OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 20, 2014, 05:51:17 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Biblical Basis for the Papacy by John Salza  (Read 815 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
ShayneSwenson
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 77



WWW
« on: July 25, 2014, 08:20:11 PM »

Im about to dive into it, but Im wondering if its worth the read. Seems to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic. Still trying to find definitive evidence as to the error of the Roman position, as well as the papacy, but I just seem to turn up more confirmation.
Logged

Check out my blog www.athirstysilence.com
I also make Tattoos for a living
http://instagram.com/shayneswenson
ShayneSwenson
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox
Posts: 77



WWW
« Reply #1 on: July 25, 2014, 08:22:42 PM »

I was also able to ask Colin Donovan recently about the validity of the Papacy and I got alot of information, albeit in a snarky, triumphalist tone. Im sooooooo drawn to the east, but I just havent found any evidence that Rome is in error. Any help would be much appreciated.
Logged

Check out my blog www.athirstysilence.com
I also make Tattoos for a living
http://instagram.com/shayneswenson
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Direct Archdiocesan District
Posts: 1,674


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #2 on: July 25, 2014, 08:32:25 PM »

Speaking of Colin Donovan, I listed to Catholic Answers on the radio quite frequently and am astounded by the ignorance of their "apologists." There are Catholics on this board that would do a better job.
Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.
truthseeker32
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOAA- Denver
Posts: 390



« Reply #3 on: July 25, 2014, 08:51:16 PM »

Speaking of Colin Donovan, I listed to Catholic Answers on the radio quite frequently and am astounded by the ignorance of their "apologists." There are Catholics on this board that would do a better job.
They tend to be pretty good at the philosophical apologetics, but their theological and historical apologetics are definitely lacking.
Logged
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,635



« Reply #4 on: July 25, 2014, 10:41:37 PM »

I have read Karl Keating's, Patrick Madrid's, Garry Willis' and Michael Coren's apologetics.

As of now, none of them hold any water. I would call Madrid's and Coren's garbage in print.

I was also able to ask Colin Donovan recently about the validity of the Papacy and I got alot of information, albeit in a snarky, triumphalist tone. Im sooooooo drawn to the east, but I just havent found any evidence that Rome is in error. Any help would be much appreciated.

Well, in the first place demonstrate the necessity of the Immaculate Conception in relation to the mythology of Original Sin and then we'll get somewhere.

Or maybe, demonstrate Purgatory and Indulgences from the early Fathers.

Or why Muslims (and Jews) worship the same god as Christians? (c.f., Vatican II, the Catechism of the Catholic Church etc.)
« Last Edit: July 25, 2014, 10:46:06 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 380



« Reply #5 on: July 25, 2014, 10:56:31 PM »

Speaking personally with Catholic Answers apologists after the first time my Roman Catholic faith was challenged by Orthodoxy was what really convinced me there must be something in Orthodoxy.
Logged
Cavaradossi
法網恢恢,疏而不漏
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Chalcedonian Automaton Serial No. 5Aj4bx9
Jurisdiction: Chalcedonian Automaton Factory 5
Posts: 1,637



« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2014, 02:32:45 AM »

Speaking personally with Catholic Answers apologists after the first time my Roman Catholic faith was challenged by Orthodoxy was what really convinced me there must be something in Orthodoxy.

If you don't mind me asking, how so?
Logged

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

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2014, 03:17:41 AM »

Im about to dive into it, but Im wondering if its worth the read. Seems to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic. Still trying to find definitive evidence as to the error of the Roman position, as well as the papacy, but I just seem to turn up more confirmation.

Of course it is worth the read, but only in the context of an intake of greater sources.  You of course have turned up more confirmation since you seem to be (based on your posts thusfar) only reading sources that will not give you the whole account.  For example, no Roman apologetics will explain to you why there is no feast of St. Peter, but only that of Sts. Peter and Paul (confirming the Orthodox position).  Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.  Also, why the patriarchal basilicas were suppressed and all made "papal basilicas" by Benedict.  We certainly cannot have reference to the fact that 4 of the 5 major basilicas in Rome were designated to the Orthodox Patriarchs (especially St. Peter's, which was the patriarchal metochion basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople). 
Logged
Maria
Orthodox Christian
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,448


O most Holy Theotokos, save us.


« Reply #8 on: July 26, 2014, 04:13:35 AM »

Im about to dive into it, but Im wondering if its worth the read. Seems to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic. Still trying to find definitive evidence as to the error of the Roman position, as well as the papacy, but I just seem to turn up more confirmation.

Of course it is worth the read, but only in the context of an intake of greater sources.  You of course have turned up more confirmation since you seem to be (based on your posts thusfar) only reading sources that will not give you the whole account.  For example, no Roman apologetics will explain to you why there is no feast of St. Peter, but only that of Sts. Peter and Paul (confirming the Orthodox position).  Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.  Also, why the patriarchal basilicas were suppressed and all made "papal basilicas" by Benedict.  We certainly cannot have reference to the fact that 4 of the 5 major basilicas in Rome were designated to the Orthodox Patriarchs (especially St. Peter's, which was the patriarchal metochion basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople). 

Thanks for this information, Father.
Logged

Glory to Jesus Christ!
Glory to Him forever!
xariskai
юродивый/yurodivy
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 1,440


יהוה עזי ומגני


« Reply #9 on: July 26, 2014, 12:14:12 PM »

"Seem to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic."

Not to be missed also is Salza's spirited defense of Geocentrism.
http://scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

Quote from: John Salsa
Geocentrism is the view that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the universe (sun, moon, stars, planets) revolves around the earth.  Most geocentrists also believe that the earth stands still, and does not rotate on its axis.  Geocentrism is in contrast to heliocentrism, which is the view that the earth rotates on its axis and, along with the other planets, revolves around the sun.  While it is permissible for Christians to hold the heliocentric view, heliocentrism can only be advanced as a theory, not a certainty (because neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism can be scientifically proven definitively). In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty. Instead, the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition and teachings of the Church support a geocentric cosmology vis-à-vis a heliocentric one.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 12:15:45 PM by xariskai » Logged

Silly Stars
Regnare
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA catechumen
Posts: 380



« Reply #10 on: July 26, 2014, 01:33:01 PM »

Speaking personally with Catholic Answers apologists after the first time my Roman Catholic faith was challenged by Orthodoxy was what really convinced me there must be something in Orthodoxy.

If you don't mind me asking, how so?
-They portrayed the issue of the Three Chapters entirely as a problem of discipline, with the entire Church seemingly unified against them but unsure of whether it would be prudent to condemn them, when in reality five Italian dioceses broke communion with the Church because they considered the Three Chapters to be the faith of Chalcedon
-They interpreted any assertion of Roman primacy as an assertion of Pastor Aeternus-style supremacy
-They argued that it was somehow more permissible for councils to challenge the orthodoxy of Rome because papal infallibility had not yet been defined as a dogma
-They assumed that the request at Chalcedon for the pope to agree that Constantinople should be second in precedence implied that his approval was necessary for Chalcedon or Constantinople I (where it was first proposed) to be legitimate councils at all
-They made some arguments which I think were intended to fall along the "Orthodoxy=caesaropapism" line by attempting to show that the Pope of Rome had more authority than the emperor at councils

In short, although they were responding to several questions I had, they still took a very scattershot approach, deploying most of the classic Roman arguments against the East even if they had to stretch the facts to get to them.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,718


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #11 on: July 26, 2014, 01:47:16 PM »

For example, no Roman apologetics will explain to you why there is no feast of St. Peter, but only that of Sts. Peter and Paul (confirming the Orthodox position). 

I'm not sure this is entirely accurate unless you're only considering the modern (reformed) Roman liturgy.  The older Roman liturgy lists 29 June as the feast of both Ss Peter and Paul, but the Mass and Office are almost entirely about St Peter.  30 June is designated the Commemoration of St Paul and largely focuses on him, but St Peter is also commemorated in the orations.  This two day feast, IIRC, is a remnant of an older Roman practice of celebrating both on the same day with Masses at the apostles' tombs: eventually, it was too much for the Pope to do both in the same day, so it was spread out over two days.  There are lesser feasts for each apostle (e.g., Conversion of St Paul, Chains of St Peter), but the other is always commemorated in the orations.  So yes, they are always linked, but not in the way you find in the modern liturgy: in fact, the modern liturgy arguably separated them more.  

Quote
Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.     


It was a II class feast before Vatican II, and in the modern ranking it remains in the equivalent rank (feast).  What changed, IIRC, was that it was not celebrated or transferred if it occurred on Sunday.  I suppose it is probably observed in Rome no matter when it occurs.  
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Ekdikos
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Church of Serbia - Diocese of Banja Luka
Posts: 397



« Reply #12 on: July 26, 2014, 02:40:54 PM »

"Seem to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic."

Not to be missed also is Salza's spirited defense of Geocentrism.
http://scripturecatholic.com/geocentrism.html

Quote from: John Salsa
Geocentrism is the view that the earth is the center of the universe, and that the universe (sun, moon, stars, planets) revolves around the earth.  Most geocentrists also believe that the earth stands still, and does not rotate on its axis.  Geocentrism is in contrast to heliocentrism, which is the view that the earth rotates on its axis and, along with the other planets, revolves around the sun.  While it is permissible for Christians to hold the heliocentric view, heliocentrism can only be advanced as a theory, not a certainty (because neither heliocentrism nor geocentrism can be scientifically proven definitively). In fact, three Popes (Paul V, Urban VIII and Alexander VII) have officially declared that heliocentrism is opposed to Sacred Scripture, and condemned the notion that heliocentrism was a truth to be believed with certainty. Instead, the Scriptures, the Apostolic Tradition and teachings of the Church support a geocentric cosmology vis-à-vis a heliocentric one.
Saint Ptolomey, pray for us. Tongue

On serious note, he did not get that nobody hold heliocentrism today as correct?

Heliocentrism imply Sun is in centre of Universe... which is equally wrong as Geocentrism...
Logged

Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,611



« Reply #13 on: July 26, 2014, 03:57:39 PM »

Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.     


It was a II class feast before Vatican II, and in the modern ranking it remains in the equivalent rank (feast).  What changed, IIRC, was that it was not celebrated or transferred if it occurred on Sunday.  I suppose it is probably observed in Rome no matter when it occurs.  

I disagree, since demonstrably what changed was that it no longer is the feast of St. Peter's Chair in Antioch.  In 1960, the January 18 feast celebrating the chair of Peter in Rome was moved to February 22, and the celebration of the chair of Antioch suppressed altogether.  So the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch has no rank, since it no longer exists.  February 22 is for the chair in Rome now. 
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,718


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #14 on: July 26, 2014, 07:08:22 PM »

Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.     


It was a II class feast before Vatican II, and in the modern ranking it remains in the equivalent rank (feast).  What changed, IIRC, was that it was not celebrated or transferred if it occurred on Sunday.  I suppose it is probably observed in Rome no matter when it occurs.  

I disagree, since demonstrably what changed was that it no longer is the feast of St. Peter's Chair in Antioch.  In 1960, the January 18 feast celebrating the chair of Peter in Rome was moved to February 22, and the celebration of the chair of Antioch suppressed altogether.  So the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch has no rank, since it no longer exists.  February 22 is for the chair in Rome now. 


My understanding has always been that there were two "Chair" feasts (18 January for Rome, 22 February for Antioch) and it stayed that way until after Vatican II.  It seems, however, that, by 1955, the see commemorated on 22 February was changed, as you say, from Antioch to Rome.  Without your post, I would not have gone through the books to search that out, so I thank you.  In any case, even with this change, both feasts were still kept on the calendar with similar names but different Masses/Offices (January's is more heavy on "Petrine primacy", IMO, than February's, which I suppose reflects their original respective Roman/Antiochian character). 

By 1960, the January feast was dropped, not transferred--even though the commemoration had already been switched from Antioch to Rome, the more "Roman" texts of January were not used to replace those of February.  My presumption until now has been that they kept the February date because it is older: the Syrian Orthodox Church also observes it as the feast of the see of Antioch (this is why I erroneously believed that the RC's did not change the commemoration), and I have not yet heard it claimed that this is a Latinisation in our Church, so unless you have any information to the contrary, I think it is a reasonable guess.  After Vatican II, it seems the feast retained, at least in its description if not in its texts, the association with Rome. 

I find all of that interesting, but that wasn't the main focus of my comment, which focused more on how the feast is celebrated rather than what is celebrated.  This discussion has helped flesh things out a bit for me and I find that helpful.  Even so, I'm not sure it is accurate to say the feast of St Peter's Chair in Antioch "no longer exists".  In terms of the post-Vatican II liturgy this is true, and it is true in terms of the naming of the feast in the liturgy for ~15 years prior to the reformed liturgy.  But in terms of the texts of the Mass/Office of the pre-Vatican II liturgy (which remains as a legitimate form of the Roman liturgy to this day), it's a bit more complicated IMO.  They could've switched the "Roman" texts for the "Antiochian" texts (transferring texts has been done before) or written a new Mass/Office (as they did for 8 December and 15 August), but they simply used "Antiochian" texts for a "Roman" commemoration.  Make of that what you will, but since we also have the 22 February feast, I'm more inclined to think this was one of many "botched" liturgical reforms where some things got mixed up and even lost in the shuffle.       
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Papist
Patriarch of Pontification
Toumarches
************
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic
Jurisdiction: Byzantine
Posts: 12,417


Praying for the Christians in Iraq


« Reply #15 on: July 26, 2014, 07:17:25 PM »

Speaking of Colin Donovan, I listed to Catholic Answers on the radio quite frequently and am astounded by the ignorance of their "apologists." There are Catholics on this board that would do a better job.
They tend to be pretty good at the philosophical apologetics, but their theological and historical apologetics are definitely lacking.
I have to agree with you on that. The CA apologists simply don't know how to respond to the East, and this may be a result of them chanting the tired mantra about the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church being basically the same thing.
Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,635



« Reply #16 on: July 26, 2014, 08:23:47 PM »

Speaking of Colin Donovan, I listed to Catholic Answers on the radio quite frequently and am astounded by the ignorance of their "apologists." There are Catholics on this board that would do a better job.
They tend to be pretty good at the philosophical apologetics, but their theological and historical apologetics are definitely lacking.
I have to agree with you on that. The CA apologists simply don't know how to respond to the East, and this may be a result of them chanting the tired mantra about the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church being basically the same thing.

And that's really too bad. For people who are serious searchers, this sort of thing endangers them.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2014, 08:24:21 PM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #17 on: August 10, 2014, 05:34:11 AM »

Im about to dive into it, but Im wondering if its worth the read. Seems to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic. Still trying to find definitive evidence as to the error of the Roman position, as well as the papacy, but I just seem to turn up more confirmation.

Of course it is worth the read, but only in the context of an intake of greater sources.  You of course have turned up more confirmation since you seem to be (based on your posts thusfar) only reading sources that will not give you the whole account.  For example, no Roman apologetics will explain to you why there is no feast of St. Peter, but only that of Sts. Peter and Paul (confirming the Orthodox position).  Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.  Also, why the patriarchal basilicas were suppressed and all made "papal basilicas" by Benedict.  We certainly cannot have reference to the fact that 4 of the 5 major basilicas in Rome were designated to the Orthodox Patriarchs (especially St. Peter's, which was the patriarchal metochion basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople). 

Concerning the patriarchal basilicas

Originally the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. Later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.

NOTE : A patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs. It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representati
Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
Porter ODoran
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,302


Erst Amish Appalachian


WWW
« Reply #18 on: August 10, 2014, 02:06:06 PM »

"Seem to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic."

...

I'm always a big fan of arguments from logic.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #19 on: August 10, 2014, 03:14:22 PM »

Im about to dive into it, but Im wondering if its worth the read. Seems to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic. Still trying to find definitive evidence as to the error of the Roman position, as well as the papacy, but I just seem to turn up more confirmation.

Of course it is worth the read, but only in the context of an intake of greater sources.  You of course have turned up more confirmation since you seem to be (based on your posts thusfar) only reading sources that will not give you the whole account.  For example, no Roman apologetics will explain to you why there is no feast of St. Peter, but only that of Sts. Peter and Paul (confirming the Orthodox position).  Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.  Also, why the patriarchal basilicas were suppressed and all made "papal basilicas" by Benedict.  We certainly cannot have reference to the fact that 4 of the 5 major basilicas in Rome were designated to the Orthodox Patriarchs (especially St. Peter's, which was the patriarchal metochion basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople). 

Concerning the patriarchal basilicas

Originally the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. Later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.

NOTE : A patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs. It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representati
If that were true, then the Latin "Patriarch" of Constantinople would have been in the Vatican before 1964 (he wasn't), and the Latin "Patriarch of Jerusalem" would be in St. Lawerence (he's not).
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
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #20 on: August 10, 2014, 03:15:29 PM »

Speaking of Colin Donovan, I listed to Catholic Answers on the radio quite frequently and am astounded by the ignorance of their "apologists." There are Catholics on this board that would do a better job.
They tend to be pretty good at the philosophical apologetics, but their theological and historical apologetics are definitely lacking.
lol, when one has Scholasticism, who needs history or theology?
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: 1,207


Pray for me, a sinner


« Reply #21 on: August 10, 2014, 05:08:19 PM »

Im about to dive into it, but Im wondering if its worth the read. Seems to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic. Still trying to find definitive evidence as to the error of the Roman position, as well as the papacy, but I just seem to turn up more confirmation.

Of course it is worth the read, but only in the context of an intake of greater sources.  You of course have turned up more confirmation since you seem to be (based on your posts thusfar) only reading sources that will not give you the whole account.  For example, no Roman apologetics will explain to you why there is no feast of St. Peter, but only that of Sts. Peter and Paul (confirming the Orthodox position).  Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.  Also, why the patriarchal basilicas were suppressed and all made "papal basilicas" by Benedict.  We certainly cannot have reference to the fact that 4 of the 5 major basilicas in Rome were designated to the Orthodox Patriarchs (especially St. Peter's, which was the patriarchal metochion basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople). 

Concerning the patriarchal basilicas

Originally the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. Later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.

NOTE : A patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs. It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representati
If that were true, then the Latin "Patriarch" of Constantinople would have been in the Vatican before 1964 (he wasn't), and the Latin "Patriarch of Jerusalem" would be in St. Lawerence (he's not).

What are you even denying?

I know for certain the first part of my post is absolutely true...
Logged

"There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church. Anyone who resists this truth perishes." - St. Louis Marie de Montfort

"When we pray, the voice of the heart must be heard more than that proceeding from the mouth." - St Bonaventure.
MalpanaGiwargis
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Faith: Catholic, but Orthodox Inquirer
Posts: 58


« Reply #22 on: August 10, 2014, 07:08:48 PM »

Concerning the feasts of St Peter's Chairs, the January date was the date kept in the Gallican church, February was the original date kept in Rome. When the Roman liturgy absorbed the Gallican, the two dates were kept but given different significations. One of the principles guiding the 1960 reform was the newly-created idea that the liturgy should have no repetitions, so the Gallican January date was suppressed, and the ancient Roman date in February was kept, and the name of the feast dropped the geographical element. What would such reformers have done with all those Byzantine findings of the Forerunner's head!
Logged
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #23 on: August 10, 2014, 08:08:07 PM »

Im about to dive into it, but Im wondering if its worth the read. Seems to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic. Still trying to find definitive evidence as to the error of the Roman position, as well as the papacy, but I just seem to turn up more confirmation.

Of course it is worth the read, but only in the context of an intake of greater sources.  You of course have turned up more confirmation since you seem to be (based on your posts thusfar) only reading sources that will not give you the whole account.  For example, no Roman apologetics will explain to you why there is no feast of St. Peter, but only that of Sts. Peter and Paul (confirming the Orthodox position).  Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.  Also, why the patriarchal basilicas were suppressed and all made "papal basilicas" by Benedict.  We certainly cannot have reference to the fact that 4 of the 5 major basilicas in Rome were designated to the Orthodox Patriarchs (especially St. Peter's, which was the patriarchal metochion basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople). 

Concerning the patriarchal basilicas

Originally the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. Later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.

NOTE : A patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs. It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representati
If that were true, then the Latin "Patriarch" of Constantinople would have been in the Vatican before 1964 (he wasn't), and the Latin "Patriarch of Jerusalem" would be in St. Lawerence (he's not).
The history of using the term "Basilica" as a title of honor rather than architecture started post schism in the 1300s.  It had to do with indulgences, holy doors, and jubilees and nothing to with metochions.
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #24 on: August 10, 2014, 08:45:04 PM »

Im about to dive into it, but Im wondering if its worth the read. Seems to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic. Still trying to find definitive evidence as to the error of the Roman position, as well as the papacy, but I just seem to turn up more confirmation.

Of course it is worth the read, but only in the context of an intake of greater sources.  You of course have turned up more confirmation since you seem to be (based on your posts thusfar) only reading sources that will not give you the whole account.  For example, no Roman apologetics will explain to you why there is no feast of St. Peter, but only that of Sts. Peter and Paul (confirming the Orthodox position).  Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.  Also, why the patriarchal basilicas were suppressed and all made "papal basilicas" by Benedict.  We certainly cannot have reference to the fact that 4 of the 5 major basilicas in Rome were designated to the Orthodox Patriarchs (especially St. Peter's, which was the patriarchal metochion basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople). 

Concerning the patriarchal basilicas

Originally the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. Later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.

NOTE : A patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs. It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representati
If that were true, then the Latin "Patriarch" of Constantinople would have been in the Vatican before 1964 (he wasn't), and the Latin "Patriarch of Jerusalem" would be in St. Lawerence (he's not).

What are you even denying?

I know for certain the first part of my post is absolutely true...
you are certainly wrong on that, which explains your perplexity on what is being refuted.

The patriarchal basilicas predate the Crusades, and hence their Crusader patriarchates,e.g.
Pope Gregory VII, 1073-1085
 By H. E. J. Cowdrey
http://books.google.com/books?id=D9SG3pEWGfkC&pg=PA11&dq=%22patriarchal+basilicas%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=IAjoU7zuOoaMyATewoCIBg&ved=0CEsQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=%22patriarchal%20basilicas%22&f=false
the pope of Old Rome having detached himself from the Church, drifting further into heresy redefining old institutions into Ultramontanist ones.  In this case, the metochia of the other Patriarchates.  They stood empty of their occupants when Old Rome went into schism.  Once Old Rome invaded their home patriarchates, they usurped the cathedrals there, and set its suffragans as replacements of the true patriarchs.  When they were expelled, they came back to Rome and took up residence in the metochia which had continued to stand empty of their real occupants while being put to Ultramontanist use.  The deposed EP Gregory Mammas, having submitted to the Vatican, fled to Rome where he took up being the Latin "Patriarch of Constantinople."  By then, the patriarchal basilicas had not served as true metochia for four centuries, during which time the college of clergy of Rome (who, like any other patriarchate, elected their patriarch) had been transformed by Ultramontanism into the suprapatriarchal (in claims at least) College of Cardinals with their "titular churches", starting in 1162
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/External_cardinal
The Latin pretenders were just integrated into that system, to the same end-reducing the ecclesiology of the Church to a single Ueber-bishop of Rome.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #25 on: August 10, 2014, 08:59:30 PM »

Im about to dive into it, but Im wondering if its worth the read. Seems to have researched the subject well, as there are a large amount of quotes from the fathers as well as arguments from history and logic. Still trying to find definitive evidence as to the error of the Roman position, as well as the papacy, but I just seem to turn up more confirmation.

Of course it is worth the read, but only in the context of an intake of greater sources.  You of course have turned up more confirmation since you seem to be (based on your posts thusfar) only reading sources that will not give you the whole account.  For example, no Roman apologetics will explain to you why there is no feast of St. Peter, but only that of Sts. Peter and Paul (confirming the Orthodox position).  Likewise, why the feast of St. Peter's chair in Antioch was suppressed in the Roman Church as a major feast.  Also, why the patriarchal basilicas were suppressed and all made "papal basilicas" by Benedict.  We certainly cannot have reference to the fact that 4 of the 5 major basilicas in Rome were designated to the Orthodox Patriarchs (especially St. Peter's, which was the patriarchal metochion basilica of the Patriarch of Constantinople). 

Concerning the patriarchal basilicas

Originally the "patriarchs" referred to in the title Patriarchal Basilicas were the Latin Rite ceremonial Patriarchs who lived as ornaments of the Papal Court and are now abolished, not the Eastern Patriarchs of those same cities. Later, they came to be associated with the actual Eastern Patriarchs of the same cities, though confusion over the nature of their association with the churches and which of several the Eastern Catholic (or Orthodox) Patriarchs of the same city the title applied to, led Pope Benedict to re-designate the churches "papal basilicas" though the traditional associations with the Five Ancient Patriarchates remain.

NOTE : A patriarchal basilica refers to those churches at Rome ceremonially assigned to one of the Patriarchs. It must be distinguished from the concept of a major basilica which is a canonical class of church which includes four of the five patriarchal basilicas (excluding St Lawrence's) but which has been more generally extended to include any of several churches in which the high altar is reserved to the Pope or his representati
If that were true, then the Latin "Patriarch" of Constantinople would have been in the Vatican before 1964 (he wasn't), and the Latin "Patriarch of Jerusalem" would be in St. Lawerence (he's not).
The history of using the term "Basilica" as a title of honor rather than architecture started post schism in the 1300s.  It had to do with indulgences, holy doors, and jubilees and nothing to with metochions.
Quote
In the fourth century four churches in Rome were known as patriarchal basilicas (basilicae patriarchales). They were considered the seats of the four patriarchs in Rome. The Basilica of St. John Lateran was ascribed to the pope, the Patriarch of the West; St. Peter’s Basilica to the Patriarch of Constantinople; the Basilica of St. Paul Outside-the-Walls to the Patriarch of Alexandria; and the Basilica of St. Mary Major to the Patriarch of Antioch. At the Council of Chalcedon in 451, Jerusalem was raised to a Patriarchate, and Pope St. Leo the Great assigned the Basilica of St. Lawrence Outside-the-Walls to the Pa-triarch of Jerusalem. In those early years, these buildings all had accommodations attached to them for the respective patriarchs who might be in Rome for a council or some other business. (Dictionnaire de droit canonique, vol. 2, s.v. “basilique,” p. 242 (1937))
http://www.gcatholic.org/basilicas/bas001-excerpts.pdf
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
Deacon Lance
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Byzantine Catholic
Jurisdiction: Archeparchy of Pittsburgh
Posts: 3,054


Liturgy at Mt. St. Macrina Pilgrimage


« Reply #26 on: August 10, 2014, 09:59:10 PM »

So a student repeats the same fiction in his thesis.  You of all people should see holes in this.  The patriarchs didn't come to Rome they went to Constantinople.  Lots of historical documentation for deacons of the Pope of Rome serving as his apocrisarius in Constantinople.  I have never found any for other patriarchs having them in Rome on a permanent basis let alone a delegation to maintain the great basilicas they were supposed to have been responsible for.  I am open to correction but could we have some primary sources?
Logged

My cromulent posts embiggen this forum.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
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: 38,142



« Reply #27 on: August 10, 2014, 10:58:50 PM »

So a student repeats the same fiction in his thesis.  You of all people should see holes in this.  The patriarchs didn't come to Rome they went to Constantinople.  Lots of historical documentation for deacons of the Pope of Rome serving as his apocrisarius in Constantinople.  I have never found any for other patriarchs having them in Rome on a permanent basis let alone a delegation to maintain the great basilicas they were supposed to have been responsible for.  I am open to correction but could we have some primary sources?
not tonight, as I'm going to bed soon, but for starters the Pope of Rome had parishes in Constantinople-Patriarch Michael Celarius closed them, remember? Those apocrisarii would be there. Pope St. Athanasius spent a lot of time in Rome, IIRC, as did his successor Pope John Talaia. They were not the only ones. I don't remember for sure Pope St. Cyril going to Rome to confer over Nestorius, nor whether Old Rome's pretenders to the throne of Antioch, Paulinus and Evagrius (ordained by a Western bishop and translator of works into Latin) spent their time in Old Rome while the true Patriarchs SS. Meletius and Flavian sat on the cathedra of Antioch.  I do know that they had their own apocrisarii in Old Rome.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Tags:
Pages: 1   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 0.133 seconds with 55 queries.