OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 22, 2014, 07:22:12 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 10775 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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: 1,619



« 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: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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: 1,619



« 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: 9,515


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« 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

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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: 1,619



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Warned
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: 37,963



« 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
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,158


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
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,741


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/
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 0.246 seconds with 72 queries.