OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 11:46:29 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The primacy of Peter.  (Read 6392 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nuckle
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Inquirer
Jurisdiction: none
Posts: 12


« on: February 26, 2012, 03:44:42 AM »

I went to a Catholic forum and asked them about the issues surrounding the papacy and they referred this to me.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

Some of the evidence suggests the primacy of Rome was recognized from early on. I would like Orthodox to explain to me how the words written here contradict papal primacy.

Is this a reference to how the Roman Church once was the bulwark against heresy? It is my understanding that many Orthodox grant that in earlier times this was true and much heresy came through the east but Rome later preached heresy.
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #1 on: February 26, 2012, 03:56:26 AM »

Orthodox don't disagree that there was a Roman Primacy, they disagree with what developed into Roman Supremacy.

If we really, really want to be honest about the nitty-gritty, we'd admit that Rome had a "primacy" in virtue of being the capital of the Empire, and later because it was a nice theological enclave protected from exotic heresy by hordes of post-neolithic barbarians.

Poetic and flowery descriptions were invented to give this a charm.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 03:58:48 AM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox. With some feta, please.
Posts: 6,513



« Reply #2 on: February 26, 2012, 07:54:47 AM »

I added "papacy" tag. There's been numerous discussion about this issue and some of them can be find that way.
Logged
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 26, 2012, 09:58:17 AM »

I'd like to see the heavy swingers on CA come here for a debate-off...

Yes.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #4 on: February 26, 2012, 02:25:54 PM »

I'd like to see the heavy swingers on CA come here for a debate-off...

Yes.

Perhaps you should go over there and extend an invitation  angel.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #5 on: February 26, 2012, 03:50:35 PM »

I don't have time (or interest really) to address every single one of those 'proof-texts' but to summarize they are either
a) true but irrelevent (e.g., Orthodox has zero dispute with Rome that St. Peter was first among the Apostles, or even that Rome was the 'first in honor' among the bishops of the Church; the dispute is over whether St. Peter's actual authority passed exclusively to his successor at Rome rather than to all bishops or even to his other successors--such as the Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria)
b) taken out of their immediate context (e.g., the Ireneus quote where Ireneus is discussing apostolic succession and explicitly says he just doesn't have time or space to cover every church, so he's going to use just one example--the 'universally known' church in the capital. But clearly his logic applies to every church founded by an apostle, not just Rome, but Antioch, Corinth, Cesaerea, Crete, etc).
c) taken out of their fuller context (e.g., St. Stephen's attempt to tell the church of Carthage how to receive converts was explictly rejected by St. Cyprian and the synod of the church of North Africa. After Pope Stephen was martyred, his successor completely dropped the dispute and the Carthaginian response was eventually affirmed by an Ecumenical Council).

Instead, I'll just expand on the last--there are certainly times, from very early, when the Popes of Rome tried to tell other bishops what to do. What is missing is any evidence that anyone else actually thought they had the authority to do so. There are numerous examples of major fathers (St. Cyprian, St. Polycarp, St. Basil, St. John Chrysostom, St. Maximus, and on and on) who had a disagreement with the contemporary occupant of the Roman See. What is lacking is a *single* example from the conciliar period where anyone, saint or heretic, found themselves in disagreement with the sitting Pope and changed their position because of a recognition of Roman authority or a need to be in agreement with Rome when they believed Rome to be wrong.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #6 on: February 26, 2012, 03:53:05 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #7 on: February 26, 2012, 04:03:05 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #8 on: February 26, 2012, 04:05:33 PM »

Okay. That's interesting. Thanks.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #9 on: February 26, 2012, 04:20:14 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

If by 'it' you mean Papal claims to authority, its because in the 11th century the Papacy excommunicated those that disagreed with it and stuck to that position. Prior to that Papacy had either backed down (in the sense of not pushing their attempt to the point of breaking communion), or participated in a larger council that settled the dispute in a way that everyone considered authoritative. There were a few short-term schisms (the one between Rome and Carthage, healed when Pope Stephen was martyred and his successor did the backing down, the Meletian schism, the Photian schism--healed when Rome accepted the decision of the Council of Constantinople in 879, etc) but none lasted more than a decade or so. But after 1054, Rome didn't back down from their excommunication of Constantinople for refusing to adopt the filoque and so that schism hardened and became permenant.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #10 on: February 26, 2012, 04:34:46 PM »

Okay. That's a shame.  Embarrassed Undecided
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #11 on: February 26, 2012, 05:08:32 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

If by 'it' you mean Papal claims to authority, its because in the 11th century the Papacy excommunicated those that disagreed with it and stuck to that position. Prior to that Papacy had either backed down (in the sense of not pushing their attempt to the point of breaking communion), or participated in a larger council that settled the dispute in a way that everyone considered authoritative. There were a few short-term schisms (the one between Rome and Carthage, healed when Pope Stephen was martyred and his successor did the backing down, the Meletian schism, the Photian schism--healed when Rome accepted the decision of the Council of Constantinople in 879, etc) but none lasted more than a decade or so. But after 1054, Rome didn't back down from their excommunication of Constantinople for refusing to adopt the filoque and so that schism hardened and became permenant.

I'm not going (hopefully!!) to get back into beating the already dead horse of the issue of the papacy and its primacy and/or supremacy.  I just want to make a couple brief comments here.

1.  *All* quotes are taken out of context--almost by definition.  Whether it be the ones you take issue with here or ones used by Orthodox to support their claims, or any other ones.  Some stand alone better than others, *but*....context is critical for all of us.  This book, http://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Peter-Orthodox-Reflection/dp/1565481895/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330290332&sr=1-2, and this book, http://www.amazon.com/Upon-This-Rock-Scripture-Apologetics/dp/0898707234/ref=sr_1_3?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1330290332&sr=1-3, are excellent sources that discuss the whole issue.  Or so I've been told  Wink.  They're on my ever-growing pile of must-read books!

2.  If I recall correctly, it wasn't Rome and Constantinople that were excommunicated in 1054, rather specific individuals.  As someone in another thread pointed out, those excommunications would have become irrelevant upon the death of those individuals.

Nuff said  Grin.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #12 on: February 26, 2012, 05:29:10 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #13 on: February 26, 2012, 05:37:49 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.

I challenge you to find me one pope before the reformation who even came close to the positions detailed in Dictatus Papae. Do you really think Justinian ever kissed the feet of Vigilius, or that Vigilius had the gall to demand such a thing?

It is an historical fact that the papacy underwent a radical reformation in the eleventh century to fight against investiture and simony.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #14 on: February 26, 2012, 05:59:09 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.

All?  Shocked I think you would have trouble naming one scholarly work from an RC perspective in the last 50 years (much less "all" the ones done by non-RC's) that argues that the Roman church's self-understanding hasn't changed over time. There's disagreement about the exact starting pace, and the pace of change (and of course about the validity of Rome's understanding of 'development of dogma') but I'm not aware of a single serious scholar who thinks Rome's self-concept in 1000AD was the same as it was in 150AD.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 26, 2012, 06:21:56 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.

I challenge you to find me one pope before the reformation who even came close to the positions detailed in Dictatus Papae. Do you really think Justinian ever kissed the feet of Vigilius, or that Vigilius had the gall to demand such a thing?

It is an historical fact that the papacy underwent a radical reformation in the eleventh century to fight against investiture and simony.

The letter from Pope Hadrian to the Seventh EC. The original letter, and the parts that weren't read to the council shed insight to how the Roman church viewed itself.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.vi.html
Logged


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

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



WWW
« Reply #16 on: February 26, 2012, 06:22:30 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.

All?  Shocked I think you would have trouble naming one scholarly work from an RC perspective in the last 50 years (much less "all" the ones done by non-RC's) that argues that the Roman church's self-understanding hasn't changed over time. There's disagreement about the exact starting pace, and the pace of change (and of course about the validity of Rome's understanding of 'development of dogma') but I'm not aware of a single serious scholar who thinks Rome's self-concept in 1000AD was the same as it was in 150AD.

That's not what I said.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,426


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #17 on: February 26, 2012, 06:52:26 PM »

Orthodox don't disagree that there was a Roman Primacy, they disagree with what developed into Roman Supremacy.

If we really, really want to be honest about the nitty-gritty, we'd admit that Rome had a "primacy" in virtue of being the capital of the Empire, and later because it was a nice theological enclave protected from exotic heresy by hordes of post-neolithic barbarians.

Poetic and flowery descriptions were invented to give this a charm.

Perhaps the best way of putting it in the most succinct fashion I've read thus far.

If I may offer another issue, it is that ecclesiological extremism that many churches might profess today, that a certain ecclesiology is more correct than others, when in fact, the most basic ecclesiology is that which encompasses a bishop with his church, which as St. Ignatius teaches, is where the Catholic Church is.  Anything more than that is as you put it a flowery way to maintain this basic ecclesiology.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 06:54:22 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #18 on: February 26, 2012, 07:15:38 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.

I challenge you to find me one pope before the reformation who even came close to the positions detailed in Dictatus Papae. Do you really think Justinian ever kissed the feet of Vigilius, or that Vigilius had the gall to demand such a thing?

It is an historical fact that the papacy underwent a radical reformation in the eleventh century to fight against investiture and simony.

The letter from Pope Hadrian to the Seventh EC. The original letter, and the parts that weren't read to the council shed insight to how the Roman church viewed itself.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.vi.html

Still, this comes nowhere close to Dictatus Papae. You know, when the Emperor went to sell out the Orthodox faith at Florence, he almost wound up going back home empty-handed because the Pope demanded that the Emperor kiss his feet, a major breach of diplomatic protocol. Where in the first millennium may we find views of the papacy consistent with dictatus papae?  It is clear as day that during the Gregorian reforms, a major shift in the papacy happened which eventually wound up with the fifteenth century condemnation of conciliarism, abolishing the ancient manner of church governance in favor of a radically different one.
« Last Edit: February 26, 2012, 07:18:11 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #19 on: February 26, 2012, 07:45:30 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.

I challenge you to find me one pope before the reformation who even came close to the positions detailed in Dictatus Papae. Do you really think Justinian ever kissed the feet of Vigilius, or that Vigilius had the gall to demand such a thing?

It is an historical fact that the papacy underwent a radical reformation in the eleventh century to fight against investiture and simony.

The letter from Pope Hadrian to the Seventh EC. The original letter, and the parts that weren't read to the council shed insight to how the Roman church viewed itself.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.vi.html

Still, this comes nowhere close to Dictatus Papae. You know, when the Emperor went to sell out the Orthodox faith at Florence, he almost wound up going back home empty-handed because the Pope demanded that the Emperor kiss his feet, a major breach of diplomatic protocol. Where in the first millennium may we find views of the papacy consistent with dictatus papae?  It is clear as day that during the Gregorian reforms, a major shift in the papacy happened which eventually wound up with the fifteenth century condemnation of conciliarism, abolishing the ancient manner of church governance in favor of a radically different one.

This is a bit of a fools errand. You pick one document that you'd like to see replicated identically in an earlier date. It in and of itself is far beyond the scope of the debate.

I have only asserted that the Papacy, as a strong central authority, has roots throughout the Roman church's history. Anything else you may read is a misunderstanding. The single document I have provided shows this. There are others. Usually, it comes down to interpretation of the succession of Peter. Either way, you ask more that I agree.
Logged


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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #20 on: February 26, 2012, 08:29:30 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.

I challenge you to find me one pope before the reformation who even came close to the positions detailed in Dictatus Papae. Do you really think Justinian ever kissed the feet of Vigilius, or that Vigilius had the gall to demand such a thing?

It is an historical fact that the papacy underwent a radical reformation in the eleventh century to fight against investiture and simony.

The letter from Pope Hadrian to the Seventh EC. The original letter, and the parts that weren't read to the council shed insight to how the Roman church viewed itself.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.vi.html
...as does the changes in the translation into the Greek that was actually read to the Council (the Fathers didn't speak Latin) show how the other sees viewed the matter:for one, it is not exactly sure in the Greek that reference is being made alone to the bishop of Rome, as in the Latin-till this day in the East "Roman" means the Eastern Church.  Note too, the plurality of Apostles, i.e. St. Paul isn't tossed to the wayside to emphasize St. Peter.  And also no "Apostolic see" nonsense, as if Rome was the only see founded by Apostles.

Of course, your source points out that we you are depending on what Anastasius the librarian says a century after the Council what was the "original letter," and given Anastasius status as a propogandist for Pope St. Nicholas, even to the point of playing a role in the void council of Constantinople 869.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #21 on: February 26, 2012, 08:29:30 PM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?
Look up Acacian schism and Photian schism, so called.  And the career of Pope Vigilius and the Fifth Ecumenical Council.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #22 on: March 04, 2012, 11:25:16 PM »

1.  *All* quotes are taken out of context--almost by definition. 

I like that.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #23 on: March 13, 2012, 09:06:50 AM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.

I challenge you to find me one pope before the reformation who even came close to the positions detailed in Dictatus Papae. Do you really think Justinian ever kissed the feet of Vigilius, or that Vigilius had the gall to demand such a thing?

It is an historical fact that the papacy underwent a radical reformation in the eleventh century to fight against investiture and simony.

Ok, ok. First we need to remember that the Church is the body of Christ. As such, the developement of doctrine and the growing of the church in knowledge etc is a normal process:

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men Luke 2:52

So the Church, being the Body of Christ went thru the same process: growing in wisdom and knowledge, when fighting heresies, because of History etc.

And as said Luke Rivington:

“Is the difference, for instance, between the Papal regime of today and the position of the Papacy in the first four centuries of the Christian era more than between the oak and the acorn? Does the difference between the two argue a dissimilarity of constituent elements, or is it merely the necessary difference between various stages of normal growth?
On meeting some one whom we have not seen since his childhood we are often constrained to exclaim, "I should never have known it to be you!" Yet it is the same person whom Almighty God brought into the world as an infant, whose powers and appearance have thus developed. This simile of the child and the grown man, as well as that of the oak and the acorn, was adopted in regard to the Church by St. Vincent of Lerins, the author of the formula (though not of the truth) of the "always, everywhere, and by all," as a test of truth not yet defined.”
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/RivingtonIntro.htm

So now, we should see some examples, that could help us to see if in the early Church and for the first 1000 years, the oak of the Papacy existed or no.
You talked about the Pope Vigilius. Let’s see:

Pope Vigilius of Rome wrote the following in 538 [Letter to Bishop Profuturus of Braga in Mansi IX:33]:
 
“To no one well-or-ill-informed is it doubtful that the Roman Church is the foundation and the mold of the churches, from which no one of right belief is ignorant that all churches here derived their beginning. Since, though the election of the Apostles was equal, yea a preeminence over the rest was granted to Blessed Peter, when he is also called the Cephas, being the head and beginning of all the Apostles: and what has gone before in the head must follow in the members. Wherefore the holy Roman Church, through his merit consecrated by the Lord's voice, and established by the authority of the holy Fathers, holds the Primacy over all the churches, to which as well the highest concerns of bishops, their causes, and complaints, are ever to be referred, as to the head. For he who knows himself to be set over others should not object to one being placed over himself. For the Church itself, which is the first, has bestowed its authority on the rest of the churches with this condition, that they be called to a part of its solicitude, not to the fullness of its power. Whence the causes of all bishops who appeal to the Apostolic See, and the proceedings in all greater causes, are known to be reserved to that Holy See; especially as in all these its decisions must always be awaited: and if any bishops attempts to resist this course, let him know that he will give account to that Holy See, not without endangering his own rank.”

So, at leat from Pope Vigilius statement, the Oak of the Papacy really existed. Now, is it also true from the view of the eastern churches of that time?

 Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:
 
“Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic... we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.”

 Abbot St. Theodore of Studion says in Letter II:63 to Naucratius [PG 99:1281AB]:
 
“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”

Furthermore, Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:

Church History 2:8:
 
“Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”

Church History 2:17:
 
“On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome.”

So we may  disagree on some details about such or such event. But a fact remains that the oak of the papacy really existed in the first 1000 years of the Church. And the fact that some bishops disagreed with the Roman primacy or controversies etc do nothing against this fact. The Divinity of Christ was denied by arians, it does not make it untrue.
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,236


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 13, 2012, 11:23:05 AM »

If it was such a problem, why wasn't there a Schism between East and West even earlier than there was?

Because it was only in the eleventh century when the papacy underwent a major shift in its outlook on ecclesiology (take the Gregorian reforms, for example).

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared. The real difference is to what extent the Latins and the Greeks related to that structure.

I challenge you to find me one pope before the reformation who even came close to the positions detailed in Dictatus Papae. Do you really think Justinian ever kissed the feet of Vigilius, or that Vigilius had the gall to demand such a thing?

It is an historical fact that the papacy underwent a radical reformation in the eleventh century to fight against investiture and simony.

Ok, ok. First we need to remember that the Church is the body of Christ. As such, the developement of doctrine and the growing of the church in knowledge etc is a normal process:

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men Luke 2:52

So the Church, being the Body of Christ went thru the same process: growing in wisdom and knowledge, when fighting heresies, because of History etc.

And as said Luke Rivington:

“Is the difference, for instance, between the Papal regime of today and the position of the Papacy in the first four centuries of the Christian era more than between the oak and the acorn? Does the difference between the two argue a dissimilarity of constituent elements, or is it merely the necessary difference between various stages of normal growth?
On meeting some one whom we have not seen since his childhood we are often constrained to exclaim, "I should never have known it to be you!" Yet it is the same person whom Almighty God brought into the world as an infant, whose powers and appearance have thus developed. This simile of the child and the grown man, as well as that of the oak and the acorn, was adopted in regard to the Church by St. Vincent of Lerins, the author of the formula (though not of the truth) of the "always, everywhere, and by all," as a test of truth not yet defined.”
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/RivingtonIntro.htm

So now, we should see some examples, that could help us to see if in the early Church and for the first 1000 years, the oak of the Papacy existed or no.
You talked about the Pope Vigilius. Let’s see:

Pope Vigilius of Rome wrote the following in 538 [Letter to Bishop Profuturus of Braga in Mansi IX:33]:
 
“To no one well-or-ill-informed is it doubtful that the Roman Church is the foundation and the mold of the churches, from which no one of right belief is ignorant that all churches here derived their beginning. Since, though the election of the Apostles was equal, yea a preeminence over the rest was granted to Blessed Peter, when he is also called the Cephas, being the head and beginning of all the Apostles: and what has gone before in the head must follow in the members. Wherefore the holy Roman Church, through his merit consecrated by the Lord's voice, and established by the authority of the holy Fathers, holds the Primacy over all the churches, to which as well the highest concerns of bishops, their causes, and complaints, are ever to be referred, as to the head. For he who knows himself to be set over others should not object to one being placed over himself. For the Church itself, which is the first, has bestowed its authority on the rest of the churches with this condition, that they be called to a part of its solicitude, not to the fullness of its power. Whence the causes of all bishops who appeal to the Apostolic See, and the proceedings in all greater causes, are known to be reserved to that Holy See; especially as in all these its decisions must always be awaited: and if any bishops attempts to resist this course, let him know that he will give account to that Holy See, not without endangering his own rank.”

So, at leat from Pope Vigilius statement, the Oak of the Papacy really existed. Now, is it also true from the view of the eastern churches of that time?

 Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:
 
“Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic... we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.”

 Abbot St. Theodore of Studion says in Letter II:63 to Naucratius [PG 99:1281AB]:
 
“I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.”

Furthermore, Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:

Church History 2:8:
 
“Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”

Church History 2:17:
 
“On the receipt of these contradictory communications, Julius first replied to the bishops who had written to him from Antioch, complaining of the acrimonious feeling they had evinced in their letter, and charging them with a violation of the canons, because they had not requested his attendance at the council, seeing that the ecclesiastical law required that the churches should pass no decisions contrary to the views of the bishop of Rome.”

So we may  disagree on some details about such or such event. But a fact remains that the oak of the papacy really existed in the first 1000 years of the Church. And the fact that some bishops disagreed with the Roman primacy or controversies etc do nothing against this fact. The Divinity of Christ was denied by arians, it does not make it untrue.

This entire posting is a great proof of Roman primacy, which is uncontested by Orthodoxy. However it has nothign to do with supremacy.

The reason the Churches looked to Rome was ebcause it was a rock of Orthodoxy and a benchmark. Not because of some supremacy. If Rome was supreme, why was the Tome of Leo not instantly made the teaching of the Church? Why was it discussed? Could not Rome simply "make it so?"

Rome did, and should have primacy, but it took it too far.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #25 on: March 13, 2012, 11:33:02 AM »

Why was it discussed? Could not Rome simply "make it so?"

No warp engines.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,236


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #26 on: March 13, 2012, 11:33:28 AM »

Why was it discussed? Could not Rome simply "make it so?"

No warp engines.
+1 LOL awesome Smiley
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: The Faith That Established The Universe
Jurisdiction: AOANA
Posts: 2,523



« Reply #27 on: March 13, 2012, 12:33:48 PM »

If I may offer another issue, it is that ecclesiological extremism that many churches might profess today, that a certain ecclesiology is more correct than others, when in fact, the most basic ecclesiology is that which encompasses a bishop with his church, which as St. Ignatius teaches, is where the Catholic Church is.  Anything more than that is as you put it a flowery way to maintain this basic ecclesiology.

This is basically how I understand it. The bishop with his people, and all the bishops sharing communion with each other constitute the Church. Anything beyond that, whether it be 5 patriarchs, 16 patriarchs, or just 1 patriarch, anything beyond the local bishop with his people sharing communion with the other local churches is nothing more than an administrative structure for the good order of the Church.
Logged

And FWIW, these are our Fathers too, you know.

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #28 on: March 13, 2012, 01:02:59 PM »

Furthermore, Church historian Socrates Scholasticus relates the following:

Church History 2:8:
 
“Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”
This is one of my favorite "proof-texts" of the Vatican.  Search in vain in all the sacred canons, and you will not find any such command.  The Second Ecumenical and Third Ecumenical Councils were held/conducted against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.

So it's a "poof-text" ("poop-text"  Shocked), not a "proof"-text.  On another such text, quoted by your supreme pontiff in Pastor Aeternus, trying to put its words in the mouths of the "Greeks" (i.e. the Orthodox):
It is also noteworthy that not all of the eastern churches subscribed to the Formula [of Hormisdas]. The Church of Jerussalem would not do so even under threat of imperial force. And it is important to recall that Justinian designated the church of Jerusalem as “the Mother of the Christian name, from which no one dares to separate.” (PL 63, 503) This is important to keep in mind, say during the monothelite controversy under the patriarch of Jersualem Sophronius  as opposed to Pope Honorius of Rome.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #29 on: March 13, 2012, 01:02:59 PM »

So we may  disagree on some details about such or such event. But a fact remains that the oak of the papacy really existed in the first 1000 years of the Church. And the fact that some bishops disagreed with the Roman primacy or controversies etc do nothing against this fact. The Divinity of Christ was denied by arians, it does not make it untrue.
"...we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines. We have also examined the synodal letter of Sophronius of holy memory, some time Patriarch of the Holy City of Christ our God, Jerusalem, and have found it in accordance with the true faith and with the Apostolic teachings, and with those of the holy approved Fathers. Therefore we have received it as orthodox and as salutary to the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, and have decreed that it is right that his name be inserted in the diptychs of the Holy Churches....To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!....The holy and Ecumenical Synod further says, this pious and orthodox Creed of the Divine grace would be sufficient for the full knowledge and confirmation of the orthodox faith. But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will (we mean...moreover, Honorius who was Pope of the elder Rome...), has actively employed [him] in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling-blocks...Therefore...we cast out of the Church and rightly subject to anathema all superfluous novelties as well as their inventors: to wit...Honorius, who was the ruler (πρόεδρον) of Rome, as he followed them in these things....The heresy...confirmed by Honorius, sometime Pope of Old Rome, who also contradicted himself...He, the Emperor, had therefore convoked this holy and Ecumenical Synod, and published the present edict with the confession of faith, in order to confirm and establish its decrees... so he anathematized all heretics from Simon Magus, but especially the originator and patrons of the new heresy, Theodore and Sergius; also Pope Honorius, who was their adherent and patron in everything, and confirmed the heresy..."-the Fathers of the Sixth Holy Ecumenical Council, 680.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3813.htm

Quote
The Oath of the Liber Diurnalis Against Honorius
Until the 11th century, all Popes had to affirm that Pope Honorius as anathematized for complicity in the heresy of monothelitism. The Liber Diurnalis, the book that contains these oaths says, contains a section of this oath which say:

"Autores vero novi haeretici dogmatis Sergium, Pyrrhum, Paulum, et Petrum Constantinopolitanos una cum Honorio, qui pravis eorum assertionibus fomentum impendit; pariterque et Theodorum Pharanitanum, et Cyrum Alexandrinum, cum eorum imitatoribus, simulque et hos, qui haeretica dogmata contra veritatem fidei synodaliter declaratam atque praedicatam, pertinaciter defendebant."

In English this pertinent section would be

"But also for the authors of these new heretical dogmas, that is, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, of Constantinople, together with HONORIOUS, who pays incentive to their depraved assertions;"
http://www.western-orthodox.info/2011/08/oath-of-liber-diurnalis-against.html
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #30 on: March 13, 2012, 02:32:51 PM »

You bring many issues that should be dealt separately. Honorius case shoud have its own post.

Quote
The reason the Churches looked to Rome was ebcause it was a rock of Orthodoxy and a benchmark. Not because of some supremacy. If Rome was supreme, why was the Tome of Leo not instantly made the teaching of the Church? Why was it discussed? Could not Rome simply "make it so?"

Just like Vatican 1 dogma was discussed, or the Immaculate conception etc. The fact that it was discussed then does nothing to refute papal supremacy.

Quote
This is one of my favorite "proof-texts" of the Vatican.  Search in vain in all the sacred canons, and you will not find any such command.


It does not matter. The fact is that in those times it was believed yet. What is Socrates Scholasticus really refering to does not matter. The fact is that at his time, such ideas existed and were not mere inventions of the 9th or 10th century.

By the way, Sozomen writes the same thing:

Document 247--Sozomen, Church History, Book 3. A.D. 450. (P.G. 67. 1052; Bagster 113.)
8. Athanasius, escaping from Alexandria, came to Rome. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza went there at the same time. Asclepas, who was opposed to the Arians, had been accused by them of having thrown down an altar, and Quintian had been appointed in his place. Lucius, bishop of Adrianople, who had been deposed from his office on another charge, was also staying in Rome. The Roman bishop, on learning the accusation against each one, and finding that they were all like-minded about the doctrine of the council of Nicaea, admitted them to communion as of like orthodoxy. And alleging that the care for all belongs to him, because of the dignity of his see, he restored each to his own church. ...
10....Julius, learning that Athanasius was not safe in Egypt, called him back to himself. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received it, and he accused them of having secretly introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church by not calling him to the synod. For there is a priestly law, making void whatever is effected against the mind of the bishop of Rome.


So it seems that he would be refering to the Sardican canons or even something else, but it was a common belief of that time anyway.

Quote
his is basically how I understand it. The bishop with his people, and all the bishops sharing communion with each other constitute the Church.


It can work on a local level, but not on an universal one. For what determines who is right when local churches disagree. Like when the Bulgarian exarchate splited from Constantinople, it was its right as a local Church to do so?
The universal level is a reproduction of the local one, as there is one bishop in each olcal church, there is one bishop for the universal church, representing and  being the head of the others.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 02:48:14 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #31 on: March 13, 2012, 02:38:48 PM »

Quote
The reason the Churches looked to Rome was ebcause it was a rock of Orthodoxy and a benchmark. Not because of some supremacy.

If a quote from Justinian can be used, then an earlier one by Valentinian III also:

Document 244--Valentinian III, Certum est. 8 July 445. In Leo, Ep. II. (P.L. 54. 637; Kidd, Docs. 2. 282.)
Inasmuch then as the primacy of the apostolic see is assured, by the merit of S. Peter, who is chief of the episcopal order, by the rank of the city of Rome, and also by the authority of a sacred synod, let no one presume to attempt any illicit act contrary to the authority of that see. For then at length will the peace of the churches be maintained everywhere, if the whole body acknowledges its ruler. Hitherto these customs have been observed without fail; but Hilary of Arles, as we are informed by the trustworthy report of that venerable man Leo, Pope of Rome, has with contumacious daring ventured upon certain unlawful proceedings; and therefore the churches beyond the Alps have been invaded by abominable disorders, of which a recent example particularly bears witness. For Hilary who is called bishop of Arles, without consulting the pontiff of the church of the city of Rome, has in solitary rashness usurped his jurisdiction by the ordination of bishops. He has removed some without authority, and indecently ordained others who are unwelcome and repugnant to the citizens. Since these were not readily received by those who had not chosen them, he has collected to himself an armed band in hostility has either prepared a barrier of walls for a blockade or embarked on aggression. Thus he has led into war those who prayed for peace to the haven of rest. Such men have been admitted contrary to the dignity of the empire and contrary to the reverence due to the apostolic see; and after investigation they have been dispersed by the order of that pious man the Pope of the city. The sentence applies to Hilary and to those whom he has wickedly ordained. This same sentence would have been valid through the Gauls without imperial sanction; for what is not allowed in the Church to the authority of so great a pontiff? Hilary is allowed still to be called a bishop, only by the kindness of the gentle president; and our just command is, that it is not lawful either for him or for anyone else to mix church affairs with arms or to obstruct the orders of the Roman overseer. Documents Illustrating Papal Authority AD 96--454  E. Giles
Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #32 on: March 13, 2012, 04:12:53 PM »

Ok, ok. First we need to remember that the Church is the body of Christ. As such, the developement of doctrine and the growing of the church in knowledge etc is a normal process:

And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men Luke 2:52

So the Church, being the Body of Christ went thru the same process: growing in wisdom and knowledge, when fighting heresies, because of History etc.

As a man, Christ grew in wisdom and stature. But He was also the pre-eternal Word of God who *without change* became man. So if you are going to use Christ's growth as a human as an argument that the human aspects of the Church change and grow (and Orthodoxy would agree with you), then you must also recognize that there is a divine aspect of the Church which does not and cannot change. This is the 'faith once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 1:3), the Apostolic gospel which, should even an angel from heaven preach differently he would be anathema.

And having identified these two aspects, it becomes necessary to identify to which the episcopacy of Rome, and any honors or perogatives associated with it, belong. To which you yourself provide the answer:

Quote
And as said Luke Rivington:

“Is the difference, for instance, between the Papal regime of today and the position of the Papacy in the first four centuries of the Christian era more than between the oak and the acorn? Does the difference between the two argue a dissimilarity of constituent elements, or is it merely the necessary difference between various stages of normal growth?
On meeting some one whom we have not seen since his childhood we are often constrained to exclaim, "I should never have known it to be you!" Yet it is the same person whom Almighty God brought into the world as an infant, whose powers and appearance have thus developed. This simile of the child and the grown man, as well as that of the oak and the acorn, was adopted in regard to the Church by St. Vincent of Lerins, the author of the formula (though not of the truth) of the "always, everywhere, and by all," as a test of truth not yet defined.”
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/RivingtonIntro.htm

If the "doctrine" of the Papacy is something that had to change and grow over time, then it is clearly something that belongs to the earthly aspect of the Church and not the "faith delivered once for all". Indeed, if it changed and grew, it can also, quite obviously, pass away--the role of Rome in the Church has passed away just like communion in the hand or married bishops. It is not surprising that you had to use a modern author to exemplify this thought, because the idea that 'doctrines' can grow and change over time is unheard of among the Fathers.  The Fathers, including the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, were always very careful to demonstrate that their doctrine was not a new development but a faithful statement (or re-statement) of the Apostolic teaching in the face of new developments like Arianism, Nestorianism, or Monotheletism.

It is no coincidence that Protestantism rose out of Rome and its 'development of doctrine' idea. Both, at base, come from the idea that 'we' *now*, understand the Faith better than did the Apostles and their disciples. But the idea that something that was clearly a part of the earthly, changeable aspect of the Church can cross over to become part of the 'faith delivered once for all' is a form of ecclesiological  monophysitism, confusing the human and the Divine.

Quote
So now, we should see some examples,

As usual for such lists, your examples are missing any that demonstrate the key point. It is easy to find examples of Fathers who agreed with Rome and consequently praised it with typical Byzantine extravagance. It is also easy to find examples of Fathers who disagreed with Rome about a point of doctrine or critical praxis (St. Polycarp, St. Cyprian, St. Firmilianus, St. Basil, the entirety of  the 2nd Ecumenical Council which was chaired by a Patriarch of Antioch that Rome did not recognize, St. Maximus, St. Columbanus, etc). What is apparantly impossible to find is an example of a Father who believed 'X' to be the Apostolic tradition, who knew that Rome believed 'x' to be incorrect, and consequently changed his position because he thought being in agreement  (or even communion) with Rome was more important than fidelity to what he believed to be Apostolic Doctrine. (Indeed, I've yet to see an example of even a layman or a heretic, much less a Father, from the first seven centuries who thought being in proper relationship to Rome was in any way inherently related to being in the Church or following the Truth).

The clear Patristic response, still followed by Orthodoxy, when Rome tried to invent new doctrines was to remain faithful to the Apostolic Teaching. And if Rome chose to break communion and leave the Church because of this... well, as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #33 on: March 13, 2012, 04:26:17 PM »

Quote
As a man, Christ grew in wisdom and stature. But He was also the pre-eternal Word of God who *without change* became man. So if you are going to use Christ's growth as a human as an argument that the human aspects of the Church change and grow (and Orthodoxy would agree with you), then you must also recognize that there is a divine aspect of the Church which does not and cannot change. This is the 'faith once for all delivered to the saints' (Jude 1:3), the Apostolic gospel which, should even an angel from heaven preach differently he would be anathema.

All this does not contradict what we say.

Quote
If the "doctrine" of the Papacy is something that had to change and grow over time, then it is clearly something that belongs to the earthly aspect of the Church and not the "faith delivered once for all".

Not really, the form can change, but it existed. The fact that the princip of the Papcy existed is all we need, the form or understanding of it can grow, and this is what matters.


Quote
because the idea that 'doctrines' can grow and change over time is unheard of among the Fathers. 


You put word in my mouth, i didnt talk about a change, only a growing.

"The Fathers, including the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, were always very careful to demonstrate that their doctrine was not a new development but a faithful statement (or re-statement) of the Apostolic teaching in the face of new developments like Arianism, Nestorianism, or Monotheletism."

Palamite doctrine is a devlepoment, yet many orthodoxs consider it dogma. If you apply your criteria to your own church, then we are both wrong. A development is not new, it is logical.  The thing is you put words in my mouth and claim what you have yet to prove.

"It is no coincidence that Protestantism rose out of Rome and its 'development of doctrine' idea. Both, at base, come from the idea that 'we' *now*, understand the Faith better than did the Apostles and their disciples. "

Just like Gregory Palama did, so this is really not concistent. The growing in knowledge is something normal, we dont claim to know anything better than the apostles.

"What is apparantly impossible to find is an example of a Father who believed 'X' to be the Apostolic tradition, who knew that Rome believed 'x' to be incorrect, and consequently changed his position because he thought being in agreement  (or even communion) with Rome was more important than fidelity to what he believed to be Apostolic Doctrine."

Since Rome was right and didnt contradict any apostolic teaching, i dont see why it would have happened.

"much less a Father, from the first seven centuries who thought being in proper relationship to Rome was in any way inherently related to being in the Church or following the Truth"

St Ambrose of Milan 378 [On the Death of Satyrus 1:47 in PL 16:1306], "But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"


St Jerome 376 [Letter 15:1-2 to Pope St. Damasus I of Rome in PL 22:355],


 

I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul ... The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold ... My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the Cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the Church is built! This is the house where alone the Paschal Lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.



"The clear Patristic response, still followed by Orthodoxy, when Rome tried to invent new doctrines was to remain faithful to the Apostolic Teaching."

An example?
Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #34 on: March 13, 2012, 04:36:12 PM »

Quote
much less a Father, from the first seven centuries who thought being in proper relationship to Rome was in any way inherently related to being in the Church or following the Truth

St Leo the Great [Letter 10:1 to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne in PL 54:629A]: "This mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him [St. Peter] as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery."

St Peter Chrysologue 449 [Letter 25:2 to the Priest Eutyches in PL 54:742D-743A]:

 We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.

 Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:

Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic... we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.

Monk St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man ... but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.

St. Theodore of Stoudios says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:

Let him [Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.

He further says in Letter II:63 to Naucratius [PG 99:1281AB]:

I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.

Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #35 on: March 13, 2012, 04:56:12 PM »

And what happens when a pope disagrees with an ecumenical council?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #36 on: March 13, 2012, 05:01:45 PM »

And what happens when a pope disagrees with an ecumenical council?

You have an exemple? But St Leo the Great already showed what happens:

[Letter 105:3 to Empress St. Pulcheria in PL 54:1000BC]:

But the bishops' assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicaea in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter's authority we absolutely annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 05:20:47 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #37 on: March 13, 2012, 05:18:01 PM »

And what happens when a pope disagrees with an ecumenical council?

You have an exemple?

From the First Constitutum of Vigilius on the Three Chapters:

Quote
Therefore, while appropriately condemning these chapters by the authority of an apostolic sentence according to the correctness of the orthodox faith, we resolve that all these things which, adhering to the decrees and traditions of the fathers, we have condemned by apostolic authority should provide no occasion for defaming previous fathers and doctors of the church, something that beyond doubt causes scandal in the sacrosanct church. We anathematize everyone in ecclesiastical orders who on the grounds of the above-mentioned impieties decides to impose or inflict contumely in any way on the fathers and doctors of the church.

Price, Richard. The Acts Council of Constantinople of 553: with related texts on the Three Chapters Controversy. Vol 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009. 186. Print.

From the same document:

Quote
Now that this had been determined by ourselves with all and every care and caution, so as to preserve inviolable both reverence towards the above-mentioned synods [the first four ecumenical synods] and also their venerable decrees, we, remembering that it is written that we should not transgress the bounds of our fathers, enact and decree that no one with ecclesiastical dignity and rank is permitted to hold or write or produce or compose or teach anything about the oft-mentioned Three Chapters contrary to what we have declared and enacted in this present decree, or to raise any further inquiry subsequent to this present definition.but if in the name of anyone with ecclesiastical dignity and rank there has been, or will have been, done , said and written, by whomsoever and wheresoever it so transpire, anything in breach of what we have here declared and enacted concerning these Three Chapters, this we totally annul with the authority of the apostolic see over which by the grace of God we preside.

Price, Richard. The Acts Council of Constantinople of 553: with related texts on the Three Chapters Controversy. Vol 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009. 211. Print.

In contradiction to Pope Vigilius' decision that nobody should anathematize Theodore of Mopsuestia, which he forbids with an anathema and declares that any decision to the contrary is annulled by the authority of the apostolic see, here is the decision of the Council of Constantinople of 553, where they declare anathema on the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia:

Quote
If anyone defends the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia, who said that God the Word is someone other than Christ, who was troubled by the passions of the soul and the desires of the flesh, was gradually separated from that which is worse and so became better by progress in works and became faultless as a result of his way of life, and that he was baptized as a mere man in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, received through his baptism the grace of the Holy Spirit, was honoured with sonship, was worshipped as representing God the Word, on the level of an image of the emperor, and after his resurrection became immutable in his thoughts and totally sinless – furthermore the same impious Theodore said that the union of God the Word with Christ was of the same kind as that which the apostle ascribed to man and woman, 'The two will become one flesh': and in addition to his other innumerable blasphemies he dared to assert that, when after the resurrection the Lord breathed on his disciples and said, 'Receive the Holy Spirit,' he did not give them the Holy Spirit but breathed on them only in semblance; and as for the profession of Thomas, when he touched the Lord's hands and side after the resurrection, namely 'My Lord and my God,' he asserted that this was not said about Christ by Thomas (for he says that Christ himself was not God) but that Thomas, amazed at the extraordinary character of the resurrection, was praising God for raising up Christ; and what is even worse is that in his commentary on the Acts of the Apostles the same Theodore, comparing Christ to Plato, Mani, Epicurus and Marcion, says that just as each of these men, having devised his own teaching, caused his disciples to be called Platonists, Manichaeans, Epicureans and Marcionites, so in the same way when Christ had devised his teaching 'Christians' were called after him –; if anyone therefore defends the said most impious Theodore and his impious writings, in which he poured forth both the aforesaid blasphemies and innumerable others against our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, and if he does not anathematize him and his impious writings as well as all those who accept or defend him or assert that his teaching was orthodox, both those who wrote in his support and held the same tenets as he and also those who write in support of him and his impious writings, as well as those who hold or ever held tenets like his and who persisted or persist in this impiety till death: let him be anathema.

Price, Richard. The Acts Council of Constantinople of 553: with related texts on the Three Chapters Controversy. Vol 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009. 124-125. Print.

So what happens when the Pope under threat of anathema forbids anybody to anathematize a person (Theodore of Mopsuestia), and a council anathematizes that person and all who defend him?
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 05:18:52 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #38 on: March 13, 2012, 05:26:12 PM »

Quote
So what happens when the Pope under threat of anathema forbids anybody to anathematize a person (Theodore of Mopsuestia), and a council anathematizes that person and all who defend him?

This is a matter of discipline, it can be debated, the Pope can change his minde, debates and peacefull attitude dont go against the Papacy.

Contrary to the contention of Protestants, Jansenists, Gallicans, and modern enemies of the Papacy, the "Case of Vigilius" fails to support their thesis that Ecumenical Councils are superior to the Pope and that Papal Infallibility is disproved. Actually, in the words of Dom John Chapman, O.S.B., (ibid.)
"No Council has more emphatically testified than the Fifth Ecumenical Council that under ordinary circumstances the Pope must preside, that his decision should be the ground of the Council's decree, and that his confirmation is a "sine qua non" if a Council is ro have ecumenical authority." (The First Eight Ecumenical Councils and Papal Infallibility, CTS, London, 3rd edition, 1928)
http://papsttreu.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-apologist117.html

These facts should be remembered in judging the conduct of Vigilius. He came to Constantinople in a very resolute frame of mind, and his first step was to excommunicate Mennas. But he must have felt the ground was being cut from under his feet when he was supplied with translations of some of the worst passages in the writings of Theodore. In 548 he issued his "Judicatum" in which the Three Chapters were condemned, and then temporarily withdrew it when the storm it raised showed how ill-prepared the Latins were for it. Next he and Justinian agreed to a general council in which Vigilius pledged himself to bring about the condemnation of the Three Chapters, it being understood that the emperor should take no further steps till the council should be arranged. The emperor broke his pledge by issuing a fresh edict condemning the Chapters. Vigilius had twice to take sanctuary, first in the Basilica of St. Peter, and then in the Church of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon, from which he issued an Encyclical to the whole Church describing the treatment he had received. Then an agreement was patched up and Vigilius agreed to a general council but soon withdrew his assent. Nevertheless, the council was held, and, after refusing to accept the "Constitutum" of Vigilius (see VIGILIUS, POPE), it then condemned the Three Chapters. Finally Vigilius succumbed, confirmed the council, and was set free.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 05:32:01 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #39 on: March 13, 2012, 05:47:19 PM »

Quote
So what happens when the Pope under threat of anathema forbids anybody to anathematize a person (Theodore of Mopsuestia), and a council anathematizes that person and all who defend him?

This is a matter of discipline, it can be debated, the Pope can change his minde, debates and peacefull attitude dont go against the Papacy.

Contrary to the contention of Protestants, Jansenists, Gallicans, and modern enemies of the Papacy, the "Case of Vigilius" fails to support their thesis that Ecumenical Councils are superior to the Pope and that Papal Infallibility is disproved. Actually, in the words of Dom John Chapman, O.S.B., (ibid.)
"No Council has more emphatically testified than the Fifth Ecumenical Council that under ordinary circumstances the Pope must preside, that his decision should be the ground of the Council's decree, and that his confirmation is a "sine qua non" if a Council is ro have ecumenical authority." (The First Eight Ecumenical Councils and Papal Infallibility, CTS, London, 3rd edition, 1928)
http://papsttreu.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-apologist117.html

These facts should be remembered in judging the conduct of Vigilius. He came to Constantinople in a very resolute frame of mind, and his first step was to excommunicate Mennas. But he must have felt the ground was being cut from under his feet when he was supplied with translations of some of the worst passages in the writings of Theodore. In 548 he issued his "Judicatum" in which the Three Chapters were condemned, and then temporarily withdrew it when the storm it raised showed how ill-prepared the Latins were for it. Next he and Justinian agreed to a general council in which Vigilius pledged himself to bring about the condemnation of the Three Chapters, it being understood that the emperor should take no further steps till the council should be arranged. The emperor broke his pledge by issuing a fresh edict condemning the Chapters. Vigilius had twice to take sanctuary, first in the Basilica of St. Peter, and then in the Church of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon, from which he issued an Encyclical to the whole Church describing the treatment he had received. Then an agreement was patched up and Vigilius agreed to a general council but soon withdrew his assent. Nevertheless, the council was held, and, after refusing to accept the "Constitutum" of Vigilius (see VIGILIUS, POPE), it then condemned the Three Chapters. Finally Vigilius succumbed, confirmed the council, and was set free.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm

Pope Vigilius was struck from the diptychs, and sent into exile until he recanted and was given permission to return to Rome. In his letter to Eutychius of Constantinople he wrote:

Quote
We therefore anathematize and condemn the aforesaid three impious chapters, that is, the impious Theodore of Mopsuestia with his wicked writings, the things that Theodoret wrote impiously, and the letter said to have been written by Ibas, which contains the wicked blasphemies cited above. Whosoever at any time believes that these ought to be accepted or defended, or ever tries to rescind the present condemnation we condemn with an equal anathema, while we hold as brethren and fellow priests those who, preserving the correct faith proclaimed by the aforesaid four synods, have condemned or condemn the afore-mentioned Three Chapters. But whatever was done by myself or by others in defence of the afore-mentioned Three Chapters we annul by the authority of our present letter.

Price, Richard. The Acts Council of Constantinople of 553: with related texts on the Three Chapters Controversy. Vol 2. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2009. 217-218. Print.

When news of Vigilius' condemnation of the Three Chapters reached the West, the bishops of Aquileia, Liguria, Aemilia, Milan and of the Istrian Peninsula all went into schism from the infallible Roman Pontiff, believing that he had betrayed the faith of Chalcedon, as if they believed that he wasn't infallible on matters of faith or something. How odd.

I would also like to add that this was not simply a matter or discipline but a matter of doctrine. In the first millennium, a common manner of showing doctrinal agreement was to agree that a certain text (Cyril's Twelve Chapters, for example) was orthodox, or by condemning texts (like Second Council of Constantinople did to the letter of Ibas, a text which Pope Vigilius defended).
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 05:51:13 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #40 on: March 13, 2012, 06:00:15 PM »

You bring many issues that should be dealt separately. Honorius case shoud have its own post.
Your "infallible" pontiff anathematized by the Church has several here, e.g.
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,29951.msg473963.html#msg473963
Quote
The reason the Churches looked to Rome was ebcause it was a rock of Orthodoxy and a benchmark. Not because of some supremacy. If Rome was supreme, why was the Tome of Leo not instantly made the teaching of the Church? Why was it discussed? Could not Rome simply "make it so?"

Just like Vatican 1 dogma was discussed, or the Immaculate conception etc. The fact that it was discussed then does nothing to refute papal supremacy.
Except that your supreme pontiff Leo demanded that it be accepted as the definition of the Council without discussion, which isn't what the Fathers of the Council did.

Quote
This is one of my favorite "proof-texts" of the Vatican.  Search in vain in all the sacred canons, and you will not find any such command.

It does not matter. The fact is that in those times it was believed yet.

Not by the  Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils:in Socretes own day they convened the Second Ecumenical Council under a Patriarch, St. Meletius of Antioch, whom Rome had excommunicated and supported his usurper Paulinus (who ordained Rome's right hand man St. Jerome.  St. John Chrysostom, St. Gregory and St. Basil, in contrast, accepted ordination and communion from St. Meletius).  When St. Meletius fell asleep, Rome insisted Paulinus succeed to the Patriarchate.  The Fathers of the Council and Antioch chose Patriarch St. Flavian.  Paulinus was succeeded in pretense by Evagrius, with Rome's backing. That episcopal line died out.  ALL the patriarchs the Vatican have tried to install in Antioch (all four of them-Latin, Melkite, Syriac, Maronite) claim to derive their episcopal lineage through SS. Meletius and Flavian. They also made Constantinople autocephalous, without Rome's approval.  Rome was not in communion with Constantinople thereafter until St. John Chrysostom.  Rome could not stop St. John's deposition by Pope Theophilos (itself of dupious canonicity.  Btw, St. John appealed not only to Rome, but to Milan and Aquila, in identical terms), and had no part IIRC in his restoration to the diptychs by the Patriarchs of Constantinople  and Antioch.  Pope Celestine of Rome gave specific instructions to Pope St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Fathers of the Third Ecumenical Council, principally that they were to pass Rome's sentence on Nestorius. Instead, they sat to try Nestorius, and passed their own sentence.

What is Socrates Scholasticus really refering to does not matter.
LOL. I know:don't confuse you with the facts.

So, then, if it doesn't matter what he is really referring to, why did you bring it up?

He claims that an "ecclesiastical canon" existed which "the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome."  That none exists underlines the practice of the Churches making ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.


The fact is that at his time, such ideas existed and were not mere inventions of the 9th or 10th century.
The first time the heresy of Ultramontanism raised its head was with Pope St. Victor around 190.  So such ideas existed then.  That all the Churches (including those in the Patriarchate of the West) rebuked Pope St. Victor shows that their invention did not matter to the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church which confessed the Orthodox Faith and rejected Ultramontanist perversions thereof.

By the way, Sozomen writes the same thing:

Document 247--Sozomen, Church History, Book 3. A.D. 450. (P.G. 67. 1052; Bagster 113.)
8. Athanasius, escaping from Alexandria, came to Rome. Paul, bishop of Constantinople, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Asclepas of Gaza went there at the same time. Asclepas, who was opposed to the Arians, had been accused by them of having thrown down an altar, and Quintian had been appointed in his place. Lucius, bishop of Adrianople, who had been deposed from his office on another charge, was also staying in Rome. The Roman bishop, on learning the accusation against each one, and finding that they were all like-minded about the doctrine of the council of Nicaea, admitted them to communion as of like orthodoxy. And alleging that the care for all belongs to him, because of the dignity of his see, he restored each to his own church. ...
10....Julius, learning that Athanasius was not safe in Egypt, called him back to himself. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received it, and he accused them of having secretly introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church by not calling him to the synod. For there is a priestly law, making void whatever is effected against the mind of the bishop of Rome.
Since Sozomen takes 3/4s of his material from Socretes and covers the same time period, this is a surprise? IOW Sozomen copies Socretes, but no one agrees with either on the existence of such a canon/law.

So it seems that he would be refering to the Sardican canons
We have the canons of Sardica
http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/councils_local_rudder.htm#_Toc72635084
It's not there.

It would also be odd since they you are claiming that canon as the basis of Sardica, which would be issuing it.  Not that the Vatican is unknown to offer circular arguments as its proof. Pastor Aeternus demonstrates that: the Vatican speaks infallibly because it infallibly says so.
or even something else
Another gospel, perhaps? Galatians 1:8-9
but it was a common belief of that time anyway
So you assert, but evidently, with the lack of evidence to back it up, and much evidence to the contrary, it wasn't.

Quote
his is basically how I understand it. The bishop with his people, and all the bishops sharing communion with each other constitute the Church.

It can work on a local level, but not on an universal one.
It can, has, and does, ever since the successor of St. Peter, Patriarch St. Ignatius of Antioch wrote to a (future) Church of Constantinople, with no reference to Rome:
Quote
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm
This is the oldest known attestation to the use of the term "Catholic" i.e. "according" kat "to the whole "holos" i.e. Universal in reference to the Church.  And it makes reference to the local bishop, not the one in Rome.

For what determines who is right when local churches disagree. Like when the Bulgarian exarchate splited from Constantinople, it was its right as a local Church to do so?
Which supreme pontiff would you have asked here?


Rome determined the wrong guy in the Meletian schism of Antioch.  And I-and the rest of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church-take Patriarch St. Sophronius of Jerusalem over Pope Honorius of Rome.  

Constantinople should not have uncanonically had the sultan abolish the Bulgarian Church in the first place.  Its restoration was, and is, right, as shown by the fact of communion between Constantinople and Sophia and All Bulgaria and all the other local Churches.

As for the Vatican, it had three different patriarchs for Alexandria and four different patriarchs for Antioch, so it seems it has a perchance/fondness for disputes for "all of the above." Except in Rome and the West, of course.

You ask this question as if it hasn't come up.  The Bulgarian exarchate was solved, and all without reference to the Vatican.

The universal level is a reproduction of the local one, as there is one bishop in each olcal church, there is one bishop for the universal church, representing and  being the head of the others.
Christ, through His Apostles, founded the episcopate of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in the bishops who profess the Orthodox Faith.  As one of their number, St. Cyprian spoke for it
Quote
The episcopate is one, each part of which is held by each one for the whole. The Church also is one, which is spread abroad far and wide into a multitude by an increase of fruitfulness. As there are many rays of the sun, but one light; and many branches of a tree, but one strength based in its tenacious root; and since from one spring flow many streams, although the multiplicity seems diffused in the liberality of an overflowing abundance, yet the unity is still preserved in the source. Separate a ray of the sun from its body of light, its unity does not allow a division of light; break a branch from a tree—when broken, it will not be able to bud; cut off the stream from its fountain, and that which is cut off dries up. Thus also the Church, shone over with the light of the Lord, sheds forth her rays over the whole world, yet it is one light which is everywhere diffused, nor is the unity of the body separated. Her fruitful abundance spreads her branches over the whole world. She broadly expands her rivers, liberally flowing, yet her head is one, her source one; and she is one mother, plentiful in the results of fruitfulness: from her womb we are born, by her milk we are nourished, by her spirit we are animated.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm
Not, "the episcopate is one, held in the bishop of Rome for the whole."  I know your council of Lateran IV told you differently, but it lied.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #41 on: March 13, 2012, 06:00:15 PM »


You put word in my mouth, i didnt talk about a change, only a growing.
like a tumor.


"The clear Patristic response, still followed by Orthodoxy, when Rome tried to invent new doctrines was to remain faithful to the Apostolic Teaching."

An example?
The rebuke of the entire Church of Pope St. Victor, when he tried to assert jurisdiction over the Churches.

When Pope Zosimus entertained Pelagius and exonerated him in synod.

When Pope Vigilius refused to condemn the Three Chapters.

When the Pope of Rome inserted the filioque in the Creed at the command of the Germanic Emperor.

The laughable example of the Vatican sending the Donation of Constantine to the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and the Archbishop of Ohrid and All Bulgaria and demanding submission to papal supremacy on the basis of it.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #42 on: March 13, 2012, 06:00:15 PM »

And what happens when a pope disagrees with an ecumenical council?

You have an exemple?
Pope Vigilius and the Fifth Ecumenical Council.

Pope St. Leo and canon 28 of Chalcedon (we have his whinny letter to the empress, where he cries that even his own suffragans hold it valid and ignore his "voiding" it).

The example of Pope St. Victor is close, as all the local Churches held their own Councils on the issue.

etc.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #43 on: March 13, 2012, 06:00:15 PM »

And what happens when a pope disagrees with an ecumenical council?

You have an exemple? But St Leo the Great already showed what happens:

[Letter 105:3 to Empress St. Pulcheria in PL 54:1000BC]:

But the bishops' assents, which are opposed to the regulations of the holy canons composed at Nicaea in conjunction with your faithful Grace, we do not recognize, and by the blessed Apostle Peter's authority we absolutely annul in comprehensive terms, in all ecclesiastical cases obeying those laws which the Holy Ghost set forth by the 318 bishops for the pacific observance of all priests in such sort that even if a much greater number were to pass a different decree to theirs, whatever was opposed to their constitution would have to be held in no respect.
And the pretender to his throne, the Vatican's Pope Innocent III, by his authority absolutely annulled in comprehensive terms Pope St. Leo's judgment:
Quote
Renewing the ancient privileges of the patriarchal sees, we decree, with the approval of this sacred universal synod, that after the Roman church, which through the Lord's disposition has a primacy of ordinary power over all other churches inasmuch as it is the mother and mistress of all Christ's faithful, the church of Constantinople shall have the first place, the church of Alexandria the second place, the church of Antioch the third place, and the church of Jerusalem the fourth place, each maintaining its own rank. Thus after their pontiffs have received from the Roman pontiff the pallium, which is the sign of the fullness of the pontifical office, and have taken an oath of fidelity and obedience to him they may lawfully confer the pallium on their own suffragans, receiving from them for themselves canonical profession and for the Roman church the promise of obedience. They may have a standard of the Lord's cross carried before them anywhere except in the city of Rome or wherever there is present the supreme pontiff or his legate wearing the insignia of the apostolic dignity. In all the provinces subject to their jurisdiction let appeal be made to them, when it is necessary, except for appeals made to the apostolic see, to which all must humbly defer.
http://www.legionofmarytidewater.com/faith/ECUM12.HTM#5
in the same correspodance Pope St. Leo recognizes that even his own suffragans pay no heed to his "annullment" of the Acts of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #44 on: March 13, 2012, 06:08:57 PM »

Quote
much less a Father, from the first seven centuries who thought being in proper relationship to Rome was in any way inherently related to being in the Church or following the Truth

St Leo the Great [Letter 10:1 to the Bishops of the Province of Vienne in PL 54:629A]: "This mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the Apostles: and from him [St. Peter] as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery."

St Peter Chrysologue 449 [Letter 25:2 to the Priest Eutyches in PL 54:742D-743A]:

 We exhort you, honorable brother, to submit yourself in all things to what has been written by the blessed Bishop of Rome, because St. Peter, who lives and presides in his see, gives the true faith to those who seek it. For our part, for the sake of peace and the good of the faith, we cannot judge questions of doctrine without the consent of the Bishop of Rome.

 Patriarch St. Menas of Constantinople (August 25) says in 536 [Sentence Against ex-Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople at Local Council of Constantinople in Mansi VIII:967A,970B]:

Indeed Agapetus of holy memory, Pope of Old Rome, giving him time for repentance until he should receive whatever the holy fathers defined, did not allow him to be called either a priest or a Catholic... we follow and obey the Apostolic Throne; we are in communion with those with whom it is in communion, and we condemn those whom it condemns.

Monk St. Maximus the Confessor of Constantinople (August 13) says [Excerpt from Letter to Peter in PG 91:144BC]:

Therefore if a man does not want to be, or to be called, a heretic, let him not strive to please this or that man ... but let him hasten before all things to be in communion with the Roman See. If he be in communion with it, he should be acknowledged by all and everywhere as faithful and orthodox. He speaks in vain who tries to persuade me of the orthodoxy of those who, like himself, refuse obedience to his Holiness the Pope of the most holy Church of Rome: that is to the Apostolic See.

St. Theodore of Stoudios says in 816 [Letter II:129 to Sakellarios Leo in PG 99:1420A]:

Let him [Patriarch St. Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch [the Roman Pope] to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.

He further says in Letter II:63 to Naucratius [PG 99:1281AB]:

I witness now before God and men, they [the Iconcoclasts] have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See [Rome], in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of Hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie [Mt 16:18]. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal [Pope St. Paschal I] rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter.



If you'd stop cutting and pasting proof-texts long enough to actually read with comprehension, you would see that not a single one of your quotes addresses what I  asked about.

The only individual in that list who got into a doctrinal disagreement with Rome was St. Maximus. And he clearly exemplifies what I was talking about. The  quote above was what St. Maximus said when Pope St. Martin was supporting St. Maximus (and the Orthodox position in general) against the Monothelites who had gained control of the Eastern Patriarchates. But what did St. Maximus say when told that that St. Martin's successor had come to agree with those Monothelites?

I have to get to an appointment so I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader for the moment.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #45 on: March 13, 2012, 07:06:25 PM »

Quote
When news of Vigilius' condemnation of the Three Chapters reached the West, the bishops of Aquileia, Liguria, Aemilia, Milan and of the Istrian Peninsula all went into schism from the infallible Roman Pontiff, believing that he had betrayed the faith of Chalcedon, as if they believed that he wasn't infallible on matters of faith or something. How odd.

Just like arian, anti chalcedonian, or nestorian bishops didnt agree with the true faith, but it does not refute the existence of the Papacy, of the nicean faith, or the 2 natures of Christ.

And before that; Theodoret of Cyruss 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.

« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 07:08:09 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #46 on: March 13, 2012, 07:12:43 PM »

Quote
When news of Vigilius' condemnation of the Three Chapters reached the West, the bishops of Aquileia, Liguria, Aemilia, Milan and of the Istrian Peninsula all went into schism from the infallible Roman Pontiff, believing that he had betrayed the faith of Chalcedon, as if they believed that he wasn't infallible on matters of faith or something. How odd.

Just like arian, anti chalcedonian, or nestorian bishops didnt agree with the true faith, but it does not refute the existence of the Papacy, of the nicean faith, or the 2 natures of Christ.

Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

And before that; Theodoret of Cyruss 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.



Until the heretic pope, Honorius. And also pope Vigilius who held the heterodox opinion that the Letter of Ibas was orthodox in content (and declared so with the authority of the apostolic see), until the Second Council of Constantinople declared otherwise and he recanted under pain of anathema.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 07:13:40 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #47 on: March 13, 2012, 07:14:34 PM »

I''ll reply more in depth later, because i'm tired and needs to work on this. Just this one:

Quote
This is the oldest known attestation to the use of the term "Catholic" i.e. "according" kat "to the whole "holos" i.e. Universal in reference to the Church.  And it makes reference to the local bishop, not the one in Rome.

378 [On the Death of Satyrus 1:47 in PL 16:1306], "But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"St Ambrose of Milan http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34031.htm

I'll answer to the rest, many unrelated topics later Smiley  
Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #48 on: March 13, 2012, 07:18:34 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #49 on: March 13, 2012, 07:19:28 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870. The only pride I see is the pride of the Roman pontiffs who arrogated powers which were never theirs.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2012, 07:20:20 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #50 on: March 13, 2012, 07:52:01 PM »

Quote
Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870. The only pride I see is the pride of the Roman pontiffs who arrogated powers which were never theirs.

You like to bring many different topics at the same time lol
Logged
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Ukrainian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Pennsylvaniadoxy
Posts: 5,027



« Reply #51 on: March 13, 2012, 07:58:22 PM »

Quote
Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870. The only pride I see is the pride of the Roman pontiffs who arrogated powers which were never theirs.

You like to bring many different topics at the same time lol

please make sure to include the username of the person you are quoting  va rugam sa cititi regulile de oc.net. mulţumesc -username! section moderator
Logged

ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #52 on: March 13, 2012, 09:43:19 PM »

Quote
So what happens when the Pope under threat of anathema forbids anybody to anathematize a person (Theodore of Mopsuestia), and a council anathematizes that person and all who defend him?
This is a matter of discipline, it can be debated, the Pope can change his minde, debates and peacefull attitude dont go against the Papacy.
Assertions, hair splitting, and excuses.  It's not an original mix.
Contrary to the contention of Protestants, Jansenists, Gallicans, and modern enemies of the Papacy, the "Case of Vigilius" fails to support their thesis that Ecumenical Councils are superior to the Pope and that Papal Infallibility is disproved. Actually, in the words of Dom John Chapman, O.S.B., (ibid.)
"No Council has more emphatically testified than the Fifth Ecumenical Council that under ordinary circumstances the Pope must preside, that his decision should be the ground of the Council's decree, and that his confirmation is a "sine qua non" if a Council is ro have ecumenical authority." (The First Eight Ecumenical Councils and Papal Infallibility, CTS, London, 3rd edition, 1928)
http://papsttreu.blogspot.com/2010/01/response-to-apologist117.html
In the words of the Acts of Fifth Ecumenical Council:
Quote
While I am still present at your holy council by reason of the reading of the documents which have been presented to you, I would say that the most pious Emperor has sent a minute (formam), to your Holy Synod, concerning the name of Vigilius, that it be no more inserted in the holy diptychs of the Church, on account of the impiety which he defended. Neither let it be recited by you, nor retained, either in the church of the royal city, or in other churches which are entrusted to you and to the other bishops in the State committed by God to his rule. And when you hear this minute, again you will perceive by it how much the most serene Emperor cares for the unity of the holy churches and for the purity of the holy mysteries.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3812.htm
These facts should be remembered in judging the conduct of Vigilius. He came to Constantinople in a very resolute frame of mind, and his first step was to excommunicate Mennas.
Whom Pope Vigilius, Pope Agapetus, had consecrated.  EP Mennas responded by striking Pope Vigilius' name from the diptychs.  The dispute was EP Mennas forcing his suffragans to condemn the Three Chapters.

But he must have felt the ground was being cut from under his feet when he was supplied with translations of some of the worst passages in the writings of Theodore.

IOW EP Mennas was right, and Pope Vigilius was WRONG.
In 548 he issued his "Judicatum" in which the Three Chapters were condemned, and then temporarily withdrew it when the storm it raised showed how ill-prepared the Latins were for it.
chip off the ol' Vatican rock. Good thing you have an infallible supreme pontiff to decide things. Roll Eyes.  The rock of constancy, until opposition shows up.

But then, you claim that rejections of your supreme pontiff's infallible teaching doesn't matter to papal supremacy, so I guess when he abandons it for the rejectors', it doesn't matter as well.
Next he and Justinian agreed to a general council in which Vigilius pledged himself to bring about the condemnation of the Three Chapters, it being understood that the emperor should take no further steps till the council should be arranged. The emperor broke his pledge by issuing a fresh edict condemning the Chapters. Vigilius had twice to take sanctuary, first in the Basilica of St. Peter, and then in the Church of St. Euphemia at Chalcedon, from which he issued an Encyclical to the whole Church describing the treatment he had received.
He received as he gave:
Quote
Vigilius entered the service of the Roman Church and was a deacon in 531, in which year the Roman clergy agreed to a Decree empowering the pope to determine the succession to the Papal See. Vigilius was chosen by Boniface II as his successor, and presented to the clergy assembled in St. Peter's. The opposition to such a procedure led Boniface in the following year to withdraw his designation of a successor and to burn the Decree respecting it.

The Decree was uncanonical, by the Apostolic canons, and hence void.  Somewhere here I've dealt with that before.
Quote
The second successor of Boniface, Agapetus I (535-36), appointed Vigilius papal representative (Apocrisiary) at Constantinople; Vigilius thus came to the Eastern capital. Empress Theodora sought to win him as a confederate, to revenge the deposition of the Monophysite Patriarch Anthimus of Constantinople by Agapetus and also to gain aid for her efforts in behalf of the Monophysites. Vigilius is said to have agreed to the plans of the intriguing empress who promised him the Papal See and a large sum of money (700 pounds of gold). After Agapetus's death on 22 April, 536, Vigilius return to Rome equipped with letters from the imperial Court and with money. Meanwhile Silverius had been made pope through the influence of the King of the Goths. Soon after this the Byzantine commander Belisarius garrisoned the city of Rome, which was, however, besieged again by the Goths. Vigilius gave Belisarius the letters from the Court of Constantinople, which recommended Vigilius himself for the Papal See. False accusations now led Belisarius to depose Silverius. Owing to the pressure exerted by the Byzantine commander, Vigilius was elected pope in place of Silverius and consecrated and enthroned on 29 March, 537. Vigilius brought it about that the unjustly deposed Silverius was put into his keeping where the late pope soon died from the harsh treatment he received. After the death of this predecessor Vigilius was recognized as pope by all the Roman clergy.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

On how Pope Viglius "came to Constantinople in a very resolute frame of mind":
Quote
The Oriental patriarchs and bishops signed the condemnation of these Three Chapters. In Western Europe, however, the procedure was considered unjustifiable and dangerous, because it was feared that it would detract from the importance of the Council of Chalcedon. Vigilius refused to acknowledge the imperial edict and was called to Constantinople by Justinian, in order to settle the matter there with a synod. According to the Liber pontificalis on 20 November, while the pope was celebrating the Feast of St. Cecilia in the Church of St. Cecilia in Trastevere, and before the service was fully ended, he was ordered by the imperial official Anthimus to start at once on the journey to Constantinople. The pope was taken immediately to a ship that waited in the Tiber in order to be carried to the eastern capital while a part of the populace cursed the pope and threw stones at the ship.
Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm

Then an agreement was patched up and Vigilius agreed to a general council but soon withdrew his assent.  Nevertheless, the council was held
Sorta contradicts this "No Council has more emphatically testified than the Fifth Ecumenical Council that under ordinary circumstances the Pope must preside" nonsense.  In fact, NO Pope (of Rome, that is.  The Pope of Alexandria presided at the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus) EVER presided over, or even attended ANY Ecumenical Council, even when, as here, he was in town.  And no, no pope of Rome ever called an Ecumenical Council.
and, after refusing to accept the "Constitutum" of Vigilius (see VIGILIUS, POPE)
Refuse?  I thought they couldn't refuse "any ordinances [of] the opinion of the bishop of Rome.”
it then condemned the Three Chapters.
IOW followed EP Mennas rather than Pope Vigilius.
Finally Vigilius succumbed
Succumbed?  The rock of Peter!?!  Say it ain't so!

Good thing he "succumbed" to the Orthodox and not his schismatic Latins in Italy.

So Pope Vigilius "showed what happens" "when a pope disagrees with an ecumenical council."  There is your example.

confirmed the council, and was set free.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14707b.htm
IOW,  "the Council's decree" was "the ground of" "his decision," and not the other way around.  Like, undisputably, the Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils of Nicea I and Constantinople I.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #53 on: March 13, 2012, 09:43:19 PM »

Quote
Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870. The only pride I see is the pride of the Roman pontiffs who arrogated powers which were never theirs.

You like to bring many different topics at the same time lol
Different angles on the same point, exposing the lie of Ultramontanism from all sides.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #54 on: March 13, 2012, 09:47:15 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.

Indeed!
In the same correspodence Pope St. Gregory tells the Pope of Alexandria (the title originated there, centuries before Rome took it) and Antioch that they are all bishops of the one Petrine See.
Another thing sidestepped and not mentioned in the article is that St. Gregory during this cotroversy wrote that the patriarchs of Rome, Alexandria (through St. Mark) and Antioch are all one Petrine See.  I've yet to see an explanation, then why Antioch shouldn't be ahead of Alexandria, since Antioch is Petrine directly, Alexandria second hand.  Could it be because that was the secular order within the empire, like the Fathers alluded to in Constantinople c. 3 and Chalcedon c. 28 (btw, St. Gregory is quite wrong on the Pope's veto power: even Pope St. Leo recognized that his own bishops were not following his veto of canon 28)? Roll Eyes

I always love this quote:

"As regards the Church of Constantinople,WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it."

So the brother bishop of Constantinople, a/k/a the percursor of antichrist, continually acknowleges Rome.  I've never seen the antichrist cited as a Church Father for papal supremacy outside of a Chick tract.

"As to what they say of the Church of Constantinople, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? This is constantly owned by the most pious Emperor and by our brother and Bishop of that city." 

So St. Gregory's brother and bishop of the Church of Constantinople, the Ecumenical Patriarch a/k/a "the precursor of antichrist," constanty owns that he is subject to "the Apostolic See" as the Vatican fancies itself. I'll repeat, never seen the precursor of the antichrist cited as a Church Father in favor of Ultramontanism, outside of this and Chick Publications.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #55 on: March 13, 2012, 09:51:22 PM »

Just like Vatican 1 dogma was discussed, or the Immaculate conception etc. The fact that it was discussed then does nothing to refute papal supremacy.
Except that your supreme pontiff Leo demanded that it be accepted as the definition of the Council without discussion, which isn't what the Fathers of the Council did.

This has probably been asked before, but can you demonstrate that Pope Leo demanded that it be accepted without discussion?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #56 on: March 13, 2012, 09:53:53 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #57 on: March 13, 2012, 10:24:05 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #58 on: March 13, 2012, 10:28:39 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.

Well let me add a specific example: Cardinal Newman said that he had already believed Papal Infallibility before it was dogmatically defined in 1870. (He was very firmly against it being dogmatically defined, but that's a different kettle of worms.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #59 on: March 13, 2012, 10:29:56 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.

Not if he is acting under threat of violent coercion.
Logged


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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #60 on: March 13, 2012, 11:17:31 PM »

I''ll reply more in depth later, because i'm tired and needs to work on this. Just this one:

Quote
This is the oldest known attestation to the use of the term "Catholic" i.e. "according" kat "to the whole "holos" i.e. Universal in reference to the Church.  And it makes reference to the local bishop, not the one in Rome.

378 [On the Death of Satyrus 1:47 in PL 16:1306], "But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?"St Ambrose of Milan http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/34031.htm
As Schaeff, from which Newadvent gets this, notes:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf210.iv.iii.ii.html
Quote
At this time there was no doubt concerning the faith of the Roman Church, as there would have been later under Liberius and Honorius. Consequently Satyrus instances it, as being the chief and best known see.
St. Ambrose, however gives further context:
Quote
And possibly at that place the Church of the district was in schism. For at that time Lucifer had withdrawn from our communion, and although he had been an exile for the faith, and had left inheritors of his own faith,
On Lucifer
Quote
Lucifer was Bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia. At the synod of Arles, a.d. 353, he had strenuously resisted the condemnation of St. Athanasius, though it was urged by the Emperor Constantius, maintaining that the Nicene faith was opposed in the person of Athanasius. Against the synod of Milan, a.d. 355, he was equally resolute in defence of the belief of Nicæa, for which the emperor banished him to Syria. But when the synod of Alexandria, a.d. 362, determined on the restoration of certain Arians after repentance, he withdrew from Catholic Communion.
St. Jerome had words against Lucifer the bishop, summarized thus:
Quote
This Dialogue was written about 379, seven years after the death of Lucifer, and very soon after Jerome's return from his hermit life in the desert of Chalcis. Though he received ordination from Paulinus, who had been consecrated by Lucifer, he had no sympathy with Lucifer's narrower views, as he shows plainly in this Dialogue. Lucifer, who was bishop of Cagliari in Sardinia, first came into prominent notice about a.d. 354, when great efforts were being made to procure a condemnation of S. Athanasius by the Western bishops. He energetically took up the cause of the saint, and at his own request was sent by Liberius, bishop of Rome, in company with the priest Pancratius and the deacon Hilarius, on a mission to the Emperor Constantius. The emperor granted a Council, which met at Milan in a.d. 354. Lucifer distinguished himself by resisting a proposition to condemn Athanasius, and did not hesitate to oppose the emperor with much violence. In consequence of this he was sent into exile from a.d. 355 to a.d. 361, the greater portion of which time was spent at Eleutheropolis in Palestine, though he afterwards removed to the Thebaid. It was at this time that his polemical writings appeared, the tone and temper of which is indicated by the mere titles De Regibus Apostaticis (of Apostate Kings), De non Conveniendo cum Hæreticis, etc. (of not holding communion with heretics). On the death of Constantius in 361, Julian permitted the exiled bishops to return; but Lucifer instead of going to Alexandria where a Council was to be held under the presidency of Athanasius for the healing of a schism in the Catholic party at Antioch (some of which held to Meletius, while others followed Eustathius), preferred to go straight to Antioch. There he ordained Paulinus, the leader of the latter section, as bishop of the Church. Eusebius of Vercellæ; soon arrived with the synodal letters of the Council of Alexandria, but, finding himself thus anticipated, and shrinking from a collision with his friend, he retired immediately. Lucifer stayed, and declared that he would not hold communion with Eusebius or any who adopted the moderate policy of the Alexandrian Council. By this Council it had been determined that actual Arians, if they renounced their heresy, should be pardoned, but not invested with ecclesiastical functions; and that those bishops who had merely consented to Arianism should remain undisturbed. It was this latter concession which offended Lucifer, and he became henceforth the champion of the principle that no one who had yielded to any compromise whatever with Arianism should be allowed to hold an ecclesiastical office. He was thus brought into antagonism with Athanasius himself, who, it has been seen, presided at Alexandria. Eventually he returned to his see in Sardinia where, according to Jerome's Chronicle, he died in 371. Luciferianism became extinct in the beginning of the following century, if not earlier. It hardly appears to have been formed into a separate organization, though an appeal was made to the emperor by some Luciferian presbyters about the year 384, and both Ambrose and Augustine speak of him as having fallen into the schism.

The argument of the Dialogue may be thus stated. It has been pointed out above that Lucifer of Cagliari, who had been banished from his see in the reign of Constantius because of his adherence to the cause of Athanasius, had, on the announcement of toleration at the accession of Julian (361), gone to Antioch and consecrated Paulinus a bishop. There were then three bishops of Antioch, Dorotheus the Arian (who had succeeded Euzoius in 376), Meletius who, though an Athanasian in opinion, had been consecrated by Arians or Semi-Arians, and Paulinus; besides Vitalis, bishop of a congregation of Apollinarians. Lucifer, in the earnestness of his anti-Arian opinion, refused to acknowledge as bishops those who had come over from Arianism, though he accepted the laymen who had been baptized by Arian bishops. This opinion led to the Luciferian schism, and forms the subject of the Dialogue.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3005.htm
Given that the Luciferian schism was a Western Schism in Italy, reference to the bishop of Rome, the metropolitan of Italy and the Patriarch of the West, would make sense in Milan.  In Egypt, the reference would be to the Pope of Alexandria.

I'll answer to the rest, many unrelated topics later Smiley  
inconvenient doesn't make a fact unrelated.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #61 on: March 13, 2012, 11:17:31 PM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.

Not if he is acting under threat of violent coercion.
Why not?  That's how he got the office.
Logged

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

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #62 on: March 14, 2012, 12:04:39 AM »

Quote
Indeed, so why did all of these people do it, if they knew that the pope was infallible? Would they not have just followed his lead, knowing that he could never be wrong on a matter of doctrine?

Why did all those people refuse the nicean faith if it was the true faith? Why do children disobey their parents?

St Gregory the great "For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. "

Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Second Series, Volume XIII Gregory

THe root is sinfull nature, pride etc.


Or perhaps the root is that papal infallibility was unknown until 1870.

I'm assuming you don't mean that literally, as that would be absurd. I'm also assuming you don't mean that papal infallibility wasn't dogmatically defined until 1870, because that's obvious. So is there some third interpretation for "papal infallibility was unknown until 1870"?

I mean of course the idea that when the pope in his office of supreme pastor defines that a dogma must be held by the entire Church, he is protected from error by the Holy Spirit. Had the bishops of Aquileia, Milan, Aemilia, Liguria, and the Istrian peninsula known of this teaching, they surely would not have gone into schism and accused Vigilius of betraying the faith of Chalcedon when he condemned the letter of Ibas, because they would have known that he was protected from making doctrinal error by the Holy Spirit.

Not if he is acting under threat of violent coercion.

So the condemnation against the letter of Ibas was wrong then? Do you believe that the fifth ecumenical council made a doctrinal error?
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #63 on: March 14, 2012, 12:08:18 AM »

Just like Vatican 1 dogma was discussed, or the Immaculate conception etc. The fact that it was discussed then does nothing to refute papal supremacy.
Except that your supreme pontiff Leo demanded that it be accepted as the definition of the Council without discussion, which isn't what the Fathers of the Council did.

This has probably been asked before, but can you demonstrate that Pope Leo demanded that it be accepted without discussion?
I have, but for a brief overview of some points from Price and Gaddis' translation:
Quote
Discussion quickly turned to the possibility of a new council. In order to avoid a repeat of Ephesus II, Leo insisted that any such council be held in Italy where he could control the agenda....Just ten days later Leo had the opportunity to write to Marcian again (Document 5), and he now revealed his objection to the emperor’s plan to hold a council in the east: he had no wish for a council which would reconsider doctrinal questions that, in his view, had already been resolved in his Tome, while the disciplinary questions relating to the standing of various bishops could be settled without calling a council. In subsequent letters 8 he added the objection that bishops in provinces threatened by war could not properly absent themselves from their dioceses. His reference to Sicily as ‘that province that seems to be safer’ in a subsequent letter (Document 7) implies that he was thinking of Italy; this shows his argument to be specious, since very few Italian bishops would attend an eastern council in any event. Undeterred by papal opposition, Marcian proceeded on 23 May to summon the eastern bishops to an ecumenical council, to be held at Nicaea in September of the same year (Document 6)....Leo bowed to the situation, and in the last week of June wrote two letters to Marcian that gave the names of those he had chosen to represent him at the council (Documents 7 and Cool. 11 Since Marcian had written months before in terms that seemed to invite Leo to chair the council (Document 2), Leo presumed that his senior legate would chair the council on his behalf, thereby controlling the agenda; it was probably only when his representatives arrived in the east that they discovered that the pope had been hoodwinked. 12 He pleaded again that the council should not be an occasion for the reopening of the doctrinal debate: it should simply reaffirm Nicaea and condemn the heretics. At the same time he wrote to Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum in Sicily, who was to be his senior legate; the letter (Document 9) is an impressive summary of the case against Eutyches, without the onesided rhetoric and hostages to fortune that marred the Tome. He also wrote a letter to the bishops who would now assemble (Document 10), which was
subsequently read out at the council (XV. 6). In this letter he instructed the bishops to reaffirm the condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus of 431, and recommended his own Tome as providing the solution to the more recent doctrinal controversy; he also mentioned the need to reinstate the bishops who had been deposed at Ephesus II. In a subsequent letter to Pulcheria (Document 11) he wrote on the assumption that the principal business of the council would be accepting the repentance of the bishops who had played a leading role at Ephesus. 13 In all, Pope Leo regarded the doctrinal controversy as having been settled by his Tome; if there had to be
a council, he held that, apart from settling the status of persons, it should simply acknowledge and confirm the teaching of the Tome, as the definitive ruling on the points at issue; the last thing he wanted was a reopening of the debate, as if the teaching of the heir and successor of St Peter were simply one among a plethora of competing voices....Indicative of the politics of the council was Marcian’s remark (Document 14) that the Roman delegates had expressed reluctance to attend the council in his absence. They must already have sensed the tensions between themselves and the majority of the eastern bishops that were to explode dramatically at the fifth session. It was indeed the firm hand of the emperor that would ensure that the outcome of the theological debate was acceptable to Rome.
14....

....Bishop Leo to the holy council held at Nicaea [i.e. the original destination of Chalcedon]....let your fraternity deem me to be presiding over the council. You are not deprived of my attendance, since I am present in my representatives and have for a long time not been failing in the preaching of the catholic faith, with the result that you cannot be in ignorance of what we believe from ancient tradition or
in doubt as to what I desire.
Therefore, most dear brethren, through a complete rejection of the effrontery of arguing against the faith divinely revealed, may the futile infidelity of the erring cease, and may it not be permitted to defend what it is not permitted to believe, since, in accordance with gospel authority, the prophetic sayings and the apostolic teaching, the letter which we sent to Bishop Flavian of blessed memory declared most fully and most lucidly what is the pious and pure confession of the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...
http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/109.pdf
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #64 on: March 14, 2012, 02:31:29 AM »

Quote
If the "doctrine" of the Papacy is something that had to change and grow over time, then it is clearly something that belongs to the earthly aspect of the Church and not the "faith delivered once for all".

Not really, the form can change, but it existed. The fact that the princip of the Papcy existed is all we need, the form or understanding of it can grow, and this is what matters.

If the 'princip' existed, you'd be able to provide a single example of someone bowing to that authority--something the collection of proof-texts you're working from is apparently not helping with as you've yet to produce a single such example. All you've produced are some individual opinions which were generally dismissed (summarily, as not even worth discussing) by councils your own church recognizes as Ecumenical (the Second Ecumenical Council, headed by a man Rome was not in communion with; the Fourth Ecumenical Council which subjected St. Leo's Tome to an examination in light of St. Cyril's synodical letters to determine its orthodoxy; the Fifth Ecumenical Council as already well covered by Cavaradossi and ialmisry).


Quote
Quote
because the idea that 'doctrines' can grow and change over time is unheard of among the Fathers.  


You put word in my mouth, i didnt talk about a change, only a growing.

You might want to check your definitions - growing is change.

Quote
"The Fathers, including the Fathers of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, were always very careful to demonstrate that their doctrine was not a new development but a faithful statement (or re-statement) of the Apostolic teaching in the face of new developments like Arianism, Nestorianism, or Monotheletism."

Palamite doctrine is a devlepoment, yet many orthodoxs consider it dogma. If you apply your criteria to your own church, then we are both wrong. A development is not new, it is logical.  The thing is you put words in my mouth and claim what you have yet to prove.

"Palamite doctrine" is no more a 'development' than Nicea's doctrine that Christ and the Father are one. St. Gregory had 3 key points: 1) God is and does, 2) God is unknowable in His Essence, and 3) God is knowable in His acts. His great work was to demonstrate that these 3 points were not a development but part of the Apostolic doctrine whereas his opponents' rejection of one or more of these points was a rejection of Apostolic doctrine--and therefore to be condemned as heresy.

Quote
"It is no coincidence that Protestantism rose out of Rome and its 'development of doctrine' idea. Both, at base, come from the idea that 'we' *now*, understand the Faith better than did the Apostles and their disciples. "

Just like Gregory Palama did, so this is really not concistent. The growing in knowledge is something normal, we dont claim to know anything better than the apostles.

First you are terribly mischaracterizing St. Gregory as noted above. Second, your second sentence is internally contradictory. If I as an individual 'grow in knowledge' between when I am 10 and when I am 30, then my 30 year old self knows more than my 10 year-old self. If I don't know more than my 10-year self then it would be incorrect to say that I have 'grown'. If the Church has 'grown in knowledge' between the Apostolic age and the present, then Christians in the present day know more than the Christians in the Apostolic age, ipso facto. When it comes to worldly matters like physical science or geography, that is true--but Orthodoxy strongly rejects any claim that modern Christians know more about the essentials of salvation than the Apostles.


Quote
"What is apparantly impossible to find is an example of a Father who believed 'X' to be the Apostolic tradition, who knew that Rome believed 'x' to be incorrect, and consequently changed his position because he thought being in agreement  (or even communion) with Rome was more important than fidelity to what he believed to be Apostolic Doctrine."

Since Rome was right and didnt contradict any apostolic teaching, i dont see why it would have happened.
[snip]
"The clear Patristic response, still followed by Orthodoxy, when Rome tried to invent new doctrines was to remain faithful to the Apostolic Teaching."

An example?

I gave you 7 in the post you're responding to, several of which (St. Cyprian, St. Meletius and the 2nd Ecumenical Council) are well-known and covered in any basic Church History. Given that that is 7 more than you've provided, how many more do you need?
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 02:31:55 AM by witega » Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #65 on: March 14, 2012, 09:01:07 AM »

Just like Vatican 1 dogma was discussed, or the Immaculate conception etc. The fact that it was discussed then does nothing to refute papal supremacy.
Except that your supreme pontiff Leo demanded that it be accepted as the definition of the Council without discussion, which isn't what the Fathers of the Council did.

This has probably been asked before, but can you demonstrate that Pope Leo demanded that it be accepted without discussion?
I have, but for a brief overview of some points from Price and Gaddis' translation:
Quote
Discussion quickly turned to the possibility of a new council. In order to avoid a repeat of Ephesus II, Leo insisted that any such council be held in Italy where he could control the agenda....Just ten days later Leo had the opportunity to write to Marcian again (Document 5), and he now revealed his objection to the emperor’s plan to hold a council in the east: he had no wish for a council which would reconsider doctrinal questions that, in his view, had already been resolved in his Tome, while the disciplinary questions relating to the standing of various bishops could be settled without calling a council. In subsequent letters 8 he added the objection that bishops in provinces threatened by war could not properly absent themselves from their dioceses. His reference to Sicily as ‘that province that seems to be safer’ in a subsequent letter (Document 7) implies that he was thinking of Italy; this shows his argument to be specious, since very few Italian bishops would attend an eastern council in any event. Undeterred by papal opposition, Marcian proceeded on 23 May to summon the eastern bishops to an ecumenical council, to be held at Nicaea in September of the same year (Document 6)....Leo bowed to the situation, and in the last week of June wrote two letters to Marcian that gave the names of those he had chosen to represent him at the council (Documents 7 and Cool. 11 Since Marcian had written months before in terms that seemed to invite Leo to chair the council (Document 2), Leo presumed that his senior legate would chair the council on his behalf, thereby controlling the agenda; it was probably only when his representatives arrived in the east that they discovered that the pope had been hoodwinked. 12 He pleaded again that the council should not be an occasion for the reopening of the doctrinal debate: it should simply reaffirm Nicaea and condemn the heretics. At the same time he wrote to Bishop Paschasinus of Lilybaeum in Sicily, who was to be his senior legate; the letter (Document 9) is an impressive summary of the case against Eutyches, without the onesided rhetoric and hostages to fortune that marred the Tome. He also wrote a letter to the bishops who would now assemble (Document 10), which was
subsequently read out at the council (XV. 6). In this letter he instructed the bishops to reaffirm the condemnation of Nestorius at the Council of Ephesus of 431, and recommended his own Tome as providing the solution to the more recent doctrinal controversy; he also mentioned the need to reinstate the bishops who had been deposed at Ephesus II. In a subsequent letter to Pulcheria (Document 11) he wrote on the assumption that the principal business of the council would be accepting the repentance of the bishops who had played a leading role at Ephesus. 13 In all, Pope Leo regarded the doctrinal controversy as having been settled by his Tome; if there had to be
a council, he held that, apart from settling the status of persons, it should simply acknowledge and confirm the teaching of the Tome, as the definitive ruling on the points at issue; the last thing he wanted was a reopening of the debate, as if the teaching of the heir and successor of St Peter were simply one among a plethora of competing voices....Indicative of the politics of the council was Marcian’s remark (Document 14) that the Roman delegates had expressed reluctance to attend the council in his absence. They must already have sensed the tensions between themselves and the majority of the eastern bishops that were to explode dramatically at the fifth session. It was indeed the firm hand of the emperor that would ensure that the outcome of the theological debate was acceptable to Rome.
14....

....Bishop Leo to the holy council held at Nicaea [i.e. the original destination of Chalcedon]....let your fraternity deem me to be presiding over the council. You are not deprived of my attendance, since I am present in my representatives and have for a long time not been failing in the preaching of the catholic faith, with the result that you cannot be in ignorance of what we believe from ancient tradition or
in doubt as to what I desire.
Therefore, most dear brethren, through a complete rejection of the effrontery of arguing against the faith divinely revealed, may the futile infidelity of the erring cease, and may it not be permitted to defend what it is not permitted to believe, since, in accordance with gospel authority, the prophetic sayings and the apostolic teaching, the letter which we sent to Bishop Flavian of blessed memory declared most fully and most lucidly what is the pious and pure confession of the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ...
http://ixoyc.net/data/Fathers/109.pdf

Alright. So when you say that Pope Leo "demanded" that it be accepted without discussion, you basically mean that he wanted it to be accepted without discussion, right?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,236


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #66 on: March 14, 2012, 09:20:40 AM »

So if the other fathers told Leo no, that it would be discussed, why didnt he just order it? Why did he not use this supremacy that was supposedly so obvious?

Quote
let your fraternity deem me to be presiding over the council
does not sound like he was ordering anything there.....

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,269


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #67 on: March 14, 2012, 11:52:41 AM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

1. Early NT Period: presbyters were at first identical to bishops (ἐπίσκοποι/episkopoi; compare Acts 20:17 and vs. 28; Titus 1:5 and vs. 7; 1 Pet 5:1 and vs. 2 (cf. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2005, p. 211); compare Jewish synagogues governed by a council of elders (Greek: πρεσβύτεροι presbyteroi).
2. 49 AD: Jerusalem Council (Acts 15); leadership of James at Jerusalem; 62 AD: martyrdom of James; martyrdom of Paul (c. 67 AD); 70 AD: destruction of Jerusalem by then general (later emperor) Titus. The Jerusalem Council was, of course, paradigmatic for later Councils.
3. 57/58:  Book of Romans (composed winter AD 56 or 57 from Corinth): no apparent community order with episkopos.
4. Later NT Period: "Early Catholicism," viz. single ruling bishops (Pastoral Epistles/AD 65 and afterward; Timothy and Titus to are told by Paul to ordain presbyters/bishops and e.g. "exhort with all authority" -Titus 2:15) with respect to Ephesus and Crete respectively.
5. Early writings including 1 Clement (c. 90 AD; Clement was directly appointed by the apostles) and the Didache (Teaching of the Twelve, variously dated 60-100AD -cf. subsequent redactions) also speak of two *local* offices (viz. (1) presbyter/bishop and (2) deacon). The Didache speaks of prophets and teachers as celebrants of the Eucharist, and only after them bishops and deacons.  Ignatius c. 110 AD did not address a bishop of all or of all Rome any more than Paul did. Only later would the local presbyter -as a distinct category from the bishop- and deacon be understood as local *prests* (not a mis-spelling) and deacons. A monarchical episcopate -only possible when the bishopric and eldership became dstinct entities- can be demonstrated for Rome only from around the middle of the second century; the lack of the same previously -as has already been seen above- is multiply attested in all earlier extant sources.
6. 142 AD: One Diocesan Bishop (proper) over other Bishops. The first single bishop presiding over the diocese of Rome was Pius I (142 - 155). That later official lists of early "popes" (an alternate term for bishop not originally exclusive to the bishop of Rome) actually presided only over a council of elders is the unanimous verdict of all major academic historians (including Roman Catholic historians).
7. 325 AD Metropolitan Bishop over Diocesan Bishops. Metropolitan bishops are first mentioned in the canons of the Council of Nicea. Bishops in the great cities tended to have more education and prestige; country bishops (called chorespicopi) were described as lacking education and more vulnerable to heretical ideas. The colloquial Greek pappa (from which our rendering "pope" derived) was from the beginning of the third century used for Eastern metropolitans, diocesan bishops, regular bishops, abbots, and eventually parish priest. The title of "pope" early on was used by several Metropolitan Bishops at once. Later in the West, after Old Rome had been conquered and ceased to be bilingual, the Greek pappa became more obscure to the Latin speakers in the West and fell into disuse outside of the immediate environment of Old Rome in the West. The term then became increasingly reserved for the bishop of Rome until this was made an official demand by Gregory VII in the later eleventh century. The term papacy (papatus) -designed to sharply demarcate the office of the Roman bishop from  all bishops also originated at the end of the eleventh century.

From a mainstream scholarly/historical perspective the "papacy" (itself a later term) was clearly and without controversy not even *at* much less "over" the level of Diocesan, Metropolitan, or Patriarch before those offices even existed historically. Now obviously one can disagree with mainstream historians, but it is intellectually dishonest to claim that mainstream historians would agree that the Roman Church has always held a similar position. Most internet apologetic discussions presuming a univocal concepts of "papacy," "pope," "papal primacy"  where later realities are presumed to apply to earlier realities reduce to obscurantist apologetic anachrononisms.

Has the Pope always really been the head of the whole church on earth with immediate jurisdiction everywhere, or is the Pope simply one of several man-made ranks, like other monarchical bishops, diocesan bishops, metropolitan bishops, and patriarchs, in the divinely instituted episcopate, the apostolic ministry? (To hold to the latter is not to hate the papacy or Western Catholicism, believe they’re graceless heretics and so on, which is where I think I and many/most Orthodox sharply part ways.)

How does the modern historical picture relate to Orthodoxy? Just fine. Cf. St. Justin argument that all developments of office beyond the local bishop are not divinely ordained or necessary to the Church although they are justifiably adopted for pragmatic reasons; this is essentially the same thing writers like Fr. Laurent Cleenwercke mean when they distinguish functional from ontological primacy in the Church. Universal primacy/supremacy of the Roman bishop by divine right and/or scriptural mandate is an anachronistic position which no major contemporary historian believes actually existed in the early Church -despite frequent claims of amateur apologists to the contrary.

Orthodox Christians rather than Roman Catholics are therefore more in tune with the picture presented by mainstream historians when they, as Fr. Schmemann observes, reject "...the understanding and practice of primacy as 'supreme power' and, therefore, to a universal bishop as source and foundation of jurisdiction in the whole ecclesiastical structure. The Orthodox Church has condemned this distortion in its pure and explicit Roman Catholic form." (Schmemann, The Primacy of Peter, p. 163)

As witega astutely observed in another thread "true sedevacantists are thoroughly Roman, in that they share the same distorted ecclesiology which is at the root of most of the difference between Orthodoxy and the Papacy--to whit, that the "Patriarchate of the West" (that is any honors or privileges possessed by the Bishop of Rome beyond those of any other diocesan bishop) is a integral part of the Apostolic Deposit rather than a historically contingent development with important practical but no doctrinal implications. The Apostolic portion of Church governance is the bishop ruling his local church, and meeting in council with other bishops to address those issues which affect more than the local church. Everything beyond that is a contingent development that is not necessary to the Faith. Some of those developments are broadly practical: the general organization of those local councils into permanent bodies along geo-political lines and the selection of one see to hold the chairmanship ('presiding') of those bodies. Some simply recognized the contemporary 'facts on the ground' (and then in a conservative organization, those recognitions ossified and remain long after their initial impetus has gone away): Rome, Alexandria and Antioch were the three most important cities in the Roman Empire, with the most people (both Christian and not), and therefore the most resources so they were from early on given greater deference and responsibility; Jerusalem, the city of our Lord's Passion and Ressurection, of the one Church founded by all of the Apostles, of the first martyrs was practically wiped out in 70AD and took a long time to recover, so when it finally did it was slotted in behind the first 3; Constantinople was set up as 'New Rome' so it was given the 'perogatives of honor after Rome'; the Russian Church grew larger than the ancient patriarchates and was backed by an Imperial power, so was made a Patriarchy itself."

The fact that the princip of the Papcy existed is all we need, the form or understanding of it can grow, and this is what matters.
This is Newman's concept of development; development is valid so long as it can be traced to a "seed" (cf. Aristotle, and more especially G. W. F. Hegel's paradigm of development from which Newman drew much of his inspiration). The problem is, as even Roman Catholic Cardinals have admitted, we do not always have even so much as a "seed" to point to.

The notion that the papacy in the form amateur Catholic apologists argue for goes back to the first centuries of Christianity is an anachronistic myth according to all major contemporary church historians. There is no trace of papal infallibility or even the germ of what developed into it according to Roman Catholic Cardinal/historian Yves Congar for over a thousand years. The notion that certain truths of morality may be arrived at by discursive reason apart from Roman Catholic faith, a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church, is not only unknown to the Undivided Church of the first millennium, it is met with almost universal denial of this alleged ability by philosophers who are not Roman Catholics with the paradoxical result that Roman Catholics today are virtually alone in defending it. Aquinas according to Jesuit philosopher Fr. Frederick Copleston was majorly controversial in his own day, but all that changed after a single proclamation after 1869. It has formed the "basis" for Magisterial ethical pronouncements that have been rejected even by the vast majority of practicing Roman Catholics themselves. The notion that we can see the essence of God in Beatific Vision, which no first millennium father ever taught, is Roman Catholic dogma, purgatory, original sin understood in an Augustinian manner and its corollary, an "immaculate conception," and so on.

i didnt talk about a change, only a growing.
Academic historians tend toward the view -echoed also by many Roman Catholic scholars- that there is not so much as a trace of papal infallibility in the entire first millennium of Christianity.

Dominican Cardinal Yyves Congar said there was not even a *germ* of what developed into papal infallibility until the 1200s. The notion seems to have originated first on the lips of "dissident Franciscans" (cf. Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, cited below)

Roman Catholic Fr. Hans Kung (note: dissenting, but from an purely historical perspective on this point) observes:
""[before the Orthodox/Latin Schism]The Eastern patriarchs and metropolitans certainly still regarded the pope as bishop of the old imperial capital and sole patriarch of the West. But as such he was first among equals. And this was not, say because of a special biblical promise or a legal authority. Of course, no one at that time, even in Rome would have thought that the bishops of Rome were infallible...

"Historical research, notably that of Yves Congar, has shown that down to the twelfth century, outside Rome, the significance of the Roman church was not understood as a real teaching authority in the legal sense (magisterium)... No one in the whole of the first millennium regarded decisions of the pope as infallible. But historical research has also shown that the popes, particularly from the fifth century on, decisively extended their power with explicit forgeries. The freely invented legend of the holy Pope Silvester comes from the fifth/sixth centuries. In the eighth century it led to a highly influential forgery, the Donation of Constantine (shown to be a forgery in the fifteenth century), according to which Constantine left Rome and the Western half of the empire to Pope Silvester, allowed him the imperial insignia and garments (purple) and a court to match; and bestowed on him the primacy over all other churches, especially Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. In fact Constantine had left him only the Lateran palace and the new basilicas of the Lateran and St. Peter's" Fr. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church: A Short History (2001), pp. 60-61.

Brian Tierney, Origins of Papal Infallibility, 1150-1350: A Study on the Concepts of Infallibility, Sovereignty and Tradition in the Middle Ages, affirms "There is no convincing evidence that papal infallibility formed any part of the theological or canonical tradition of the church before the thirteenth century; the doctrine was invented in the first place by a few dissident Franciscans because it suited their convenience to invent it; eventually, but only after much initial reluctance, it was accepted by the papacy because it suited the convenience of the popes to accept it" (p. 281).

cf. also Bernhard Hasler, (Roman Catholic priest) How the Pope Became Infallible: Pius IX and the Politics of Persuasion( (1981).

Vatican I had said it was a part of the faith of the Latin church from the beginning. The adamant denial that this is so by academic historians including Roman Catholic academics is sometimes explained theologically with reference to the paradigm of development defended by Cardinal John Henry Newman (cf. Hegelian dialectic) which became a prominent factor in Vatican II according to Pope John Paul who called it "Newman's Council." Arguments to the contrary notwithstanding it seems reasonable to suggest -if there is no trace of papal infallibility for a thousand years as many scholars argue- that the Latin church is susceptible to the same criticism Cardinal Newman in his Development of Christian Doctrine used to counter Protestantism:

"...this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: "So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'—Nay dead and buried—and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!—then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will,... and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless."

Catholic simply means universal. The opposite is particularistic theology -faith which is held by some but not universally, like faith in papal infallibility, of which there is not even the germ of what developed into the later idea in the entire first millennium of Christianity according to academic historian and Roman Catholic Cardinal Yves Congar, the general consensus of major academic historians, and the Orthodox Church.

Orthodox Christians affirm the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and so do Roman Catholics, these beliefs are "universal/catholic,"

Roman Catholics have 21 Councils -fourteen beyond our seven. These do not reflect universal or historic Christian belief at many points and therefore are not "catholic" in the original sense of the word "universal" -from our point of view. There are a number of dogmas of Latin Catholicism which are not shared by the Orthodox Church, like propitiation in soteriology, storehouses of merit, sin as demerit which has to be "paid back," purgatory as a paying off of one's sins, indulgences, and so on. These from our perspective are not "universal" beliefs of the one holy catholic and apostolic Church (these are just examples, not meant to be comprehensive, and of course there will be different "slants" on all of these things ad infinitum).

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 12:16:35 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,269


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #68 on: March 14, 2012, 01:35:14 PM »

On an additional note I have always found it bizarre when amateur Roman Catholic apologists appeal to Pope St. Leo's role in the proceedings of Constantinople I as supporting the notion that the pope was ever the universal head of all Christendom by divine right.

The very opposite is evident at this Ecumenical Council!! Chalcedon was a "bitter defeat" for Pope Leo. His legates were sent away *rejected* and primacy was *removed* from old Rome by that Ecumenical Council:

"In the same year, 451, Leo suffered a bitter defeat at the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon, at which the crucial issue of the relationship between divine and the human in Christ was defined; his three legates were flatly refused the precedence which they claimed. Despite his explicit prohibition, the letter which Leo had sent on the issue was first of all checked by the council to see if it met the norms of orthodoxy, and only then did his christological formula meet with approval. Not only was he not accorded any privileges over the whole church, but the church status of a city was made dependent on its civil status. Consequently the see of New Rome [Constantinople] was given the same primacy as the old imperial capital. The protest of the Roman legates rang out unheard at this great council with its six hundred members, as did Leo's protest afterward. But his delay of two years in recognizing the council helped only its opponents in Palestine and Egypt, from among whom the non-Chalcedonian churches emerged: the monophysite Coptic Church in Egypt, the Nestorian Church in Syria, and the Armenian and Georgian Churches. They still exist today" (Kung, The Catholic Church: A Concise History, pp. 58-59).

The clear, decisive, and "catholic"/universal sentiment among those present at the Council of Chalcedon I concerning primacy (as reflected in Canon 28) was to *transfer* primacy (which was an expediency in the first place rather than a divine right) to the new capital of Rome rather than keeping it in the ruins of the old capital city whose population had dwindled to a fraction of what it was before.

Quote from: Council of Chalcedon Canon 28
The fathers in fact have correctly attributed the prerogatives to the see of the most ancient Rome because it was the imperial city. And thus moved by the same reasoning, [we] have accorded equal prerogatives to the very holy see of New Rome, justly considering that the city is honored by the imperial power and the senate and enjoying the prerogatives equal to those of old Rome, the most ancient imperial city, ought to be elevated as Old Rome in the affairs of the Church, being in the second place after it.    -Council of Chalcedon, Canon 28 (AD 451)

The new capital of the Roman Empire was quite naturally given primacy at that time. Primacy was never regarded as a divine right or a dogma, but an expediency. It is still not considered a dogma in the Christian East to this day. This is no late "schismatic" sentiment!
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 02:03:35 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #69 on: March 14, 2012, 02:27:53 PM »

On an additional note I have always found it bizarre when amateur Roman Catholic apologists appeal to Pope St. Leo's role in the proceedings of Constantinople I

Yes, that's quite bizarre. Wink
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #70 on: March 14, 2012, 02:40:07 PM »

Quote
The clear, decisive, and "catholic"/universal sentiment among those present at the Council of Chalcedon I concerning primacy (as reflected in Canon 28) was to *transfer* primacy (which was an expediency in the first place rather than a divine right) to the new capital of Rome rather than keeping it in the ruins of the old capital city whose population had dwindled to a fraction of what it was before.

Is this because of this transfer that st Gregory the Great could say this later on:

""For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? ""
Book IX, Letter 12 http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm

For Pope vigilius:

"The all-important circumstance should be added that the pope so acted under pressure of a very cruel coercion, which at once deprives his action of any claim to be considered ex cathedra"
http://www.catholicity.com/encyclopedia/i/infallibility.html

It was about Liberius, but the same is true about Pope Vigilius. So if it was not ex cathedra, it does not refute Papal infailiability.

Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #71 on: March 14, 2012, 02:51:47 PM »

Quote
This is Newman's concept of development; development is valid so long as it can be traced to a "seed" (cf. Aristotle, and more especially G. W. F. Hegel's paradigm of development from which Newman drew much of his inspiration). The problem is, as even Roman Catholic Cardinals have admitted, we do not always have even so much as a "seed" to point to.

Some scholars say this, some say something else... Yves congar is not a good example, he was not trustworthy in the eyes of Pie XII, and became cardinal because of oecumenism. So i would not take his word on it. Just like when Dvornik, who made an amazing work for the historical truth about st photius, was wrong about the abrogation of the 8th oecumenical council of 869/870, because of oecumenism. So let's not mix everything, please!

Quote
Orthodox Christians affirm the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and so do Roman Catholics, these beliefs are "universal/catholic,"

The truth is that you dont even know how many oecumenical councils you have:

http://orthodoxnorthwest.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/e-p-announces-long-awaited-8th-council-to-be-held-in-portland/
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx
http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2010/03/concerns-about-8th-ecumenical-council.html

But wait, i thought the 8th oecumenical council was in 879-880 with alleged abrogation of the one in 869-870 by John VIII lol.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 02:53:08 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #72 on: March 14, 2012, 02:57:21 PM »

Quote
All you've produced are some individual opinions


To see what the Tradition was you need to look at the individual opinios of the fathers and the saints, so that is not a good reply.

Quote
You might want to check your definitions - growing is change.

A change in the form. Just like palamite doctrine is a development, but there you accept it...

Quote
"Palamite doctrine" is no more a 'development' than Nicea's doctrine that Christ and the Father are one. St. Gregory had 3 key points: 1) God is and does, 2) God is unknowable in His Essence, and 3) God is knowable in His acts. His great work was to demonstrate that these 3 points were not a development but part of the Apostolic doctrine whereas his opponents' rejection of one or more of these points was a rejection of Apostolic doctrine--and therefore to be condemned as heresy.

It was not only that, but i'll refer to the work of Martin Jugie on this issue:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/martin-jugie-the-palamite-controversy/

Quote
If I as an individual 'grow in knowledge' between when I am 10 and when I am 30, then my 30 year old self knows more than my 10 year-old self. If I don't know more than my 10-year self then it would be incorrect to say that I have 'grown'. If the Church has 'grown in knowledge' between the Apostolic age and the present, then Christians in the present day know more than the Christians in the Apostolic age, ipso facto. When it comes to worldly matters like physical science or geography, that is true--but Orthodoxy strongly rejects any claim that modern Christians know more about the essentials of salvation than the Apostles.


Well the CHurch is not only composed of the Apostles. But anyway, you dont claim to know more but you believe things that were not explicitly taught by the Apostles. So it means that what was implicitly known at their time can be explicit at ours. As such, eastern ortodox may deny development for polemical reasons, but the fact is that their praxis proves it.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 03:03:41 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #73 on: March 14, 2012, 04:26:19 PM »

Quote
All you've produced are some individual opinions


To see what the Tradition was you need to look at the individual opinios of the fathers and the saints, so that is not a good reply.

When you edit out the rest of the sentence about individual opinions "which were generally dismissed (summarily, as not even worth discussing) by councils."  Of course, that's a completely dishonest way of dealing with what I said.

But for the record, to see what the Tradition is, you first look to what the Fathers have decided in council. And only if there has been no conciliar determination do you need to turn to individual Fathers' opinions (and actions--I notice you still don't have an example of anyone bowing to the supposed 'princips' of the Papacy).


Quote
Quote
You might want to check your definitions - growing is change.

A change in the form. Just like palamite doctrine is a development, but there you accept it...

Quote
"Palamite doctrine" is no more a 'development' than Nicea's doctrine that Christ and the Father are one. St. Gregory had 3 key points: 1) God is and does, 2) God is unknowable in His Essence, and 3) God is knowable in His acts. His great work was to demonstrate that these 3 points were not a development but part of the Apostolic doctrine whereas his opponents' rejection of one or more of these points was a rejection of Apostolic doctrine--and therefore to be condemned as heresy.

It was not only that, but i'll refer to the work of Martin Jugie on this issue:

http://bekkos.wordpress.com/martin-jugie-the-palamite-controversy/

And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.

Quote
Quote
If I as an individual 'grow in knowledge' between when I am 10 and when I am 30, then my 30 year old self knows more than my 10 year-old self. If I don't know more than my 10-year self then it would be incorrect to say that I have 'grown'. If the Church has 'grown in knowledge' between the Apostolic age and the present, then Christians in the present day know more than the Christians in the Apostolic age, ipso facto. When it comes to worldly matters like physical science or geography, that is true--but Orthodoxy strongly rejects any claim that modern Christians know more about the essentials of salvation than the Apostles.


Well the CHurch is not only composed of the Apostles. But anyway, you dont claim to know more but you believe things that were not explicitly taught by the Apostles. So it means that what was implicitly known at their time can be explicit at ours. As such, eastern ortodox may deny development for polemical reasons, but the fact is that their praxis proves it.

Unless you can demonstrate that Orthodoxy believes anything as Dogma that was not believed by the Apostles--and I mean actually demonstrate, not just claim that St. Palamas innovated something which only demonstrates your ignorance of St. Palamas actual teaching--then the above paragraph is simply so much false nonsense.
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #74 on: March 14, 2012, 05:25:14 PM »

Quote
You might want to check your definitions - growing is change.

A change in the form. Just like palamite doctrine is a development, but there you accept it...


Quote
If I as an individual 'grow in knowledge' between when I am 10 and when I am 30, then my 30 year old self knows more than my 10 year-old self. If I don't know more than my 10-year self then it would be incorrect to say that I have 'grown'. If the Church has 'grown in knowledge' between the Apostolic age and the present, then Christians in the present day know more than the Christians in the Apostolic age, ipso facto. When it comes to worldly matters like physical science or geography, that is true--but Orthodoxy strongly rejects any claim that modern Christians know more about the essentials of salvation than the Apostles.


Well the CHurch is not only composed of the Apostles. But anyway, you dont claim to know more but you believe things that were not explicitly taught by the Apostles. So it means that what was implicitly known at their time can be explicit at ours. As such, eastern ortodox may deny development for polemical reasons, but the fact is that their praxis proves it.
As I point out, you all can't distinguish between growing to adulthood and undergoing a sex change operation, because both are "change."
Finally, how does this relate to the Roman Catholic concept of doctrinal development? This really sounds like "development" to me if not innovation.
Let's go further back (I've dealt with this before):
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.
Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.  Wink

Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #75 on: March 14, 2012, 05:25:14 PM »

Quote
This is Newman's concept of development; development is valid so long as it can be traced to a "seed" (cf. Aristotle, and more especially G. W. F. Hegel's paradigm of development from which Newman drew much of his inspiration). The problem is, as even Roman Catholic Cardinals have admitted, we do not always have even so much as a "seed" to point to.

Some scholars say this, some say something else... Yves congar is not a good example, he was not trustworthy in the eyes of Pie XII, and became cardinal because of oecumenism. So i would not take his word on it. Just like when Dvornik, who made an amazing work for the historical truth about st photius, was wrong about the abrogation of the 8th oecumenical council of 869/870, because of oecumenism. So let's not mix everything, please!
So let's dispense with your excuse via accusation of "ecumenism."  Dvornik said and proved what he said and proved.

Quote
Orthodox Christians affirm the first seven Ecumenical Councils, and so do Roman Catholics, these beliefs are "universal/catholic,"

The truth is that you dont even know how many oecumenical councils you have:

http://orthodoxnorthwest.wordpress.com/2011/04/01/e-p-announces-long-awaited-8th-council-to-be-held-in-portland/
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/towards.aspx
http://news-nftu.blogspot.com/2010/03/concerns-about-8th-ecumenical-council.html

But wait, i thought the 8th oecumenical council was in 879-880 with alleged abrogation of the one in 869-870 by John VIII lol.
Trying to create problems when none exist.  EVERY Orthodox who does NOT believe the Fourth Constantinople Council is ecumenical BELIEVES what it teaches.  Without exception.  So too with the Palamite Councils.

In contrast, your Vatican is confused about when the Second Ecumenical Council was Ecumenical, changed its mind on Fourth Constantinople, repudiated its council of Pisa by its council of Constance, simultaneously accepts the authority of its council of Constance while repudiating that council's statement of its authority (Haec Sancta Synodus) and covering up the council of siena Constance (and its pope) called, dances around its council of Basel will deriving its council of Florence from it.

Quite a heap of logs you have there. Excuse me as I rub my eye.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #76 on: March 14, 2012, 06:34:51 PM »

Quote
So let's dispense with your excuse via accusation of "ecumenism."  Dvornik said and proved what he said and proved.

And Father Grumel refuted him on this point, so what i said stands.
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/grumel-on-dvornik/

Quote
EVERY Orthodox who does NOT believe the Fourth Constantinople Council is ecumenical BELIEVES what it teaches.  Without exception.  So too with the Palamite Councils.

You beg the question. Is it oecumenical council or not?

Quote
changed its mind on Fourth Constantinople

No, Father Grumel refuted that claim.


Quote
As I point out, you all can't distinguish between growing to adulthood and undergoing a sex change operation, because both are "change."

Well, this can apply to your Church as well, so i dont get your point.

Quote
But for the record, to see what the Tradition is, you first look to what the Fathers have decided in council.


What makes a council oecumenical?

Quote
and actions--I notice you still don't have an example of anyone bowing to the supposed 'princips' of the Papacy

What are those princips to you?

"And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.
"

I rely on scholar works just as you did, i dont see why you get upset.

"Unless you can demonstrate that Orthodoxy believes anything as Dogma that was not believed by the Apostles--and I mean actually demonstrate, not just claim that St. Palamas innovated something which only demonstrates your ignorance of St. Palamas actual teaching--then the above paragraph is simply so much false nonsense"

THis is not what i said. What i say is that you believe things that apostles didn't preach explicitly. Like about the Theotokos, or about hypostatic union etc. It was not explicit in the apostles teachings. Or the Canon of scriptures, with the denying by many early Fathers of the inspiration of the book of Revelation.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2012, 06:37:14 PM by Montenero1439 » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,426


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #77 on: March 14, 2012, 09:43:22 PM »

I am completely lost on this conversation...

...just wondering, why is it that the Supremacy of Rome carry such a dogmatic importance with the Latin Church?  Isn't it just one type of ecclesiology that affirm one bishop for the Church?  Why not make it a theologomenoun?  It has always been the ecclesiology of choice for the West, whereas the East also had different opinions from the very beginning.  Therefore, while we continue the quote mining, one has to acknowledge that from the very beginning of the Church, two different ecclesiologies were at practice here (and that's not including the structure of organization of churches outside the Roman Empire).
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #78 on: March 14, 2012, 09:57:33 PM »

So let's dispense with your excuse via accusation of "ecumenism."  Dvornik said and proved what he said and proved.
And Father Grumel refuted him on this point, so what i said stands.
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/grumel-on-dvornik/
Not from what you linked he hasn't, and so you fall with it.

Left hanging are several issues, the way Rome tried to ram through the Formula of Hormisdas, again, for instance.  And how Fr. Grumel likes to sweep under the rug the centuries of silence of the 869 council in the West, while Rome still tried to press its claims on Bulgaria, and other instances with reference to the voided council, e.g.
Quote
In Constantinople, the patriarch Photius had been ejected and Stephen, the son of Emperor Basilius, elevated to the patriarchate. Archbishop Stylian of Neo-Cæsarea and the clerical opponents of Photius had written to Stephen V, requesting dispensation and confirmation for those clerics who had recognized Photius only under compulsion and had received orders at his hands. In his reply to this petition (892) Formosus insisted on a distinction of persons; indulgence might be readily shown in the case of the laity, but in the case of clerics such a course was attended with difficulties; the rule must be the sentence of the Eighth General Council (Can. iv), viz, that Photius neither had been nor was a bishop, and all clerics ordained or appointed by him must resign their office; the papal legates, Landulf and Romanus, were to consult with Stylian and Theophylactus of Ancyra on the matter. In this instance, Formosus only corroborated the decisions of his predecessors, Nicholas I and Hadrian II.
Nihil Obstat. September 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06139b.htm
The importance of both, of course, underlined by your supreme pontiff trying to pass off poof-texts derived therefrom in Pastor Aeternus.  This, given the fragmentary record of the voided council, pieced together from dusty anti-Photian pamphlets, dusted off.  It seems Rome had quite forgotten the council it now claims as ecumenical and "of everlasting memory." 

EVERY Orthodox who does NOT believe the Fourth Constantinople Council is ecumenical BELIEVES what it teaches.  Without exception.  So too with the Palamite Councils.
You beg the question. Is it oecumenical council or not?
I'm not begging any question:I'm telling you straight out that there is no question. EVERY Orthodox believes what the Fourth and Fifth Councils of Constantinople taught. Without exception.

It is an interesting question, though, since Rome was in communion with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church in 879, and the reference in, for instance the office of reception of converts, to the Seven Ecumenical Councils, where do people get the goofy idea that we can't hold an Ecumenical Council because the Vatican is not in communion?  We are, however, in communion with Rome


changed its mind on Fourth Constantinople
No, Father Grumel refuted that claim.
No, he asserted he refuted it.  Like you.  The record of the record of the council in the West shows differently.

As I point out, you all can't distinguish between growing to adulthood and undergoing a sex change operation, because both are "change."
Well, this can apply to your Church as well, so i dont get your point.
No, we can distinguish between the growth of tissue and the growth of a tumor, between puberty and sex reassignment.

But for the record, to see what the Tradition is, you first look to what the Fathers have decided in council.

What makes a council oecumenical?
Recognition by the Church, sealed by the Spirit living in her.  That is how ever single one has been recognized.

and actions--I notice you still don't have an example of anyone bowing to the supposed 'princips' of the Papacy
What are those princips to you?
Nothing. That's what he told you.

"And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.
I rely on scholar works just as you did, i dont see why you get upset.
We rely on St. Gregory's own words as well, which you seem not to have seen.

Unless you can demonstrate that Orthodoxy believes anything as Dogma that was not believed by the Apostles--and I mean actually demonstrate, not just claim that St. Palamas innovated something which only demonstrates your ignorance of St. Palamas actual teaching--then the above paragraph is simply so much false nonsense
THis is not what i said. What i say is that you believe things that apostles didn't preach explicitly. Like about the Theotokos
Galatians 4:4.  We believe an Apostle wrote that.

or about hypostatic union etc.
John 1:14.  We believe an Apostle wrote that as well.

It was not explicit in the apostles teachings. Or the Canon of scriptures, with the denying by many early Fathers of the inspiration of the book of Revelation.
And yet is it there, written in the days of the Apostles and preserved by the Church to our days.  Now the secrets of Fatima...
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
witega
Is it enough now, to tell you you matter?
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South
Posts: 1,614


« Reply #79 on: March 14, 2012, 10:14:19 PM »

Quote
"And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.
"

I rely on scholar works just as you did, i dont see why you get upset.

fixed your quotes

I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. You referred me to a "Catholic controversialist" (description at your link). I referred you to the words of the saint himself. The two aren't even vaguely equivalent. It's as if I made some false claim about Pastor Aeternus and when a Latin pointed out my error, I said 'no, no, don't read the actual text go see what Jack Chick said about it.'
Logged

Ariel Starling - New album

For it were better to suffer everything, rather than divide the Church of God. Even martyrdom for the sake of preventing division would not be less glorious than for refusing to worship idols. - St. Dionysius the Great
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #80 on: March 14, 2012, 11:26:57 PM »

Quote
When news of Vigilius' condemnation of the Three Chapters reached the West, the bishops of Aquileia, Liguria, Aemilia, Milan and of the Istrian Peninsula all went into schism from the infallible Roman Pontiff, believing that he had betrayed the faith of Chalcedon, as if they believed that he wasn't infallible on matters of faith or something. How odd.

Just like arian, anti chalcedonian, or nestorian bishops didnt agree with the true faith, but it does not refute the existence of the Papacy, of the nicean faith, or the 2 natures of Christ.

And before that; Theodoret of Cyruss 449 [Letter 116 to the Presbyter Renatus in PG 83:1324D-1325A]:

Wherefore, I beseech your sanctity, persuade the very sacred and holy archbishop [Leo of Rome] to bid me hasten to your council. For that Holy See has precedence over all churches in the world, for many reasons; and above all for this, that it is free from all taint of heresy, and that no bishop of heterodox opinion has ever sat upon its throne, but it has kept the grace of the Apostles undefiled.
Odd that you quote a bishop condemned for his Nestorian views by an Ecumenical Council, whom the Council of Chalcedon had to force to anathematize Nestorianism, moreover in the very letter said bishop wrote when he had been deposed for his Nestorian views and was trying to cajole allies to restore him to his see.  Given that Rome was the only see not involved in his deposition, it is not surprising that he would claim its bishop, with whom he was currying favor to his own purposes, would play up its precedence.  He didn't say supremacy, though.  And given that he didn't think Theodore of Mopsuestia's ideas-already condemned by St. EP Proclus of New Rome and later confirmed by Ecumenical Council-were heretical, of what value is his assertion that "above all" "the Holy See...is free from all taint of heresy"?
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #81 on: March 15, 2012, 01:09:26 AM »

I am completely lost on this conversation...

...just wondering, why is it that the Supremacy of Rome carry such a dogmatic importance with the Latin Church?  Isn't it just one type of ecclesiology that affirm one bishop for the Church?  Why not make it a theologomenoun?  It has always been the ecclesiology of choice for the West, whereas the East also had different opinions from the very beginning.  Therefore, while we continue the quote mining, one has to acknowledge that from the very beginning of the Church, two different ecclesiologies were at practice here (and that's not including the structure of organization of churches outside the Roman Empire).
Not from the beginning.  The ecclesiastical practice of Rome was very similar to that of Alexandria (except that Alexandria was even more centralized in the pope, diocesan bishops arising quite late there), and New Rome later (Antioch was different).  It did not coagulate into a different ecclesiology until far later, in the 9th century, though Rome had tried asserting it centuries earlier, but repeatedly backed down.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #82 on: March 15, 2012, 04:13:51 AM »

Quote
"And I'll refer you to the actual writings of St. Gregory--a decent selection in English can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Gregory-Palamas-Classics-Western-Spirituality/dp/0809124475/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1331755608&sr=1-1 As your own link mentions, if it's a matter of 'dueling scholars', Meyendorff disputed nearly every conclusion Jungie drew. But you don't have to rely on secondary sources. Go to the primary source and find a single contention that St. Gregory did not demonstrate was solidly grounded in the Scriptures and Fathers.

Until you've done that, you need to stop your hearsay-based calumny of St. Gregory.
"

I rely on scholar works just as you did, i dont see why you get upset.

fixed your quotes

I have no idea what you are talking about at this point. You referred me to a "Catholic controversialist" (description at your link). I referred you to the words of the saint himself. The two aren't even vaguely equivalent. It's as if I made some false claim about Pastor Aeternus and when a Latin pointed out my error, I said 'no, no, don't read the actual text go see what Jack Chick said about it.'



Well, Martin Jugie is not only a controversialist, he is a great scholar. And he made the job, so i point to his works.

Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #83 on: March 15, 2012, 04:15:10 AM »

Quote
He didn't say supremacy, though.

It is implied, so that is enough.
Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #84 on: March 15, 2012, 04:19:43 AM »

Quote
Not from what you linked he hasn't, and so you fall with it.

LOL.

The third and most important question is that which concerns the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Dvornik thinks he can prove that it was abrogated by John VIII. To this end, he makes use of documents transmitted by Yves of Chartres, not taking account of the fact that these fragments originated at the Photian council where the papal documents had been altered. He makes use also of the Western juridical tradition according to which the ecumenicity of this council did not appear until the end of the eleventh century. One should not forget that this council of 869, which produced no definition of faith, was convened solely to decide on matters relating to persons and that, after the Photian question had been settled at the council of 879, there was no reason to bring it up again, and the peace of the Church demanded that it not be. But between this and an abrogation there is quite a stretch. Furthermore, the complete letter from Pope Stephen I to Emperor Basil I (which we presented at the International Congresses of Byzantine Studies of Paris and of Bruxelles) shows clearly that no pope, up to Stephen’s time, had annulled the acts of the Eighth Council.
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/grumel-on-dvornik/

http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/879-880-constantinople-robber-council/
3. Pope John VIII of Rome of pious memory (872-882) did not annul the Council of 869-870. Daniel Stiernon [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 180] points out that nowhere does Pope John VIII, in his genuine (i.e., unmodified) letters, abrogate the 869-870 Council, and he cites [n. 148] Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A., “Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius,” in Echos d’Orient, XXXIX (1940), 138-156. Stiernon also stresses [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 176] that in the pope’s genuine letter to Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian [MGH, Epist., VII, 169), Pope John VIII cites canon 68 of the 419 local Council of Carthage [Mansi III:771E], which reads:


not that the Council which met about this matter in foreign parts should be done away, but that it may remain in force with regard to those who so will to come over to the Catholic Church that there be procured by them no breaking of unity… there shall not be objected to them the decree contrary to their honor adopted by a foreign council, for salvation is shut off to no one, that is to say, that those ordained by the Donatist party, if having been corrected they have been willing to return to the Catholic Church, are not to be received in their grades, according to the foreign council; but they are to be excepted through whom they received the advice to return to Catholic unity.”

4. Moreover, the letter of Pope Stephen V of pious memory (885-891) to Emperor Basil I in 885 or 886 proves that no pope annulled the 869-870 Council, since Photius, who nonetheless died in the odor of sanctity, was still, at the time, trying to have the former council abrogated. See Fr. Grumel’s “La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l’empereur Basile Ier” on pp. 129-136 of the 1953 edition of Revue de etudes byzantines; the letter, according to p. 137, is from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 1117, 326v-328v. Fr. Dvornik of pious memory did not address this even in the 1970 edition of his monumental work, The Photian Schism
Logged
Montenero1439
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 32


« Reply #85 on: March 15, 2012, 04:30:49 AM »

Quote
I'm not begging any question:I'm telling you straight out that there is no question. EVERY Orthodox believes what the Fourth and Fifth Councils of Constantinople taught. Without exception.

I'm not asking if you believe it or not. I'm asking you is it an oecumenical council or no?

Quote
No, we can distinguish between the growth of tissue and the growth of a tumor, between puberty and sex reassignment.
Well this is just your claim and your personal distinction.

Quote
Recognition by the Church, sealed by the Spirit living in her.  That is how ever single one has been recognized.
By the whole Church? And if parts of the Church dont recognize it?

Quote
Nothing. That's what he told you.
The Papacy has no definition nor princips? Lol.

Quote
We rely on St. Gregory's own words as well, which you seem not to have seen.

Jugie did, just read his work.

Quote
Galatians 4:4.  We believe an Apostle wrote that.

I dont see where galatians 4:4 teaches explicitly your hymns about the Theotokos. It is implicit.

Quote
John 1:14.  We believe an Apostle wrote that as well.

Where do you see the words hyspostatic union here?


Quote
And yet is it there, written in the days of the Apostles and preserved by the Church to our days.  


Wich proves that polemics or denying by some does not prove it is not apostolic nor true. Thank you Smiley
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 04:32:35 AM by Montenero1439 » Logged
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Section Moderator
Merarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,426


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #86 on: March 15, 2012, 10:22:33 AM »

I am completely lost on this conversation...

...just wondering, why is it that the Supremacy of Rome carry such a dogmatic importance with the Latin Church?  Isn't it just one type of ecclesiology that affirm one bishop for the Church?  Why not make it a theologomenoun?  It has always been the ecclesiology of choice for the West, whereas the East also had different opinions from the very beginning.  Therefore, while we continue the quote mining, one has to acknowledge that from the very beginning of the Church, two different ecclesiologies were at practice here (and that's not including the structure of organization of churches outside the Roman Empire).
Not from the beginning.  The ecclesiastical practice of Rome was very similar to that of Alexandria (except that Alexandria was even more centralized in the pope, diocesan bishops arising quite late there), and New Rome later (Antioch was different).  It did not coagulate into a different ecclesiology until far later, in the 9th century, though Rome had tried asserting it centuries earlier, but repeatedly backed down.

Well if we entertain the thought, one can still show that Latin ecclesiology was for the Latins, and had no bearing on the Eastern Church, neither should it have dogmatic significance, since it ultimately makes no difference to the essential Orthodox faith.  I remember also in a past thread an eye-opening understanding of different translations of conciliar minutes, where the Latin translation showed a sense of Roman papal supremacy, whereas te Greek translation showed a more conciliar supremacy with Roman papal respect and veneration.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Marc1152
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Rocor
Posts: 12,535


Probiotic .. Antibiotic


« Reply #87 on: March 15, 2012, 10:30:21 AM »

I'd like to see the heavy swingers on CA come here for a debate-off...

Yes.

Perhaps you should go over there and extend an invitation  angel.

Can't many of us were banned from there.
Logged

Your idea has been debunked 1000 times already.. Maybe 1001 will be the charm
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


Lord, have mercy! I live under a rock. Alleluia!


« Reply #88 on: March 15, 2012, 10:44:48 AM »

I'd like to see the heavy swingers on CA come here for a debate-off...

Yes.

Perhaps you should go over there and extend an invitation  angel.

Can't many of us were banned from there.

Was Aindriu?  The suggestion was for him, although the English language being what it is, I can understand your confusing the singular "you" with the plural "you" in this instance  Wink.  Besides, "many" doesn't mean, in this case, "all"--I'm sure there are others here who could go there and extend the invitation.  I could, for instance, but have no such inclination--though I might be persuaded, but I don't know how   Wink.  I'm not even sure in which section one would offer it.
Logged

"May Thy Cross, O Lord, in which I seek refuge, be for me a bridge across the great river of fire.  May I pass along it to the habitation of life." ~St. Ephraim the Syrian
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,657


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #89 on: March 15, 2012, 12:09:40 PM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2012, 12:10:13 PM by ZealousZeal » Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #90 on: March 15, 2012, 12:38:03 PM »

When I have time, I'll respond fully.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,534



« Reply #91 on: March 15, 2012, 03:00:55 PM »

Quote
Not from what you linked he hasn't, and so you fall with it.

LOL.

The third and most important question is that which concerns the Eighth Ecumenical Council. Dvornik thinks he can prove that it was abrogated by John VIII. To this end, he makes use of documents transmitted by Yves of Chartres, not taking account of the fact that these fragments originated at the Photian council where the papal documents had been altered. He makes use also of the Western juridical tradition according to which the ecumenicity of this council did not appear until the end of the eleventh century. One should not forget that this council of 869, which produced no definition of faith, was convened solely to decide on matters relating to persons and that, after the Photian question had been settled at the council of 879, there was no reason to bring it up again, and the peace of the Church demanded that it not be. But between this and an abrogation there is quite a stretch. Furthermore, the complete letter from Pope Stephen I to Emperor Basil I (which we presented at the International Congresses of Byzantine Studies of Paris and of Bruxelles) shows clearly that no pope, up to Stephen’s time, had annulled the acts of the Eighth Council.
http://bekkos.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/grumel-on-dvornik/

http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/879-880-constantinople-robber-council/
3. Pope John VIII of Rome of pious memory (872-882) did not annul the Council of 869-870. Daniel Stiernon [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 180] points out that nowhere does Pope John VIII, in his genuine (i.e., unmodified) letters, abrogate the 869-870 Council, and he cites [n. 148] Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A., “Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius,” in Echos d’Orient, XXXIX (1940), 138-156. Stiernon also stresses [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 176] that in the pope’s genuine letter to Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian [MGH, Epist., VII, 169), Pope John VIII cites canon 68 of the 419 local Council of Carthage [Mansi III:771E], which reads:


not that the Council which met about this matter in foreign parts should be done away, but that it may remain in force with regard to those who so will to come over to the Catholic Church that there be procured by them no breaking of unity… there shall not be objected to them the decree contrary to their honor adopted by a foreign council, for salvation is shut off to no one, that is to say, that those ordained by the Donatist party, if having been corrected they have been willing to return to the Catholic Church, are not to be received in their grades, according to the foreign council; but they are to be excepted through whom they received the advice to return to Catholic unity.”

4. Moreover, the letter of Pope Stephen V of pious memory (885-891) to Emperor Basil I in 885 or 886 proves that no pope annulled the 869-870 Council, since Photius, who nonetheless died in the odor of sanctity, was still, at the time, trying to have the former council abrogated. See Fr. Grumel’s “La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l’empereur Basile Ier” on pp. 129-136 of the 1953 edition of Revue de etudes byzantines; the letter, according to p. 137, is from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 1117, 326v-328v. Fr. Dvornik of pious memory did not address this even in the 1970 edition of his monumental work, The Photian Schism


Dvornik in fact did take the editing of pope John's letters into account. He explains in Byzantium and the Roman Primacy that they were edited with the consent of the legates.

I'd like to see this letter which "proves" that Photius was trying to have the 870 council annulled in 885. Unfortunately, your sorry little source seems not to have included any quotation from it.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #92 on: March 15, 2012, 04:38:21 PM »

I'd like to see the heavy swingers on CA come here for a debate-off...

Too much advantage, your dojo.
- Mr. Miyagi
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #93 on: March 15, 2012, 07:39:57 PM »


He didn't say supremacy, though.
It is implied, so that is enough.
He came right out and said Theodore of Mopsuestia, condemned as a heretic by the Church in Ecumenical Council, was "the great teacher of Orthodoxy."  That enough for you?

The Fathers of the Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius.  THAT is enough.

But you go on ahead and depend on the words of deposed heretics.
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #94 on: March 15, 2012, 09:23:48 PM »

http://thebananarepublican1.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/879-880-constantinople-robber-council/
3. Pope John VIII of Rome of pious memory (872-882) did not annul the Council of 869-870. Daniel Stiernon [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 180] points out that nowhere does Pope John VIII, in his genuine (i.e., unmodified) letters, abrogate the 869-870 Council, and he cites [n. 148] Fr. Venance Grumel, A.A., “Les lettres de Jean VIII pour le rétablissement de Photius,” in Echos d’Orient, XXXIX (1940), 138-156. Stiernon also stresses [Autour de Constantinople IV (869-870), p. 176] that in the pope’s genuine letter to Byzantine Emperor Basil I the Macedonian [MGH, Epist., VII, 169), Pope John VIII cites canon 68 of the 419 local Council of Carthage [Mansi III:771E], which reads:


not that the Council which met about this matter in foreign parts should be done away, but that it may remain in force with regard to those who so will to come over to the Catholic Church that there be procured by them no breaking of unity… there shall not be objected to them the decree contrary to their honor adopted by a foreign council, for salvation is shut off to no one, that is to say, that those ordained by the Donatist party, if having been corrected they have been willing to return to the Catholic Church, are not to be received in their grades, according to the foreign council; but they are to be excepted through whom they received the advice to return to Catholic unity.”

4. Moreover, the letter of Pope Stephen V of pious memory (885-891) to Emperor Basil I in 885 or 886 proves that no pope annulled the 869-870 Council, since Photius, who nonetheless died in the odor of sanctity, was still, at the time, trying to have the former council abrogated. See Fr. Grumel’s “La Lettre du Pape Étienne V a l’empereur Basile Ier” on pp. 129-136 of the 1953 edition of Revue de etudes byzantines; the letter, according to p. 137, is from the manuscript Sinaiticus gr. 1117, 326v-328v. Fr. Dvornik of pious memory did not address this even in the 1970 edition of his monumental work, The Photian Schism

[/quote]
Ah, yes, the Banana Republic, that monument of misinformation.  Its listing of the Catholic Metropolitans of Kiev is very amuzing.

On the mss. it refers to
Quote
Quote
The Vetus Synodicon is an anonymous work listing all the councils of the church up to 887 AD, and so presumably written soon after.  Each council is covered by a single chapter.  The author has digested material from the Ecclesiastical Histories of Eusebius, Socrates, etc.  However the compiler adds small details not recorded by these historians -- the number of bishops attending synods, etc -- which the editors suggest he invented himself.  Some of the synods are doubtful or imaginary. "In his zeal ... the writer was anything but a careful researcher, and although in places his sources or copyists may be at fault, he himself must be held responsible for most of those numerous errors which in the past have prevented scholars from treating the SV as a historical document above suspicion." (Duffy p. xv)
Codex Sinaiticus Graecus 482 (1117). paper, 372 folios.   Belongs to group b.

A large MS by various hands whose first half is occupied by the nomocanon, the collection of canons, and the commentaries of Theodore Balsamon, while the second contains a miscellany of texts including imperial novellae, canonical and synodical decisions, patriarchal letters, and three treatises on synods: Germanus, De haeresibus et synodis (257V-264V); an anonymous description of ecumenical and selected local councils (311r-324v); SV, all 166 chapters (357v-365r). The section of the MS from 340r to 372V was badly damaged by moisture, and a later hand went over many of the affected parts in an effort, often unsuccessful, to retrace the obliterated writing. Toward the end of SV the original scribe (364r-365r), pressed for time or space, began to compress his writing and even resorted to pruning words. Otherwise he stayed close to the exemplar and made few copying errors.

V. Benesevic, Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum graecorum qui in monasterio Sanctae Catharinae in Monte Sina asservantur, I (Saint Petersburg, 1911), 266-93; v. J. Darrouzes, in REB, 24 (1966), 25-39.[/size]
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/vetus_synodicon.htm

For those interested, the referenced article is here:
http://books.google.com/books?ei=82NiT-3mKKfo0QG3482BCA&id=wAQsAQAAIAAJ&dq=Sinaiticus+gr.+1117+326v-328v&q=879#search_anchor

Dvorik addresses point 3, referencing the same works in fact:
http://books.google.com/books?id=X_A8AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA179&dq=Les+lettres+de+Jean+VIII+pour+le+r%C3%A9tablissement+de+Photius&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bmViT6qiBcHc0QHhw_2vCA&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=Les%20lettres%20de%20Jean%20VIII%20pour%20le%20r%C3%A9tablissement%20de%20Photius&f=false
Stiernon
http://bibliotheca.plgo.org/rp/REB/article_rebyz_0766-5598_1967_num_25_1_1392.pdf
doesn't add anything, just repeating (mantra?) Grumel in essence.  And he doesn't refer to Sinaiticus gr. 1117 either.  Odd, if it is so important.

The question I always want answered on this is that since EP St. Photios spent as much time deposed and in exile (886-897, the earliest death date I've seen is 890, which would be four years), how is it that his version survived his patriarchate?
Logged

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

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #95 on: March 15, 2012, 09:23:48 PM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.
Yes indeed!
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #96 on: March 21, 2012, 03:54:22 PM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.

Hi Zealous. I see from your profile that you're "Torn between Rome and Byzantium".

I was asked recently whether I'm Anglican. I'm not (and never have been) but if I were, I think I would stay put for a while, simply because I would find it extremely difficult to choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Anyhow, not trying to make this about me, just want to say that it's always gratifying to see someone deliberating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than thinking that one choice or the other is obvious.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Ortho_cat
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: AOCA-DWMA
Posts: 5,392



« Reply #97 on: March 21, 2012, 04:17:41 PM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.

Hi Zealous. I see from your profile that you're "Torn between Rome and Byzantium".

I was asked recently whether I'm Anglican. I'm not (and never have been) but if I were, I think I would stay put for a while, simply because I would find it extremely difficult to choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Anyhow, not trying to make this about me, just want to say that it's always gratifying to see someone deliberating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than thinking that one choice or the other is obvious.

I know that several on here were torn between the two for a long time. It's no easy decision for a person to make. I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,742


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #98 on: March 21, 2012, 05:25:34 PM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

....post redacted for length....

Orthodox Christians affirm one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church" -that Church for us is the Orthodox Church, not the Roman Catholic Church, which is in schism and regards all who affirm papal infallibility is not true or reasonable are excommunicated (from the Roman Catholic side). This type of perspective seems to "offend" some Roman Catholics, but it is not meant to offend anyone but to express Orthodox Christian belief.

This was a good post. Very thought-provoking. I'll probably have to read it a few more times to really absorb everything, but just wanted to say well done.

Hi Zealous. I see from your profile that you're "Torn between Rome and Byzantium".

I was asked recently whether I'm Anglican. I'm not (and never have been) but if I were, I think I would stay put for a while, simply because I would find it extremely difficult to choose between Orthodoxy and Catholicism.

Anyhow, not trying to make this about me, just want to say that it's always gratifying to see someone deliberating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than thinking that one choice or the other is obvious.

I know that several on here were torn between the two for a long time. It's no easy decision for a person to make. I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

I know what you mean.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #99 on: March 21, 2012, 05:32:42 PM »

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,657


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #100 on: March 21, 2012, 06:50:02 PM »

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #101 on: March 21, 2012, 08:20:36 PM »

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.

Dude, you are still not living up to your username!

Which is sorta awesome. Keep it up.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,657


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #102 on: March 21, 2012, 08:49:07 PM »

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.

Dude, you are still not living up to your username!

Which is sorta awesome. Keep it up.

Haha! Thank you. How can I live up to it better? Maybe if I say everything super excitedly?  Wink

(also, in my neck of the woods we call everybody "Dude", but on the off chance you meant it literally, I am a Dudette. Tongue)
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #103 on: March 21, 2012, 09:02:49 PM »

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.

Dude, you are still not living up to your username!

Which is sorta awesome. Keep it up.

Haha! Thank you. How can I live up to it better? Maybe if I say everything super excitedly?  Wink

(also, in my neck of the woods we call everybody "Dude", but on the off chance you meant it literally, I am a Dudette. Tongue)

Get ready for the sudden increase in helpful PMs.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #104 on: March 21, 2012, 09:36:21 PM »

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me.

Yes. That's what I was referring to with:

it's always gratifying to see someone deliberating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than thinking that one choice or the other is obvious.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,657


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #105 on: March 21, 2012, 10:26:08 PM »

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me.

Yes. That's what I was referring to with:

it's always gratifying to see someone deliberating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than thinking that one choice or the other is obvious.

Oh, I know. I was agreeing.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,049



« Reply #106 on: March 21, 2012, 10:48:37 PM »

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me.

Yes. That's what I was referring to with:

it's always gratifying to see someone deliberating between Orthodoxy and Catholicism, rather than thinking that one choice or the other is obvious.

Oh, I know. I was agreeing.

Oh right. Smiley
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ZealousZeal
Gainsaying Helpmeet
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: ✔
Posts: 2,657


Never cease to intercede for us, your children.


« Reply #107 on: March 22, 2012, 10:57:44 AM »

I think it was much easier for me coming from Protestantism than if it would have been RC'ism.

In a way ... But, in another way, just the opposite. That is to say, I don't think that a cradle Orthodox, or a cradle Catholic like myself, is faced with the Catholicism-or-Orthodoxy question in the way that someone coming from Protestantism is.

I can only speak from my own experience, but I feel as Peter has described. I come from an Evangelical background.

And Peter- it is certainly not an obvious choice for me. Though I am leaning more in one direction than the other at this point, it is still a day by day thing.

Dude, you are still not living up to your username!

Which is sorta awesome. Keep it up.

Haha! Thank you. How can I live up to it better? Maybe if I say everything super excitedly?  Wink

(also, in my neck of the woods we call everybody "Dude", but on the off chance you meant it literally, I am a Dudette. Tongue)

Get ready for the sudden increase in helpful PMs.

Aaahhh.... The last horse crosses the finish line. Hahaha, I get it now.
Logged

"For this God is our God forever and ever; He will be our guide, even to the end." Psalm 48:14
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 29,382



« Reply #108 on: March 22, 2012, 12:22:35 PM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

1. Early NT Period: presbyters were at first identical to bishops (ἐπίσκοποι/episkopoi; compare Acts 20:17 and vs. 28; Titus 1:5 and vs. 7; 1 Pet 5:1 and vs. 2 (cf. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 2005, p. 211); compare Jewish synagogues governed by a council of elders (Greek: πρεσβύτεροι presbyteroi).


.... ETC....

POTM Nominee...
Logged

"Change is the process of becoming more like who we are."
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #109 on: April 27, 2012, 11:53:54 AM »

Just came across this rather amuzing picture:

http://www.shipofsaintpeter.com/2012/02/susan-g-komen-for-cure-ceasing-funding.html
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #110 on: April 27, 2012, 02:56:35 PM »


English flag. Must be Anglo-Catholics.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #111 on: May 28, 2012, 06:58:18 PM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

I never did come back to this.

Your post responded predominately to a strawman. My point was that Rome held a 'similar position', that is in it's importance. Identical? No. Papacy? No. Similar? Yes.

How is it similar? Concisely:
-When the Roman church was young it was seen as a mother to other churches (charity). (biblical)
-The next few hundred years it was an arbiter to resolve conflict being a central hub of communion. Not as a papal head, but a source to bring notice to other bishops of heretical occurrences.
-That the church itself was always a hub of communion increase it's prestige. It then began to recognize that in its own right.
-Separation from the Imperial capital enabled more freedom of the Bishop of Rome to focus on ecclesial matters, and not be an court bishop.
-The Roman church then saw this continued prestige as a privilege as the See of Peter. (The Pope became the "Vicar of Peter".)
-The destruction of the provincial church structure in the West by the Kings lead to more Papal influence.
-The destruction of the Spanish and N. African churches, who had functioned independently and classically from Rome, made Rome the only power in the West.
-Movement to free itself from state control, the Church moves away from state/imperial influence to the Pope himself being the Imperial head.
-The last 700 years has been a battle of how much power is correct and/or appropriate for the Papacy. (The Pope became the "Vicar of Christ")

My point has nothing to do with your last post. The Bishop/Metropolitan/Patriarch structure mostly destroyed by the 7th century in the West anyways.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2012, 07:00:31 PM by Aindriú » Logged


I'm going to need this.
HabteSelassie
Ises and I-ity
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church
Posts: 3,332



« Reply #112 on: May 28, 2012, 07:17:22 PM »

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!
Orthodox don't disagree that there was a Roman Primacy, they disagree with what developed into Roman Supremacy.


exactly.  Like in many other differences between West and East, Latin and Orthodox, is a seemingly different ontological approach.  The Latins seem to be grounded in reason, in fact, in a sometimes legalistic approach to ecclesiastical and ecumenical affairs or the politics of the Church.  However, the Orthodox in the East, be it Oriental or Byzantine prefer a spiritual rather than legalistic approach. This has evolved into different kinds of doctrine and theology between East and West, especially emphasised after the split in the 11th century, and symbolised by the different evolving directions of theology.  The scholarly approach of the Western tradition clearly evolved from the pseudo-legalistic approach of ecclesiastical organization favored in the Western mindset, and the more loose-knit highly spiritualized approach of the Eastern mindset is represented by the formal development of  Hesychasm.  Further, the monastic organization of the West was clearly more pragmatic than the origins in the deserts of the East. That being said, of course for a thousand years the Eastern fathers recognized a spiritual primacy from Rome because of Peter.  We recognized that Latin fathers were a gem of the Holy Spirit, and we took their advice very seriously. The Latin fathers are very much Orthodox and part of our mutual Tradition.  What else could explain how only the Orientals left over Pope Leo where as the Byzantines maintained a reconciliatory or diplomatic approach which culminated in the Council of Chalcedon. The Oriental fathers initially also held the Latins in high regard until the first splits. Had the Eastern Orthodox not held the Latins in high regard and favor, wouldn't it have made some geographic and at the time even political sense to side with the Orientals? The Latin influence dominated, because the Orthodox fathers never challenged the spirit of the primacy of Peter, but as has been aptly said in the above quote, its supremacy that is debated.

stay blessed,
habte selassie
Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10
PeterTheAleut
The Right Blowhard Peter the Furtive of Yetts O'Muckhart
Section Moderator
Protospatharios
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 31,625


Lord, have mercy on the Christians in Mosul!


« Reply #113 on: June 30, 2012, 05:29:21 PM »

Tangent regarding the Catholic Answers Forum (CAF) split off and made its own thread: http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,45568.0.html  -PtA
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 37,124



« Reply #114 on: June 30, 2012, 06:58:37 PM »

All studies done on the history have shown that the Roman church has always held a similar position, evident in the way it described itself. It's not something that suddenly appeared.
This is not true at all.

The picture as presented by mainstream historians emphasizes a gradual historical progression from local Bishop/Elder to Diocesan Bishop to Metropolitan Bishop (over diocesan bishops) to Patriarch (over Metropolitan Bishops; the latter level of Patriarchal Bishop first appearing in 381 AD; a pope *at* (much less *above*) the level of Patriarchal Bishop (or even Metropolitan or Diocesan Bishop) simply did not exist before these types of offices existed. Here is a condensed outline of the picture as it is told by mainstream historians:

I never did come back to this.

Your post responded predominately to a strawman. My point was that Rome held a 'similar position', that is in it's importance. Identical? No. Papacy? No. Similar? Yes.

How is it similar? Concisely:
-When the Roman church was young it was seen as a mother to other churches (charity). (biblical)
Huh
In the Bible, Rome is Mother to no one.  In fact, the Apostles at Rome are barely mentioned, let alone it being a mother to anyone.  Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus...in the Bible these are Mother Churches.  Rome's Mothers in fact.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags: papacy Petrine Primacy Pope Leo 
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.545 seconds with 143 queries.