OrthodoxChristianity.net
August 30, 2014, 10:24:45 AM *
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 6511 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: 5,843


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: 6,639



« 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: 10,032


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
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,063


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: 1,556



« 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
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,063


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
Warned
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox
Posts: 13,063


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: 10,032


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: 1,556



« 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
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 11,034


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: 1,556



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,466



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,466



« 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: 6,114



« 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: 6,349


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: 6,114



« 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: 6,349


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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,466



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,466



« 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: 1,556



« 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: 1,556



« 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: 1,556



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,466



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,466



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,466



« 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
Warned
Hypatos
*****************
Online Online

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: 37,466



« 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
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 0.236 seconds with 73 queries.