Kinks in the Chain:Weak Links in the Succession of Supreme Pontiffs

[Father H]

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.   

[Thomist]

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

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.

[Aindriú]

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.

[Father H]

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?

[Thomist]

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.

[ialmisry]

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?

[ialmisry]

^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).

[Aindriú]

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)

[ialmisry]

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.

[Rafa999]

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

[Aindriú]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[Aindriú]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[Aindriú]

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.

[ialmisry]

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:

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

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

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.

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

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).

[Father H]

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. 

[Father H]

"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.   

[Aindriú]

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:

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

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:

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

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.

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)

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

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

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?

[Aindriú]

"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?"

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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>.

[ialmisry]

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:

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

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:

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:

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

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.

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)

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

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);

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):

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

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.

[Father H]

"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.

[Father H]

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.     

[Apotheoun]

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.

[Aindriú]

"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.

[Aindriú]

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:

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

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:

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:

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

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.

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)

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

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);

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?

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).]

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):

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

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.

[ialmisry]

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."

[Aindriú]

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.

[Irish Hermit]

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

[Aindriú]

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?

[ialmisry]

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:

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:

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);

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?

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).]

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):

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

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.

[ialmisry]

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.

[ialmisry]

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?

[Aindriú]

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...

[ialmisry]

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

No. It was a statement.

The rest there.

[Irish Hermit]

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.

[Father H]

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.

[Rafa999]

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

[elijahmaria]

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.

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

[elijahmaria]

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.

[Aindriú]

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.   

 
Yelling louder doesn't make it so.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Kinks in the Chain:Weak Links in the Succession of Supreme Pontiffs