OrthodoxChristianity.net
October 23, 2014, 01:25:36 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 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: The Pope  (Read 11937 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,593


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 14, 2013, 02:29:54 PM »

No it doesn't no matter how much you want it to be so. The fact that the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and my bishop is the Bishop of Pretoria is already evidence. He is not a vicar but the actual canonical Bishop of the archdiocese of Pretoria.

The Pope can fire your bishop whenever he wants, for whatever reason he wants.


You beat me to it.

The Bishop of Pretoria can not cease commemorating the Pope at Mass, at peril of his being 'fired.' If the Pope were not a 'universal' Bishop, why then is he to be commemorated around the world at all western Catholic Masses and eastern Catholic Divine Liturgies? The distinctions my western brothers make, seem to my eastern ears to be ones without an underlying difference. As Shakespeare observed, "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Why, for example, was the unanimous 2011 choice of the Synod of Bishops and Priests of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church of Ukraine to become Primate of Rome's 'sister' Greek Catholic Church not installed until his nomination was approved by the Congregation for the Eastern Churches and received the papal seal? Why has the seat of the Greek Catholic bishop of Passaic New Jersey been vacant for a year when the priests and people of that eparchy are quite capable of electing a Bishop under the terms of the Union of Uzhorod?

Things like that make us Orthodox, even ones generally sympathetic in many ways to the Church of Rome, scratch our heads in wonder and bemusement. Those who dislike Rome intensely pound their heads on the wall in disbelief.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 02:31:25 PM by podkarpatska » Logged
ErmyCath
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic (inquiring with GOA)
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Mobile
Posts: 184



« Reply #46 on: August 14, 2013, 02:32:08 PM »

Maybe someone can explain what universal jurisdiction would have meant to a first millennium Pope and how it would have been exercised.  Then, one should attempt to show a Pope in the first millennium actually exercised that authority.

I second this; many folks here are rejecting the papacy on the grounds that the Pope can depose any Bishop he wants at any time. Well, what exactly then does "proper" universal jurisdiction (if it even exists) mean? I take it that the problem is more so with modern Rome's definition of universal jurisdiction.

Universal Jurisdiction seems to have a very narrow definition of itself.

Jurisdiction= The right to rule, govern or legislate
Universal= Covering a whole area, occurring everywhere

Thus, if the pope has universal jurisdiction he is the ultimate, and in essence, the only real authority in the Church.

What other definition is possible?

Right. So, what are some examples from the first millenium of how a bishop, any bishop, exercises his jurisdiction?  Once we know that, from a first millenium perspective, we can analyze whether a Bishop of Rome took it upon himself to exercise that jurisdiction outside his See.  If he did, we would then need to know whether that action was accepted by the bishop of the See in which he was acting, and if so, why was that action allowed (e.g., was the Roman bishop asked to intervene)?

Once we have an example of this, we can then know whether a pope acted in accordance with the idea of universal jurisdiction. If he did, that proves the case. If he didn't, that is a very strong indication no one thought he had such power, even if some writings may appear that way through the millenia of hindsight.

-----------
Also, to add to the conversation, keep in mind that, in addition to being the only one able to install and depose bishops everywhere in the world, the pope is also the sole legislator of canon law, the sole judge of that law, and is the only one able to call a council.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 02:39:50 PM by ErmyCath » Logged

"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,189



WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 14, 2013, 02:40:26 PM »

Interview with St. Peter

Elder Peter, your blessings.
Grace to you and peace be multiplied in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord; 2 Peter 1:2-3

Elder Peter, you know about the polemic that grew around your blessed confession on that day Our Lord asked to all the Apostles who you thought He was, and you in particular replied: "The Christ, the Son of the Living God".
Many say that Christ was saying that you, Father Peter, would be the stone that is the foundation of the Church, and that thus nobody could be part of the Church by not being subject to you or one of your successors. Is that what Christ meant?

For in Scripture it says: "See, I lay a stone in Zion, a chosen and precious cornerstone, and the one who trusts in him will never be put to shame." Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," and, "A stone that causes people to stumble and a rock that makes them fall." They stumble because they disobey the message —which is also what they were destined for. As you come to Him, (who is) the living Stone —rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him. 1 Peter 2:6-8;4

But some elders, bishops and priests, say that you are an elder above them, above all!
To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ's sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed. 1 Peter 5:1

Some of those elders say that your successors have a "supreme and ordinary" leadership over the Church, a kind of lordship. What would you reply to them?
Be shepherds of God's flock that is under your care, watching over them —not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock.  And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.  1 Peter 5:2-3

They insist that the man who is proclaimed the bishop of Rome is the Supreme Shepherd of the Church. They also say the Supreme Shepherd needs a secular power to exercise this ministery and they have even given him the crown of a king.
When the Supreme Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.  1 Peter 5:4

But isn't that all a bit too cranky, Father Peter, just trying to be against for the sake of contradiction? They say that the role of your successor is merely to confirm his fellow elders in the faith, nothing more.
And the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will himself confirm you and make you strong, firm and steadfast. 1 Peter 5:10

They also say that this same man has the final word on the meaning of Scripture when it regards doctrine and moral, when he makes "ex cathedra" pronouncements.
Know this first, that no prophecy of scripture is of private interpretation. 2 Peter 1:20

They say this was supported by great teachers of their faith.
But there arose false prophets also among the people, as among you also there shall be false teachers, who shall privily bring in destructive heresies, denying even the Master  that bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction.  2 Peter 2:1

Thank you, Father Peter! Any final blessings to all the Orthodox Christians of the world?
Ye therefore, beloved, knowing [these things] beforehand, beware lest, being carried away with the error of the wicked, ye fall from your own stedfastness. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him [be] the glory both now and for ever. Amen.
2 Peter 3:17,18
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,521


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #48 on: August 14, 2013, 02:42:56 PM »

LOL. Good one, Fabio. Did you make it yourself?
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 02:43:11 PM by Cyrillic » 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: 1,620



« Reply #49 on: August 14, 2013, 02:43:21 PM »

Maybe someone can explain what universal jurisdiction would have meant to a first millennium Pope and how it would have been exercised.  Then, one should attempt to show a Pope in the first millennium actually exercised that authority.

Writing about how exalted is the Roman See is one thing -- a very common thing for the Fathers. So, discussing what they wrote is always going to be proof texting because we now have the lens of another millennium of baggage through which to examine those texts. The actions are much more important. That's why those pointing out that the pope appoints and deposes every bishop in the world at this point are correctly discussing the issue of jurisdiction.

Excellent post. The claims of the Roman popes to possess a primacy (which they did do in the first millennium, but which we Orthodox would argue that they did according to the canons of the Ecumenical Councils) are inapplicable to papal primacy and papal infallibility as defined by the First Vatican Council if that primacy in the first millennium was not understood in the same fashion as how the First Vatican Council dogmatized the role of the pope within the Roman Catholic Church. One would have to show, if he wished to prove the claims of the First Vatican Council, that the Pope was never widely considered to have been validly subjected to the disciplinary action of any council or synod, that the Pope was universally considered not to be bound by the constraints of canon law, that the Pope was able to depose and appoint bishops at will throughout the world, without the consent of the faithful there or their own local synod, and that the Pope was able to make declarations of faith which were immediately binding upon the entire Church, without any consultation with his fellow bishops or any conciliar action.
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,189



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 14, 2013, 02:44:41 PM »

LOL. Good one, Fabio. Did you make it yourself?

Yeps. Smiley Thanks!
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Cyrillic
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 9,521


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #51 on: August 14, 2013, 02:45:50 PM »

LOL. Good one, Fabio. Did you make it yourself?

Yeps. Smiley Thanks!

I applaud you. Well done. Oh, I nominate this for POM.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 02:46:16 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"And the Devil did grin, for his darling sin
is pride that apes humility."
-Samuel Coleridge
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,189



WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 14, 2013, 03:04:12 PM »

Now, my personal understanding of all this is informed by the 6th century. It was a period with lengthy compilations where people were putting together the many pieces of the Ancient world.

Justinian ordered the revision of Roman laws, putting thousands away and creating new ones. This was done by several jurists and scholarly people.

So, these were people who were assessing a similar confusing amount of texts and data from previous centuries and confronting them with the living practices of their own time.

And what did they say about the Primacy? That the pope was the "Head of Bishops" - and there was no mention to an exclusive, intransferable right on that. That is *very* different from being the "Head of the Church". It's clear to *me* that the bishops collectively and through local synods run the Church and that the "first among equals" is the head of this collegiate in particular, not of the Church. Since Rome got isolated from the rest of the Church the only model of leadership they had for reference was that of the Bishop of Rome over his own synod, where, like in all synods headed by a Patriarch, there is a stronger kind of authority. They simply assumed that was the only kind of authority there is and projected it into the more subtle one that had been clarified in Justinian times.

To me is clear that, from Judges, to the Apostolic organization of Churches by locality and ethnicity seen in the NT, to the Church as seen by God in Eternity in Revelation where He addresses local churches, the "confederative-localist" model of organization is God's chosen model of organization for societies, just like marriage is God's chosen form for couples.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 03:05:29 PM by Fabio Leite » Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
John of Patmos
Sinful Newbie
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek (not yet catechumen)
Posts: 99


Saint Polycarp, my patron


« Reply #53 on: August 14, 2013, 03:10:31 PM »

o my this is quite the can of worms i've opened...
Logged

Holy Father John Chrysostom, intercede for me!
That map ialmisry posted just makes me want to play Crusader Kings II.
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #54 on: August 14, 2013, 03:15:12 PM »

o my this is quite the can of worms i've opened...

Nah. It was opened 1000+ years ago. This is just the latest volley  Wink
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #55 on: August 14, 2013, 04:38:42 PM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
#1Sinner
Moderated
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Rome
Posts: 233



« Reply #56 on: August 14, 2013, 05:33:30 PM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.

Nope. The local diocese makes up a part of the Church which finds its unity in the pope. How can the local diocese represent the fullness of the Church when another entity can interfere at will?

I was RC for 35 years and feel quite confident that you are mistaken.
Logged

I hereby recant of defending "orthodoxy" and trying to persuade fellow Catholics of embracing schism. I adhere to the Catholic Faith as preserved by the Church of Rome and Her Pontiffs.
KBN1
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: EO
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 888



« Reply #57 on: August 14, 2013, 06:01:12 PM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.

Nope. The local diocese makes up a part of the Church which finds its unity in the pope. How can the local diocese represent the fullness of the Church when another entity can interfere at will?

I was RC for 35 years and feel quite confident that you are mistaken.

When the definition of the fullness of the faith involves being in communion with the Pope of Rome then of course the Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese that is in communion with the Pope of Rome.  Simple.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,189



WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 14, 2013, 06:01:28 PM »

But it's a belief as in opinion, not in organizational practice. In organizational practice, the institution is that the only fully autonomous and therefore complete authority is the Pope.

It's like those companies that say they have implemented Total Quality processes and values. It's in their documents. It's in their daily discourse. It's in their marketing campaigns.

The only place it is not is their processes and values for taking decisions.

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
William
Muted
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 4,354


« Reply #59 on: August 14, 2013, 10:10:33 PM »

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

But it is clear that he is not just upset about the title, but by the implications of the title. Like one bishop having universal jurisdiction over the church. He compares it to Lucifer, who wanted to be the highest of the angels:

Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?

He also says that Christ is the universal head of the church, not himself.

Also, why did you violently manipulate that one quote which ErmyCath has now corrected? Isn't that absurdly dishonest?

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars. This he ascribed to Lucifer. You are deliberately misrepresenting what he meant to support your position. Again go to the link I provided or better yet :

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

You are also ignoring the fact that he claimed universal jurisdiction for himself too

The EP claimed nothing of the sort. How can you really believe this? It's absolutely absurd. Gregory was clearly talking about one bishop claiming for himself universal jurisdiction over the church and subjugating every other bishop to himself, just as Lucifer tried to subject all of creation to himself, and just as the pope of Rome does today.

St. Gregory never claimed universal jurisdiction. He claimed a primacy of exalted honor and the right to settle disputes between bishops. He didn't think he could depose the pope of Alexandria for any reason whatsoever like the modern pope does.
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant
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 #60 on: August 14, 2013, 10:27:19 PM »

But it's a belief as in opinion, not in organizational practice. In organizational practice, the institution is that the only fully autonomous and therefore complete authority is the Pope.

It's like those companies that say they have implemented Total Quality processes and values. It's in their documents. It's in their daily discourse. It's in their marketing campaigns.

The only place it is not is their processes and values for taking decisions.

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.
Truth in advertising-and the lack thereof-strikes again.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
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 #61 on: August 14, 2013, 10:29:31 PM »

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

But it is clear that he is not just upset about the title, but by the implications of the title. Like one bishop having universal jurisdiction over the church. He compares it to Lucifer, who wanted to be the highest of the angels:

Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?

He also says that Christ is the universal head of the church, not himself.

Also, why did you violently manipulate that one quote which ErmyCath has now corrected? Isn't that absurdly dishonest?

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars. This he ascribed to Lucifer. You are deliberately misrepresenting what he meant to support your position. Again go to the link I provided or better yet :

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

You are also ignoring the fact that he claimed universal jurisdiction for himself too
EP St. John did no such thing ("ecumenical" was a term from the imperial chancellary, meaning "Imperial")

You're confusing the title of "EP" with the claims of "Pastor Aeternus."
« Last Edit: August 14, 2013, 10:29:53 PM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #62 on: August 14, 2013, 10:32:39 PM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.
If it was present in its entirety, those "true bishops" would not have to present themselves to the Vatican-the "ad limina" innovation.
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
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #63 on: August 14, 2013, 11:02:37 PM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.
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: August 14, 2013, 11:21:46 PM »

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

No but I know what you are talking about. The St.Gregory describes the primacy to exist  at Rome,Antioch and Alexandria. However the "apostolic see"  is Rome and according to Gregory is the see of authority. The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. Leo argued that the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

I'm summation the primacy is shared by three but the apostolic see is one and is Rome.
But one example-
Seventh Ecumenical Council, Session I:
Quote
I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.v.html?highlight=apostolic,see,dared#highlight
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #65 on: August 14, 2013, 11:26:17 PM »

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

But it is clear that he is not just upset about the title, but by the implications of the title. Like one bishop having universal jurisdiction over the church. He compares it to Lucifer, who wanted to be the highest of the angels:

Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?

He also says that Christ is the universal head of the church, not himself.

Also, why did you violently manipulate that one quote which ErmyCath has now corrected? Isn't that absurdly dishonest?

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars. This he ascribed to Lucifer. You are deliberately misrepresenting what he meant to support your position. Again go to the link I provided or better yet :

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

You are also ignoring the fact that he claimed universal jurisdiction for himself too
EP St. John did no such thing ("ecumenical" was a term from the imperial chancellary, meaning "Imperial")

You're confusing the title of "EP" with the claims of "Pastor Aeternus."


I would expect you of all people to know this. The whole dispute was over the title that's was given to the then Patriarch of Constantinople,John the Faster, which was "Ecumenical Patriarch" which when translated in to Latin meant "Universal Bishop". Of course this was a mistranslation and hence the whole dispute was really a mistake but Gregory was reprimanding the EP for what he though the EP was claiming to be.
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #66 on: August 14, 2013, 11:27:40 PM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #67 on: August 14, 2013, 11:29:02 PM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.

Nope. The local diocese makes up a part of the Church which finds its unity in the pope. How can the local diocese represent the fullness of the Church when another entity can interfere at will?

I was RC for 35 years and feel quite confident that you are mistaken.
You may feel we are mistaken but the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this very thing.
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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 #68 on: August 14, 2013, 11:29:13 PM »

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

No but I know what you are talking about. The St.Gregory describes the primacy to exist  at Rome,Antioch and Alexandria. However the "apostolic see"  is Rome and according to Gregory is the see of authority. The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position  and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. Leo argued that the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

I'm summation the primacy is shared by three but the apostolic see is one and is Rome.

Why are you quoting Wikipedia? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_development_of_the_doctrine_of_papal_primacy#Leo_I

Forgot to reference that also   Undecided but because what it says is true. Its plain history purely revisionism that's why Smiley
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #69 on: August 14, 2013, 11:31:47 PM »

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

No but I know what you are talking about. The St.Gregory describes the primacy to exist  at Rome,Antioch and Alexandria. However the "apostolic see"  is Rome and according to Gregory is the see of authority. The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. Leo argued that the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

I'm summation the primacy is shared by three but the apostolic see is one and is Rome.
But one example-
Seventh Ecumenical Council, Session I:
Quote
I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.v.html?highlight=apostolic,see,dared#highlight

Ok?

its no debate that when the Romans spoke of Apostolic see in the singular, they meant Rome... No credible scholar even disputes this. Undecided The same see Gregory exclaimed about saying " Who denies that even Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see?"
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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 #70 on: August 14, 2013, 11:31:55 PM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.

Nope. The local diocese makes up a part of the Church which finds its unity in the pope. How can the local diocese represent the fullness of the Church when another entity can interfere at will?

I was RC for 35 years and feel quite confident that you are mistaken.
You may feel we are mistaken but the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this very thing.
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
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #71 on: August 14, 2013, 11:33:35 PM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.

Nope. The local diocese makes up a part of the Church which finds its unity in the pope. How can the local diocese represent the fullness of the Church when another entity can interfere at will?

I was RC for 35 years and feel quite confident that you are mistaken.
You may feel we are mistaken but the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this very thing.

Yup as one catholic saint said " if all the world apostasized and only one person was left Catholic, he would be the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". The church I present fully at local level
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,264


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #72 on: August 14, 2013, 11:37:46 PM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.

Nope. The local diocese makes up a part of the Church which finds its unity in the pope. How can the local diocese represent the fullness of the Church when another entity can interfere at will?

I was RC for 35 years and feel quite confident that you are mistaken.
You may feel we are mistaken but the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this very thing.

Yup as one catholic saint said " if all the world apostasized and only one person was left Catholic, he would be the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". The church I present fully at local level
Yep. The Church continues to exist when there is not a Pope. Though I have some non-Catholics tell me otherwise.  Cheesy
Logged

Note Papist's influence from the tyrannical monarchism of traditional papism .
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: August 15, 2013, 12:06:40 AM »

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

No but I know what you are talking about. The St.Gregory describes the primacy to exist  at Rome,Antioch and Alexandria. However the "apostolic see"  is Rome and according to Gregory is the see of authority. The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. Leo argued that the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

I'm summation the primacy is shared by three but the apostolic see is one and is Rome.
But one example-
Seventh Ecumenical Council, Session I:
Quote
I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.v.html?highlight=apostolic,see,dared#highlight

Ok?

its no debate that when the Romans spoke of Apostolic see in the singular, they meant Rome
I'm sure they did: when in Rome do as the Romans do and all that.
Unfortunately, Rome was never the Church.
... No credible scholar even disputes this. Undecided
Credible in the sense of "believes Pastor Aeternus," no surprise.

As for everyone else, there are plenty of references to each of the above Apostolic sees being so referred to the singular, in the Acts of the various Ecumenical Councils and elsewhere.

The same see Gregory exclaimed about saying " Who denies that even Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see?"
Actually, he claimed that EP St. John did not deny that, right after he claimed that EP St. John was the precursor of the Anti-Christ.  As I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't even think Chick has ever quoted the precursor of the Anti-Christ as a Church Father proof text for the Vatican's supreme pontiff.
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 #74 on: August 15, 2013, 12:19:01 AM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.

Nope. The local diocese makes up a part of the Church which finds its unity in the pope. How can the local diocese represent the fullness of the Church when another entity can interfere at will?

I was RC for 35 years and feel quite confident that you are mistaken.
You may feel we are mistaken but the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this very thing.

Yup as one catholic saint said " if all the world apostasized and only one person was left Catholic, he would be the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". The church I present fully at local level
Yep. The Church continues to exist when there is not a Pope. Though I have some non-Catholics tell me otherwise.  Cheesy
Like Card. Cajetan?
Jokes aside, isn't this period of sedevacante does put into question many claims about the Papacy brought forward by the Roman Catholic Church?  Like my earlier comment about the Church being built on Peter and that Peter only has one successor, what now?  On whom is the Church built on?  And how are the Churches of the Catholic Communion in communion with one another?  How are they "in communion with Rome" if there is no Bishop of Rome?
1. Peter was the rock and he always will be
2. We are in communion with one another. The times in which there is no Pope are a clear indication that our communion is more fundamentally founded in our common faith in Christ. When there is a Pope, we must be in communion, but this necessity is less fundamental than our communion in the faith.  
You may not like that answer because it does not fit your "disaffected Catholic" narrative, but such is life. No one, not even the authors of Pastor Aeternus thought that the Church suddenly ceases to exist when there is no Pope.
But as pointed out earlier, isn't it a clear indication that the Papacy is indeed unnecessary?
Cajetan tried to claim otherwise:
But the Catholic Church, the Church of my baptism, teaches that each bishop participates in the magisterial charge and the petrine charge equally, and that each bishop and his See are the fullness of the Body of Christ.
The Catholic Church teaches that, but the Vatican who baptized you does not:
I can across something else of interest to the issue of the "manus" on supreme pontiff: Cajetan's Authority of Pope and Council Compared.
Quote
If someone insists that, when the apostolic see is vacant, the universal Church still exists, even without the pope as its head, the answer is that the universal Church exists only imperfectly, in such a way that this imperfection is a condition diminishing "the universal Church," just as a beheaded body diminishes an intact body.  The universal [body], after all, includes within itself all its office-holding members, the chief of whom is the head. Accordingly, the Church at such a time is headless and without its supreme part and power. Whoever denies this falls into the error of John Hus, denying the necessity of a head of the Church, which was condemned by Saint Thomas and by Martin V with the Council of Constance." And if someone took the view that the universal Church in this sense [without its head] has power immediately from Christ and is represented by the universal council, he would err intolerably, as is obvious from the texts cited and as will become more apparent further on.

Concerning the second comparison at the other extreme, between the pope set on one side and the whole Church, that is, even including the pope, on the other, it is said that the pope with the rest of the Church does not have greater power of spiritual jurisdiction than he has by himself, because his power
contains in itself the powers of all the rest, as their universal cause
There is no power of jurisdiction in the Church which is not in the pope, as is inductively obvious.

Even the power to elect the pope is in the pope's power. This is obvious both from the case of Peter, who chose his successor, as John III says in c. Si Petrus [C. 8 q. 1 c. 1], and from the fact that the pope ordains the exercise of the power to elect, determining when and how an election should be held, and, what is more important, determining the location of that power, when he established that election belongs to at least two thirds of the cardinals. This is proved from c. Si papa [D. 40 c. 6], where it is said that the whole body of the faithful recognizes that its salvation depends most, after the Lord, on the pope's good condition. Pope Leo says in c. Ita Dominus [D. 19 c. 7], "The Lord wished the sacrament of this gift to belong to the office of all the apostles, so that He placed [it] principally in most blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, that from him, as from a head, He might pour out His gifts, as it were, upon the whole body."  It is absolutely obvious in that passage that all the rest of the Church's body is allocated power by the pope as if by a head.
http://books.google.com/books?id=mC-I3inCYOIC&pg=PA23&dq=%22If+someone+insists+that,+when+the+apostolic+see+is+vacant,+the+universal+Church%22&hl=en#v=onepage&q=%22If%20someone%20insists%20that%2C%20when%20the%20apostolic%20see%20is%20vacant%2C%20the%20universal%20Church%22&f=false

Oh dear, it seems that not even a Council has the power to make a bishop into a supreme pontiff, a real problem for Petrine succession.
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 #75 on: August 15, 2013, 12:29:07 AM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
The Kims in North Korea didn't have the title "dictator for life" either.
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 #76 on: August 15, 2013, 12:32:11 AM »

So far in my discernment on Orthodoxy, my main point of contention is the role of the pope in the early church.  Do any fathers deny universal jurisdiction?

Yes. Pope (how ironic) St. Gregory the Great said that any bishop who tries to obtain for himself universal jurisdiction over the church is the precursor of the anti-Christ.

I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others.

This is unhistorical and completely not true. Pope St Gregory said that any bishop who claims the TITLE "Universal Bishop" is precursor of the Antichrist. To this day the Pope does not claim this title. The very same St Gregory had absolutely no problem in claiming universal jurisdiction as I showed in my previous post

Follow this link for information on the Universal Bishop controversy:
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm

But it is clear that he is not just upset about the title, but by the implications of the title. Like one bishop having universal jurisdiction over the church. He compares it to Lucifer, who wanted to be the highest of the angels:

Whom I pray you tell me, whom do you imitate by this perverse title if not Lucifer who, despising the legions of angels, his companions, endeavored to mount to the highest?

He also says that Christ is the universal head of the church, not himself.

Also, why did you violently manipulate that one quote which ErmyCath has now corrected? Isn't that absurdly dishonest?

http://www.orthodox-christianity.com/2012/07/pope-st-gregory-the-great-defender-of-papal-supremacy/

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars. This he ascribed to Lucifer. You are deliberately misrepresenting what he meant to support your position. Again go to the link I provided or better yet :

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm

You are also ignoring the fact that he claimed universal jurisdiction for himself too
EP St. John did no such thing ("ecumenical" was a term from the imperial chancellary, meaning "Imperial")

You're confusing the title of "EP" with the claims of "Pastor Aeternus."


I would expect you of all people to know this. The whole dispute was over the title that's was given to the then Patriarch of Constantinople,John the Faster, which was "Ecumenical Patriarch" which when translated in to Latin meant "Universal Bishop". Of course this was a mistranslation and hence the whole dispute was really a mistake but Gregory was reprimanding the EP for what he though the EP was claiming to be.
so we tell his successors as Pontifex Maximus "physician, heal thyself."
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,973


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #77 on: August 15, 2013, 12:36:57 AM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.

Nope. The local diocese makes up a part of the Church which finds its unity in the pope. How can the local diocese represent the fullness of the Church when another entity can interfere at will?

I was RC for 35 years and feel quite confident that you are mistaken.
You may feel we are mistaken but the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this very thing.

Yup as one catholic saint said " if all the world apostasized and only one person was left Catholic, he would be the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". The church I present fully at local level
Yep. The Church continues to exist when there is not a Pope. Though I have some non-Catholics tell me otherwise.  Cheesy

We aren't slaves to the logic of, "If there is no Pope of Rome, the Roman Catholic Church doesn't exist." After all, at the Liturgy, we commemorate the Second Coming as an event that is already happened, and celebrate a pre- as well as a post- feast for great feasts. Thus, during sedevacantist periods, obviously the Roman Catholic Church continues to exist since it expects a new pope. Duh.
Logged

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

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 6,857



« Reply #78 on: August 15, 2013, 12:38:59 AM »

No his problem was that the title "universal bishop" implied that there was only ONE TRUE BISHOP IN AND OF THE WHOLE WORLD which meant all others were actually vicars.

Sounds like the modern day Papacy to me.
But it isn't. We Catholics do believe that local bishops are true bishops, and we do believe that Catholic Church is present in its entirety in every diocese.

Nope. The local diocese makes up a part of the Church which finds its unity in the pope. How can the local diocese represent the fullness of the Church when another entity can interfere at will?

I was RC for 35 years and feel quite confident that you are mistaken.
You may feel we are mistaken but the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches this very thing.

Yup as one catholic saint said " if all the world apostasized and only one person was left Catholic, he would be the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church". The church I present fully at local level
Yep. The Church continues to exist when there is not a Pope. Though I have some non-Catholics tell me otherwise.  Cheesy

That seems to imply that papacy is not part of Tradition.
Logged

Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #79 on: August 15, 2013, 01:16:35 AM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
The Kims in North Korea didn't have the title "dictator for life" either.

Yup but nobody said "whoever claims to,be the title dictator for life is precursor of the antichrist" Wink
Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
Wandile
Peter the Roman
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - Roman Rite
Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria, South Africa
Posts: 1,131


@Wandi_Star
« Reply #80 on: August 15, 2013, 01:24:09 AM »

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

No but I know what you are talking about. The St.Gregory describes the primacy to exist  at Rome,Antioch and Alexandria. However the "apostolic see"  is Rome and according to Gregory is the see of authority. The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. Leo argued that the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

I'm summation the primacy is shared by three but the apostolic see is one and is Rome.
But one example-
Seventh Ecumenical Council, Session I:
Quote
I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.v.html?highlight=apostolic,see,dared#highlight

Ok?

its no debate that when the Romans spoke of Apostolic see in the singular, they meant Rome
I'm sure they did: when in Rome do as the Romans do and all that.
Unfortunately, Rome was never the Church.

According to Maximus the Confessor Rome is the Church when he said Anyone who excommunicates The Church at Rome excommunicates the Catholic Church Grin

... No credible scholar even disputes this. Undecided
Credible in the sense of "believes Pastor Aeternus," no surprise.

As for everyone else, there are plenty of references to each of the above Apostolic sees being so referred to the singular, in the Acts of the various Ecumenical Councils and elsewhere.

Nope secular protestant and some Orthodox ones don't deny this either Smiley


The same see Gregory exclaimed about saying " Who denies that even Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see?"
Actually, he claimed that EP St. John did not deny that, right after he claimed that EP St. John was the precursor of the Anti-Christ.  As I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't even think Chick has ever quoted the precursor of the Anti-Christ as a Church Father proof text for the Vatican's supreme pontiff.
[/quote]

Ok I was just proving that he meant Rome and that he claimed authority over Constantinople in exposing that nobody denies Constantinople is subject to Rome
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 01:31:51 AM by Wandile » Logged

\"Keep close to the Catholic Church at all times, for the Church alone can give you true peace, since she alone possesses Jesus, the true Prince of Peace, in the Blessed Sacrament.\" - Padre Pio<br /><br />\"He inquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is
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 #81 on: August 15, 2013, 02:12:09 AM »

I think your quote from St. Gregory left out the part where he describes the See of Peter as existing in three places. Do you have the entire quote?

No but I know what you are talking about. The St.Gregory describes the primacy to exist  at Rome,Antioch and Alexandria. However the "apostolic see"  is Rome and according to Gregory is the see of authority. The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. Leo argued that the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.

I'm summation the primacy is shared by three but the apostolic see is one and is Rome.
But one example-
Seventh Ecumenical Council, Session I:
Quote
I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.v.html?highlight=apostolic,see,dared#highlight

Ok?

its no debate that when the Romans spoke of Apostolic see in the singular, they meant Rome
I'm sure they did: when in Rome do as the Romans do and all that.
Unfortunately, Rome was never the Church.

According to Maximus the Confessor Rome is the Church when he said Anyone who excommunicates The Church at Rome excommunicates the Catholic Church Grin
Yes, St. Maximus was not infallible either, and if he said what you claim (I'm familiar with similar claims, but you haven't cited St. Maximus, so I can't address your point directly), it would not be the only example of him demonstrating his fallibility.

The Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council anathematizing Pope Honorius also showed the error of St. Maximus to try to exonerate him.

... No credible scholar even disputes this. Undecided
Credible in the sense of "believes Pastor Aeternus," no surprise.

As for everyone else, there are plenty of references to each of the above Apostolic sees being so referred to the singular, in the Acts of the various Ecumenical Councils and elsewhere.

Nope secular protestant and some Orthodox ones don't deny this either Smiley
Then they don't know what they are talking about, as, as I pointed out, there is no absence of references to the Apostolic sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Antioch and even Constantinople in the singular.

The same see Gregory exclaimed about saying " Who denies that even Constantinople is subject to the apostolic see?"
Actually, he claimed that EP St. John did not deny that, right after he claimed that EP St. John was the precursor of the Anti-Christ.  As I've pointed out elsewhere, I don't even think Chick has ever quoted the precursor of the Anti-Christ as a Church Father proof text for the Vatican's supreme pontiff.
Ok I was just proving that he meant Rome and that he claimed authority over Constantinople in exposing that nobody denies Constantinople is subject to Rome
The Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, among others, denied that very thing.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 02:12:42 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
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 #82 on: August 15, 2013, 02:16:14 AM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
The Kims in North Korea didn't have the title "dictator for life" either.

Yup but nobody said "whoever claims to,be the title dictator for life is precursor of the antichrist" Wink
Actually, plenty have. Especially the type who take Chick publications as the gospel truth.

The Kims not only deny being dictators, but now having made the elder Kim "eternal" (after his death), denied mortality as well.  Sort of like how your supreme pontiffs claim that they don't claim to be universal bishop in the sense that St. Gregory condemns.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 02:16:53 AM by ialmisry » Logged

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

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #83 on: August 15, 2013, 04:58:46 AM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
The Kims in North Korea didn't have the title "dictator for life" either.

Yup but nobody said "whoever claims to,be the title dictator for life is precursor of the antichrist" Wink
Actually, plenty have. Especially the type who take Chick publications as the gospel truth.

The Kims not only deny being dictators, but now having made the elder Kim "eternal" (after his death), denied mortality as well.  Sort of like how your supreme pontiffs claim that they don't claim to be universal bishop in the sense that St. Gregory condemns.

What you mention falls in line with their religions, ancestor worship and such.  Catholicism is different.
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #84 on: August 15, 2013, 05:41:27 AM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
The Kims in North Korea didn't have the title "dictator for life" either.

Yup but nobody said "whoever claims to,be the title dictator for life is precursor of the antichrist" Wink
Actually, plenty have. Especially the type who take Chick publications as the gospel truth.

The Kims not only deny being dictators, but now having made the elder Kim "eternal" (after his death), denied mortality as well.  Sort of like how your supreme pontiffs claim that they don't claim to be universal bishop in the sense that St. Gregory condemns.

What you mention falls in line with their religions, ancestor worship and such.  Catholicism is different.

You didn't get Isa's point. Not even close.
Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #85 on: August 15, 2013, 06:08:44 AM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
The Kims in North Korea didn't have the title "dictator for life" either.

Yup but nobody said "whoever claims to,be the title dictator for life is precursor of the antichrist" Wink
Actually, plenty have. Especially the type who take Chick publications as the gospel truth.

The Kims not only deny being dictators, but now having made the elder Kim "eternal" (after his death), denied mortality as well.  Sort of like how your supreme pontiffs claim that they don't claim to be universal bishop in the sense that St. Gregory condemns.

What you mention falls in line with their religions, ancestor worship and such.  Catholicism is different.

You didn't get Isa's point. Not even close.

What point would that be?
Logged
mike
Stratopedarches
**************
Offline Offline

Posts: 21,467


WWW
« Reply #86 on: August 15, 2013, 06:11:07 AM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
The Kims in North Korea didn't have the title "dictator for life" either.

Yup but nobody said "whoever claims to,be the title dictator for life is precursor of the antichrist" Wink
Actually, plenty have. Especially the type who take Chick publications as the gospel truth.

The Kims not only deny being dictators, but now having made the elder Kim "eternal" (after his death), denied mortality as well.  Sort of like how your supreme pontiffs claim that they don't claim to be universal bishop in the sense that St. Gregory condemns.

What you mention falls in line with their religions, ancestor worship and such.  Catholicism is different.

You didn't get Isa's point. Not even close.

What point would that be?

That RC pope despite not officially declaring himself as "universal bishop" in real behaves like one. Just as Kim Dzong Un is a dictator despite not calling himself a dictator (and probably, even denying he is a dictator).
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 06:11:50 AM by Michał Kalina » Logged

Byzantinism
no longer posting here
podkarpatska
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: ACROD
Posts: 8,593


Pokrov


WWW
« Reply #87 on: August 15, 2013, 06:42:04 AM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
The Kims in North Korea didn't have the title "dictator for life" either.

Yup but nobody said "whoever claims to,be the title dictator for life is precursor of the antichrist" Wink
Actually, plenty have. Especially the type who take Chick publications as the gospel truth.

The Kims not only deny being dictators, but now having made the elder Kim "eternal" (after his death), denied mortality as well.  Sort of like how your supreme pontiffs claim that they don't claim to be universal bishop in the sense that St. Gregory condemns.

What you mention falls in line with their religions, ancestor worship and such.  Catholicism is different.

You didn't get Isa's point. Not even close.

What point would that be?

That RC pope despite not officially declaring himself as "universal bishop" in real behaves like one. Just as Kim Dzong Un is a dictator despite not calling himself a dictator (and probably, even denying he is a dictator).

But the reality of the modern Roman Church is that the Pope himself is perhaps more akin to the Wizard of Oz than any secular dictator, as he, and his supposed power, are really the sum of appearance and illusion. By that I mean the concentration of church authority and supposed decision making is really in the hands of and within the walls of the Vatican's unwieldy, but powerful and enduring bureaucracy. If any modern Pope were in fact as singularly powerful as some Orthodox have been led to believe - or want to believe - surely Pope Benedict would have issued orders, put out a ukase or bull and  sent out his elite enforcers and put in place an immediate end to liturgical abuses and innovation. The body of his brilliant academic and published works surely indicate where he stood on those, and other issues. Oh yeah, that didn't happen. His successor surely must be a theological and liturgical thinker of similar persuasion, right? Oh, that didn't happen either.

The definitions of the Papacy are problematic as defined by Rome,but they are engrained in the methodology of the operation of the  institution of the Church of Rome. To preserve power, they painted themselves into the corner they are in from the point of view of the Orthodox.
Logged
Fabio Leite
Archon
********
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 3,189



WWW
« Reply #88 on: August 15, 2013, 07:17:18 AM »

As to the fallacy that St. Gregory was complaining about the title only, in that same text he continues explaining what he is complaining about. It's the attitude behind the title, not the title.

A bishop with such authority would diminish his fellow bishops. That is *exactly* what happens in Rome when its defined that a bishop is legitimate as a bishop only as long as he is confirmed by the Pope.

The title is of secondary importance there. That Constantinople was subordinate to Rome is no mistery because that is exactly what the dyptichs said. What St. Gregory informs us is that there is an Orthodox Catholic way of exercising authority, and a way that is not only heretical but outright Anti-Christian. The witness of that Orthodox Pope is precisely that what Rome claims and does today has gone way beyond that border.

It's by means of declarations of supremacy that they have put him in the position where there is at least the temptation for the bureaucracy of Vatican to "use" him, because they need their will to have at least the formal approval, or not have the rejection, of the supreme authority.

And if Roman history teaches us anything, the Papacy will eventually deal with that by asserting more power to the Pope. Maybe soft power this time, but Rome traditionally deals with this by responding to power with more power.
Logged

Many Energies, Three Persons, Two Natures, One God.
Kerdy
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 5,732


« Reply #89 on: August 15, 2013, 07:27:50 AM »

The Pope:  Bishop of Rome, Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor of the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Primate of Italy, Archbishop and Metropolitan of the Roman Province, Sovereign of the Vatican City State, Servant of the servants of God.

Now, that's a title.

Yup but no "Universal Bishop" Wink
The Kims in North Korea didn't have the title "dictator for life" either.

Yup but nobody said "whoever claims to,be the title dictator for life is precursor of the antichrist" Wink
Actually, plenty have. Especially the type who take Chick publications as the gospel truth.

The Kims not only deny being dictators, but now having made the elder Kim "eternal" (after his death), denied mortality as well.  Sort of like how your supreme pontiffs claim that they don't claim to be universal bishop in the sense that St. Gregory condemns.

What you mention falls in line with their religions, ancestor worship and such.  Catholicism is different.

You didn't get Isa's point. Not even close.

What point would that be?

That RC pope despite not officially declaring himself as "universal bishop" in real behaves like one. Just as Kim Dzong Un is a dictator despite not calling himself a dictator (and probably, even denying he is a dictator).

I sure did miss that point.  As you stated, I was not even close. Embarrassed

Sorry, Isa!
« Last Edit: August 15, 2013, 07:30:18 AM by Kerdy » Logged
Tags:
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 »   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 0.248 seconds with 72 queries.