OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 24, 2014, 04:25:50 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: Luke 22:31-32 and Matthew 16:19 and other RC contentions  (Read 10617 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« on: February 20, 2013, 05:30:30 PM »

Hello everyone,

Roman Catholic argue that these passages (Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:19) refer to Peter in the first person singular, with the pertinent and significant exception in Luke 22:31 where Jesus says that the devil wishes to "sift YOU ALL like wheat". In his book "Pope Fiction", Patrick Madrid couples this with the episode of Matthew 14 where Peter is saved from drowning. The argument follows that in consideration of Acts 1:20 and the propagation of offices, that by a charitable guarantee, God sees to it that the See of Peter will not be overcome by the devil and "formally" preach error.

Though not an Orthodox Christian myself (yet), I've argued the point that the primacy is contingent upon orthodoxy and hence conditional as is in fact portrayed in Matthew 14. Furthermore, I've stated that the infamous "three conditions" are arbitrary and revisionist, since one confesses and preaches not only with word but with deed; and there have been, as we all know, several heretical and impious popes. The Catholic rejoinder I'm guessing would be Matthew 23: 2-3. At any rate, the instance in Luke 22: 31-32 does seem like an interesting contention in favor of Catholicity.

What say you on any or all of these matters brethren?
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #1 on: February 20, 2013, 05:34:50 PM »

Hello everyone,

Roman Catholic argue that these passages (Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:19) refer to Peter in the first person singular, with the pertinent and significant exception in Luke 22:31 where Jesus says that the devil wishes to "sift YOU ALL like wheat". In his book "Pope Fiction", Patrick Madrid couples this with the episode of Matthew 14 where Peter is saved from drowning. The argument follows that in consideration of Acts 1:20 and the propagation of offices, that by a charitable guarantee, God sees to it that the See of Peter will not be overcome by the devil and "formally" preach error.

Though not an Orthodox Christian myself (yet), I've argued the point that the primacy is contingent upon orthodoxy and hence conditional as is in fact portrayed in Matthew 14. Furthermore, I've stated that the infamous "three conditions" are arbitrary and revisionist, since one confesses and preaches not only with word but with deed; and there have been, as we all know, several heretical and impious popes. The Catholic rejoinder I'm guessing would be Matthew 23: 2-3. At any rate, the instance in Luke 22: 31-32 does seem like an interesting contention in favor of Catholicity.

What say you on any or all of these matters brethren?

I think that you can't argue from Scripture without using Patristics.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 05:34:59 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,760


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #2 on: February 20, 2013, 05:50:58 PM »

I've argued the point that the primacy
We never had a problem with primacy.

Supremacy was the issue.
Logged

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

"Simply put, if you’re not willing to take what is dearest to you, whether plans or people, and kiss it goodbye, you can’t be my disciple."
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #3 on: February 20, 2013, 06:08:49 PM »

Hello everyone,

Roman Catholic argue that these passages (Luke 22:32 and Matthew 16:19) refer to Peter in the first person singular, with the pertinent and significant exception in Luke 22:31 where Jesus says that the devil wishes to "sift YOU ALL like wheat". In his book "Pope Fiction", Patrick Madrid couples this with the episode of Matthew 14 where Peter is saved from drowning. The argument follows that in consideration of Acts 1:20 and the propagation of offices, that by a charitable guarantee, God sees to it that the See of Peter will not be overcome by the devil and "formally" preach error.

Though not an Orthodox Christian myself (yet), I've argued the point that the primacy is contingent upon orthodoxy and hence conditional as is in fact portrayed in Matthew 14. Furthermore, I've stated that the infamous "three conditions" are arbitrary and revisionist, since one confesses and preaches not only with word but with deed; and there have been, as we all know, several heretical and impious popes. The Catholic rejoinder I'm guessing would be Matthew 23: 2-3. At any rate, the instance in Luke 22: 31-32 does seem like an interesting contention in favor of Catholicity.

What say you on any or all of these matters brethren?

I think that you can't argue from Scripture without using Patristics.

Fair enough. That being the case, would you be so charitable as to provide some good patristic sources which interpret these verses?

I've argued the point that the primacy
We never had a problem with primacy.

Supremacy was the issue.

I'm not sure you read the entire context of that paragraph. I was not denying that the EO deny the primacy.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #4 on: February 20, 2013, 06:09:49 PM »

Correction: I was not STATING that the EO deny the primacy.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #5 on: February 20, 2013, 06:16:25 PM »

Fair enough. That being the case, would you be so charitable as to provide some good patristic sources which interpret these verses?

Migne's Patrologia Graeca and Patrologia Latina.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #6 on: February 20, 2013, 07:08:05 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #7 on: February 20, 2013, 07:56:33 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?

Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost. 
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #8 on: February 20, 2013, 08:06:05 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost.  
Yes, none were replaced but all were succeeded.
« Last Edit: February 20, 2013, 08:07:00 PM by ialmisry » 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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #9 on: February 20, 2013, 08:17:03 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost.  
Yes, none were replaced but all were succeeded.

But none in an individualistic, office, sense.  Like George Washington was succeeded by other men in the office of the presidency.  We know who the president of the US is at a given time throughout history.  Bishops today are successors of the Apostles, but there are no specific offices of each Apostle.  I know every Patriarchate was called the Seat of an Apostle, usually Peter (Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria through St. Mark), but it there is no one office for St. Peter as there is no one office for each Apostle.  Every bishop is the successor of all the Apostles.
Logged
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #10 on: February 20, 2013, 09:12:48 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?


The first point differentiating between leaders and bosses I think is fantastic; as well as the last point regarding the absence of individual succession from the other apostles. However, I didn't understand this part:

The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #11 on: February 20, 2013, 09:20:03 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost.  
Yes, none were replaced but all were succeeded.

But none in an individualistic, office, sense.  Like George Washington was succeeded by other men in the office of the presidency.  We know who the president of the US is at a given time throughout history.  Bishops today are successors of the Apostles, but there are no specific offices of each Apostle.  I know every Patriarchate was called the Seat of an Apostle, usually Peter (Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria through St. Mark), but it there is no one office for St. Peter as there is no one office for each Apostle.  Every bishop is the successor of all the Apostles.

Choy,

That doesn't seem to be true at all considering the plethora of patristic sources referring to the See of Peter as precisely an individual apostolic inheritance. Here is a concise list:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #12 on: February 20, 2013, 09:47:20 PM »

Choy,

That doesn't seem to be true at all considering the plethora of patristic sources referring to the See of Peter as precisely an individual apostolic inheritance. Here is a concise list:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

Is that a plethora of Patristic sources?  Half of them I think were Popes.  It's like me saying I am infallible, why wouldn't I not want to say that?  Also note that Primacy does have a different connotation to the East than the West.  So the proclamation that the Patriarch of Constantinople is second in honor to Rome's Primacy does not mean universal ordinary jurisdiction or infallibility.  Roman Catholics quickly jump to that conclusion that everytime something nice said about the Pope or that Rome has primacy, then primacy means what they want it to mean.  I like what is said in the book "The Primacy of Peter," that a lot of this seemingly evidence for the supremacy of the Pope would never be understood to mean as much if people never had this preconcieved notion that the Pope is what the Papacy is defined today.  If we're not hunting for quotes to prove that the Pope is the universal supreme bishop, then we will never equate primacy to mean that the first time we encounter the word in Patristic text.  The concept of which is alien to our Church Fathers.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #13 on: February 20, 2013, 09:57:49 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?


The first point differentiating between leaders and bosses I think is fantastic; as well as the last point regarding the absence of individual succession from the other apostles. However, I didn't understand this part:

The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Anachronism is a logical fallacy where we assume that the past has the same circumstances as today.  For example, some people assume that the structure of Popes, Bishops, Priests and Deacons existed in the First Century.  That simply is not true.  St. James who is recognized as the first bishop of Jerusalem wasn't even referred to as "episkopos" in Acts.  He was called a Presbyter.  But we all know even without titles that he holds a primacy among the presbyters of Jerusalem.  And eventually this prime presbyter was called the bishop.  Also back then presbyters didn't celebrate the Eucharist, only bishops do.  Although in the Didache it did say the bishop can appoint someone to celebrate the Eucharist in his stead, the practice of having presbyters celebrate the Eucharist always did not exist back then.

So for the Papacy, I think there has been an effort to portray it as something that exists back then even though it doesn't.  Even the concept of Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church (first and second century).
Logged
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #14 on: February 20, 2013, 10:08:35 PM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?


The first point differentiating between leaders and bosses I think is fantastic; as well as the last point regarding the absence of individual succession from the other apostles. However, I didn't understand this part:

The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Anachronism is a logical fallacy where we assume that the past has the same circumstances as today.  For example, some people assume that the structure of Popes, Bishops, Priests and Deacons existed in the First Century.  That simply is not true.  St. James who is recognized as the first bishop of Jerusalem wasn't even referred to as "episkopos" in Acts.  He was called a Presbyter.  But we all know even without titles that he holds a primacy among the presbyters of Jerusalem.  And eventually this prime presbyter was called the bishop.  Also back then presbyters didn't celebrate the Eucharist, only bishops do.  Although in the Didache it did say the bishop can appoint someone to celebrate the Eucharist in his stead, the practice of having presbyters celebrate the Eucharist always did not exist back then.

So for the Papacy, I think there has been an effort to portray it as something that exists back then even though it doesn't.  Even the concept of Metropolitans and Patriarchs did not exist in the early Church (first and second century).

I'm guessing the RC rejoinder would be that rhetorical difference is just that, rhetorical; and that the real presence of primacy and all that goes with it in the RC conception was in fact there but perhaps not exercised and expressed in the way they (the RC's) understand it today.

Choy,

That doesn't seem to be true at all considering the plethora of patristic sources referring to the See of Peter as precisely an individual apostolic inheritance. Here is a concise list:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

Is that a plethora of Patristic sources?  Half of them I think were Popes.  It's like me saying I am infallible, why wouldn't I not want to say that?  Also note that Primacy does have a different connotation to the East than the West.  So the proclamation that the Patriarch of Constantinople is second in honor to Rome's Primacy does not mean universal ordinary jurisdiction or infallibility.  Roman Catholics quickly jump to that conclusion that everytime something nice said about the Pope or that Rome has primacy, then primacy means what they want it to mean.  I like what is said in the book "The Primacy of Peter," that a lot of this seemingly evidence for the supremacy of the Pope would never be understood to mean as much if people never had this preconcieved notion that the Pope is what the Papacy is defined today.  If we're not hunting for quotes to prove that the Pope is the universal supreme bishop, then we will never equate primacy to mean that the first time we encounter the word in Patristic text.  The concept of which is alien to our Church Fathers.

Despite that being the case there are quotes there and elsewhere which are not from popes which seem to affirm the RC position. I agree with you however that this doesn't refute the EO conception of primacy being conditional and of a different nature.

I also found what you said regarding RC's humorous. I'm a RC (for now) and I've caught myself and others doing the same.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #15 on: February 20, 2013, 10:17:00 PM »

I'm guessing the RC rejoinder would be that rhetorical difference is just that, rhetorical; and that the real presence of primacy and all that goes with it in the RC conception was in fact there but perhaps not exercised and expressed in the way they (the RC's) understand it today.

Yes, well that is what the Orthodox say is what it is.  And I accept it, being a former RC myself.  As mentioned previously, the Pope of Rome no doubt has Primacy, but Vatican I is not the definition of Primacy especially in the First Millennium.

Despite that being the case there are quotes there and elsewhere which are not from popes which seem to affirm the RC position. I agree with you however that this doesn't refute the EO conception of primacy being conditional and of a different nature.

I also found what you said regarding RC's humorous. I'm a RC (for now) and I've caught myself and others doing the same.

I think we have to look at the bigger picture.  Of course a quote can easily be taken out of context, we have our experience with that with all the bible-only groups hacking and tearing apart Scripture to serve their purpose.  I was convinced of the Orthodox position because the Orthodox came with the wider context, which the Roman Catholic side at least by my readings did not.  It was this quote and that quote and that is it.  I may be wrong and surely if you have something that explains a quote in a larger context that also supports the Roman position, please share it here.  Because a quote taken out of context can easily be inserted into a different context.  That doesn't make the quote mean that new context though.
Logged
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #16 on: February 20, 2013, 10:39:28 PM »

I'm guessing the RC rejoinder would be that rhetorical difference is just that, rhetorical; and that the real presence of primacy and all that goes with it in the RC conception was in fact there but perhaps not exercised and expressed in the way they (the RC's) understand it today.

Yes, well that is what the Orthodox say is what it is.  And I accept it, being a former RC myself.  As mentioned previously, the Pope of Rome no doubt has Primacy, but Vatican I is not the definition of Primacy especially in the First Millennium.

Despite that being the case there are quotes there and elsewhere which are not from popes which seem to affirm the RC position. I agree with you however that this doesn't refute the EO conception of primacy being conditional and of a different nature.

I also found what you said regarding RC's humorous. I'm a RC (for now) and I've caught myself and others doing the same.

I think we have to look at the bigger picture.  Of course a quote can easily be taken out of context, we have our experience with that with all the bible-only groups hacking and tearing apart Scripture to serve their purpose.  I was convinced of the Orthodox position because the Orthodox came with the wider context, which the Roman Catholic side at least by my readings did not.  It was this quote and that quote and that is it.  I may be wrong and surely if you have something that explains a quote in a larger context that also supports the Roman position, please share it here.  Because a quote taken out of context can easily be inserted into a different context.  That doesn't make the quote mean that new context though.

Firstly, thanks for your time and care in your responses. What I meant regarding your second response, was not that the RC position regarding the papacy is justified in its entirety, but that the point regarding individual apostolic inheritance seems to be evidently present within the early Church. Since there is so much that rides on conversions from one Church to another, I will be founding my decision on texts and truths that speak for themselves and that can be interpreted in no other way. That's why, on this single point, it seems to me that the quotes and consensus speaks for itself, that in the case of Rome there is definitely and apostolic inheritance that has Peter for its root. That of course isn't to conclude that any other papal claims are to follow.
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #17 on: February 21, 2013, 05:15:58 AM »

I was convinced of the Orthodox position because the Orthodox came with the wider context, which the Roman Catholic side at least by my readings did not.  It was this quote and that quote and that is it.  I may be wrong and surely if you have something that explains a quote in a larger context that also supports the Roman position, please share it here.  Because a quote taken out of context can easily be inserted into a different context.  That doesn't make the quote mean that new context though.

Yes. Study of the Church Fathers should probably receive more attention in the Church of Rome.

Firstly, thanks for your time and care in your responses. What I meant regarding your second response, was not that the RC position regarding the papacy is justified in its entirety, but that the point regarding individual apostolic inheritance seems to be evidently present within the early Church.

You're right about that one. At least in the case of Rome.
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 05:19:09 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
dhinuus
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 461



« Reply #18 on: February 21, 2013, 02:58:08 PM »

St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that. However is the Pope of Rome the only successor to Aposlte Peter?  Did not Apostle Peter establish the see of Antioch ? If not other Bishops atleast the Bishop (Patriarch) of Antioch has as much or even a higher claim to be a successor of Peter than the Bishop of Rome.

Let us see what St. Gregory the Great (Gregory the Dialogist) who was a Pope of Rome had to say about this?

St Gregory I, Pope of Rome, Epistle XL, writing to Eulogius Patriarch of Alexandria.

"Your most sweet Holiness [Eulogius] has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors.

"And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair. …And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matthew 16:19). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren ( Luke 22: 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (John. 21: 17).

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one.

For he himself [Peter] exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See [Alexandria] to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Mark]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”
--------------
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.iii.v.vii.xxvi.html
------------
Note well:


1. The parts where the Pope speaks of Alexandria and Antioch sharing the keys with Rome

2. The parts where the Pope speaks of the equality of Rome and Alexandria and Antioch

3. The parts where the Pope says that all three of these Sees form one See over which the three bishops preside.
Logged

NULL
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #19 on: February 21, 2013, 05:04:42 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.
Logged
Jy3pr6
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (Considering transfer to Melkite or Orthodox Church)
Posts: 20



« Reply #20 on: February 21, 2013, 05:40:49 PM »

Thank you all for your wonderful and edifying responses. These will all be considered in prayer as I discern personally the Way and Truth of the Lord.

May our Lord Christ God reign in your hearts!
Logged

"Rejoice today, both you who have fasted and you who have disregarded the fast... Christ is risen!"

"If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing."
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 #21 on: February 21, 2013, 05:45:59 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

Thank you! I would also ask Dhinuus to consider the 4th Diptych in our Liturgy, which calls Sts. Peter and Paul collectively as "Chief among the Apostles".
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #22 on: February 21, 2013, 05:59:31 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

First-called means he was the first to be called as a Disciple, not automatically the first in honor.  Peter's primacy isn't disputed, it's what his primacy means that is disputed.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #23 on: February 21, 2013, 06:02:46 PM »

Firstly, thanks for your time and care in your responses. What I meant regarding your second response, was not that the RC position regarding the papacy is justified in its entirety, but that the point regarding individual apostolic inheritance seems to be evidently present within the early Church. Since there is so much that rides on conversions from one Church to another, I will be founding my decision on texts and truths that speak for themselves and that can be interpreted in no other way. That's why, on this single point, it seems to me that the quotes and consensus speaks for itself, that in the case of Rome there is definitely and apostolic inheritance that has Peter for its root. That of course isn't to conclude that any other papal claims are to follow.

I haven't done much reading on this matter, but I heard from one podcast from AFR (I forgot from who though) that the claims to seats of the Apostles didn't really arise until Sees were elevated to Patriarchates, and each Church was justifying their claim to primacy.

This is something to think about.
Logged
ErmyCath
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #24 on: February 21, 2013, 08:41:41 PM »

To the OP, along with considering the excellent responses you've already received, question whether the original Twelve were themselves bishops as the Roman Catholic Church claims or whether they held a higher, unrepeatable office as Apostles.  As an earlier poster pointed out, using the Roman Catholic logic of the Twelve as bishops in their own right who basically replace themselves through consecrating new bishops (instead of Apostles who established Sees by creating bishops), you would have to question why there are now more than 12 bishops.

For me, the key (pun intended) to understanding the flaw of Roman Catholic logic on this point was the revelation that the Apostles held a once-for-all office of Apostles while not themselves being bishops.  Therefore, whatever particular authority was held by St. Peter (and I agree it is undisputed he was the leader of the Apostles), does not necessarily mean he passed that particular office to any of the bishops he created in the various Sees he established.

Moreover, it might help to consider that the "primacy" as it rested in the Roman See (when it was Orthodox), was just that - a primacy that rested in the Roman See.  The See has the primacy as a result of being highly esteemed for its orthodoxy and the martyrdom of so many saints and for being the imperial seat.  The Patriarch of Rome, therefore, presided at the head of the others because he occupied the See, not because of anything intrinsic to himself.  So, you see, the primacy is not a personal gift for the exercise of an individual bishop, but an honor bestowed on the chief See, which really has very little to do with St. Peter.  And that makes sense for all the historical reasons others have pointed out in this thread so far.

Finally, you might start to ask yourself why the early Church saw fit to call those councils if all they needed to do was ask the Patriarch of Rome for the answer to these doctrinal questions.  They could have saved quite a bit of time!  Of course, that doesn't directly relate to your question about this particular Scriptural passages, but the Tradition and history surrounding the Scripture can sometimes illuminate whether what someone is arguing is legitimate or whether they're proof-texting to support their preconceived view of the subject.  I submit that studying the early Church history demonstrates the typical Roman Catholic Scriptural support for the papal claims looks a lot like proof-texting.  Sometimes I think of the Desert Fathers in the Early Church when I contemplate this point -- I bet many of them didn't even know the name of the Pope of Rome (of course, that's not a very good argument in itself!).
« Last Edit: February 21, 2013, 08:46:51 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #25 on: February 21, 2013, 11:35:07 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

With what garlands of praise should we bind the brows of Peter and Paul? Separated in body, united in the Spirit, the leaders of God’s heralds; the one as chief of the Apostles, the other as having toiled more than the rest; for with diadems of immortal glory he has indeed fittingly crowned them, Christ our God, who has great mercy.
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/29_june.htm

Leaving behind the catching of fish, O Apostle, you net men, lowering the bait of true religion like a hook with the rod of your preaching, and drawing up from the depth of error all the nations. Apostle Andrew, brother of the Prince and outstanding teacher of the world, do not cease to intercede for us, O all-praised, who with faith and love praise your ever-honoured memory.
http://www.anastasis.org.uk/30nov.htm
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #26 on: February 22, 2013, 02:06:51 AM »

More from the service to Apostle Andrew:

The pillar of the faith, the seat of the true doctrines of Christ
, Andrew inspired by God today calls all the ends of the earth to arrange a yearly feast; let us believers, therefore, come together.

Initiates of Christ, contemplators of things above, the proclamation that you trumpeted to the earth astounds every thought; because, while only twelve, you illumined earth’s many thousands.

When the spiritual Sun had set upon the Tree by the counsel of His own free will, the beacon of the Sun, Andrew the great lamp of the Church, seeking to be dissolved with Him and to set into Christ, was hanged upon the tree of a cross.

O disciple and friend of Christ, and fellow of His Apostles, when the Judge is seated upon his throne with you, the Twelve, to judge, as the promise says, then be for us a wall of lovingkindness.

Bethsaida now be glad; for in you there flowered from a mystic pool two sweet scented lilies, Peter and Andrew, who spread the fragrant proclamation of the faith to the whole world by the grace of Christ, whose sufferings too they imitated.

Chosen initiate of the divine dispensation of Christ, chosen first of all to be a disciple of the Word, Andrew who saw God cried out and said, when he saw his brother Peter, ‘We have found the Messiah whom the Scripture and Prophets proclaimed of old’.


And from the hymnody for Apostle john the Evangelist and Theologian:

The summit of the Apostles, the trumpet of theology, the spiritual general, who made the whole inhabited world subject to God, come believers, let us call him blessed, revered John, translated from earth, yet not withdrawn from earth, but living and abiding the fearful second coming of the Master. O mystic bosom friend of Christ, ask that we, who celebrate your memory with love, may meet it uncondemned.

Having abandoned the deep of fishing, O all-praised, you caught all the na­tions like fishes with the rod of the Cross; for as Christ had said to you, you were named a fisher of men, catching them for true religion; therefore you sowed the knowledge of the Word of God and made Patmos and Ephesus fruitful by your words. Theologian, Apostle, intercede with Christ God to bestow forgiveness of faults on those who feast with love your holy memory.

Theologian, Virgin, beloved Disciple of the Saviour, by your in­tercessions save us, we implore, from every kind of harm; for we are your flock.

Father’s beloved Word you stand beside,
Beloved more than all of the Disciples.
Passed on the twenty sixth day unto God the child of the thunder.
(Synaxarion verse)

From the service to Apostle Luke, who was one of the Seventy:

Luke, Apostle of Christ, initiate of ineffable mysteries, Teacher of the nations, with godlike Paul and the pure Mother of God, whose godlike icon you depicted from love, intercede on behalf of those who call you blessed and who honour your sacred falling asleep, all-wise speaker of mysteries who saw God.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #27 on: February 22, 2013, 07:04:00 AM »

I remember this business mantra which separates leaders from managers.  The confusion about St. Peter is precisely that.  He was the leader of the Apostles, not necessarily their "boss".  The saddest part of this dicussion for me is the anachronosim by some to claim that later ecclesiastical structures existed in the First Century just to justify St. Peter as being Pope and supreme over the entire Church.

Also, there is no evidence that St. Peter ever left and office to be filled by someone else.  Acts 1 is a poor example.  Judas left the Apostles, he died separated from the faith.  Those who died in the faith, which is the rest of the Apostles, never relinquished their office.  There are only 12 elect who at the end of ages will sit on 12 thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.  Besdies, what happened to the offices of the other Apostles?  Why don't we elect successors to those?
Correct, Acts 1 and the "replacing" of Judas was in order that the 12, not in part, but in full, would receive the promise of the Holy Spirit as Apostolic witnesses of the Resurrection.  No one of the 12 were "replaced" after Pentecost.  
Yes, none were replaced but all were succeeded.

But none in an individualistic, office, sense.  Like George Washington was succeeded by other men in the office of the presidency.  We know who the president of the US is at a given time throughout history.  Bishops today are successors of the Apostles, but there are no specific offices of each Apostle.  I know every Patriarchate was called the Seat of an Apostle, usually Peter (Antioch, Rome, and Alexandria through St. Mark), but it there is no one office for St. Peter as there is no one office for each Apostle.  Every bishop is the successor of all the Apostles.

Choy,

That doesn't seem to be true at all considering the plethora of patristic sources referring to the See of Peter as precisely an individual apostolic inheritance. Here is a concise list:

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii

Pope Gregory recognised three different Sees as Sees of Peter! In writing to Eulogius, bishop of Alexandria Gregory says “Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors...Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one...He himself stablished (sic) the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”
Book VII – Epistle XL. To Eulogius, Bishop.

Try thinking about this like the Trinity. Everything begins with God the Father, so in one sense he has a primacy. Everything comes from him. Yet all members of the Trinity are fully God. They are unified in a union of love.

The church is the body of Christ and therefore reflects the triune nature of God of unity in diversity.

To say that Peter was leader (in the Catholic use of it) would be like saying that God the Father is more God than God the Son.

Edit: My apologies! I just saw dhinuus use the same quote
« Last Edit: February 22, 2013, 07:05:52 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #28 on: February 22, 2013, 07:07:32 AM »

St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

I've seen some weird Catholic arguments about this, such as an argument from statistics; Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in the NT, etc.

It's then a leap to go from that to "Peter was de jure head of the church"
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Deacon Lance
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 2,878


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #29 on: February 22, 2013, 05:24:20 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #30 on: February 23, 2013, 05:13:05 AM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

There are perhaps more than one who are called chief?  Wink
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #31 on: March 04, 2013, 08:42:55 AM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 04, 2013, 08:39:35 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/
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/
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,500



« Reply #33 on: March 04, 2013, 08:43:46 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Exactly. 2 out of 3 that were founded by St. Peter remained Orthodox, together with the ONLY one founded by Christ and all the 12 (Jerusalem). 
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #34 on: March 05, 2013, 06:28:39 AM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

And as already been noted the three Sees of Peter are ONE
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #35 on: March 05, 2013, 07:12:05 AM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523


Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #36 on: March 05, 2013, 02:03:42 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523




Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
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/
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 #37 on: March 05, 2013, 02:29:19 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523




Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The Church.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #38 on: March 05, 2013, 02:42:03 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/
Your source ignores the fact that Eusebius only uses the term "throne" in reference to Jerusalem, which your "source" ignores.  Odd, given that Jerusalem is the only see that Holy Scripture tells us about St. Peter's involvement.  As for Alexandria, St. Peter never set foot there, but he founded the Church at Antioch, his first see.  If it were judged on a "petrine" scale, Antioch would out rank Alexandria.  But instead the secular order was followed:Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.
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
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #39 on: March 05, 2013, 02:43:05 PM »

Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The Church.

Problem is in Roman Catholicism the Pope is above all judgement, even by the Church.  Only God judges the Pope.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #40 on: March 05, 2013, 02:45:28 PM »

St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

I've seen some weird Catholic arguments about this, such as an argument from statistics; Peter is mentioned more than any other apostle in the NT, etc.
that's because of the frequency of the stories connected with his denial of Christ.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #41 on: March 05, 2013, 02:46:17 PM »

Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The Church.

Problem is in Roman Catholicism the Pope is above all judgement, even by the Church.  Only God judges the Pope.
and He has.
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
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #42 on: March 05, 2013, 07:53:14 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/
Your source ignores the fact that Eusebius only uses the term "throne" in reference to Jerusalem, which your "source" ignores.  Odd, given that Jerusalem is the only see that Holy Scripture tells us about St. Peter's involvement.  As for Alexandria, St. Peter never set foot there, but he founded the Church at Antioch, his first see.  If it were judged on a "petrine" scale, Antioch would out rank Alexandria.  But instead the secular order was followed:Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

"St. Chrysostom tells the people of Antioch that ” Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, who had power over all to bind and to loose, was commanded to reside here a long time: for this cause our city is the complement of the world.” And again : “This is the single prerogative of the dignity of our city, that it had from the beginning the Prince of the Apostles for its teacher. For it was just that the city where the name of Christians was first pronounced should receive the first Apostle as its pastor. But though we received him as our teacher, we did not keep him for good, but gave him up to Rome.”

Though the see of Antioch was founded by St. Peter in person, that of Alexandria only by his deputy Mark, whom he sent from Rome to Egypt, yet Alexandria had the higher rank. Bellarmine says, because St. Mark as Evangelist took precedence of Evodius, St. Peter’s successor at Antioch ; Baronius, because Alexandria was the more important city. But whatever was the reason, the order of the sees was well known, and always rigidly preserved.
Hence it is evident, and beyond all controversy, that Rome was first of the three."

Also from the same source, you might consider reading the whole thing
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/#part-i-the-authority-of-the-pope
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/
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #43 on: March 05, 2013, 07:54:23 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523




Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The Church.

How?
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/
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #44 on: March 05, 2013, 10:20:19 PM »

How?

History has the answer.
Logged
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #45 on: March 05, 2013, 11:17:44 PM »


Care to explain it?
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/
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #46 on: March 06, 2013, 12:09:24 AM »


The councils of the First Millennium clearly show how issues were handled in the Church.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #47 on: March 06, 2013, 02:32:57 AM »


A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #48 on: March 06, 2013, 02:35:23 AM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/
Your source ignores the fact that Eusebius only uses the term "throne" in reference to Jerusalem, which your "source" ignores.  Odd, given that Jerusalem is the only see that Holy Scripture tells us about St. Peter's involvement.  As for Alexandria, St. Peter never set foot there, but he founded the Church at Antioch, his first see.  If it were judged on a "petrine" scale, Antioch would out rank Alexandria.  But instead the secular order was followed:Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

"St. Chrysostom tells the people of Antioch that ” Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, who had power over all to bind and to loose, was commanded to reside here a long time: for this cause our city is the complement of the world.” And again : “This is the single prerogative of the dignity of our city, that it had from the beginning the Prince of the Apostles for its teacher. For it was just that the city where the name of Christians was first pronounced should receive the first Apostle as its pastor. But though we received him as our teacher, we did not keep him for good, but gave him up to Rome.”

Though the see of Antioch was founded by St. Peter in person, that of Alexandria only by his deputy Mark, whom he sent from Rome to Egypt, yet Alexandria had the higher rank. Bellarmine says, because St. Mark as Evangelist took precedence of Evodius, St. Peter’s successor at Antioch ; Baronius, because Alexandria was the more important city. But whatever was the reason, the order of the sees was well known, and always rigidly preserved.
Hence it is evident, and beyond all controversy, that Rome was first of the three."

Also from the same source, you might consider reading the whole thing
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/#part-i-the-authority-of-the-pope

The great irony of a Catholic quoting John Chrysostom is that John, the golden-mouthed took holy orders from men not in communion with Rome!

For John, communion with Rome was not essential to his Christianity.

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #49 on: March 06, 2013, 02:58:08 AM »

Regarding John Chrysostom, I am expecting a stock-standard Catholic rebuttal that this great saint appealed for help to the pope.

I expect this because I've debated Catholics for more than 10 years and we go through the same arguments.

But anyway, here's my answer before the question... Cheesy

Yes, when he was faced with banishment from Constantinople he appealed to the pope for help. However he equally appealed to other westerners for help.

John Chrysostom became patriarch in Constantinople. In this high ranking position his tendency for austerity and moral behaviour earned enemies at court, particularly the Empress Eudoxia. (  Bury, J. B., (1889) A History of the Later Roman Empire, Volume 1 (Macmillan & Co; London), pp92ff) The details of this conflict are not important to this book but suffice to note that John Chyrsostom was deposed from his office. On occasion then he appealed for help to the pope.
To say that this saint’s writings support the papacy would make him a hypocrite, as he never accepted Rome’s authority over his local church. However it is true that he did seek Rome’s help when faced with exile from his own See. This however is only part of the story. He appealed to the Pope he appealed to others for help, including two other western prelates; Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia. Importantly he appealed to all three westerners in the same terms rather than viewing the Pope as leader. (  Stephens, W. R. W., (2005), Saint Chrysostom: His Life and Times,(Elibron Classics), pp349-50. This work was originally published in 1872.) Catholic writers such as Newman put his appeal to the pope as… “We have letters written by him to the Bishops of Thessalonica, Corinth, Synnada, Laodicea, Mopsuestia, Jerusalem, Carthage, Milan, Brescia, and Aquileia. Above all, he addressed himself to the Holy See”.  Newman’s terminology ‘above all…to the Holy See’ ( Newman, J. H., (1873) Historical Sketches: The Church of the Fathers (Basil Montagu Pickering; London), p281.) is based on the a priori that the Holy See is above all, thus an appeal to the pope is above all. There is nothing in this but supposition. It is clear that Newman notes appeals made to many different people, why the appeal to Rome is a stand-out is not based on any evidence.
In 2007 Pope Benedict XVI  also spoke of Chrysostom’s appeal…
“How well known and highly esteemed Chromatius was in the Church of his time we can deduce from an episode in the life of St John Chrysostom. When the Bishop of Constantinople was exiled from his See, he wrote three letters to those he considered the most important Bishops of the West seeking to obtain their support with the Emperors: he wrote one letter to the Bishop of Rome, the second to the Bishop of Milan and the third to the Bishop of Aquileia, precisely, Chromatius.” 
( Ep. CLV: PG LII,702. General Audience Paul VI Audience Hall - Wednesday, 5 December 2007 at http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20071205_en.html/ I add this reference in because the occasional catholic apologist tries to explain away this as John Chrysostom writing to the bishop of Rome, and then merely forwarding copies on to the other two bishops as if the appeal was to the pope alone. See also the following three footnotes as well.)
Historian J. N. D Kelly also recognises this…“While confined to his palace, John took a step of great importance. At some date between Easter and Pentecost... he wrote for support to the pope, Innocent I, and, in identical terms, to the two other leading patriarchs in the west, Venerius of Milan and Chromatius of Aquileia...His move in no way implied that he recognized the holy see as the supreme court of appeal in the church...Such an idea, absent from his sermons and other writings, is ruled out by his simultaneous approach to the two other western patriarchs.”
(  Kelly, J. N. D., (1995) Golden Mouth: The Story of John Chrysostom, (Cornell University Press), p246.)


There's nothing in any of his writings to support the papacy. not make appointments  – there is a lack of any pope exercising authority in his work. Thus the Catholic encyclopaedia of 1911 offers this frank admission of Chrysostom’s writings “...that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.”
 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm/
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
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: 1,533



« Reply #50 on: March 06, 2013, 03:14:10 AM »


The idea that the bishop of Rome is above judgment is simply foreign to the mind of the fathers. The Second Council of Constantinople, for example, struck Pope Vigilius from the diptychs because he declared in his First Constitutum, that the dead could not be anathematized, and refused to anathematize the anti-Cyrillian writings of Theodoret and the Letter of Ibas to Maris, arguing especially in favor of the latter by saying that it was for the reason of the orthodoxy of this letter that the Council of Chalcedon rehabilitated Ibas. The council disagreed, anathematizing anybody who would defend the person of Theodore of Mopsuestia (which Pope Vigilius did in the Constitutum), anybody who would defend the anti-Cyrillian chapters of Theodoret (which Pope Vigilius also did in his Constitutum), and anybody who would defend the letter of Ibas to Maris (which Pope Vigilius also did). The result was that Pope Vigilus issued a retraction, his Second Constitutum, in which he affirmed all of the council's positions. There is also, of course, the famous example of Pope Honorius, who was posthumously anathematized by the Third Council of Constantinople. If the pope is truly above judgment, then it seems that the fathers present at both councils were unaware of this.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 03:14:22 AM by Cavaradossi » Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 06, 2013, 12:34:39 PM »


A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

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/
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #52 on: March 06, 2013, 12:49:20 PM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2013, 12:51:51 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
jmbejdl
Count-Palatine James the Spurious of Giggleswick on the Naze
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Romania
Posts: 1,480


Great Martyr St. John the New of Suceava


« Reply #53 on: March 06, 2013, 12:50:37 PM »


I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.


Of course it does. It proves that the rest of the Church did not subscribe to the idea that the Pope of Rome's condemnation of Arius was binding on the Church as a whole, whereas the condemnation of the council was.

James
Logged

We owe greater gratitude to those who humble us, wrong us, and douse us with venom, than to those who nurse us with honour and sweet words, or feed us with tasty food and confections, for bile is the best medicine for our soul. - Elder Paisios of Mount Athos
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #54 on: March 06, 2013, 01:01:51 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #55 on: March 06, 2013, 03:43:02 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/
Your source ignores the fact that Eusebius only uses the term "throne" in reference to Jerusalem, which your "source" ignores.  Odd, given that Jerusalem is the only see that Holy Scripture tells us about St. Peter's involvement.  As for Alexandria, St. Peter never set foot there, but he founded the Church at Antioch, his first see.  If it were judged on a "petrine" scale, Antioch would out rank Alexandria.  But instead the secular order was followed:Rome, Alexandria, Antioch.

"St. Chrysostom tells the people of Antioch that ” Peter, to whom the keys of the kingdom of heaven were given, who had power over all to bind and to loose, was commanded to reside here a long time: for this cause our city is the complement of the world.” And again : “This is the single prerogative of the dignity of our city, that it had from the beginning the Prince of the Apostles for its teacher. For it was just that the city where the name of Christians was first pronounced should receive the first Apostle as its pastor. But though we received him as our teacher, we did not keep him for good, but gave him up to Rome.”

Though the see of Antioch was founded by St. Peter in person, that of Alexandria only by his deputy Mark, whom he sent from Rome to Egypt, yet Alexandria had the higher rank. Bellarmine says, because St. Mark as Evangelist took precedence of Evodius, St. Peter’s successor at Antioch ; Baronius, because Alexandria was the more important city. But whatever was the reason, the order of the sees was well known, and always rigidly preserved.
Hence it is evident, and beyond all controversy, that Rome was first of the three."

Also from the same source, you might consider reading the whole thing
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/#part-i-the-authority-of-the-pope
Bellarmine is grasping at straws: St. Evodius wasn't the founder of the Church of Antioch, and hence no comparison to St. Mark the Evangelist can be made.  Who has heard of St. Anianus?

The controversy isn't about Rome being the first of the three, but why.  It being the capital is the reason the Fathers in Ecumenical Council gave, and I'll go with that.

That St. John wasn't in communion with Rome at the time he wrote those words had already been pointed out.  St. John also applies the power to bind and lose to a mere suffragan of a metropolitan under Antioch, and refers to St. James as St. Peter's superior at the Council of Jerusalem.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #56 on: March 06, 2013, 03:47:27 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523




Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The Church.

How?
The Patriarchs spelled it out for your supreme pontiffs Pius IX and Leo XIII in response to the Vatican's encyclicals for false union:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx
Logged

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

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



« Reply #57 on: March 06, 2013, 03:50:02 PM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.
He presided over the Council of Constantinople I, during which he reposed.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #58 on: March 06, 2013, 03:51:47 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Logged

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

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #59 on: March 06, 2013, 04:48:25 PM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.
He presided over the Council of Constantinople I, during which he reposed.

Exactly.
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
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: 1,533



« Reply #60 on: March 06, 2013, 04:49:18 PM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.

I think Montalban is perhaps conflating two events.

The first is the St. Meletius presided over the First Council of Constantinople, despite being out of communion with Rome.

The second is that Dioscoros (not Nestorius) was not immediately denied a seat at Chalcedon, despite the protestations of Pope Leo's legates, who had instructions from him not to allow Dioscoros to take a seat (because Pope Leo already considered Dioscoros to have been guilty of misconduct and had excommunicated him). The council itself only denied Dioscoros a seat once charges were brought against him not for the reason that Pope Leo had excommunicated him, but because one cannot judge his own case.
Logged

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

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #61 on: March 06, 2013, 04:53:28 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.
Logged
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 8,706


« Reply #62 on: March 06, 2013, 05:40:28 PM »


Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

Didn't Pope St. Martin excommunicate the Monothelites?
Logged

On a temporary/semi-permanent/permanent vacation from OC.net.
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #63 on: March 06, 2013, 06:02:46 PM »


Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

Didn't Pope St. Martin excommunicate the Monothelites?

From Rome or from the entire Church encompassing all jurisdictions under all the Patriarchates?
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #64 on: March 06, 2013, 06:05:46 PM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.

I think Montalban is perhaps conflating two events.

The first is the St. Meletius presided over the First Council of Constantinople, despite being out of communion with Rome.

The second is that Dioscoros (not Nestorius) was not immediately denied a seat at Chalcedon, despite the protestations of Pope Leo's legates, who had instructions from him not to allow Dioscoros to take a seat (because Pope Leo already considered Dioscoros to have been guilty of misconduct and had excommunicated him). The council itself only denied Dioscoros a seat once charges were brought against him not for the reason that Pope Leo had excommunicated him, but because one cannot judge his own case.
What you say is true, but Nestorius also was tried at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, although the Archbishop of Old Rome had already condemned him.
Logged

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

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,533



« Reply #65 on: March 06, 2013, 06:19:37 PM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.

I think Montalban is perhaps conflating two events.

The first is the St. Meletius presided over the First Council of Constantinople, despite being out of communion with Rome.

The second is that Dioscoros (not Nestorius) was not immediately denied a seat at Chalcedon, despite the protestations of Pope Leo's legates, who had instructions from him not to allow Dioscoros to take a seat (because Pope Leo already considered Dioscoros to have been guilty of misconduct and had excommunicated him). The council itself only denied Dioscoros a seat once charges were brought against him not for the reason that Pope Leo had excommunicated him, but because one cannot judge his own case.
What you say is true, but Nestorius also was tried at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, although the Archbishop of Old Rome had already condemned him.

I very much doubt that Nestorius was received at Ephesus with all due honor, but then perhaps I am remembering wrong. I know for sure, however, that Dioscoros was treated with due honor at Chalcedon, before he was found guilty.
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2013, 11:26:00 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.
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/
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #67 on: March 06, 2013, 11:29:46 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

Which any bishop could have done.
Logged
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #68 on: March 06, 2013, 11:32:33 PM »

Quote
St. Peter was the first among the Apostles. There is no question about that.

This is a common, but erroneous thought. Was not St Andrew the First-Called, and therefore first in rank? Was not James, the brother of the Lord, and who presided over the first Apostolic council, first in rank? No. Scripture clearly states all the apostles were given the authority to bind and to loose, all received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.

Look at the hymnography of any of the Twelve, particularly Andrew and John, as well as Peter and Paul (who are commemorated jointly, not separately, and not without reason), and words such as coryphaeos (pre-eminent), rock, holder of the keys and other terms of honor and praise will be found. In icons of the Twelve, both Peter and Paul are in the foreground, usually holding a model of a church together.

You stated it is an error to consider St. Peter first among the Apostles. Our hymnography calls him leader and chief proving your statement in error.

Even if he is, i don't see how this proves Vatican I. But surely History refutes it.

I don't think History refutes it.

"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.’ "

Source
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): "But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate."


As one can see, the primacy and honor is conditional upon the Orthodox Faith of the Bishop of Rome, not of divine right forever and ever.

"If by the Roman Church you mean its head or pontiff, it is beyond question that he can err even in matters touching the faith. He does this when he teaches heresy by his own judgement or decretal. In truth, many Roman pontiffs were heretics. The last of them was Pope John XXII (1334)." Pope Adrian VI, 1523




Who gets to decide if the Popes faith is Orthodox?
The Church.

How?
The Patriarchs spelled it out for your supreme pontiffs Pius IX and Leo XIII in response to the Vatican's encyclicals for false union:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Those letters seem to have some serious misunderstandings about the nature of the Papacy, Catholics do not believe that the Pope is the source of all grace. How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church?  Who gave those handful the authority?
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/
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #69 on: March 06, 2013, 11:33:57 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

Which any bishop could have done.

Really?  So their has always been perfect unity over the Canons adopted by Ecumenical councils?
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/
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #70 on: March 06, 2013, 11:53:24 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

Which any bishop could have done.

Really?  So their has always been perfect unity over the Canons adopted by Ecumenical councils?

One way or another the canons as we see them today have been accepted.  No one is pretending that it was a simple process that happened overnight without bickering, schisms, anathemas, etc.  But it surely wasn't Pope approves, everyone falls in line, rainbows in the sky, birds chirping, sun shining.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #71 on: March 07, 2013, 01:31:49 AM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.
You are seeing things.

We have the letter of Archbishop St. Leo I of Rome complaining to the Empress that his own suffragans were following canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.  It was followed at all the following three Ecumenical Councils, void Papal veto notwithstanding.

Latern was a Council, hence "First Council of the Lateran" or "Lateran Council of 649."
Logged

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

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



« Reply #72 on: March 07, 2013, 01:37:32 AM »

The Patriarchs spelled it out for your supreme pontiffs Pius IX and Leo XIII in response to the Vatican's encyclicals for false union:
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
http://orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

Those letters seem to have some serious misunderstandings about the nature of the Papacy
No, they are quite accurate.
Catholics do not believe that the Pope is the source of all grace.
Which section are you disputing?
How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church?

The teach the Faith of the Church.  A single patriarch can speak for the entire Church, as the Fathers of the Ecumenical Councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople II demonstrated for Pope St. Cyril.
Who gave those handful the authority?
Three guesses
Logged

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

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



« Reply #73 on: March 07, 2013, 01:38:37 AM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

Which any bishop could have done.

Really?  So their has always been perfect unity over the Canons adopted by Ecumenical councils?
Pretty much.   More than over Pastor Aeternus.
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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #74 on: March 07, 2013, 03:32:39 AM »

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church?  Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #75 on: March 07, 2013, 04:35:41 AM »


A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.



There's many problems with your response.

Firstly it rests on no evidence; your argument for the papacy then rests on him not demonstrating any power of the papacy!

Your argument also slightly re-works an issue. You talk of a bull being issued AFTER the cardinals were consulted. The example I gave was more a case of the pope judging AND THEN the cardinals consulting.

(whilst ignoring specifics such as Meletius chairing a council whilst not in communion with Rome)
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #76 on: March 07, 2013, 04:37:22 AM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.

I stand corrected. He presided over a different council, but was still not in communion with Rome
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #77 on: March 07, 2013, 04:38:32 AM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.
He presided over the Council of Constantinople I, during which he reposed.

Exactly.

whilst not in communion with Rome
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: On-n-Off
Jurisdiction: OCA (the only truly Canonical American Orthodox Church)
Posts: 5,214


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #78 on: March 07, 2013, 04:42:42 AM »

You could start by the fact that very few Church Fathers actually believed that the passages meant Petrine supremacy in the way that RCs interpret it. Most of them interpreted it as referring to the faith of St. Peter or viewed St. Peter as being a "rock" only in the sense that the faith flowed from him. Even St. Augustine was undecided about the passage. In his Retractions, he mentions the two views of the passage and leaves it open for the reader to decide.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #79 on: March 07, 2013, 05:52:02 AM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

The Patriarch and Emperor wrote conciliatory letters to Leo reminding him that Canon 28 "merely sanctioned a custom of 60-70 years in the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace".

I guess St Leo didn't have much authority with his veto.

Just like what the Emperor said in the times of the 5th oecumenical council: "If you have condemned the three chapters I have no need of this new document for I have from you many others of the same content. If however you have in this new document departed from your earlier declarations, you have condemned yourself". (~Mansi IX 349).

And about your earlier question on how do we know that the Pope has an orthodox faith or not, adding to what ialmisry already said:

"That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason: because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters...

     Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

    What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

    But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."


~St Vincent The Commonitory: For Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, Ch. II-III
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.iii.html


It is notewhorthy that St Vincent, in actual south of France, in Rome's jurisdiction, never mentions the Bishop of Rome. If he didn't need it, we don't need it either.

Now, you can argue with this saint, but History proves that the Bishop of Rome was not the criteria for Truth: St Meletius and 2nd Oecumenical Council, Vigilius case prior and during the 5th Oecumenical Council, Honorius case, The flip flop of Rome Popes about the 8th oecumenical Council.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #80 on: March 07, 2013, 07:12:51 AM »

You could start by the fact that very few Church Fathers actually believed that the passages meant Petrine supremacy in the way that RCs interpret it. Most of them interpreted it as referring to the faith of St. Peter or viewed St. Peter as being a "rock" only in the sense that the faith flowed from him. Even St. Augustine was undecided about the passage. In his Retractions, he mentions the two views of the passage and leaves it open for the reader to decide.

That St Peter is also the Rock is clear. The rock is St Peter, his Faith and Christ. But to say this does not imply Vatican I ecclesiology by any mean.

Also, there are 3 petrine sees, and St John Chrysostom called St Flavian bishop of Constantinople "Peter".

Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #81 on: March 08, 2013, 08:35:39 AM »

You could start by the fact that very few Church Fathers actually believed that the passages meant Petrine supremacy in the way that RCs interpret it. Most of them interpreted it as referring to the faith of St. Peter or viewed St. Peter as being a "rock" only in the sense that the faith flowed from him. Even St. Augustine was undecided about the passage. In his Retractions, he mentions the two views of the passage and leaves it open for the reader to decide.

That St Peter is also the Rock is clear. The rock is St Peter, his Faith and Christ. But to say this does not imply Vatican I ecclesiology by any mean.

Also, there are 3 petrine sees, and St John Chrysostom called St Flavian bishop of Constantinople "Peter".



Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #82 on: March 08, 2013, 07:47:56 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

That's not the full story either. Although the Popes 'vetoed' that canon AT THAT TIME the rest of Christendom didn't repudiate that canon, thus not accepting the pope's veto (as you put it) as final

Furthermore the Catholic church ended up accepting that canon, anyway!
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #83 on: March 09, 2013, 05:03:51 AM »

You could start by the fact that very few Church Fathers actually believed that the passages meant Petrine supremacy in the way that RCs interpret it. Most of them interpreted it as referring to the faith of St. Peter or viewed St. Peter as being a "rock" only in the sense that the faith flowed from him. Even St. Augustine was undecided about the passage. In his Retractions, he mentions the two views of the passage and leaves it open for the reader to decide.

That St Peter is also the Rock is clear. The rock is St Peter, his Faith and Christ. But to say this does not imply Vatican I ecclesiology by any mean.

Also, there are 3 petrine sees, and St John Chrysostom called St Flavian bishop of Constantinople "Peter".



As I see Catholic apology it's a matter of significance of 'facts' because one just assumes that they're significant.

Thus if Peter is praised, it's significant. However if someone else is equally praised, it's ignored, because it doesn't fit the theory.

It is interesting to see comments made here follow that same thought-process. It's noted that a pope opposed a canon of one Council. What's ignored is the insignificance of this act to the rest of the church, and the fact that the papacy eventually accepted that canon, anyway.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #84 on: March 11, 2013, 05:40:23 AM »

You could start by the fact that very few Church Fathers actually believed that the passages meant Petrine supremacy in the way that RCs interpret it. Most of them interpreted it as referring to the faith of St. Peter or viewed St. Peter as being a "rock" only in the sense that the faith flowed from him. Even St. Augustine was undecided about the passage. In his Retractions, he mentions the two views of the passage and leaves it open for the reader to decide.

That St Peter is also the Rock is clear. The rock is St Peter, his Faith and Christ. But to say this does not imply Vatican I ecclesiology by any mean.

Also, there are 3 petrine sees, and St John Chrysostom called St Flavian bishop of Constantinople "Peter".



As I see Catholic apology it's a matter of significance of 'facts' because one just assumes that they're significant.

Thus if Peter is praised, it's significant. However if someone else is equally praised, it's ignored, because it doesn't fit the theory.

It is interesting to see comments made here follow that same thought-process. It's noted that a pope opposed a canon of one Council. What's ignored is the insignificance of this act to the rest of the church, and the fact that the papacy eventually accepted that canon, anyway.

It is also our fault. We must admit that the Popes of Rome since St Victor, have attempted to extend their authority and jurisdiction, and that yes, in that sense, there was some rather vague idea of the papacy(Vague because even then, it was very far from Vatican I or Gregory VII reform). But then we should explain them that the rest of the Church, that is the majority, rebuked them, from St Ireaneus to St Photius, along with the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Oecumenical Councils.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #85 on: March 11, 2013, 08:01:34 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.
You are seeing things.

We have the letter of Archbishop St. Leo I of Rome complaining to the Empress that his own suffragans were following canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.  It was followed at all the following three Ecumenical Councils, void Papal veto notwithstanding.

Latern was a Council, hence "First Council of the Lateran" or "Lateran Council of 649."

I would be interested in the source for that, considering even Eastern theologians only refered to the 27 canons of Chalcedon.
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/
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #86 on: March 11, 2013, 08:04:20 PM »

Which section are you disputing?

"Let us all beware of false apostles, who, coming to us in sheep's clothing, attempt to entice the more simple among us by various deceptive promises, regarding all things as lawful and allowing them for the sake of union, provided only that the Pope of Rome be recognized as supreme and infallible ruler and absolute sovereign of the universal Church, and only representative of Christ on earth, and the source of all grace. "

That is just a falsification, Catholics do not believe that the Pope is the source of all grace.
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/
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #87 on: March 11, 2013, 08:07:07 PM »

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church?  Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.

Yet Simon was renamed Peter, the rock? The rock which God will build his Church on?  Yet all Catholic Bishops also baptize, spread the gospel, bind and loose their flocks, pass on the Faith etc.  You seem to set up a False analogy of saying it is the Pope against all Bishops, when the Correct analogy is it is the Pope and a Majority of the Bishops against a small faction of Bishops not in Union with the Pope.
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/
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #88 on: March 11, 2013, 08:08:19 PM »


A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.



There's many problems with your response.

Firstly it rests on no evidence; your argument for the papacy then rests on him not demonstrating any power of the papacy!

Your argument also slightly re-works an issue. You talk of a bull being issued AFTER the cardinals were consulted. The example I gave was more a case of the pope judging AND THEN the cardinals consulting.

(whilst ignoring specifics such as Meletius chairing a council whilst not in communion with Rome)

Well, my friend It would stand to reason that a person not in communion with Rome would recognize someone who Rome condemned as a heretic. 
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/
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #89 on: March 11, 2013, 08:15:39 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

The Patriarch and Emperor wrote conciliatory letters to Leo reminding him that Canon 28 "merely sanctioned a custom of 60-70 years in the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace".

I guess St Leo didn't have much authority with his veto.

Just like what the Emperor said in the times of the 5th oecumenical council: "If you have condemned the three chapters I have no need of this new document for I have from you many others of the same content. If however you have in this new document departed from your earlier declarations, you have condemned yourself". (~Mansi IX 349).

And about your earlier question on how do we know that the Pope has an orthodox faith or not, adding to what ialmisry already said:

"That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason: because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters...

     Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

    What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

    But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."


~St Vincent The Commonitory: For Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, Ch. II-III
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.iii.html


It is notewhorthy that St Vincent, in actual south of France, in Rome's jurisdiction, never mentions the Bishop of Rome. If he didn't need it, we don't need it either.

Now, you can argue with this saint, but History proves that the Bishop of Rome was not the criteria for Truth: St Meletius and 2nd Oecumenical Council, Vigilius case prior and during the 5th Oecumenical Council, Honorius case, The flip flop of Rome Popes about the 8th oecumenical Council.

I am going to find it hard to have a reasonable discussion with you if you present misinformation

St Vincent did talk about the Papacy

"Holy Pope Sixtus then says in an Epistle which he wrote on Nestorius's matter to the bishop of Antioch, "Therefore, because, as the Apostle says, the faith is one,—evidently the faith which has obtained hitherto,—let us believe the things that are to be said, and say the things that are to be held." What are the things that are to be believed and to be said? He goes on: "Let no license be allowed to novelty, because it is not fit that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." A truly apostolic sentiment! He enhances the belief of the Fathers by the epithet of clearness; profane novelties he calls muddy.

Holy Pope Celestine also expresses himself in like manner and to the same effect. For in the Epistle which he wrote to the priests of Gaul, charging them with connivance with error, in that by their silence they failed in their duty to the ancient faith, and allowed profane novelties to spring up, he says: "We are deservedly to blame if we encourage error by silence. Therefore rebuke these people. Restrain their liberty of preaching." But here some one may doubt who they are whose liberty to preach as they list he forbids,—the preachers of antiquity or the devisers of novelty. Let himself tell us; let himself resolve the reader's doubt. For he goes on: "If the case be so (that is, if the case be so as certain persons complain to me touching your cities and provinces, that by your hurtful dissimulation you cause them to consent to certain novelties), if the case be so, let novelty cease to assail antiquity." This, then, was the sentence of blessed Celestine, not that antiquity should cease to subvert novelty, but that novelty should cease to assail antiquity. (Commonitory, Chapter 32)."

As far as the other historic examples their are others as well, but a person should read the limitations that Vatican I places on Papal Authority and Infallibility and understand those events in that context.

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/
domNoah
Member
***
Offline Offline

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



WWW
« Reply #90 on: March 11, 2013, 08:16:24 PM »

You could start by the fact that very few Church Fathers actually believed that the passages meant Petrine supremacy in the way that RCs interpret it. Most of them interpreted it as referring to the faith of St. Peter or viewed St. Peter as being a "rock" only in the sense that the faith flowed from him. Even St. Augustine was undecided about the passage. In his Retractions, he mentions the two views of the passage and leaves it open for the reader to decide.

That St Peter is also the Rock is clear. The rock is St Peter, his Faith and Christ. But to say this does not imply Vatican I ecclesiology by any mean.

Also, there are 3 petrine sees, and St John Chrysostom called St Flavian bishop of Constantinople "Peter".



As I see Catholic apology it's a matter of significance of 'facts' because one just assumes that they're significant.

Thus if Peter is praised, it's significant. However if someone else is equally praised, it's ignored, because it doesn't fit the theory.

It is interesting to see comments made here follow that same thought-process. It's noted that a pope opposed a canon of one Council. What's ignored is the insignificance of this act to the rest of the church, and the fact that the papacy eventually accepted that canon, anyway.

I think you should take some time to read this article, it contains examples of the Pope exercising authority in the early church to settle disputes.
http://www.alleluiaaudiobooks.com/primacy-of-the-pope-in-the-early-church/#part-i-the-authority-of-the-pope

« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 08:19:09 PM by domNoah » 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/
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: 1,533



« Reply #91 on: March 11, 2013, 08:24:35 PM »


A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.



There's many problems with your response.

Firstly it rests on no evidence; your argument for the papacy then rests on him not demonstrating any power of the papacy!

Your argument also slightly re-works an issue. You talk of a bull being issued AFTER the cardinals were consulted. The example I gave was more a case of the pope judging AND THEN the cardinals consulting.

(whilst ignoring specifics such as Meletius chairing a council whilst not in communion with Rome)

Well, my friend It would stand to reason that a person not in communion with Rome would recognize someone who Rome condemned as a heretic. 

He misspoke. It was at Chalcedon where Dioscoros was received with full honor despite having been excommunicated by Pope Leo. There is nothing to indicate that the fathers of Chalcedon were not in communion with Rome.

The episode with Meletius is different. He was the chosen to be the president of the First Council of Constantinople, despite not being in communion with Rome at the time.
Logged

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

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



WWW
« Reply #92 on: March 11, 2013, 08:33:44 PM »


A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.



There's many problems with your response.

Firstly it rests on no evidence; your argument for the papacy then rests on him not demonstrating any power of the papacy!

Your argument also slightly re-works an issue. You talk of a bull being issued AFTER the cardinals were consulted. The example I gave was more a case of the pope judging AND THEN the cardinals consulting.

(whilst ignoring specifics such as Meletius chairing a council whilst not in communion with Rome)

Well, my friend It would stand to reason that a person not in communion with Rome would recognize someone who Rome condemned as a heretic. 

He misspoke. It was at Chalcedon where Dioscoros was received with full honor despite having been excommunicated by Pope Leo. There is nothing to indicate that the fathers of Chalcedon were not in communion with Rome.

The episode with Meletius is different. He was the chosen to be the president of the First Council of Constantinople, despite not being in communion with Rome at the time.

Oh, okay.
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
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #93 on: March 11, 2013, 08:35:59 PM »

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church?  Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.

Yet Simon was renamed Peter, the rock? The rock which God will build his Church on?  Yet all Catholic Bishops also baptize, spread the gospel, bind and loose their flocks, pass on the Faith etc.  You seem to set up a False analogy of saying it is the Pope against all Bishops, when the Correct analogy is it is the Pope and a Majority of the Bishops against a small faction of Bishops not in Union with the Pope.

The rock on which the Church is founded is Peter's faith, not Peter's person. The meaning of this scripture passage is quite clear in its original Greek.

The "minority of bishops not in union with the Pope" you refer to are the representatives of the Orthodox Church, which has not been in communion with the church of Rome for a thousand years. The Apostolic Succession of Orthodox bishops is drawn from all of the apostles, not just Peter alone, as is the case in the RCC. As Christ gave all the apostles, not just one, the authority to bind and loose, and bestowed them all, not just one, with the Holy Spirit, so do all Orthodox bishops have equal authority, and operate in a truly conciliar fashion. There is no room for, nor tradition of, a "supreme pontiff" in Orthodoxy.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,533



« Reply #94 on: March 11, 2013, 08:47:55 PM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.
You are seeing things.

We have the letter of Archbishop St. Leo I of Rome complaining to the Empress that his own suffragans were following canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.  It was followed at all the following three Ecumenical Councils, void Papal veto notwithstanding.

Latern was a Council, hence "First Council of the Lateran" or "Lateran Council of 649."

I would be interested in the source for that, considering even Eastern theologians only refered to the 27 canons of Chalcedon.

That the 28th canon of Chalcedon was believed to be a legitimate canon in the East is evidenced by the fact that the council of Trullo reconfirmed both this canon and the third canon of the First Council of Constantinople in its 36th canon. From the Seventh Ecumenical Council, we also see several expansions of the canonical power granted to Constantinople. For example, canon 11 of Second Nicaea gives the bishop of Constantinople the right to appoint by his own authority the steward of any metropolis should the metropolitan bishop fail to appoint one (bishops are obliged to do so by canon 26 of Constantinople). What Eastern canonists are you thinking of, I wonder?
« Last Edit: March 11, 2013, 08:48:45 PM by Cavaradossi » Logged

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

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



« Reply #95 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »

You could start by the fact that very few Church Fathers actually believed that the passages meant Petrine supremacy in the way that RCs interpret it. Most of them interpreted it as referring to the faith of St. Peter or viewed St. Peter as being a "rock" only in the sense that the faith flowed from him. Even St. Augustine was undecided about the passage. In his Retractions, he mentions the two views of the passage and leaves it open for the reader to decide.

That St Peter is also the Rock is clear. The rock is St Peter, his Faith and Christ. But to say this does not imply Vatican I ecclesiology by any mean.

Also, there are 3 petrine sees, and St John Chrysostom called St Flavian bishop of Constantinople "Peter".



As I see Catholic apology it's a matter of significance of 'facts' because one just assumes that they're significant.

Thus if Peter is praised, it's significant. However if someone else is equally praised, it's ignored, because it doesn't fit the theory.

It is interesting to see comments made here follow that same thought-process. It's noted that a pope opposed a canon of one Council. What's ignored is the insignificance of this act to the rest of the church, and the fact that the papacy eventually accepted that canon, anyway.

It is also our fault. We must admit that the Popes of Rome since St Victor, have attempted to extend their authority and jurisdiction, and that yes, in that sense, there was some rather vague idea of the papacy(Vague because even then, it was very far from Vatican I or Gregory VII reform). But then we should explain them that the rest of the Church, that is the majority, rebuked them, from St Ireaneus to St Photius, along with the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th Oecumenical Councils.
Old Rome was up to what New Rome is now.  As long as the Phanar doesn't push its ideas and cross the line of Orthodox ecclesiology that the Fathers set up, we will remain in communion, as we did in the days of Abp. St. Victor.  Cross it, and it will be 1054 all over again.
Logged

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

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



« Reply #96 on: March 12, 2013, 03:10:07 AM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.
You are seeing things.

We have the letter of Archbishop St. Leo I of Rome complaining to the Empress that his own suffragans were following canon 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon.  It was followed at all the following three Ecumenical Councils, void Papal veto notwithstanding.

Latern was a Council, hence "First Council of the Lateran" or "Lateran Council of 649."

I would be interested in the source for that, considering even Eastern theologians only refered to the 27 canons of Chalcedon.
Hefele:
Quote
On the same day he wrote in very nearly the same terms to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. 116), adding: "the present rulers combine princely power with apostolic doctrine and in a fourth letter of the same date, he charged his Nuntius at Constantinople, Bishop Julian of Cos, to use his influence with the Emperor, so that the papal decree confirming the Synod should be sent to all the bishops of the Empire. To the Empress Eudocia, the widow of the Emperor Theodosius II, who supported the Monophysites in Palestine, he has, he adds, at the wish of Marcian, addressed a hortatory letter; but in the matter of the deposed Archdeacon Aetius, Julian must take no further steps lest harm should be done. Finally, he says that to Anatolius he writes no longer, since he persists in his presumption, and has induced the Illyrian bishops also to subscribe the 28th canon.
http://www.cristoraul.com/readinghall/Western-Civilization-Jewels/HEFELE/Book-11/206.html

Quote
Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXVIII.
Among the bishops who gave their answers at the last session to the question whether their subscription to the canons was voluntary or forced was Eusebius, bishop of Dorylæum, an Asiatic bishop who said that he had read the Constantinopolitan canon to “the holy pope of Rome in presence of clerics of Constantinople, and that he had accepted it” (L. and C., Conc., iv. 815).  But quite possibly this evidence is of little value.  But what is more to the point is that the Papal legates most probably had already at this very council recognized the right of Constantinople to rank immediately after Rome.  For at the very first session when the Acts of the Latrocinium were read, it was found that to Flavian, the Archbishop of Constantinople, was given only the fifth place.  Against this the bishop protested and asked, “Why did not Flavian receive his position?” and the papal legate Paschasinus answered:  “We will, please God, recognize the present bishop Anatolius of Constantinople as the first [i.e. after us], but Dioscorus made Flavian the fifth.”  It would seem to be in vain to attempt to escape the force of these words by comparing with them the statement made in the last session, in a moment of heat and indignation, by Lucentius the papal legate, that the canons of Constantinople were not found among those of the Roman Code.  It may well be that this statement was true, and yet it does not in any way lessen the importance of the fact that at the first session (a very different thing from the sixteenth) Paschasinus had admitted that Constantinople enjoyed the second place.  It would seem that Quesnel has proved his point, notwithstanding the attempts of the Ballerini to counteract and overthrow his arguments.
It would be the height of absurdity for any one to attempt to deny that the canon of Constantinople was entirely in force and practical execution, as far of those most interested were concerned, long before the meeting of the council of Chalcedon, and in 394, only thirteen years after the adoption of the canon, we find the bishop of Constantinople presiding at a synod at which both the bishop of Alexandria and the bishop of Antioch were present.
St. Leo made, in connexion with this matter, some statements which perhaps need not be commented upon, but should certainly not be forgotten.  In his epistle to Anatolius (no. cvi.) in speaking of the third canon of Constantinople he says:  “That document of certain bishops has never been brought by your predecessors to the knowledge of the Apostolic See.”  And in writing to the Empress (Ep. cv., ad Pulch.) he makes the following statement, strangely contrary to what she at least knew to be the fact, “To this concession a long course of years has given no effect!”
We need not stop to consider the question why Leo rejected the xxviijth canon of Chalcedon.  It is certain that he rejected it and those who wish to see the motive of this rejection considered at length are referred to Quesnel and to the Ballerini; the former affirming that it was because of its encroachments upon the prerogatives of his own see, the latter urging that it was only out of his zeal for the keeping in full force of the Nicene decree.
Leo can never be charged with weakness.  His rejection of the canon was absolute and unequivocal.  In writing to the Emperor he says that Anatolius only got the See of Constantinople by his consent, that he should behave himself modestly, and that there is no way he can make of Constantinople “an Apostolic See,” and adds that “only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith” he has “abstained from annulling this ordination” (Ep. civ.).
To the Empress he wrote with still greater violence:  “As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter” (Ep. cv.).
The papal annulling does not appear to have been of much force, for Leo himself confesses, in a letter written about a year later to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. cxvi.), that the Illyrian bishops had since the council subscribed the xxviiith canon.
The pope had taken occasion in his letter in which he announced his acceptance of the doctrinal decrees of Chalcedon to go on further and express his rejection of the canons.  This part of the letter was left unread throughout the Greek empire, and Leo complains of it to Julian of Cos (Ep. cxxvij.).
Leo never gave over his opposition, although the breach was made up between him and Anatolius by an apparently insincere letter on the part of the latter (Ep. cxxxii.).  Leo’s successors followed his example in rejecting the canons, both the IIId of Constantinople and the XXVIIIth of Chalcedon, but as M. l’abbé Duchesne so admirably says:  “Mais leur voix fut peu écoutée; on leur accorda sans doute des satisfactions, mais de pure cérémonie.” But Justinian acknowledged the Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian rank of Constantinople in his CXXXIst Novel. (cap. j.), and the Synod in Trullo in canon xxxvj. renewed exactly canon xxviij. of Chalcedon.  Moreover the Seventh Ecumenical with the approval of the Papal Legates gave a general sanction to all the canons accepted by the Trullan Synod.  And finally in 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran in its Vth Canon acknowledged Constantinople’s rank as immediately after Rome, but this was while Constantinople was in the hands of the Latins!  Subsequently at Florence the second rank, in accordance with the canons of I. Constantinople and of Chalcedon (which had been annulled by Leo) was given to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, and so the opposition of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon which Leo declared to be “inspired by the Holy Ghost” and “valid to the end of time” (Ep. cvi.), was set at nought by Leo’s successor in the Apostolic See.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

As for 27 canons:
The Pentheke/Quinsext Council
Quote
Canon 36

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.
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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #97 on: March 12, 2013, 06:48:38 AM »

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.

You're arguing for a case of the Roman Church post-schism, which includes developments in ecclesiology that were non-existent in the First Millennium.  The Roman Church had councils in the First Millennium and it was non-binding to the Churches outside of Rome's jurisdiction (which is not universal).  I'd point to the First Lateran Council of 649 (not the First "Ecumenical" Council of Lateran) where Pope St. Martin and St. Maximos condemned Monothelitism.  But that council was never accepted as Ecumenical and the same teaching was only accepted at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople III.
Yes, if Pastor Aeternus was correct, the 1st Lateran Council of 649 would be the 6th Ecumenical Council.
Yes.  Also if Papal Supremacy and Infallibility existed in the First Millennium, Pope St. Martin would have just told all the other Patriarchs to get in line and accept Lateran or depose them all as bishops for heresy.  Obviously that did not happen.

No, they would have followed the Model laid down by the Apostles, which would have involved calling a council, even if the final decision was the Popes like we see when the Pope line item vetoed the 28th Canon of Chalcedon.

The Patriarch and Emperor wrote conciliatory letters to Leo reminding him that Canon 28 "merely sanctioned a custom of 60-70 years in the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace".

I guess St Leo didn't have much authority with his veto.

Just like what the Emperor said in the times of the 5th oecumenical council: "If you have condemned the three chapters I have no need of this new document for I have from you many others of the same content. If however you have in this new document departed from your earlier declarations, you have condemned yourself". (~Mansi IX 349).

And about your earlier question on how do we know that the Pope has an orthodox faith or not, adding to what ialmisry already said:

"That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church's interpretation? For this reason: because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters...

     Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense "Catholic," which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.

    What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.

    But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation."


~St Vincent The Commonitory: For Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith Against the Profane Novelties of All Heresies, Ch. II-III
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf211.iii.iii.html


It is notewhorthy that St Vincent, in actual south of France, in Rome's jurisdiction, never mentions the Bishop of Rome. If he didn't need it, we don't need it either.

Now, you can argue with this saint, but History proves that the Bishop of Rome was not the criteria for Truth: St Meletius and 2nd Oecumenical Council, Vigilius case prior and during the 5th Oecumenical Council, Honorius case, The flip flop of Rome Popes about the 8th oecumenical Council.

I am going to find it hard to have a reasonable discussion with you if you present misinformation

St Vincent did talk about the Papacy

"Holy Pope Sixtus then says in an Epistle which he wrote on Nestorius's matter to the bishop of Antioch, "Therefore, because, as the Apostle says, the faith is one,—evidently the faith which has obtained hitherto,—let us believe the things that are to be said, and say the things that are to be held." What are the things that are to be believed and to be said? He goes on: "Let no license be allowed to novelty, because it is not fit that any addition should be made to antiquity. Let not the clear faith and belief of our forefathers be fouled by any muddy admixture." A truly apostolic sentiment! He enhances the belief of the Fathers by the epithet of clearness; profane novelties he calls muddy.

Holy Pope Celestine also expresses himself in like manner and to the same effect. For in the Epistle which he wrote to the priests of Gaul, charging them with connivance with error, in that by their silence they failed in their duty to the ancient faith, and allowed profane novelties to spring up, he says: "We are deservedly to blame if we encourage error by silence. Therefore rebuke these people. Restrain their liberty of preaching." But here some one may doubt who they are whose liberty to preach as they list he forbids,—the preachers of antiquity or the devisers of novelty. Let himself tell us; let himself resolve the reader's doubt. For he goes on: "If the case be so (that is, if the case be so as certain persons complain to me touching your cities and provinces, that by your hurtful dissimulation you cause them to consent to certain novelties), if the case be so, let novelty cease to assail antiquity." This, then, was the sentence of blessed Celestine, not that antiquity should cease to subvert novelty, but that novelty should cease to assail antiquity. (Commonitory, Chapter 32)."

As far as the other historic examples their are others as well, but a person should read the limitations that Vatican I places on Papal Authority and Infallibility and understand those events in that context.



Dont take your misunderstanding of patristic texts for my supposed misinformation. St Vincent does not talk about the Papacy in your quotes but of Popes citations. And those Popes citations say the same thing that St Vincent said, let no novelty assail antiquity. Nothing to do with the Papacy.

The fact remains: when asked how to know the truth about Faith, he never mentions the Papacy, or the Pope. Deal with your glasses before wondering about so called "rational discution".
« Last Edit: March 12, 2013, 06:53:12 AM by Napoletani » Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #98 on: March 12, 2013, 06:59:05 AM »

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church?  Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.

Yet Simon was renamed Peter, the rock? The rock which God will build his Church on?  Yet all Catholic Bishops also baptize, spread the gospel, bind and loose their flocks, pass on the Faith etc.  You seem to set up a False analogy of saying it is the Pope against all Bishops, when the Correct analogy is it is the Pope and a Majority of the Bishops against a small faction of Bishops not in Union with the Pope.

The rock on which the Church is founded is Peter's faith, not Peter's person. The meaning of this scripture passage is quite clear in its original Greek.

The "minority of bishops not in union with the Pope" you refer to are the representatives of the Orthodox Church, which has not been in communion with the church of Rome for a thousand years. The Apostolic Succession of Orthodox bishops is drawn from all of the apostles, not just Peter alone, as is the case in the RCC. As Christ gave all the apostles, not just one, the authority to bind and loose, and bestowed them all, not just one, with the Holy Spirit, so do all Orthodox bishops have equal authority, and operate in a truly conciliar fashion. There is no room for, nor tradition of, a "supreme pontiff" in Orthodoxy.

No, the Rock is also St Peter, who became a rock because of his Faith. The Fathers agree about it:

For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. "
St Leo http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360303.htm

"Blessed Simon, who after his confession of the mystery was set to be the foundation-stone of the Church, and received the keys of the Kingdom..."
St Hilary  http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/330206.htm

“Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called 'the rock on which the church should be built’ … ?”
Tertulian http://www.tertullian.org/french/depraescriptione.htm

We may conclude that the early church Fathers and Christian writers recognized Peter’s position of honor and preeminence in the New Testament period ... Their interpretations of Jesus’ promise to Peter− ’You are Petros, and on this petra I will build my church’−converge with those modern exegetes: the rock is Peter. But they also interpreted the rock as Peter’s confession. The Church is built on Peter, or the church is built upon the rock, which is Peter’s confession. We cannot find two distinct groups of exegetes, one with whom states that ‘the rock is Peter,’ while the other concludes that ‘the rock is Peter’s confession.’ In the writings of any given author, one can find both interpretations simultaneously (Kesich).... [T]he great Cappadocians, St. John Chrysostom, and St. Augustine all concur in affirming that the faith of Simon made it possible for him to become the Rock on which the Church is founded
John Meyyendorf.

But St Peter being the Rock has nothing to do with the Papacy and certainly does not prove it. The papacy is a fiction, and we do not need to deny  Peter being the rock to show it.
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
LBK
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,156


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #99 on: March 12, 2013, 07:16:40 AM »

Napoletani, the terms "rock", "pillar" "foundation", etc are used to describe other Apostles, particularly Andrew, John and Paul, in their festal hymns, further weakening the Roman claim of Petrine supremacy, and showing that the Orthodox episcopal model is conciliar, not autocratic, just as Christ intended.
 
Post #26 of this thread elaborates on this:

http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,50109.msg886694.html#msg886694
« Last Edit: March 12, 2013, 07:17:00 AM by LBK » Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #100 on: March 12, 2013, 07:37:53 AM »


A post above notes the councils and how they worked. This is the point.

Take the issue of the Arians. The pope convoked a local council and condemned Arianism

In the Catholic theory of church what should have happened next is that he would issue a Bull and have this circulated throughout the churches of the world.

What actually happened doesn't fit that model. Constantine, equal of the Apostles convoked a council which met and judged matters for themselves.

Certainly, like the pope, they condemned Arianism, but why did they even judge for themselves?

Same with Nestorius. Condemned by the pope as a heretic, and yet at a general council (headed by Meletius who was not in communion with Rome) they accorded to Nestorius all due honour as befitted his rank BECAUSE they had not yet judged him unworthy of that rank.

I take exception to the model for church governance you are presenting against Catholic Church.  We have held many Councils sense the great schism, theological inquires, and commissions, it has not just been a Pope issuing bulls and promulgating them, and often times before many of those bulls were issued the College of Cardinals was consulted.

I don't think that citing that a general council honored a heretic that the Pope had condemned makes your case any stronger either.



There's many problems with your response.

Firstly it rests on no evidence; your argument for the papacy then rests on him not demonstrating any power of the papacy!

Your argument also slightly re-works an issue. You talk of a bull being issued AFTER the cardinals were consulted. The example I gave was more a case of the pope judging AND THEN the cardinals consulting.

(whilst ignoring specifics such as Meletius chairing a council whilst not in communion with Rome)

Well, my friend It would stand to reason that a person not in communion with Rome would recognize someone who Rome condemned as a heretic. 

Like the council that recognised Nestorius? Were they all heretics?
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #101 on: March 12, 2013, 07:48:51 AM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.

I think Montalban is perhaps conflating two events.

The first is the St. Meletius presided over the First Council of Constantinople, despite being out of communion with Rome.

The second is that Dioscoros (not Nestorius) was not immediately denied a seat at Chalcedon, despite the protestations of Pope Leo's legates, who had instructions from him not to allow Dioscoros to take a seat (because Pope Leo already considered Dioscoros to have been guilty of misconduct and had excommunicated him). The council itself only denied Dioscoros a seat once charges were brought against him not for the reason that Pope Leo had excommunicated him, but because one cannot judge his own case.
What you say is true, but Nestorius also was tried at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, although the Archbishop of Old Rome had already condemned him.

I very much doubt that Nestorius was received at Ephesus with all due honor, but then perhaps I am remembering wrong. I know for sure, however, that Dioscoros was treated with due honor at Chalcedon, before he was found guilty.

The emperor had called for bishops to assemble in the city of Ephesus. The emperor sent as his representative Count Candidian (Bury, J. B., (1958), History of the later Roman Empire : from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565) (Volume 1) ,(Dover Publications; NY), p353)

Two groups of bishops gathered in the city. One group of bishops formed around Cyril of Alexandria. The other group centered around Nestorius
(Hill, B. R., (2004) Jesus, the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, (Twenty-Third Publications), p230.

  Guy, L., (2004) Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs and Practices, (InterVarsity Press) p291.)

Both groups had duly assembled in Ephesus as commanded by the emperor. But which was the official council? Candidian was unable to control proceedings; to bring the two groups together
Runciman, S., (1977), The Byzantine Theocracy, (Cambridge University Press), p37


Cyril had canonical grounds for opening the first session... "Nonetheless he must have been acutely aware that he could claim no legal status for his synod under imperial law until the official reading of the Emperor’s Sacra had taken place.”  
McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p78.

Cyril, in order to constitute a legal council needed to have the backing of the emperor, or his representative. However Candidian was a supporter of Nestorius.
Chrystal, J., (1985) Authoritative Christianity (Volume One) (James Chrystal Publisher; Jersey City, NJ), p50.

Candidian went to the group supporting Cyril and demanded that they reconvene with Nestorius’ group. He said he had come with the Sacra and had no time to stand around and wait. Cyril asked him what did the Sacra say. Candidian read it out before Cyril’s group. He then realised that he had now formally given the go-ahead for Cyril’s group to begin as the council; because they were duly assembled as according to the wishes of the Emperor and the Sacra had been read before them. They thus convened the council, and effectively Nestorius’ group were left out in the cold.
“When Candidian finished reading the Sacra he surely realised the full extent of his mistake. The Bishops acclaimed long life to the Emperor in demonstrative professions of loyalty, but now with the text officially declaimed in the symbolic presence of the whole Episcopal gathering the Synod of Ephesus was in formal session, legally as well as canonically sanctioned.”
McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p79.

The group that had been duly assembled, with the Sacra of the Emperor read before it made it a legal council in the eyes of the civil authorities. By having the Sacra read out it served to legally validate the subsequent Acta
McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p81.

The council was only legal when the emperor’s representative had opened it, not as Catholics would imagine; solely because the Pope commanded it, or because the Pope's representative (as they imagine Cyril to be) was there.

The important facts therefore are:
Nestorius had already been condemned by the pope but attended a council for the council to decide the matter. He had support, such as John of Antioch.

The matter was settled by a council judging for itself.

Nestorius (potentially) could have chaired the council (although the numbers of bishops in his circle were fewer then those around Cyril).


I am writing a book about this.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2013, 07:51:16 AM by montalban » Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
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 #102 on: March 12, 2013, 11:02:46 AM »

Which section are you disputing?

"Let us all beware of false apostles, who, coming to us in sheep's clothing, attempt to entice the more simple among us by various deceptive promises, regarding all things as lawful and allowing them for the sake of union, provided only that the Pope of Rome be recognized as supreme and infallible ruler and absolute sovereign of the universal Church, and only representative of Christ on earth, and the source of all grace. "

That is just a falsification, Catholics do not believe that the Pope is the source of all grace.
Catholics don't, but grace does the Vatican believe is not subject to its supreme pontiff's binding and loosening?
Logged

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

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



« Reply #103 on: March 12, 2013, 11:02:46 AM »

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church?  Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.

Yet Simon was renamed Peter, the rock? The rock which God will build his Church on?  Yet all Catholic Bishops also baptize, spread the gospel, bind and loose their flocks, pass on the Faith etc.  You seem to set up a False analogy of saying it is the Pope against all Bishops, when the Correct analogy is it is the Pope and a Majority of the Bishops against a small faction of Bishops not in Union with the Pope.
If you mean by "small faction" the Orthodox episcopate of the Catholic Church, that would be the Little Flock that Our Lord tells us that the Father takes good pleasure in giving the Kingdom.  Although it's not that little: there are just under 1,000 bishops.  The Vatican has just over 5,000, the Mormons over 20,000 "bishops."  When the Vatican tore the Patriarchate of the West out of Catholic Communion, only a minority faction of bishops followed him.  The majority remained Orthodox.

The Vatican didn't significantly pull ahead in numbers until the imperialism of France and Spain/Portugal-and the Inquisition-helped it out.  As it is now, half of its following live in Latin America (at least nominally-between the success of Protestant missions and the hang overs of Voodoo, Santeria, etc., one wonders how much the numbers can be trusted and what they mean).
Logged

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

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



« Reply #104 on: March 12, 2013, 11:02:46 AM »

How does a letter of a handful of Patriarchs speak for the Entire Church?  Who gave those handful the authority?

The list of Orthodox hierarchs undersigning those documents, including the patriarchs of the five ancient historic sees, represent nothing less than the mind and will of the Orthodox Church, which has neither been in submission to the Roman pontiff, nor commemorated him liturgically, since the Great Schism. Their authority comes from the Apostles, who were all given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, not just Peter. All were commanded to go out to the nations and spread the Gospel, not just Peter. All were commanded to baptize in the name of the Holy Trinity, not just Peter.All were commanded to teach as He had taught them, not just Peter.

Yet Simon was renamed Peter, the rock? The rock which God will build his Church on?  Yet all Catholic Bishops also baptize, spread the gospel, bind and loose their flocks, pass on the Faith etc.  You seem to set up a False analogy of saying it is the Pope against all Bishops, when the Correct analogy is it is the Pope and a Majority of the Bishops against a small faction of Bishops not in Union with the Pope.
Oh, and by the way, we are in union with both St. Peter's successor

and the Pope
Logged

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

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,533



« Reply #105 on: March 12, 2013, 11:48:58 AM »

St. Meletius did not preside at the council of Ephesus but died 50 years earlier.

I think Montalban is perhaps conflating two events.

The first is the St. Meletius presided over the First Council of Constantinople, despite being out of communion with Rome.

The second is that Dioscoros (not Nestorius) was not immediately denied a seat at Chalcedon, despite the protestations of Pope Leo's legates, who had instructions from him not to allow Dioscoros to take a seat (because Pope Leo already considered Dioscoros to have been guilty of misconduct and had excommunicated him). The council itself only denied Dioscoros a seat once charges were brought against him not for the reason that Pope Leo had excommunicated him, but because one cannot judge his own case.
What you say is true, but Nestorius also was tried at the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, although the Archbishop of Old Rome had already condemned him.

I very much doubt that Nestorius was received at Ephesus with all due honor, but then perhaps I am remembering wrong. I know for sure, however, that Dioscoros was treated with due honor at Chalcedon, before he was found guilty.

The emperor had called for bishops to assemble in the city of Ephesus. The emperor sent as his representative Count Candidian (Bury, J. B., (1958), History of the later Roman Empire : from the death of Theodosius I to the death of Justinian (A.D. 395 to A.D. 565) (Volume 1) ,(Dover Publications; NY), p353)

Two groups of bishops gathered in the city. One group of bishops formed around Cyril of Alexandria. The other group centered around Nestorius
(Hill, B. R., (2004) Jesus, the Christ: Contemporary Perspectives, (Twenty-Third Publications), p230.

  Guy, L., (2004) Introducing Early Christianity: A Topical Survey of Its Life, Beliefs and Practices, (InterVarsity Press) p291.)

Both groups had duly assembled in Ephesus as commanded by the emperor. But which was the official council? Candidian was unable to control proceedings; to bring the two groups together
Runciman, S., (1977), The Byzantine Theocracy, (Cambridge University Press), p37


Cyril had canonical grounds for opening the first session... "Nonetheless he must have been acutely aware that he could claim no legal status for his synod under imperial law until the official reading of the Emperor’s Sacra had taken place.”  
McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p78.

Cyril, in order to constitute a legal council needed to have the backing of the emperor, or his representative. However Candidian was a supporter of Nestorius.
Chrystal, J., (1985) Authoritative Christianity (Volume One) (James Chrystal Publisher; Jersey City, NJ), p50.

Candidian went to the group supporting Cyril and demanded that they reconvene with Nestorius’ group. He said he had come with the Sacra and had no time to stand around and wait. Cyril asked him what did the Sacra say. Candidian read it out before Cyril’s group. He then realised that he had now formally given the go-ahead for Cyril’s group to begin as the council; because they were duly assembled as according to the wishes of the Emperor and the Sacra had been read before them. They thus convened the council, and effectively Nestorius’ group were left out in the cold.
“When Candidian finished reading the Sacra he surely realised the full extent of his mistake. The Bishops acclaimed long life to the Emperor in demonstrative professions of loyalty, but now with the text officially declaimed in the symbolic presence of the whole Episcopal gathering the Synod of Ephesus was in formal session, legally as well as canonically sanctioned.”
McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p79.

The group that had been duly assembled, with the Sacra of the Emperor read before it made it a legal council in the eyes of the civil authorities. By having the Sacra read out it served to legally validate the subsequent Acta
McGuckin, J, (2004), Saint Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy, (St Vladimir’s Seminary Press; Crestwood, NY), p81.

The council was only legal when the emperor’s representative had opened it, not as Catholics would imagine; solely because the Pope commanded it, or because the Pope's representative (as they imagine Cyril to be) was there.

The important facts therefore are:
Nestorius had already been condemned by the pope but attended a council for the council to decide the matter. He had support, such as John of Antioch.

The matter was settled by a council judging for itself.

Nestorius (potentially) could have chaired the council (although the numbers of bishops in his circle were fewer then those around Cyril).


I am writing a book about this.

I am aware of the Ephesus situation, but I think that the claim that Nestorius was received at the council is of limited apologetic value, since the council we now recognize as the legitimate one did not include John of Antioch and his faction. However the situation in general, including the post Ephesus crisis has good value, as it shows just how much the emperor and how little the pope was involved in ratifying Ecumenical Synods.
Logged

Be comforted, and have faith, O Israel, for your God is infinitely simple and one, composed of no parts.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #106 on: March 14, 2013, 12:12:00 AM »


I am aware of the Ephesus situation, but I think that the claim that Nestorius was received at the council is of limited apologetic value, since the council we now recognize as the legitimate one did not include John of Antioch and his faction. However the situation in general, including the post Ephesus crisis has good value, as it shows just how much the emperor and how little the pope was involved in ratifying Ecumenical Synods.

I would disagree. It's very important to note that Nestorius could attend the city as called for and potentially head the council AFTER he'd been condemned a heretic by the pope.

It totally undermines the Catholic positions on

a) papal authority

AND

b) that Cyril was the pope's 'representative' - this incidence moreso because Catholics in order to establish authority have to account for why a council was convened AFTER his condemnation of Nestorius. They do so by inventing a position for Cyril that Cyril never held.

Certainly Cyril agreed with the pope in the view of Nestorius' teachings.

Catholics try to pretend that the church councils were headed by a representative of the pope.

It may seem distasteful for some in reading that Cyril worked 'politically' in bringing about his own headship of the council, in the manner that he did.



Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #107 on: March 14, 2013, 07:47:06 AM »

On our national radio station the ABC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Broadcasting_Corporation) a reporter talked of the crowds waiting to see the new pope in "St. Vatican's Square"

Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #108 on: March 15, 2013, 05:52:33 AM »


I am aware of the Ephesus situation, but I think that the claim that Nestorius was received at the council is of limited apologetic value, since the council we now recognize as the legitimate one did not include John of Antioch and his faction. However the situation in general, including the post Ephesus crisis has good value, as it shows just how much the emperor and how little the pope was involved in ratifying Ecumenical Synods.

I would disagree. It's very important to note that Nestorius could attend the city as called for and potentially head the council AFTER he'd been condemned a heretic by the pope.

It totally undermines the Catholic positions on

a) papal authority

AND

b) that Cyril was the pope's 'representative' - this incidence moreso because Catholics in order to establish authority have to account for why a council was convened AFTER his condemnation of Nestorius. They do so by inventing a position for Cyril that Cyril never held.

Certainly Cyril agreed with the pope in the view of Nestorius' teachings.

Catholics try to pretend that the church councils were headed by a representative of the pope.

It may seem distasteful for some in reading that Cyril worked 'politically' in bringing about his own headship of the council, in the manner that he did.





Even if St Cyril had been the Popes's representativ, the 2nd Oecumenical council is a blow to the claim that "the church councils were headed by a representative of the pope".
Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #109 on: March 16, 2013, 03:20:18 AM »

Even if St Cyril had been the Popes's representativ, the 2nd Oecumenical council is a blow to the claim that "the church councils were headed by a representative of the pope".

I agree, but Catholics still claim that St Cyril represented the pope.


For Catholics, what makes a council ecumenical is that the council is approved by the pope as such.
Thielen, T. T., (1960) What is an Ecumenical Council (The Newman Press; Westminster, MD), pp16-17.


Further, they believe that all councils were convoked by a pope,
“…it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them” – Lumen Gentium.22 at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html


  and not by any secular leader “…it goes without saying that no temporal ruler has the right to do so.”  Cardinal Newman expressed this later point when he claimed that the church was given a promise that it “should have no master upon earth”. 
Thielen, T. T., (1960) What is an Ecumenical Council (The Newman Press; Westminster, MD), p22.
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


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


« Reply #110 on: March 16, 2013, 11:44:33 AM »

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek?  I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other.  Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.
Logged
choy
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Posts: 2,316


« Reply #111 on: March 16, 2013, 11:54:57 AM »

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek?  I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other.  Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.

The contention is that Petro and Petra were just translations, and the original conversation was in Aramaic where Jesus called Simon to be Cephas, which is the Aramaic for "rock".
Logged
montalban
Now in colour
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Greek
Posts: 1,813



« Reply #112 on: March 19, 2013, 07:33:32 AM »

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek?  I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other.  Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.

The contention is that Petro and Petra were just translations, and the original conversation was in Aramaic where Jesus called Simon to be Cephas, which is the Aramaic for "rock".

The Apostles all are the 'foundations' of the church (according to Ephesians). I think this is a play on the fact that Peter is the 'rock'. You build a literal church on rock (Jesus is the cornerstone).

All therefore are 'rock' and the foundation.

Therefore it doesn't matter to me if Peter is the rock, because he's not exclusively so
Logged

Fàilte dhut a Mhoire,
tha thu lan de na gràsan;
Tha an Tighearna maille riut.
JoeS2
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Catholic by choice
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 1,078


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


« Reply #113 on: March 19, 2013, 03:56:23 PM »

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek?  I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other.  Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.

The contention is that Petro and Petra were just translations, and the original conversation was in Aramaic where Jesus called Simon to be Cephas, which is the Aramaic for "rock".

The Apostles all are the 'foundations' of the church (according to Ephesians). I think this is a play on the fact that Peter is the 'rock'. You build a literal church on rock (Jesus is the cornerstone).

All therefore are 'rock' and the foundation.

Therefore it doesn't matter to me if Peter is the rock, because he's not exclusively so

Ergo, all bishops are the rock.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

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



« Reply #114 on: March 19, 2013, 04:45:44 PM »

Even if St Cyril had been the Popes's representativ, the 2nd Oecumenical council is a blow to the claim that "the church councils were headed by a representative of the pope".

I agree, but Catholics still claim that St Cyril represented the pope.


For Catholics, what makes a council ecumenical is that the council is approved by the pope as such.
Thielen, T. T., (1960) What is an Ecumenical Council (The Newman Press; Westminster, MD), pp16-17.


Further, they believe that all councils were convoked by a pope,
“…it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them” – Lumen Gentium.22 at http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html


  and not by any secular leader “…it goes without saying that no temporal ruler has the right to do so.”  Cardinal Newman expressed this later point when he claimed that the church was given a promise that it “should have no master upon earth”. 
Thielen, T. T., (1960) What is an Ecumenical Council (The Newman Press; Westminster, MD), p22.

As always in these matters, the Vatican doesn't have the facts on its side:
Quote
The pope was pleased that the whole East should be united to condemn the new heresy. He sent two bishops, Arcadius and Projectus, to represent himself and his Roman council, and the Roman priest, Philip, as his personal representative. Philip, therefore, takes the first place, though, not being a bishop, he could not preside. It was probably a matter of course that the Patriarch of Alexandria should be president. The legates were directed not to take part in the discussions, but to give judgment on them. Nihil Obstat. May 1, 1909. Remy Lafort, Censor. Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm
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
Napoletani
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Romanian Orthodox
Posts: 131



« Reply #115 on: March 20, 2013, 05:55:05 AM »

Does someone have this bible passage in original Greek?  I have been led to believe that the words Petro, and Petra were used to describe Peter as Petro and Rock as Petra leaving me to believe that one was not the same as the other.  Now this may not be the case in Latin translations.

StPeter is the rock in this passage, there is no question about it. The problem is what is concluded from this by rc. And even if St Peter was to be the only rock, wich is not the case, there are 3 Petrine Sees, in Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. And if Petrine prerogativ is the main reason for primacy, they would have to explain how is it that Alexandria was on higher rank than Antioch, when Antioch has a direct Petrine foundation, and Alexandria only an indirect one through St Mark. Indeed, the Council of Chalcedone has settled the issue:

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
Canon 28 http://www.earlychurchtexts.com/public/chalcedon_canons.htm

Logged

Romania,striga tare sa te aud
Romania,noi suntem Leii din Sud
Si din mormant voi striga,Stiinta e echipa mea
De te nasti aici si cresti,ramai Anti'Bucuresti
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 0.565 seconds with 143 queries.