The Latin is irrelevant since we're talking about the Greek.
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.
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: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.
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
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.
Can't steal something that is given freely.
LOL. Acutally, it is.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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).
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.
So what? That's irrelevant.
You did notice that it was Rome's legates, and not the Council, speakng here, no?
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 penaltieshttp://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ix.html
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?http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.iii.html
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.
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.) ]
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.
BtwUnlike Constantinople, Rome's significance does not lie in it's economic market,
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
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?"
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.
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."
Not really sure what you meant here.
We'll get to that, Lord willing.
btw, the EC article has these pertinent claimsI think I would agree with this definition, at this time. Was there something in it that you thought was contradictory?
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.
Lord willing, we will be getting to that.
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?