OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 31, 2014, 06:12:22 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Privileges of the Primacy  (Read 2667 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
gueranger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catechumen
Posts: 185



« on: January 13, 2013, 11:48:13 PM »

Im sure this has come up before, but I can't find a thread on it. Can anyone spell out just what the privileges and prerogatives of Rome were in the early Church? And cite examples or quotations from the Fathers? I think when I read things that point to the primacy, I looking through a Catholic lens say, "Well there you go, he had power over the other Churches..." But perhaps that's mixing up the primacy with supremacy.
Logged

“Hold firmly that your faith is identical to that of the ancients, deny this and you dissolve the unity of the Church.” -St. Thomas Aquinas

http://www.amazon.com/His-Broken-Body-Understanding-Catholic/dp/0615183611

http://www.bloomsbury.com/us/the-banished-heart-9780567442208/
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,374



« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2013, 12:57:01 AM »

One privilege was having jurisdiction over a certain geographical region in the west. Another one was being "highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters." There was also the practice of submitting appeals/problems to Rome if they could not be solved after several attempts at the local level, though later this privilege was also shared by Constantinople with regard to Eastern problems.
Logged

St. Basil is great!

Wonder if he drank goat's milk . . .

Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2013, 01:07:43 AM »

The pope of Rome was listed first in the diptychs--the list of heads of autocephalous churches when the patriarchs liturgize. At a concelebration, he would have seniority.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
username!
Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2013, 03:46:49 AM »

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire. 
Logged

Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #4 on: January 16, 2013, 09:40:58 AM »

One privilege was having jurisdiction over a certain geographical region in the west.

One thing about the title "Patriarch of the West" is that it entails a little bit of circularity. (E.g. If Alaska wasn't considered part of the Pope's territory, we just explain that by saying "Well it isn't really part of 'the West'.")
Logged

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

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


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #5 on: January 16, 2013, 09:47:48 AM »

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire. 
I remember reading somewhere that Rome had primacy because it was the Imperial seat, not because of Peter at all (4th Council maybe?)

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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,848



WWW
« Reply #6 on: January 16, 2013, 10:10:08 AM »

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #7 on: January 16, 2013, 11:11:48 AM »

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Well now you're just being difficult.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,848



WWW
« Reply #8 on: January 16, 2013, 11:19:52 AM »

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Well now you're just being difficult.

Meant Constantinople in the end. Sorry.

If what you're saying is that the primacy was *not* in Jerusalem first, it could not be anywhere else for quite sometime until other sees had enough Christians. The first proto-council is there, headed by the first primate, St. James, then St. Paul calls upon all the churches to gather money for Jerusalem. For all that matter, Jerusalem was the primate and mother Church of all. For sometime after that it was Antioch and some of the first documents of the Church speak of Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome as the "top" sees.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 11:20:58 AM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Melodist
Archon
********
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #9 on: January 16, 2013, 12:01:04 PM »

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire.
I remember reading somewhere that Rome had primacy because it was the Imperial seat, not because of Peter at all (4th Council maybe?)

PP

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome were major centers for Christianity (before Christianity was even legal) because of their apostolic founding and faithfulness to the apostles' message. Constantinople was the only see of the ancient pentarchy that received its place in the diptychs solely from being a major political center (capital of the empire).
Logged

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

Made Perfect in Weakness - Latest Post: The Son of God
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #10 on: January 16, 2013, 12:04:39 PM »

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Well now you're just being difficult.

Meant Constantinople in the end. Sorry.

If what you're saying is that the primacy was *not* in Jerusalem first, it could not be anywhere else for quite sometime until other sees had enough Christians. The first proto-council is there, headed by the first primate, St. James, then St. Paul calls upon all the churches to gather money for Jerusalem. For all that matter, Jerusalem was the primate and mother Church of all. For sometime after that it was Antioch and some of the first documents of the Church speak of Jerusalem, Antioch and Rome as the "top" sees.

I recall reading that Orthodox do not consider St. Peter to have ever been a bishop at Rome, partly because the Apostles are seen as above the bishops and charged with ordaining bishops. This is an argument that St. Peter did not pass on any sort of special primacy to the bishop at Rome because he also ordained bishops elsewhere.

Yet, St. James is commonly seen as bishop of Jerusalem, presiding at the first Council there.

Can anyone clarify whether Apostles were bishops (as Roman Catholic generally claim Peter as first bishop of Rome)?  If not, then why is James seen as bishop of Jerusalem?  Is this due to a special mission of Peter to go from place to place (like St. Paul)?  

This has been confusing me for a week or so... I hope someone knows the answer and I think it's pertinent to this topic of primacy...
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Offline Offline

Posts: 29,374



« Reply #11 on: January 16, 2013, 12:22:52 PM »

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome were major centers for Christianity (before Christianity was even legal) because of their apostolic founding and faithfulness to the apostles' message. Constantinople was the only see of the ancient pentarchy that received its place in the diptychs solely from being a major political center (capital of the empire).

Please see...

"For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her" - 4th Ecumenical Council, Canon 28

I recall reading that Orthodox do not consider St. Peter to have ever been a bishop at Rome, partly because the Apostles are seen as above the bishops and charged with ordaining bishops. This is an argument that St. Peter did not pass on any sort of special primacy to the bishop at Rome because he also ordained bishops elsewhere.

Yet, St. James is commonly seen as bishop of Jerusalem, presiding at the first Council there.

Can anyone clarify whether Apostles were bishops (as Roman Catholic generally claim Peter as first bishop of Rome)?  If not, then why is James seen as bishop of Jerusalem?  Is this due to a special mission of Peter to go from place to place (like St. Paul)? 

This has been confusing me for a week or so... I hope someone knows the answer and I think it's pertinent to this topic of primacy...

I don't know if St. Peter was ever a bishop (of Rome), but I think certainly he and St. Paul were in Rome working, and that's good enough for when it comes to authority IMO. St. James was a bit different as he wasn't one of the 12, but was the brother of our Lord (St. James the Apostle was martyred in Acts 12), and he was without any dispute the bishop of Jerusalem. That he stayed put might indeed play into the equation, I don't know.
Logged

St. Basil is great!

Wonder if he drank goat's milk . . .

ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #12 on: January 16, 2013, 12:26:22 PM »

^ Thank you!  I was getting my Jameses mixed up so your answer makes so much sense to me now - that was driving me crazy!
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2013, 12:33:50 PM »

One privilege was having jurisdiction over a certain geographical region in the west.

One thing about the title "Patriarch of the West" is that it entails a little bit of circularity. (E.g. If Alaska wasn't considered part of the Pope's territory, we just explain that by saying "Well it isn't really part of 'the West'.")
The existence of Alaska wasn't known to the Church. By the time it was, the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of the West in North Africa had already devolved to the Pope of Alexandria, the jurisdiction of the Balkans to Constantinople, and that of Italy itself to Constantinople and/or Karlowitz.

Btw, Rome itself is in the Eastern Hemisphere.  Alaska lies on where the two hemispheres meet, and the Church came from the Eastern Hemisphere moving East into the Western Hemisphere.
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
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,848



WWW
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2013, 01:01:19 PM »

Here lies all the difficulties people have with the Rome issue.

Quote
the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome because it was the royal city.
Asteriktos got a reply because he made a post.
Fabio can come in and out of Brazil because he is Brazilian and (so far) has no criminal record.

Getting a reply is not an attribute of Asteriktos, but a consequence of his making a post about a certain subject. Coming in and out of Brazil is not an intrinsic privilege I have, but a consequence of my natural birth and legal standing.

"because it was the royal city" shows that in the view of the Fathers it is the *imperial order* that is the cause of whatever privileges, in this case, a consequence of being the ex-capital and original city of the empire. He/she that concedes the privilege is the one that truly holds the power (a concept the popes understood very well in relation to the western kings later). So, what the quote proves is that even the Fathers knew that Rome had no ontological privileges, but only those granted by the Empire, thus, being natural that these privileges could be given by their true holder, again, the Empire, to another city, which eventually happened.

Rome makes an ontological claim about its ecclesiastic privileges. What all the explicit and implicit *becauses* in all the Fathers show is that there is no such ontological privilege. And this is only one of these "becauses". Other fathers will explicitly or implicitly present others: "because it was a city with many martyrs", "because both St. Paul and St. Peter lived and were martyred there", "because it has kept orthodoxy among many storms of heresies". The Orthodox rationale is "If you are historically important, both from secular and ecclesiastical point of view, if you have a track record of defending the orthodox faith against heresies and you are currently orthodox as well and if you are the first in the agreed diptychs, then you are the primate see". Rome, though, performed the great inversion: "I have been granted supernatural authority, therefore, it is I my faith that is the orthodox faith, therefore everytime I fight those who disagree with me I am fighting heresies, what makes all my history relevant secularly and ecclesiastically." Or in short, the orthodox stand is "You are king because you have succesfully defended the orthodox faith." The Roman stand is: "I am king because said so, and that makes what I say the orthodox faith."

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Please see...


"For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her" - 4th Ecumenical Council, Canon 28

Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2013, 01:07:16 PM »

There never was "privilege of Rome". That's the whole point. What the Church has always kept was the "privileges" of the Primate See, which was Jerusalem first, then Antioch, then Rome, then Antioch.

Well now you're just being difficult.

Meant Constantinople in the end. Sorry.

Why so serious?

But seriously, I see now what you're saying: Jerusalem first (chronologically), then Antioch later etc.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2013, 01:09:25 PM »

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire.
I remember reading somewhere that Rome had primacy because it was the Imperial seat, not because of Peter at all (4th Council maybe?)

PP

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome were major centers for Christianity (before Christianity was even legal) because of their apostolic founding and faithfulness to the apostles' message. Constantinople was the only see of the ancient pentarchy that received its place in the diptychs solely from being a major political center (capital of the empire).

Jerusalem wasn't even a patriarchal see until Chalcedon.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
sheenj
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Indian/Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church
Posts: 1,400


St. Gregorios of Parumala, pray for us...


« Reply #17 on: January 16, 2013, 01:21:23 PM »

Clearly this "first among equals" that existed in Rome was due to the city's position of power.  After all if it weren't about a city's power then Jerusalem would be "first among equals".  Think Constantinople was second and it was the capitol the Eastern Roman Empire.
I remember reading somewhere that Rome had primacy because it was the Imperial seat, not because of Peter at all (4th Council maybe?)

PP

Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Rome were major centers for Christianity (before Christianity was even legal) because of their apostolic founding and faithfulness to the apostles' message. Constantinople was the only see of the ancient pentarchy that received its place in the diptychs solely from being a major political center (capital of the empire).

Jerusalem wasn't even a patriarchal see until Chalcedon.

No, but it was the sole primatial see for a good portion of the early years of Christianity.
Logged
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #18 on: January 16, 2013, 05:21:47 PM »

Rome makes an ontological claim about its ecclesiastic privileges. What all the explicit and implicit *becauses* in all the Fathers show is that there is no such ontological privilege. And this is only one of these "becauses". Other fathers will explicitly or implicitly present others: "because it was a city with many martyrs", "because both St. Paul and St. Peter lived and were martyred there", "because it has kept orthodoxy among many storms of heresies". The Orthodox rationale is "If you are historically important, both from secular and ecclesiastical point of view, if you have a track record of defending the orthodox faith against heresies and you are currently orthodox as well and if you are the first in the agreed diptychs, then you are the primate see". Rome, though, performed the great inversion: "I have been granted supernatural authority, therefore, it is I my faith that is the orthodox faith, therefore everytime I fight those who disagree with me I am fighting heresies, what makes all my history relevant secularly and ecclesiastically." Or in short, the orthodox stand is "You are king because you have succesfully defended the orthodox faith." The Roman stand is: "I am king because said so, and that makes what I say the orthodox faith."

Exactly. Your idea of the Great Inversion" is very helpful.

In practice, I think many RCs effectively believe that Christ has bestowed orthodoxy on Rome by granting St. Peter the keys in Mt 16:19. RCs give lip service to the consensus of the Fathers, for example at Trent. But as the 19th century dogma of the Immaculate Conception shows, the RC Church is quite willing to introduce a new dogma, even if it has tepid or little support from the Fathers, as long as it as has support from the Pope and the living Roman hierarchy. In this faithful RC mindset, Christ's prophecy concerning St. Peter ensures that popular Roman innovations and developments in doctrine will always be orthodox, no matter how fragile their Scriptural and patristic foundations.
Logged
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #19 on: January 16, 2013, 05:29:19 PM »

 ^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 05:29:59 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,741


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #20 on: January 16, 2013, 06:48:44 PM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it 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/
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #21 on: January 16, 2013, 07:09:47 PM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,741


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #22 on: January 16, 2013, 07:12:59 PM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea. Also, there are only a couple hundred people in his 'country.' And most of his own church ignores his ideas. So, this fear of the Pope that so many Orthodox seem to have, has always seemed laughable to me. Believe it or not, he's an elderly man and he's probably not going to break into your house tonight and steal the kitten.  Tongue
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/
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #23 on: January 16, 2013, 07:14:49 PM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,741


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #24 on: January 16, 2013, 07:17:53 PM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

But in the Orthodox imagination...

Sorry, what was I thinking? We all know it never stopped being the 15th Century.
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/
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #25 on: January 16, 2013, 07:21:59 PM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

"Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City". Isn't he?

How do you corelate "elective" and "absolute"? These words are not exclusive.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 07:22:28 PM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2013, 07:22:15 PM »

Remember that time the pope unilaterally created a heretofore unknown liturgy and forced it upon his 1 billion adherents worldwide while simultaneously abrogating all others forms within the Rite?

And how did he do that?

"By divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world...."
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 07:26:10 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,741


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2013, 07:32:15 PM »

Remember that time the pope unilaterally created a heretofore unknown liturgy and forced it upon his 1 billion adherents worldwide while simultaneously abrogating all others forms within the Rite?

And how did he do that?

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

With the number of threads on this forum dealing with the fact that the Orthodox also believe there is no salvation outside their Church, you have some nerve. Every church says that about themselves. Oh, but they should come ask the Orthodox first.  Tongue

We've had varying liturgical forms for a long time. I don't remember some belligerent person forcing me to do anything. But then again, I don't have an axe to grind. The Novus Ordo Mass may not have been the best thing in our history, but no Pope has ever made me do anything, and the NO was dropped last year. I didn't know I was supposed to be having a terrible time during the 30+ years I was in that church. Silly me.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2013, 07:34:40 PM by biro » Logged

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

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

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2013, 08:36:49 PM »

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,741


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2013, 09:00:12 PM »

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

There's at least one seminary in Vatican City, if memory serves me.
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/
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 2,848



WWW
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2013, 09:33:19 PM »

I spoke of king figuratevely, not referring to his actual monarchy over the Vatican. Change it for "head of the Church", if it facilitates your understanding.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #31 on: January 17, 2013, 12:01:07 AM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.
....if you would just open your eyes, you'd know that.

Your supreme pontiff takes among his titles that of "Sovereign of the State of Vatican City."

And the Cardinals in that college are often referred to as "Princes of the Church."  In the present scheme of things, he has a College of Cardinals only to pick a successor singularity.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2013, 02:16:01 AM »

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Not as many as the Patriarch of Moscow has babushki. My money's on the Patriarch.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #33 on: January 17, 2013, 10:51:05 AM »

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Not as many as the Patriarch of Moscow has babushki. My money's on the Patriarch.

Is this a contest?  How many babushki does the Patriarch have as "subjects"?  Grin

For what it's worth, I don't think that on a one to one basis, *any* given divinity student *anywhere* has a chance against any given babushka.  Grin Grin
« Last Edit: January 17, 2013, 11:17:13 AM by J Michael » 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
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #34 on: January 17, 2013, 12:44:08 PM »

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Huh. I really thought that would get a chuckle from somebody or other. I guess I really am a hopeless optimist about humor on this forum. :blushes:
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #35 on: January 17, 2013, 12:49:02 PM »

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Huh. I really thought that would get a chuckle from somebody or other. I guess I really am a hopeless optimist about humor on this forum. :blushes:

Either that, or you have a different kind of sense of humor  Cheesy 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
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #36 on: January 17, 2013, 05:24:23 PM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

But in the Orthodox imagination...

Sorry, what was I thinking? We all know it never stopped being the 15th Century.

You are joking, right? If so, great irony!

The Roman Pope has the absolute power to issue infallible new dogma which can so change the RC faith that it turns millions of good Roman Catholics into bad ones. Could, for example, a modern RC theologian reject the Immaculate Conception and rise up to be the Roman Church's leading doctor of the faith? Clearly no. By the standards of modern dogma, Aquinas, who rejected the IC, could not be considered a "good Catholic". The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

Thousands of "good" Catholics became bad Old Catholics with the Pope's declaration of papal infallibility.

Certainly only an absolute monarch (in the ecclesiastical sense) could make new infallible dogma which are not backward compatible with the orthodox faith of previous generations.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #37 on: January 17, 2013, 05:53:31 PM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention.

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

But in the Orthodox imagination...

Sorry, what was I thinking? We all know it never stopped being the 15th Century.

You are joking, right? If so, great irony!

The Roman Pope has the absolute power to issue infallible new dogma which can so change the RC faith that it turns millions of good Roman Catholics into bad ones. Could, for example, a modern RC theologian reject the Immaculate Conception and rise up to be the Roman Church's leading doctor of the faith? Clearly no. By the standards of modern dogma, Aquinas, who rejected the IC, could not be considered a "good Catholic". The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

Thousands of "good" Catholics became bad Old Catholics with the Pope's declaration of papal infallibility.

Certainly only an absolute monarch (in the ecclesiastical sense) could make new infallible dogma which are not backward compatible with the orthodox faith of previous generations.

Oh boy.....get out the popcorn.
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
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #38 on: January 17, 2013, 06:51:46 PM »

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Huh. I really thought that would get a chuckle from somebody or other. I guess I really am a hopeless optimist about humor on this forum. :blushes:

I would have laughed, Peter J, but I was on the road at the time & didn't see it till now.

Anyway, lol!  Grin
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #39 on: January 17, 2013, 07:07:46 PM »

^ More than that -- Roman Catholics see the Pope as the "living Tradition" in a sense. That is, the Pope determines what the Tradition is and what it means. He is the ultimate measuring rod of orthodoxy.  So, everything flows from that, as you mention. U

Fabio has certainly stated this very well. The Pope is indeed seen as ontologically embodying Tradition by virtue of his being pope. Clearly, this is way more than a "privilege of primacy" as it logically defeats the whole purpose of primacy (which assumes equals over whom one is given priority) by leading to singularity (where no one else matters).

So that's why he has a College of Cardinals!

I never knew I had a monarch for an archbishop. Life is a lot more fun than I thought it was.

Now you know.

The appellation "monarch" is entirely appropriate, as John Julius Norwich describes in his recent book.http://www.amazon.co.uk/Absolute-Monarchs-A-History-Papacy/dp/0812978846

That's funny. He's the 'king' who is picked by the College of Cardinals, so there goes that idea.

"Elective monarchy" - you can google that.

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

But in the Orthodox imagination...

Sorry, what was I thinking? We all know it never stopped being the 15th Century.

You are joking, right? If so, great irony!

The Roman Pope has the absolute power to issue infallible new dogma which can so change the RC faith that it turns millions of good Roman Catholics into bad ones. Could, for example, a modern RC theologian reject the Immaculate Conception and rise up to be the Roman Church's leading doctor of the faith? Clearly no. By the standards of modern dogma, Aquinas, who rejected the IC, could not be considered a "good Catholic". The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

Thousands of "good" Catholics became bad Old Catholics with the Pope's declaration of papal infallibility.

Certainly only an absolute monarch (in the ecclesiastical sense) could make new infallible dogma which are not backward compatible with the orthodox faith of previous generations.

Oh boy.....get out the popcorn.

For what? Have I said anything even remotely controversial?

The Vatican itself says that the Roman pontiff has the absolute full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, each individual church, and over all and each of the pastors and faithful in matters of faith, morals, discipline and government throughout the whole world, according to Pastor Aeternus, Vatican I. The sentence of the Pope is not subject to revision by anyone. Rejection of this teaching endangers one's salvation.

How can this not be described as an absolute monarch?

Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #40 on: January 17, 2013, 07:11:53 PM »

Clemente, I do not mean ecclesiology. Pope is the monarch of the Vatican State, an absolute one, like Russian Tsar.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #41 on: January 17, 2013, 07:17:53 PM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #42 on: January 17, 2013, 07:18:18 PM »

So, he's not so absolute.

And his only 'subjects' are, again, a couple hundred mostly elderly nuns, priests and a college of divinity students. Not much.

How many divinity students does the Pope have?

Huh. I really thought that would get a chuckle from somebody or other. I guess I really am a hopeless optimist about humor on this forum. :blushes:

I would have laughed, Peter J, but I was on the road at the time & didn't see it till now.

Anyway, lol!  Grin

Maybe you have a different kind of sense of humor too. Cheesy
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #43 on: January 17, 2013, 07:21:38 PM »

Clemente, I do not mean ecclesiology. Pope is the monarch of the Vatican State, an absolute one, like Russian Tsar.

Well, of course.

I mean ecclesiology, where his authority is over millions. See Webster's dictionary definition of an "absolute monarch":

"undivided rule or absolute sovereignty by a single person". This is exactly what the Vatican claims for the Pope.

"In this Church of Christ the Roman pontiff, as the successor of Peter, to whom Christ entrusted the feeding of His sheep and lambs, enjoys supreme, full, immediate, and universal authority over the care of souls by divine institution".http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651028_christus-dominus_en.html


Logged
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #44 on: January 17, 2013, 07:51:54 PM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

For example,

Quote
And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.
(Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #45 on: January 17, 2013, 09:58:06 PM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 17, 2013, 10:37:50 PM »

Im sure this has come up before, but I can't find a thread on it. Can anyone spell out just what the privileges and prerogatives of Rome were in the early Church? And cite examples or quotations from the Fathers? I think when I read things that point to the primacy, I looking through a Catholic lens say, "Well there you go, he had power over the other Churches..." But perhaps that's mixing up the primacy with supremacy.

I have a somewhat long essay from 1858 that I am working on fixing the OCR errors on that covers this, I will post a link to it once it is published but it will take some more time (up to two days depending on other things).
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
Nicene
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 575


« Reply #47 on: January 18, 2013, 12:50:31 AM »

This one comes to mind:

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Ignatius to the romans, opening


I've heard this one quoted alot recently though I think its not clear what Ignatius means by a preside, does that mean over the entire church or just over the territory which he is assigned? I will be honest and say I don't think Ignatius is clear, though obviously I lean to the orthodox understanding.

Then theres always Iraneaus:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

Then again I think the qualifier is that Rome at that point had perfectly preserved the teaching of the church, not that in of itself and because it had held faithful tot he traditions received fromt he apostles that we ought have been in communion with rome.

Logged

Thank you.
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #48 on: January 18, 2013, 11:24:09 AM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative? I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty? Wink

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.



Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #49 on: January 18, 2013, 11:54:16 AM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?


Well I don't think that the Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, so I guess I must be "tediously argumentative". :scratches chin

I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty? Wink

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.

I'm curious for an explanation of why believing the IC means that one must (logically) believe that Mary was sinless, but I figure I'll just get more sarcasm.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #50 on: January 18, 2013, 12:06:45 PM »

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #51 on: January 18, 2013, 12:30:05 PM »

And Clemente wonders why I said, "Get out the popcorn".  Wink


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
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #52 on: January 18, 2013, 05:24:32 PM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?


Well I don't think that the Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, so I guess I must be "tediously argumentative". :scratches chin

I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty? Wink

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.

I'm curious for an explanation of why believing the IC means that one must (logically) believe that Mary was sinless, but I figure I'll just get more sarcasm.

I am curious for an explanation of why one would believe in the IC if one already accepts that the Theotokos sinned? Why would she be immaculately conceived if she were subsequently to sin? What logical purpose would that serve or what theological dilemma would that solve?

Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.
Logged
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #53 on: January 18, 2013, 05:33:53 PM »

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...

Yes it would.
Logged
J Michael
Older than dirt; dumber than a box of rocks; colossally ignorant; a little crazy ;-)
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine
Posts: 10,015


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


« Reply #54 on: January 18, 2013, 05:57:41 PM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?


Well I don't think that the Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, so I guess I must be "tediously argumentative". :scratches chin

I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty? Wink

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.

I'm curious for an explanation of why believing the IC means that one must (logically) believe that Mary was sinless, but I figure I'll just get more sarcasm.

I am curious for an explanation of why one would believe in the IC if one already accepts that the Theotokos sinned? Why would she be immaculately conceived if she were subsequently to sin? What logical purpose would that serve or what theological dilemma would that solve?

Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

A question borne of my own ignorance, so I beg your forebearance: What evidence, if any, is there that the Theotokos sinned?  If you are able, please cite references.  Thanks!
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
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #55 on: January 18, 2013, 06:03:09 PM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

That is against Catholic teaching, but it isn't against the IC. It's against the sinlessness of Mary.

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?


Well I don't think that the Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, so I guess I must be "tediously argumentative". :scratches chin

I said "clearly would have rejected the IC"; of course, they did not discuss it because it was not part of the Deposit of the Faith as received from the Apostles.

Can one logically be for the IC and against the sinlessness of Mary? I am a little rusty? Wink

Assuming one cannot, we can infer they would be against the IC.

I'm curious for an explanation of why believing the IC means that one must (logically) believe that Mary was sinless, but I figure I'll just get more sarcasm.

I am curious for an explanation of why one would believe in the IC if one already accepts that the Theotokos sinned? Why would she be immaculately conceived if she were subsequently to sin? What logical purpose would that serve or what theological dilemma would that solve?

Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

A question borne of my own ignorance, so I beg your forebearance: What evidence, if any, is there that the Theotokos sinned?  If you are able, please cite references.  Thanks!

Good question for another thread.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #56 on: January 18, 2013, 07:13:44 PM »

Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

That's very kind of you. Why don't just go ahead and pass sentence, since you're obviously judge and jury?
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #57 on: January 19, 2013, 10:30:58 AM »

Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

That's very kind of you. Why don't just go ahead and pass sentence, since you're obviously judge and jury?

No, just trying to avoid silly debates.

Quote
2 Timothy 2:23-26

23 Don’t have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. 24 And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. 25

I sense you are just trying to be disputatious. If not, forgive me. I should be glad to refer you to the Orthodox perspective on the IC.
Logged
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #58 on: January 20, 2013, 04:38:17 PM »

To the original question.

In order to understand the Privileges of the Primacy you have to understand the privelages of Patriachs and Exarchs in the early Church as well.  When I saw your question I remembered reading about these in detail in the essay I have put on the interent, taken from an Old Catholic Journal called The Rambler.

This is about 15 pages and it is not light reading.
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

This essay discusses the Pope in relation to the other Patriarchs, correspondence between the early Church and legal disputes (that involved the Roman see), the degrees of authority, and the Popes Universal primacy.  It is worth a read, here is one extract that you might find particarly interesting.

"To begin, then, with the institution of Patriarchs, about which the tradition of the Fathers is constant and precise. From the Apostles' times there existed three great churches, superior to all the rest, at Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. Eusebius the historian directs his view in a most especial manner to these churches; he is careful to give a perfect catalogue of their Bishops, and in the Praeparatio Evangelica he says of them, "When I consider the power of the Word, whereby the illiterate disciples of Jesus founded such great churches, not in some obscure places, but in the chief seats of empire,—in Rome, the queen of cities, in Alexandria, in Antioch,—I am forced to own that they could not have performed so mighty an exploit except by the superhuman and Divine power of Him who said to them, ' Teach all nations.'"
Now it is remarkable, that of all the numerous Apostolic churches, the three which were to be patriarchates were founded by St. Peter. He was chief of the Apostles; this primacy was for the sake of unity; and Providence left it to him to set up the episcopal throne in the three cities which were then the capitals of Europe, Africa, and Asia. St. Gregory the Great puts this clearly in his answer to the glowing panegyric of the prerogatives of the Holy See sent him by Eulogius of Alexandria : "He who has written to me concerning the chair of Peter, himself sits in Peter's chair. It is said to Peter, * To thee will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven;' 'confirm thy brethren;' 'feed my sheep.' And so, though there are many Apostles, yet on account of his primacy, his chair alone, in the three places where it was pitched, preserved the chief authority. He gave its preeminence to the see where he finally rested, and where he closed his earthly career. He gave its honour to the see to which he sent his disciple the Evangelist. He gave its power to the see where he sat seven years, though he was not to remain there. Since, therefore, the chair is one, and his alone, in which now by God's authority three Bishops sit, whatever good I hear of you I take to myself: and if you believe any good of me, think it belongs to your stock of merits ; for we are one in Him who says, ' That they all may be one, as Thou Father art in Me and I in Thee, that they also may be one in Us." In another letter to the same, St. Gregory says, " As everybody knows that the Blessed Evangelist Mark was sent to Alexandria by his master St. Peter the Apostle, so are we united in the unity of the master and disciple. Thus I seem to preside over the disciple's see through the master, and you over the master's see through the disciple." St. Innocent I. speaks in an analogous way about Antioch : " We know that it has this attribute, not so much for the magnificence of the city, as because it is shown to be the first see of the first Apostle, where also our religion was first called Christian, and where the celebrated gathering of the Apostles took place. A see which would not yield in importance to that of Rome, except that it only received St. Peter on his passage, while Rome received him for good, and possessed him till he died.""
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #59 on: January 23, 2013, 01:42:59 AM »

and the NO was dropped last year.

Except it wasn't.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,153


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #60 on: January 23, 2013, 01:47:16 AM »

and the NO was dropped last year.

Except it wasn't.

Quite right.
I wish that Pope Benedict had the courage to drop it.

No doubt the butler's leaks show who is really in control.
Not the pope, that is for sure.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2013, 01:48:40 AM by Maria » Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
William
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #61 on: January 23, 2013, 01:51:38 AM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

For example,

Quote
And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.
(Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm

That quote doesn't say what you'd like it to.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #62 on: January 23, 2013, 03:56:32 AM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

For example,

Quote
And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.
(Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm

That quote doesn't say what you'd like it to.

Then offer your own interpretation.
Logged

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

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #63 on: January 25, 2013, 10:39:39 AM »

The same could be said of St. John Chrysostom, who also clearly would have rejected the IC. The Papal declaration of the IC dogma affected millions.

I'm a little rusty. Can you explain why you say that he would have rejected it too?

Along with Origen, St. Basil, St Cyril of Alexander, and other Early Fathers, St. John Chrysostom taught that Mary suffered from minor sins, such as ambition, vanity, doubt and and lack of faith.

For example,

Quote
And so this was a reason why He rebuked her on that occasion, saying, Woman, what have I to do with you? instructing her for the future not to do the like; because, though He was careful to honor His mother, yet He cared much more for the salvation of her soul, and for the doing good to the many, for which He took upon Him the flesh.
(Homilies on the Gospel According to St. John, 21)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/240121.htm

That quote doesn't say what you'd like it to.

Then offer your own interpretation.

I'm not sure what William has in mind; but for myself, I asked earlier why the IC teaching logically necessitates Mary's sinlessness. So far I haven't really received an explanation.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #64 on: January 25, 2013, 10:54:20 AM »

I gave you an explanation above at reply #50...
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 10:55:08 AM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #65 on: January 25, 2013, 11:09:10 AM »

I'm not sure what William has in mind; but for myself, I asked earlier why the IC teaching logically necessitates Mary's sinlessness. So far I haven't really received an explanation.

Hi PeterJ - I think I can explain.

The whole point of the IC is that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin - in other words she was the "New Eve".

So she was *capable* of sin, but (according to the RC) she didn't, because as the "New Eve", if she had, the consequences would have been equally as drastic as they were for the "old Eve". And since we don't see her being confronted by God and cast out of the Garden (or whatever the New Testament/Jesus Christ-era version of that would have been), we don't think she sinned.

Now of course if you don't believe in the IC that's not an issue, and you can easily accept the possibility that she may have sinned, without doing any great theological damage. (I personally don't think she did, though.  Wink )
« Last Edit: January 25, 2013, 11:09:59 AM by theistgal » Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,083


St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)


« Reply #66 on: January 25, 2013, 12:12:16 PM »

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...

I believe that this is the take of the Orthodox church; that after the Annunciation by virtue of the Holy Spirit Our Lady was made pure.  This is why we believe she was ever virgin and spotless at her Dormition.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #67 on: January 26, 2013, 03:09:10 PM »

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...

I'm not sure what William has in mind; but for myself, I asked earlier why the IC teaching logically necessitates Mary's sinlessness. So far I haven't really received an explanation.

Hi PeterJ - I think I can explain.

The whole point of the IC is that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin - in other words she was the "New Eve".

So she was *capable* of sin, but (according to the RC) she didn't, because as the "New Eve", if she had, the consequences would have been equally as drastic as they were for the "old Eve". And since we don't see her being confronted by God and cast out of the Garden (or whatever the New Testament/Jesus Christ-era version of that would have been), we don't think she sinned.

Sorry for the slow reply.

I certainly acknowledge that in each of these ^^ posts, a connection is shown between the IC and the teaching that Mary never sinned. But that isn't exactly what I'm looking for.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #68 on: January 27, 2013, 11:33:15 AM »

Would it not defeat the purpose of the IC for Mary to have fallen into sin prior to the Annunciation?  Then, logically, after the Annunciation she would be sinless by virtue of having been "overshadowed by the Holy Spirit" and being the new Ark of the Covenant...

I'm not sure what William has in mind; but for myself, I asked earlier why the IC teaching logically necessitates Mary's sinlessness. So far I haven't really received an explanation.

Hi PeterJ - I think I can explain.

The whole point of the IC is that Mary was conceived without the stain of original sin - in other words she was the "New Eve".

So she was *capable* of sin, but (according to the RC) she didn't, because as the "New Eve", if she had, the consequences would have been equally as drastic as they were for the "old Eve". And since we don't see her being confronted by God and cast out of the Garden (or whatever the New Testament/Jesus Christ-era version of that would have been), we don't think she sinned.

Sorry for the slow reply.

I certainly acknowledge that in each of these ^^ posts, a connection is shown between the IC and the teaching that Mary never sinned. But that isn't exactly what I'm looking for.

I can sympathise with your frustration. You haven't answered my questions either. That isn't exactly what I'm looking for.

Before we delve off into a silly, unproductive tanget and derail this thread (which is somewhat critical of the Roman pope and therefore may not be completely to your liking), I asked you if you could name any theologian (Orthodox, heterodox, or heretic) from any place and any age who believes in the immaculate conception but rejects the sinlessness of Mary, thereby justifying such a tangent.

Your silence had left me feeling like this man:http:http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=rXJ0rAyE_mQ&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DrXJ0rAyE_mQ&gl=GB
« Last Edit: January 27, 2013, 11:45:27 AM by Clemente » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #69 on: January 27, 2013, 09:07:27 PM »

Clemente, after reading your latest post, I've come to see that this conversation is heading in a direction that isn't good for me spiritually. Plus, past experience on this forum strongly suggests that complaining about it isn't going to do much good and will probably induce Orthodox posters to turn against me even more than they do anyways. So for the time being, rather than saying more I think I'll just wait and watch what's said here.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #70 on: January 27, 2013, 10:06:40 PM »

You're correct from a Catholic viewpoint that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception retains the ideas that Mary had free will and was subject to concupiscence. So, she certainly could have sinned if the dogma is examined without reference to the additional dogma of Mary's perpetual sinlessness.

So, I guess I agree, within the Catholic framework, there is no absolutely logical reason for Mary to have remained sinless simply due to the Immaculate Conception dogma taken without the additional dogmas.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #71 on: January 28, 2013, 04:59:26 AM »

Clemente, after reading your latest post, I've come to see that this conversation is heading in a direction that isn't good for me spiritually. Plus, past experience on this forum strongly suggests that complaining about it isn't going to do much good and will probably induce Orthodox posters to turn against me even more than they do anyways. So for the time being, rather than saying more I think I'll just wait and watch what's said here.
Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk; you can start a thread with that subject and I shall gladly participate.

However, your philosophical musings here are not germane to this thread, at least to the argument I posited, since Rome has dogmatised both the sinlessness doctrine (at Trent) and the IC. In doing so, the Bishop of Rome effectively anathematised many saints and Christian leaders, including St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and Origen. Whilst acknowledging these believed something contrary to modern RC dogma, the Catholic Encyclopedia defends the RC church as such:
Quote
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

So, in the name of "progressive science", the Pope has the power to turn good Catholics into bad ones.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2013, 05:25:04 AM by Clemente » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #72 on: January 28, 2013, 10:37:02 AM »

Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk;

It just keeps on coming.

If history is any guide, next an ex-moderator or other Orthodox poster will ask me "If you don't like the way your treated here, then why don't you make us all happy by leaving?" (Well, maybe not, that's just a guess.)
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: Diocese of San Bernadino
Posts: 91



WWW
« Reply #73 on: January 28, 2013, 11:08:50 PM »

You're correct from a Catholic viewpoint that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception retains the ideas that Mary had free will and was subject to concupiscence. So, she certainly could have sinned if the dogma is examined without reference to the additional dogma of Mary's perpetual sinlessness.

So, I guess I agree, within the Catholic framework, there is no absolutely logical reason for Mary to have remained sinless simply due to the Immaculate Conception dogma taken without the additional dogmas.

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary was not subject to concupiscence, because concupiscence is a consequence of original sin.   She could still be tempted, as Adam and Eve were tempted but her passions were not disordered.
Logged

"I hope that when you come to die your last breath may utter that name of Jesus with deep confidence, and that our Lord will answer your dying sigh with an affectionate welcome into his heavenly court." http://tinyurl.com/agubd5u


http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,267


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #74 on: January 28, 2013, 11:12:24 PM »

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary was not subject to concupiscence, because concupiscence is a consequence of original sin.   She could still be tempted, as Adam and Eve were tempted but her passions were not disordered.

This would make the Mother of God equal to God. No wonder Orthodoxy rejects the IC.
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #75 on: January 29, 2013, 12:52:35 AM »

How does it make her equal to God? Were Adam and Eve equal to God?
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #76 on: January 29, 2013, 01:33:28 AM »

Clemente, after reading your latest post, I've come to see that this conversation is heading in a direction that isn't good for me spiritually. Plus, past experience on this forum strongly suggests that complaining about it isn't going to do much good and will probably induce Orthodox posters to turn against me even more than they do anyways. So for the time being, rather than saying more I think I'll just wait and watch what's said here.
Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk; you can start a thread with that subject and I shall gladly participate.

However, your philosophical musings here are not germane to this thread, at least to the argument I posited, since Rome has dogmatised both the sinlessness doctrine (at Trent) and the IC. In doing so, the Bishop of Rome effectively anathematised many saints and Christian leaders, including St. John Chrysostom, St. Basil and Origen. Whilst acknowledging these believed something contrary to modern RC dogma, the Catholic Encyclopedia defends the RC church as such:
Quote
But these stray private opinions merely serve to show that theology is a progressive science.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm

So, in the name of "progressive science", the Pope has the power to turn good Catholics into bad ones.
such is the nonsense of "development of doctrine."
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
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,267


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #77 on: January 29, 2013, 01:34:00 AM »

How does it make her equal to God? Were Adam and Eve equal to God?

As Man, Christ was tempted. As God, he did not sin. Adam and Eve were tempted, and sinned.  angel
Logged
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #78 on: January 29, 2013, 01:36:48 AM »

So if Mary didn't sin, she was equal to God? Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a silly heterodox gal. ;-)
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,267


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #79 on: January 29, 2013, 01:44:18 AM »

So if Mary didn't sin, she was equal to God? Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a silly heterodox gal. ;-)

Christ is referred to many a time in scripture and Orthodox hymnography as the Only Sinless One, as equal to all humanity except sin, etc. Orthodoxy has, in its wisdom, chosen not to dogmatize the sinlessness or otherwise of the Mother of God prior to the Annunciation.
Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #80 on: January 29, 2013, 08:04:27 AM »

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary was not subject to concupiscence, because concupiscence is a consequence of original sin.   She could still be tempted, as Adam and Eve were tempted but her passions were not disordered.

This would make the Mother of God equal to God. No wonder Orthodoxy rejects the IC.

Well, I don't think not sinning makes her equal to God; but your second sentence harks back to my original question: Does Mary's sinlessness logically follow from the Immaculate Conception? The Orthodox responses I have gotten were about me (and not in a very complementary way):

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?

and

Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.

and more recently:

Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk;

I'm sure some people reading this find it amusing to see me treated in this way, but it makes me feel like dirt (which will probably just make it more amusing for some, since it isn't considered manly to express sadness). Maybe there should be an Orthodox equivalent of "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". (Although perhaps no equivalent is necessary, if that statement isn't unduly Western.)

Clemente, I don't have a problem with receiving or not receiving an answer, but I really don't appreciate the above.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 141



« Reply #81 on: January 29, 2013, 09:23:19 AM »

You're correct from a Catholic viewpoint that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception retains the ideas that Mary had free will and was subject to concupiscence. So, she certainly could have sinned if the dogma is examined without reference to the additional dogma of Mary's perpetual sinlessness.

So, I guess I agree, within the Catholic framework, there is no absolutely logical reason for Mary to have remained sinless simply due to the Immaculate Conception dogma taken without the additional dogmas.

The Catholic Church teaches that Holy Mary was not subject to concupiscence, because concupiscence is a consequence of original sin.   She could still be tempted, as Adam and Eve were tempted but her passions were not disordered.

You are correct.
Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
theistgal
Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic gadfly
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Follower of Jesus Christ
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic
Posts: 2,082


don't even go there!


« Reply #82 on: January 29, 2013, 12:37:47 PM »

So if Mary didn't sin, she was equal to God? Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a silly heterodox gal. ;-)

Christ is referred to many a time in scripture and Orthodox hymnography as the Only Sinless One, as equal to all humanity except sin, etc. Orthodoxy has, in its wisdom, chosen not to dogmatize the sinlessness or otherwise of the Mother of God prior to the Annunciation.

But once again - are you saying that before they sinned, Adam and Eve were equal to God?

Because the whole thing with the IC and Mary being sinless is that she was born in the same state as Adam and Eve.

I'm not saying I agree with it, just that that's the teaching, but I never heard, or thought, that it made Mary (or Adam & Eve) "equal to God".
Logged

"Sometimes, you just gotta say, 'OK, I still have nine live, two-headed animals' and move on.'' (owner of Coney Island freak show, upon learning he'd been outbid on a 5-legged puppy)
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #83 on: January 29, 2013, 02:34:30 PM »

So if Mary didn't sin, she was equal to God? Doesn't make any sense to me, but hey, what do I know? I'm just a silly heterodox gal. ;-)

Christ is referred to many a time in scripture and Orthodox hymnography as the Only Sinless One, as equal to all humanity except sin, etc. Orthodoxy has, in its wisdom, chosen not to dogmatize the sinlessness or otherwise of the Mother of God prior to the Annunciation.

But once again - are you saying that before they sinned, Adam and Eve were equal to God?

I, too, am curious to hear LBK's answer to this.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Online Online

Posts: 8,762



« Reply #84 on: January 29, 2013, 02:37:39 PM »

How does it make her equal to God? Were Adam and Eve equal to God?

As Man, Christ was tempted. As God, he did not sin.

Sounds like what this here guy used to say.

« Last Edit: January 29, 2013, 02:38:06 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a OC.net diet.

"Chi son?  Sono un poeta. Che cosa faccio? Scrivo. E come vivo?  Vivo."
-Giacomo Puccini
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #85 on: January 29, 2013, 02:46:04 PM »


Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk;

I'm sure some people reading this find it amusing to see me treated in this way, but it makes me feel like dirt (which will probably just make it more amusing for some, since it isn't considered manly to express sadness). Maybe there should be an Orthodox equivalent of "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all". (Although perhaps no equivalent is necessary, if that statement isn't unduly Western.)

Nah, I was not trying to be especially funny, though I am not averse to humour. Rather, I was trying to avoid your derailing a thread about the "Priviledges of the Primacy" into a discussion of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC.

As you can see from subsequent posts of others, my efforts failed summarily, so you perhaps got the last laugh!
Logged
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,267


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #86 on: January 29, 2013, 06:43:08 PM »

How does it make her equal to God? Were Adam and Eve equal to God?

As Man, Christ was tempted. As God, he did not sin.

Sounds like what this here guy used to say.



There is nothing whatsoever Nestorian in what I wrote. This form of phrasing ("as Man, ..., as God, ...) in reference to Christ is a literary device, seen particularly in the hymnography for the feast of the Raising of Lazarus, as it addresses the simultaneous divine omniscience and the "ignorant" humanity of Christ.
Logged
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #87 on: January 29, 2013, 06:48:02 PM »

Sounds like what this here guy used to say.



Cool picture!

Is he dancing or preparing for a catwalk down the aisle?
Logged
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #88 on: January 29, 2013, 07:59:23 PM »

Well, on my part, I do remember a quote from St. Ignatius "2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Romaios
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Romanian
Posts: 2,933



« Reply #89 on: January 29, 2013, 08:12:10 PM »

Well, on my part, I do remember a quote from St. Ignatius

That's St. Irenaeus - St. Ignatius is the one with "the Church presiding in love".
Logged
brastaseptim
Protopsáltis
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine Catholic Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 868


From BBC Louisiana to you, here's the morning news


« Reply #90 on: January 29, 2013, 08:58:46 PM »

Right, right- "Against Heresies" not "Epistle to the romans." My mistake.
Logged

BBC news certified; The Guardian rejected; OC.net approved.
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #91 on: January 29, 2013, 09:28:24 PM »

Rather, I was trying to avoid your derailing a thread

I don't take issue with whether or not my question gets answered on this particular thread. For that matter, I don't mind if I don't get an answer at all (although, as it happens, a couple of Catholic posters have offered their thoughts on it). What I mind is this sort of thing:

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?
Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.
Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk;

and all such treatment that occurs on this forum.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Clemente
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Europe
Posts: 225


« Reply #92 on: January 30, 2013, 02:51:02 AM »

Rather, I was trying to avoid your derailing a thread

I don't take issue with whether or not my question gets answered on this particular thread. For that matter, I don't mind if I don't get an answer at all (although, as it happens, a couple of Catholic posters have offered their thoughts on it). What I mind is this sort of thing:

Did you honestly expect that these Early Church Fathers opined about the IC, a 19th century dogma? Or are you rather just being tediously argumentative?
Can you name any theologian from any church from any period who believes the IC and rejects the sinlessness of the Theotokos? Just one is sufficient for me to accept that you are not just being argumentative.
Silly debates are good for no one spiritually. If you have an genuine interest in the question of whether it follows that a rejection of the dogma of the sinlessness of the Theotokos by certain Fathers implies their rejection of the Roman dogma of the IC, you need not sulk;

Peter J, I think staying on topic and avoiding silly debates is good intellectually and spiritually and that is all I have tried to do. Sorry you disagree.

Anyway, I obviously failed in this thread, which now bears little resemblance to the OP.

A pity.

Quote
and all such treatment that occurs on this forum.

You have over 4000 posts and yet repeatedly complain about this forum. Why?

I don't have a problem with receiving or not receiving an answer.
« Last Edit: January 30, 2013, 03:01:49 AM by Clemente » Logged
Peter J
Formerly PJ
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Melkite
Posts: 6,047



« Reply #93 on: January 30, 2013, 06:22:12 PM »

Peter J, I think staying on topic and avoiding silly debates is good intellectually and spiritually and that is all I have tried to do. Sorry you disagree.

Wow. You really don't know when to stop.
Logged

- Peter Jericho (a CAF poster)
Tags:
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 0.326 seconds with 122 queries.