master, who is escorted in the heavens above by the immaterial powers. "Indeed, a priest does on earth what the immaterial powers do in heaven, because this is what the Designer of all was pleased with and wanted to establish, namely, that one and the same Liturgy should be observed both above and below."

Clearly, this description has two basic characteristics, both of which are tied to the Lord Jesus Christ. The first one is strictly connected with Christ's person, inasmuch as a priest belongs entirely to Christ through receiving his priestly identity from him, being constantly connected with him and having his reference always to him. The second characteristic is that a priest's service has a direct link and reference to Christ's work, which was accomplished for all creation, the realities above and the realities below. This close link of the priesthood with Christ's person and work is spelled out in the next paragraph, which explains how the priest's service truly reveals who Christ is and what he has done for the entire, created world in general and mankind in particular.

Christ's Work Extended Through the Priesthood.

The priest's service, says St. Symeon, reveals what Christ himself did for us when he appeared to the world as a man like us. This work can be described as follows:

Having procured his union with us, i.e. having willingly put on matter, Christ, who alone is immaterial, united himself with human beings, who are endowed with material senses. It is crucial here that He, who is by nature uncreated and without beginning, in his desire to be united with creation, was not united with the immaterial and creaturely nature of the angels — for angels were created out of nothing, immaterial and immortal by grace and participants of his Glory according to the measure of grace that was allotted to each of them. Rather, Christ put on our creaturely body and was united personally (ύποστατικώς) with us, without being separated from the Godhead and without being confused with the human nature, to which he transmitted the glories and benefits of the Godhead — "for in him," he says, "dwells the entire fullness of the Godhead bodily" (Col. 2:9).

Now, all this is related to the Priesthood, because just as Christ originally appeared to the world, according to his good pleasure, so now, he reveals himself through the sacred Mysteries (Sacraments) to the priests and through them to the world! Christ's amazing, divine work, which escapes the grasp of human reason, has been entrusted to the priest, who serves the Liturgy and initiates others to it. What a priest does is to reveal Christ again, i.e. to present him truly and fully to the world of his time through the sacred Mysteries, which he handles according to the divine ordinance. In other words, a priest represents Christ's perpetual and saving grace granted to the world through the celebration of Christ's mysteries.

Herein lies, according to St. Symeon, the great dignity of the priesthood, which is greater than that given to the angels. The Mysteries, which priests handle, have to do with the fact that the Master, who contains all things and is himself incomprehensible, becomes for us localized. Though he cannot be touched, human hands uphold him. Though he is invisible, he submits to the senses and become visible. Though he is inconceivable by the human mind, he is received by human beings through our humble and fallen nature, by means of the priesthood, which has been instituted by him. This is the miracle of miracles, that Christ appears through the Mysteries; that he is given, carried, communicated; that he indwells in us and brings us peace, expiation and sustenance.

This is, says St. Symeon, the most novel of all happenings, the greatest gift to humanity, the highest power, authority and grace. By this, the priests, who are human beings, made of soil and clay and resembling worms of the earth, appear as heavenly Authorities and Powers (Angels). Indeed, the power of the priesthood makes human beings greater than these heavenly hosts. Priests are partakers of a mightier creation through the administration of holy Baptism and the other Mysteries. They become fathers of sons of God, or fathers of those, who become gods by grace. They act in a way that cancels out the effects of sin and, thus, deliver the souls, unlock the gates of paradise, dissolve eternal bonds. Priests are empowered to perform divine acts, as God's collaborators for the salvation of human beings.

This being the case, it is obvious that priests have been granted the greatest charismas and gifts and, as such, are the greatest debtors to God. And it could not be otherwise, for they are compared to the heavenly Powers. These many-eyed orders of Angels behold God's glory all the time. They tremble and shudder at this sight, and yet, they are in greater awe when they observe the manifold Wisdom of God, which they come to know through the Church, as St. Paul says. These angelic orders are in awe, because of their creaturely nature and immeasurable goodness of God, but they are also amazed and fearful at the awesome, divine Mysteries performed by the priesthood.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #144 on: January 10, 2011, 12:28:35 PM »


So your basing your conversion or not ,upon what is being discussed on a religious forum Interesting.....shouldn't you be reading Orthodox Books ,and talking to a priest..... Grin

You actually are the coolest guy in the room. Well done.

Trouble is there are Orthodox priests and books who sound just like this Forum...and worse. 

Sooooo.....which Orthodoxy did we fall in love with? 

I know I can't remember any more.

M.
Logged

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

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 6,473



WWW
« Reply #145 on: January 10, 2011, 12:28:35 PM »


So, say, a German shepherd of one type or another

is still a shepherd of a flock.

I think that the instinctive response of some of the participants on this thread, to this particularly and intentionally disturbing yet typical presentation from Isa,  is more accurate that to hide it behind Goodwin's Law. 

In fact the comparison of Pope Benedict to Hitler is antithetical to the purpose of Goodwin's Law since Goodwin propose his analysis of these mimetic devices to encourage people NOT to use Hitler and the third German Reich in inappropriate comparisons, so as not to degrade the horror that was that man and that government.
Logged