Author Topic: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.  (Read 3489 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
  • Most Precious Blood of Jesus, Save Us!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« on: January 10, 2018, 07:34:07 AM »
Even in the ninth century, Papal confirmation was necessary for a patriarch whose election was disputed to take office. Hence both patriarchs Photius and St. Ignatius appealed to Pope St. Nicholas. "They returned to Rome with further letters, and the emperor sent his Secretary of State, Leo, after them with more explanations (Hergenröther, op. cit., I, 439-460). In all these letters both the emperor and Photius emphatically acknowledge the Roman primacy and categorically invoke the pope's jurisdiction to confirm what has happened."http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12043b.htm

Thus Pope Pius IX reasonably recalls, "The writings of the ancients testify that the election of Patriarchs had never been considered definite and valid without the agreement and confirmation of the Roman Pontiff. Accordingly, it is learned, those elected to patriarchal sees always sought such confirmation, with the support of the emperors. Thus, to pass over other names in a well known affair, Anatolius Bishop of Constantinople, and even Photius himself, requested the Roman Pontiff to confirm their elections by his consent." Will anyone dispute the fact of these confirmations? If not, like a supreme court judge confirming disputes among judges of a lower court, are they not indicative of a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction exercised by Rome and universally taken for granted in the 9th century?

2. Reason itself affords a simple proof of the necessity of a primacy, from the universal practice of every country, showing the episcopate must have a single head if the Church is to be a perfect society, and not a pentarchy of 5 - every country has a single prime minister over all chief ministers or president over all governors, not 5; as there is one supreme court having primacy of jurisdiction over all high courts, not 5, 4 or any other number of supreme courts. Moreover, if there is no principle of unity between disagreeing judges (bishops), the faithful cannot tell with which group of bishops they are to remain united to remain in the Church; if there is no visible head of the Episcopate on earth, how are the faithful to avoid schism and identify the Church by Her marks, and not by getting into the intricacies of the disputed doctrine, which may be beyond the ability of many if two synods of bishops excommunicate each other? Both can claim to be the true Church and claim the other is in schism. How would such a dispute be settled in law anywhere? If some states broke away from the union, you must remain with the states that are united to the capital and prime minister to remain in the union; if some high courts, with the supreme court; if some commanders, with the general; if some governors, with the president. It's very clear, taught by the Fathers, clear in ecclesiastical history in the 9th century Greek Church, and reason confirms it.
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

Offline 123abc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2018, 07:49:01 AM »
Moreover, if there is no principle of unity between disagreeing judges (bishops), the faithful cannot tell with which group of bishops they are to remain united to remain in the Church; if there is no visible head of the Episcopate on earth, how are the faithful to avoid schism and identify the Church by Her marks, and not by getting into the intricacies of the disputed doctrine, which may be beyond the ability of many if two synods of bishops excommunicate each other? Both can claim to be the true Church and claim the other is in schism. How would such a dispute be settled in law anywhere? If some states broke away from the union, you must remain with the states that are united to the capital and prime minister to remain in the union; if some high courts, with the supreme court; if some commanders, with the general; if some governors, with the president. It's very clear, taught by the Fathers, clear in ecclesiastical history in the 9th century Greek Church, and reason confirms it.

I sometimes wonder if you even believe some of the things you write. All the evidence necessary to falsify your position has occurred in the last 60 years since Vatican II. How many schismatic groups, sedevacantist groups and men claiming to be the 'real' pope have there been since the 1960s? I don't even think the Protestants split up with the speed and frequency that roman catholic 'traditionalists' have.

I'm curious though: do you attend masses of one of these groups who refuses communion with Pope Francis such as the SSPX, SSPV, CMRI etc? I ask since for all your sophistry pertaining to being in union with Rome if you yourself refuse communion with the same while preaching to us.

And once again: Papal primacy =/= Vatican I style Papal supremacy has you well know.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 07:50:26 AM by 123abc »

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,527
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #2 on: January 12, 2018, 08:13:12 PM »
So, if the President of the United States formed his own absolute monarchy in Washington DC, and cut himself off from the 50 states, would that cause the United States to seize as an entity because it's "headless?"

And Rome was a leader and a place of Orthodoxy; however, as 123abc said, Primacy is not equivalent to Supremacy and Infallibility. Rome was first among equals, and since it left the Church, that has gone to the Patriarch of Constantinople, who is the president of the bishops and the first among equals.

The Church is a monarchy;
All bishops are servants of the King, Christ, who is with us in every single Church.

As I've brought up before, what happens when there are three Popes cursing each other, and a divided Europe with some European countries pledging allegiance to one of the Popes? Is this the certainty you are looking for?


Remember, Rome was so significant because in addition to it having Apostolic roots (Saint Peter and Saint Paul), it was the city of Rome, and as such, held the largest geopolitical territory.

The Church of Alexandria, the Church of Antioch, and the Church of Rome were all founded by Saint Peter (not to mention some other significant Churches like Carthage)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 08:16:45 PM by LivenotoneviL »
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #3 on: January 12, 2018, 08:29:44 PM »
I think we've found our new ialsmisry! ;D
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 08:30:16 PM by Volnutt »
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline ErmyCath

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 275
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: ROCOR
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #4 on: January 12, 2018, 09:58:18 PM »
I think we've found our new ialsmisry! ;D

We were needing more maps.
"You must have an opinion on everything and loudly confront everyone with it." - Cyrillic

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,527
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #5 on: January 12, 2018, 10:49:02 PM »
One more thing; the asking for confirmation from the Pope in terms of Councils and Patriarchs stems from the Apostolic Tradition of asking the first among the bishops for confirmation on matters, with the first among the bishops needing permission from the rest of the Church.

From Apostolic Canon 34:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

The bishop of Rome was first among the bishops, and the bishops needed confirmation from Rome on Pan-Orthodox matters; however, according to this canon, the first among bishops has no right interfering in the affairs of other Churches, and cannot do anything if the Church as a whole rejects him.

The Pope was the leader; however, he had no jurisidiction over other bishops. He was a bishop and only a bishop; there was no universal "super-bishop" in the Early Church.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2018, 10:52:54 PM by LivenotoneviL »
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #6 on: January 13, 2018, 12:16:06 AM »
One more thing; the asking for confirmation from the Pope in terms of Councils and Patriarchs stems from the Apostolic Tradition of asking the first among the bishops for confirmation on matters, with the first among the bishops needing permission from the rest of the Church.

From Apostolic Canon 34:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

The bishop of Rome was first among the bishops, and the bishops needed confirmation from Rome on Pan-Orthodox matters; however, according to this canon, the first among bishops has no right interfering in the affairs of other Churches, and cannot do anything if the Church as a whole rejects him.

The Pope was the leader; however, he had no jurisidiction over other bishops. He was a bishop and only a bishop; there was no universal "super-bishop" in the Early Church.
not so, here's why according to Saint Thomas

Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”

This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’ pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,527
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #7 on: January 13, 2018, 12:48:22 AM »
From Christian historian William Webster on this document:

"In addition to the Pseudo Isidorian Decretals there were other forgeries which were successfully used for the promotion of the doctrine of papal primacy. One famous instance is that of Thomas Aquinas. In 1264 A.D. Thomas authored a work entitled Against the Errors of the Greeks. This work deals with the issues of theological debate between the Greek and Roman Churches in that day on such subjects as the Trinity, the Procession of the Holy Spirit, Purgatory and the Papacy. In his defense of the papacy Thomas bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecumenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries. The following is a sample of Thomas’ argumentation for the papacy using the spurious quotations from the Thesaurus:

Chapter thirty-four

That the same (the Roman Pontiff) possesses in the Church a fullness of power.

It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Hebr. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”
This is also taught on the authority of Scripture. For in Matthew 16:19 the Lord said to Peter without restriction: Whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven.

Chapter thirty-five

That he enjoys the same power conferred on Peter by Christ.
It is also shown that Peter is the Vicar of Christ and the Roman Pontiff is Peter’s successor enjoying the same power conferred on Peter by Christ. For the canon of the Council of Chalcedon says: “If any bishop is sentenced as guilty of infamy, he is free to appeal the sentence to the blessed bishop of old Rome, whom we have as Peter the rock of refuge, and to him alone, in the place of God, with unlimited power, is granted the authority to hear the appeal of a bishop accused of infamy in virtue of the keys given him by the Lord.” And further on: “And whatever has been decreed by him is to be held as from the vicar of the apostolic throne.”
Likewise, Cyril, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, says, speaking in the person of Christ: “You for a while, but I without end will be fully and perfectly in sacrament and authority with all those whom I shall put in your place, just as I am also with you.” And Cyril of Alexandria in his Thesaurus says that the Apostles “in the Gospels and Epistles have affirmed in all their teaching that Peter and his Church are in the place of the Lord, granting him participation in every chapter and assembly, in every election and proclamation of doctrine.” And further on: “To him, that is, to Peter, all by divine ordinancebow the head, and the rulers of the world obey him as the Lord Jesus himself.” And Chrysostom, speaking in the person of Christ, says: “Feed my sheep (John 21:17), that is, in my place be in charge of your brethren" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks. Found in James Likoudis, Ending the Byzantine Greek Schism (New Rochelle: Catholics United for the Faith, 1992), pp. 182-184).

With the exception of the last reference to Chrysostom all of Thomas’ references cited to Cyril of Jerusalem, Cyril of Alexandria, Chrysostom and the Council of Chalcedon are forgeries. The remainder of Aquinas’ treatise in defense of the papacy is similar in nature. Edward Denny gives the following historical summary of these forgeries and their use by Thomas Aquinas:

'As the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were by no means the first, so they were not the last forgeries in the interests of the advancement of the Papal system. Gratian himself, in addition to using the forged Decretals and the fabrications of others who preceded him, had incorporated also into the Decretum fresh corruptions of his own with that object, but amongst such forgeries a catena of spurious passages from the Greek Fathers and Councils, put forth in the thirteenth century, had probably, next to the Pseudo-lsidorian Decretals, the widest influence in this direction.
The object of this forgery was as follows: The East had been separated from the West since the excommunication by Pope Leo IX of Michael Cerularius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and that of the former by the latter in July 1054, in which the other Eastern Patriarchs concurred. The Latins, especially the Dominicans, who had established themselves in the East, made strenuous efforts to induce the Easterns to submit to the Papacy. The great obstacle in the way of their success was the fact that the Orientals knew nothing of such claims as those which were advanced by the Roman Bishops. In their belief the highest rank in the Hierarchy of the Church was that of Patriarch. This was clearly expressed by the Patrician Babanes at the Council of Constantinople, 869. ‘God,’ he said, ‘hath placed His Church in the five patriarchates, and declared in His Gospel that they should never utterly fail, because they are the heads of the Church. For that saying, “and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it,” meaneth this, when two fall they run to three; when three fall they run to two; but when four perchance have fallen, one, which remains in Christ our God, the Head of all, calls back again the remaining body of the Church.”
They were ignorant of any autocratic power residing jure divino in the Bishop of Rome. They regarded Latin authors with suspicions as the fautors of the unprimitive claims of the Bishop of Old Rome; hence if they were to be persuaded that the Papalist pretensions were Catholic, and thus induced to recognise them, the only way would be to produce evidence provided ostensibly from Greek sources. Accordingly a Latin theologian drew up a sort of Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum, in which, amongst genuine extracts from Greek Fathers, lie mingled spurious passages purporting to be taken from various Councils and writings of Fathers, notably St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and Maximus the Abbot.
This work was laid before Urban IV, who was deceived by it. He was thus able to use it in his correspondence with the Emperor, Michael Palaeologus, to prove that from ‘the Apostolic throne of the Roman Pontiffs it was to be sought what was to be held, or what was to be believed, since it is his right to lay down, to ordain, to disprove, to command, to loose and to bind in the place of Him who appointed him, and delivered and granted to no one else but him alone what is supreme. To this throne also all Catholics bend the head by divine law, and the primates of the world confessing the true faith are obedient and turn their thoughts as if to Jesus Christ Himself, and regard him as the Sun, and from Him receive the light of truth to the salvation of souls according as the genuine writers of some of the Holy Fathers, both Greek and others, firmly assert.”
Urban, moreover, sent this work to St. Thomas Aquinas...The testimony of these extracts was to him of great value, as he believed that he had in them irrefragable proof that the great Eastern theologians, such as St. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria, and the Fathers of the Councils of Constantinople and Chalcedon, recognised the monarchical position of the Pope as ruling the whole Church with absolute power. Consequently he made use of these fraudulent documents in all honesty in setting forth the prerogatives of the Papacy. The grave result followed that, through his authority, the errors which he taught on the subject of the Papacy were introduced into the schools, fortified by the testimony of these fabrications, and thus were received as undoubted truth, whence resulted consequences which can hardly be fully estimated.
It was improbable that the Greeks, who had ample means of discovering the real character of these forgeries, should finally accept them and the teaching based on them; but in the West itself there were no theologians competent to expose the fraud, so that these forgeries were naturally held to be of weighty authority. The high esteem attached to the writings of St. Thomas was an additional reason why this should be the case.'"
« Last Edit: January 13, 2018, 12:49:43 AM by LivenotoneviL »
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #8 on: January 13, 2018, 01:09:47 AM »
One more thing; the asking for confirmation from the Pope in terms of Councils and Patriarchs stems from the Apostolic Tradition of asking the first among the bishops for confirmation on matters, with the first among the bishops needing permission from the rest of the Church.

From Apostolic Canon 34:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

The bishop of Rome was first among the bishops, and the bishops needed confirmation from Rome on Pan-Orthodox matters; however, according to this canon, the first among bishops has no right interfering in the affairs of other Churches, and cannot do anything if the Church as a whole rejects him.

The Pope was the leader; however, he had no jurisidiction over other bishops. He was a bishop and only a bishop; there was no universal "super-bishop" in the Early Church.
not so, here's why according to Saint Thomas

Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”

This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’ pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”

Why do you expect people to listen to you on Papal Supremacy when you don't believe that the man in Rome is Pope?
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,900
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #9 on: January 13, 2018, 12:15:59 PM »
Why do you expect people to listen to you on Papal Supremacy when you don't believe that the man in Rome is Pope?

He probably believes in "Eternal Rome".  Perhaps he just extends the idea to include "Eternal Popes". 
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #10 on: January 13, 2018, 12:32:45 PM »
Why do you expect people to listen to you on Papal Supremacy when you don't believe that the man in Rome is Pope?

He probably believes in "Eternal Rome".  Perhaps he just extends the idea to include "Eternal Popes".

Cardinal Giuseppe Siri is believed to be dead; and he must let the world think that he is dead, until he can find a way to control the raging spirit that dwells within him...
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline 123abc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #11 on: January 13, 2018, 05:40:05 PM »
One more thing; the asking for confirmation from the Pope in terms of Councils and Patriarchs stems from the Apostolic Tradition of asking the first among the bishops for confirmation on matters, with the first among the bishops needing permission from the rest of the Church.

From Apostolic Canon 34:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

The bishop of Rome was first among the bishops, and the bishops needed confirmation from Rome on Pan-Orthodox matters; however, according to this canon, the first among bishops has no right interfering in the affairs of other Churches, and cannot do anything if the Church as a whole rejects him.

The Pope was the leader; however, he had no jurisidiction over other bishops. He was a bishop and only a bishop; there was no universal "super-bishop" in the Early Church.
not so, here's why according to Saint Thomas

Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”

This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’ pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”

Why do you expect people to listen to you on Papal Supremacy when you don't believe that the man in Rome is Pope?

The pope is the Vicar of Christ and absolute head of the Church answerable to no bishop or Ecumenical Council.......unless I determine he isn't pope.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #12 on: January 14, 2018, 10:20:33 PM »
One more thing; the asking for confirmation from the Pope in terms of Councils and Patriarchs stems from the Apostolic Tradition of asking the first among the bishops for confirmation on matters, with the first among the bishops needing permission from the rest of the Church.

From Apostolic Canon 34:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

The bishop of Rome was first among the bishops, and the bishops needed confirmation from Rome on Pan-Orthodox matters; however, according to this canon, the first among bishops has no right interfering in the affairs of other Churches, and cannot do anything if the Church as a whole rejects him.

The Pope was the leader; however, he had no jurisidiction over other bishops. He was a bishop and only a bishop; there was no universal "super-bishop" in the Early Church.
not so, here's why according to Saint Thomas

Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”

This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’ pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”

Why do you expect people to listen to you on Papal Supremacy when you don't believe that the man in Rome is Pope?
you are confusing 2 issues, the papacy which is biblical and confirmed by the early Church fathers...you have no defense ,your position is defeated so what do you do ? you (or others) grasp at  wild theories of forgeries.
 Because your position is hopeless you  point out to the current crisis of the Church which presently has an anti pope and say ha ha , because my position is that we have an anti pope the papacy and papal supremacy not biblical....this argument doesn't hold water especially because you may not be aware, that the Church of Christ (Catholic Church) has predicted this end time scenario whereby an  anti christ will be in the Holy Place (the Vatican) . Mother Mary appeared at La Salette and predicted Rome would lose the faith...look into the Great Western Schism...
also the bible states when Jesus comes back the question arises whether he will find any faith on earth?

Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and
low, will become so perverted.  The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of
Peter and the other Apostles to have expired .  But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”
 

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,527
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #13 on: January 14, 2018, 10:37:56 PM »
One more thing; the asking for confirmation from the Pope in terms of Councils and Patriarchs stems from the Apostolic Tradition of asking the first among the bishops for confirmation on matters, with the first among the bishops needing permission from the rest of the Church.

From Apostolic Canon 34:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

The bishop of Rome was first among the bishops, and the bishops needed confirmation from Rome on Pan-Orthodox matters; however, according to this canon, the first among bishops has no right interfering in the affairs of other Churches, and cannot do anything if the Church as a whole rejects him.

The Pope was the leader; however, he had no jurisidiction over other bishops. He was a bishop and only a bishop; there was no universal "super-bishop" in the Early Church.
not so, here's why according to Saint Thomas

Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”

This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’ pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”

Why do you expect people to listen to you on Papal Supremacy when you don't believe that the man in Rome is Pope?
anti pope the papacy and papal supremacy not biblical....this argument doesn't hold water especially because you may not be aware, that the Church of Christ (Catholic Church) has predicted this end time scenario whereby an  anti christ will be in the Holy Place (the Vatican) . Mother Mary appeared at La Salette and predicted Rome would lose the faith...look into the Great Western Schism...
also the bible states when Jesus comes back the question arises whether he will find any faith on earth?

Okay, two things.
1. The Papacy isn't Biblical. It was hard to see for so long with my blind eyes, but the Book of Revelation makes it clear.

Revelation 3:7
Revelation 21:14

2. The Church Fathers specifically condemned the idea that - in Apocalyptic terms - the final "Abomination of Desolation" doesn't refer to enthronement within the Church, but refers to the enthronement of the Antichrist in a rebuilt Temple in Jerusalem.

From Saint John of Damascus, Exposition of the Orthodox Faith:

"And the apostle says: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition: who opposes and exalts himself above all that is called God or that is worshipped, so that he sits in the temple of God showing himself that he is God; in the temple of God he said; not our temple, but the old Jewish temple. For he will come not to us but to the Jews: not for Christ or the things of Christ: wherefore he is called Antichrist."

From Saint Irenaeus, Against the Heresies:

"But when this Antichrist shall have devastated all things in this world, he will reign for three years and six months, and sit in the temple at Jerusalem."

Saint Methodius of Olympus:

"Even the Antichrist will enter Jerusalem, where he will enthrone himself in the temple as a god."

Saint Ephraem the Syrian:

"The man of evil will prepare and coming he will enter Jerusalem; he will build up and establish Sion and will make himself God and entering he will sit in the temple as the apostle has written as if he were God."

Saint Cyril of Jerusalem:

"What temple? He means the ruined temple of the Jews, already destroyed. God forbid that it be the one in which we are!"
« Last Edit: January 14, 2018, 10:38:51 PM by LivenotoneviL »
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2018, 12:19:57 AM »
you actually wrote this and expect to be taken seriously?

"Okay, two things.
1. The Papacy isn't Biblical. It was hard to see for so long with my blind eyes, but the Book of Revelation makes it clear.

Revelation 3:7
Revelation 21:14"

please tell me you're joking

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,527
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2018, 12:58:39 AM »
It undermines the idea of Matthew 16:18 being exclusive to Peter.
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #16 on: January 15, 2018, 06:08:10 AM »
One more thing; the asking for confirmation from the Pope in terms of Councils and Patriarchs stems from the Apostolic Tradition of asking the first among the bishops for confirmation on matters, with the first among the bishops needing permission from the rest of the Church.

From Apostolic Canon 34:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

The bishop of Rome was first among the bishops, and the bishops needed confirmation from Rome on Pan-Orthodox matters; however, according to this canon, the first among bishops has no right interfering in the affairs of other Churches, and cannot do anything if the Church as a whole rejects him.

The Pope was the leader; however, he had no jurisidiction over other bishops. He was a bishop and only a bishop; there was no universal "super-bishop" in the Early Church.
not so, here's why according to Saint Thomas

Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”

This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’ pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”

Why do you expect people to listen to you on Papal Supremacy when you don't believe that the man in Rome is Pope?
you are confusing 2 issues, the papacy which is biblical and confirmed by the early Church fathers...you have no defense ,your position is defeated so what do you do ? you (or others) grasp at  wild theories of forgeries.
 Because your position is hopeless you  point out to the current crisis of the Church which presently has an anti pope and say ha ha , because my position is that we have an anti pope the papacy and papal supremacy not biblical....this argument doesn't hold water especially because you may not be aware, that the Church of Christ (Catholic Church) has predicted this end time scenario whereby an  anti christ will be in the Holy Place (the Vatican) . Mother Mary appeared at La Salette and predicted Rome would lose the faith...look into the Great Western Schism...
also the bible states when Jesus comes back the question arises whether he will find any faith on earth?

Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and
low, will become so perverted.  The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of
Peter and the other Apostles to have expired .  But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

How very convenient for you.

First off, I thought the Catholic line was that private revelation is not binding on the entire Church like that.

Second, I've been told by Papal Supremacists that the Great Western Schism does NOT count as an interregnum because the Gregory XI/Boniface IX line was always the legitimate one. Which is it?

And regardless, Pius XII has been dead for 60 years, seems like a pretty long period of time to go with NO Pope at all as opposed to just rival claimants. And you chide Protestants for not having a priest to confess to...
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline JoeS2

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,662
  • St. Mark Defender of the true Faith (old CAF guy)
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #17 on: January 15, 2018, 03:44:11 PM »
Hi Mor, how are you ?

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,900
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #18 on: January 15, 2018, 06:55:51 PM »
Hi Mor, how are you ?

I’m well, Joe!  How are you?  And how is our friend Orthodoc?
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #19 on: January 15, 2018, 08:15:50 PM »
It undermines the idea of Matthew 16:18 being exclusive to Peter.
doesn't undermine anything, you have a lot of studying to do

There were several towns of this name; here is
understood that which was near Sardis, in Lydia. Here is no more than an admonition to persevere, to
hold that which thou hast. Christ takes the title of the Holy One, and True One, who hath the key of
David; i.e. being the son of David, and the promised Messias, hath supreme power in the Church: who
opens the gate of salvation, and no one shuts it against his elect. Wi. — By the key in this place may be
understood either the key of the Church, or of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus Christ has both, he opens
and shuts the heavens by his infinite power. But in the Church on earth he has entrusted this key (his
power) to his apostles and ministers; whatever is bound or loosened by them is ratified by him in the
kingdom of his glory. Calmet. — I have set before thee a door open, by giving thee graces to save thee,
which no one shall be able to hinder, because thou hast of thyself little power or strength,[2] and hast
kept my word, and not denied the faith. Wi. — I have sent you to preach, and have given my blessing to
your labours. You shall, notwithstanding all your adversaries, eventually succeed. S. Paul makes use of
the same manner of expression. 1 Cor. xvi. I see a great door is open to me, and at the same time many
adversaries; and again, 2 Cor. ii. and Coloss. iv. On account of your little strength, your want of talents,
eloquence, supernatural gifts, &c. I have not exposed you to great trials. Thus does the Almighty always
proportion the trials he sends, and the temptations he permits in his servants, to the graces and strength he
has given them. — Those who were neither Jews nor Christians, shall come and abjure at your feet their
former errors, and shall evidently perceive that you are strengthened by me. Calmet. — Christ also
promises that he will make the false abandoned Jews subject to the bishop and his Church, and to own
them to be the beloved and chosen people. God promises to preserve them in the hour or time of
temptation and persecutions, which should happen to all the inhabitants of the earth. Wi. — He here
advertises him of the persecution which was about to take place, and by which he would try the fidelity of
his servants. In v. 12. he relates the triumph and everlasting beatitude of the martyrs. — He that
overcomes, I will make him a pillar, &c. so as to stand firm against his enemies, and to be secure of his
endless happiness. — I will write upon him the name of my God, a subscribed citizen of the celestial
Jerusalem, with the new name of Jesus, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind. He alludes to the custom
of writing names upon pillars, palaces, &c. — From the words my God, the Socinians pretend that Christ
is not the true God, as we may find in the disputes which Servetus had with Calvin. Calvin answered the
Socinians, as all Catholics do, that Christ was both God and man: this and divers things were spoken of
Christ as he was man, but that many things in the Scriptures could not apply to him, unless he was also
truly God. And by such places is clearly confuted the blasphemy and error of the Arians and Socinians.
The argument concludes in the principles of the Catholics, who allow the authority of the Church in
expounding the sense of the Scriptures; but the Calvinists, and all other pretended reformers, having
shaken off that authority, and having allowed that the holy Scriptures are to be interpreted according to
every man's private judgment or spirit, this set Calvin and Servetus, every Calvinist and Socinians, upon
the same level.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #20 on: January 15, 2018, 08:23:58 PM »
One more thing; the asking for confirmation from the Pope in terms of Councils and Patriarchs stems from the Apostolic Tradition of asking the first among the bishops for confirmation on matters, with the first among the bishops needing permission from the rest of the Church.

From Apostolic Canon 34:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

The bishop of Rome was first among the bishops, and the bishops needed confirmation from Rome on Pan-Orthodox matters; however, according to this canon, the first among bishops has no right interfering in the affairs of other Churches, and cannot do anything if the Church as a whole rejects him.

The Pope was the leader; however, he had no jurisidiction over other bishops. He was a bishop and only a bishop; there was no universal "super-bishop" in the Early Church.
not so, here's why according to Saint Thomas

Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”

This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’ pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”

Why do you expect people to listen to you on Papal Supremacy when you don't believe that the man in Rome is Pope?
you are confusing 2 issues, the papacy which is biblical and confirmed by the early Church fathers...you have no defense ,your position is defeated so what do you do ? you (or others) grasp at  wild theories of forgeries.
 Because your position is hopeless you  point out to the current crisis of the Church which presently has an anti pope and say ha ha , because my position is that we have an anti pope the papacy and papal supremacy not biblical....this argument doesn't hold water especially because you may not be aware, that the Church of Christ (Catholic Church) has predicted this end time scenario whereby an  anti christ will be in the Holy Place (the Vatican) . Mother Mary appeared at La Salette and predicted Rome would lose the faith...look into the Great Western Schism...
also the bible states when Jesus comes back the question arises whether he will find any faith on earth?

Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and
low, will become so perverted.  The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of
Peter and the other Apostles to have expired .  But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

How very convenient for you.

First off, I thought the Catholic line was that private revelation is not binding on the entire Church like that.

Second, I've been told by Papal Supremacists that the Great Western Schism does NOT count as an interregnum because the Gregory XI/Boniface IX line was always the legitimate one. Which is it?

And regardless, Pius XII has been dead for 60 years, seems like a pretty long period of time to go with NO Pope at all as opposed to just rival claimants. And you chide Protestants for not having a priest to confess to...
I'm not saying these private revelations are binding, I'm illustrating how these end times were predicted by true popes, I have other quotes if needed.


 In the process we have seen a number of very important things – things quite relevant to our present situation.

• We’ve seen that antipopes can exist.

• We’ve seen that antipopes can reign from Rome.

• We’ve seen that all of the living cardinals, shortly after the election of Pope Urban VI, repudiated him (the true pope) and recognized Antipope Clement VII.  This illustrates that it’s not at all incompatible with indefectibility (i.e., the promises of Christ to be with His Church and the Papacy until the end of time) for all the cardinals to recognize an antipope.

• We’ve seen that most of the theologians of the time favored the third line, the Pisan line of antipopes.  This line of antipopes must have seemed like an attractive option for many because cardinals from both camps supported it.  This shows us how deceptive God will sometimes allow things to get without violating the essential promises He made to His Church.  Moreover, the majority of theologians’ support for the Pisan line demonstrates clearly that the common teaching of theologians on a particular matter (e.g., salvation), no matter how learned they are, is not binding, contrary to what some are asserting today.

• We’ve also seen that the principle that an open heretic cannot be regarded as the pope is ancient and was expressed by the leading canonist of the time, Baldus.

• We’ve seen that things were so bad and so desperate during the Great Western Schism that people didn’t see any way out of this disaster – a disaster in which people were offered, at one point, three rival bishops, three rival religious superiors, and three rival claimants to the Papacy excommunicating one another.

• Learning this can help us see clearly that what we have proven on doctrinal grounds, namely, that there has been a line of antipopes since Vatican II that has foisted upon the world a new counterfeit religion, which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant (in fulfillment of Scriptural and Catholic prophecies about the deception of the Great Apostasy and the last days), is not a PATENT ABSURDITY, as some have wrongly said.

On the contrary, if God allowed the aforementioned disaster to occur during the Great Western Schism (which could have been, at worst, just a prelude to the Great Apostasy), with multiple antipopes reigning at once and the true pope the weakest of the three, what kind of disaster and deception would He allow with antipopes (without ever violating the essential promises He made to His Church) during the final spiritual tribulation, which will be the most deceptive of them all?  It is a PATENT ABSURDITY, and directly refuted by Catholic teaching and the facts of Church history, to assert that a line of antipopes which has created a counterfeit sect to oppose the true Church is an impossibility.  Further, it is outrageous in the extreme to assert that such a situation is “patently absurd” after having reviewed the undeniable facts we have put forward to prove it true.

I will end this article by quoting Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J.  He had some very interesting things to about the Great Western Schism in his book The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, written in 1882.  In the process he mentions the possibility of a papal interregnum (a period without a pope) covering the whole period of the Great Western Schism (almost 40 years).

We begin with a quote from Father O’Reilly’s discussion of the Great Western Schism.

    “We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy.  In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created.  There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”[26]

Fr. O’Reilly says that an interregnum (a period without a pope) covering the whole period of the Great Western Schism is by no means incompatible with the promises of Christ about His Church.  The period Fr. O’Reilly is speaking of began in 1378 with the death of Pope Gregory XI and ended essentially in 1417 with the election of Pope Martin V.  That’s a thirty-nine year interregnum!

Writing after the First Vatican Council, it is obvious that Fr. O’Reilly is on the side of those who, in rejecting Antipopes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, hold the possibility of a long-term vacancy of the Holy See.  In fact, on page 287 of his book Fr. O’Reilly gives this prophetic warning:

    “The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here.  If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical (absurd).  They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation.  Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant.  But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.  Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise.  What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit.  We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his promises.  We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past.  But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment.  I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever.  All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”[27]

Fr. O’Reilly is saying that if the Great Western Schism had never occurred people would say that such a situation is impossible and incompatible with the promises of Christ to His Church, and that we cannot dismiss the possibility of similar and perhaps worse things in the future because they would be distressing in a very high degree.

APPENDIX: CATHOLIC TEACHING THAT A HERETIC CANNOT BE A TRUE POPE

    Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

    (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

    (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

    10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

    Given in Rome at Saint Peter’s in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

    + I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

    St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.  This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

    The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void.”

(This article may be quoted, spread and copied but the author’s name or our website: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com must be given.  Copyright, Most Holy Family Monastery, 2006.)

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,527
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #21 on: January 15, 2018, 08:40:26 PM »
It undermines the idea of Matthew 16:18 being exclusive to Peter.
doesn't undermine anything, you have a lot of studying to do

There were several towns of this name; here is
understood that which was near Sardis, in Lydia. Here is no more than an admonition to persevere, to
hold that which thou hast. Christ takes the title of the Holy One, and True One, who hath the key of
David; i.e. being the son of David, and the promised Messias, hath supreme power in the Church: who
opens the gate of salvation, and no one shuts it against his elect. Wi. — By the key in this place may be
understood either the key of the Church, or of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus Christ has both, he opens
and shuts the heavens by his infinite power. But in the Church on earth he has entrusted this key (his
power) to his apostles and ministers; whatever is bound or loosened by them is ratified by him in the
kingdom of his glory. Calmet. — I have set before thee a door open, by giving thee graces to save thee,
which no one shall be able to hinder, because thou hast of thyself little power or strength,[2] and hast
kept my word, and not denied the faith. Wi. — I have sent you to preach, and have given my blessing to
your labours. You shall, notwithstanding all your adversaries, eventually succeed. S. Paul makes use of
the same manner of expression. 1 Cor. xvi. I see a great door is open to me, and at the same time many
adversaries; and again, 2 Cor. ii. and Coloss. iv. On account of your little strength, your want of talents,
eloquence, supernatural gifts, &c. I have not exposed you to great trials. Thus does the Almighty always
proportion the trials he sends, and the temptations he permits in his servants, to the graces and strength he
has given them. — Those who were neither Jews nor Christians, shall come and abjure at your feet their
former errors, and shall evidently perceive that you are strengthened by me. Calmet. — Christ also
promises that he will make the false abandoned Jews subject to the bishop and his Church, and to own
them to be the beloved and chosen people. God promises to preserve them in the hour or time of
temptation and persecutions, which should happen to all the inhabitants of the earth. Wi. — He here
advertises him of the persecution which was about to take place, and by which he would try the fidelity of
his servants. In v. 12. he relates the triumph and everlasting beatitude of the martyrs. — He that
overcomes, I will make him a pillar, &c. so as to stand firm against his enemies, and to be secure of his
endless happiness. — I will write upon him the name of my God, a subscribed citizen of the celestial
Jerusalem, with the new name of Jesus, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind. He alludes to the custom
of writing names upon pillars, palaces, &c. — From the words my God, the Socinians pretend that Christ
is not the true God, as we may find in the disputes which Servetus had with Calvin. Calvin answered the
Socinians, as all Catholics do, that Christ was both God and man: this and divers things were spoken of
Christ as he was man, but that many things in the Scriptures could not apply to him, unless he was also
truly God. And by such places is clearly confuted the blasphemy and error of the Arians and Socinians.
The argument concludes in the principles of the Catholics, who allow the authority of the Church in
expounding the sense of the Scriptures; but the Calvinists, and all other pretended reformers, having
shaken off that authority, and having allowed that the holy Scriptures are to be interpreted according to
every man's private judgment or spirit, this set Calvin and Servetus, every Calvinist and Socinians, upon
the same level.

So based on these facts, how does Peter have absolute monarchy as a Super-Apostle above the other Apostles?

After all, aren't the keys "exclusive to Peter," meaning that "Peter" living "alone in Rome" serves as a fountain of infallibility for the Church? I thought that this was the typical Roman Catholic justification.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 08:42:24 PM by LivenotoneviL »
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • A Hopeful Sinner
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,527
  • Saint Nicholas II, Pray for Us!
  • Faith: Outside the Church
  • Jurisdiction: None, unfortunately. Hopefully soon.
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #22 on: January 15, 2018, 08:41:04 PM »
Hi Mor, how are you ?

I’m well, Joe!  How are you?  And how is our friend Orthodoc?

Who is this Mr. Orthodoc?
Jesus:you are the reincarnation of Elijah you can trust me I'm jesus!

LivenotoneviL: yeah right get behind me satan

Exposed demon: oh no my cover is blown!

May God one day unite me with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church. And may God forgive me for my consistent sins of the flesh and any blasphemous and carnal desire, as well as forgive me whenever I act prideful, against the desire of Christ.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #23 on: January 15, 2018, 10:03:59 PM »
It undermines the idea of Matthew 16:18 being exclusive to Peter.
doesn't undermine anything, you have a lot of studying to do

There were several towns of this name; here is
understood that which was near Sardis, in Lydia. Here is no more than an admonition to persevere, to
hold that which thou hast. Christ takes the title of the Holy One, and True One, who hath the key of
David; i.e. being the son of David, and the promised Messias, hath supreme power in the Church: who
opens the gate of salvation, and no one shuts it against his elect. Wi. — By the key in this place may be
understood either the key of the Church, or of the kingdom of heaven. Jesus Christ has both, he opens
and shuts the heavens by his infinite power. But in the Church on earth he has entrusted this key (his
power) to his apostles and ministers; whatever is bound or loosened by them is ratified by him in the
kingdom of his glory. Calmet. — I have set before thee a door open, by giving thee graces to save thee,
which no one shall be able to hinder, because thou hast of thyself little power or strength,[2] and hast
kept my word, and not denied the faith. Wi. — I have sent you to preach, and have given my blessing to
your labours. You shall, notwithstanding all your adversaries, eventually succeed. S. Paul makes use of
the same manner of expression. 1 Cor. xvi. I see a great door is open to me, and at the same time many
adversaries; and again, 2 Cor. ii. and Coloss. iv. On account of your little strength, your want of talents,
eloquence, supernatural gifts, &c. I have not exposed you to great trials. Thus does the Almighty always
proportion the trials he sends, and the temptations he permits in his servants, to the graces and strength he
has given them. — Those who were neither Jews nor Christians, shall come and abjure at your feet their
former errors, and shall evidently perceive that you are strengthened by me. Calmet. — Christ also
promises that he will make the false abandoned Jews subject to the bishop and his Church, and to own
them to be the beloved and chosen people. God promises to preserve them in the hour or time of
temptation and persecutions, which should happen to all the inhabitants of the earth. Wi. — He here
advertises him of the persecution which was about to take place, and by which he would try the fidelity of
his servants. In v. 12. he relates the triumph and everlasting beatitude of the martyrs. — He that
overcomes, I will make him a pillar, &c. so as to stand firm against his enemies, and to be secure of his
endless happiness. — I will write upon him the name of my God, a subscribed citizen of the celestial
Jerusalem, with the new name of Jesus, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind. He alludes to the custom
of writing names upon pillars, palaces, &c. — From the words my God, the Socinians pretend that Christ
is not the true God, as we may find in the disputes which Servetus had with Calvin. Calvin answered the
Socinians, as all Catholics do, that Christ was both God and man: this and divers things were spoken of
Christ as he was man, but that many things in the Scriptures could not apply to him, unless he was also
truly God. And by such places is clearly confuted the blasphemy and error of the Arians and Socinians.
The argument concludes in the principles of the Catholics, who allow the authority of the Church in
expounding the sense of the Scriptures; but the Calvinists, and all other pretended reformers, having
shaken off that authority, and having allowed that the holy Scriptures are to be interpreted according to
every man's private judgment or spirit, this set Calvin and Servetus, every Calvinist and Socinians, upon
the same level.

So based on these facts, how does Peter have absolute monarchy as a Super-Apostle above the other Apostles?

After all, aren't the keys "exclusive to Peter," meaning that "Peter" living "alone in Rome" serves as a fountain of infallibility for the Church? I thought that this was the typical Roman Catholic justification.
you are the one claiming the passages from the Apocalypse undermine the papacy..they don't , why not quote a church father that agrees with your nonsense

Online Mor Ephrem

  • Ο προκαθήμενος της Ορθοδοξίας - The President of Orthodoxy
  • Section Moderator
  • Hypatos
  • *****
  • Posts: 33,900
  • Two half-eggs
    • OrthodoxChristianity.net
  • Faith: The Ancienter Faith
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to FOCOF
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #24 on: January 15, 2018, 10:40:44 PM »
Your religion is as dead as the last pope you agree was a pope.
Mor Ephrem is a nice guy.  Just say sorry and it will all be ok. Say I had things that were inside troubling me but I didn't know how to express appropriately. I will not behave that way again but I am seeking help.

thank you so much Mor ephrem you are a hero!

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,135
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #25 on: January 15, 2018, 11:35:33 PM »
It undermines the idea of Matthew 16:18 being exclusive to Peter.
Note that the promise in Mt 16:18 is in the future tense.  The promise is fulfilled in Mt 18:18 not exclusively to St. Peter, but to all the Apostles.  Since no other keys were given to St. Peter, it stands that the authority that he received was not any different from the one given to the other Apostles.  On the contrary, St. Paul assured us that there are no "super Apostles", i.e. an Apostle over the other Apostles (cf. 2Cor 11:5).
« Last Edit: January 15, 2018, 11:35:44 PM by Sharbel »
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline kabane52

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #26 on: January 16, 2018, 04:24:38 AM »
The positions being sketched here are too stark. The alternatives are not a ceremonial primacy on account of Rome’s being the imperial city vs. universal, immediate, and ordinary jurisdiction in virtue of succession from Peter. Both St. Mark of Ephesus and St. Symeon of Thessaloniki held that the Bishop of Rome held a unique Petrine office which entailed his being the universal primate, or, as the Synod of Chalcedon said, the “head of all the Churches.” That the Archbishop of Athens is “Head of all the Churches of Greece” does not entail that he can interfere in the daily affairs of the Churches under his jurisdiction. St. Leo was described by Chalcedon as “Archbishop of all the Churches.” This is crucial, since the jurisdiction of the archbishop is as delineated by Apostolic Canon 34. His role is that of coordinating the churches, resolving disputes among them, and hearing appeals. He is not entitled to overrule a local Bishop in an issue strictly internal to that diocese. It’s the same with the Papacy.

So it’s not a “primacy of honor” vs. a “primacy of jurisdiction.” Actually, historically speaking, the former necessitates the latter. The question is what sort of jurisdiction is entailed.

To the OP specifically, your analogy actually undermines the contemporary Roman Catholic teaching:

1. Pope Nicholas acted only when a formal appeal was made to Rome. This is concordant with the Sardican privilege which recognized the Church of Rome as having a universal primacy of appellate jurisdiction. Appellate jurisdiction is not immediate jurisdiction.

2. You make a lot of papal confirmation. Let me pose this question, then: why do you not recognize the 649 Lateran Synod as an ecumenical council? It was both convoked and confirmed by the Pope and was intended to be ecumenical, as Maximus attests (he thought it was).

3. You make a lot of the necessity of a universal primacy. As I mentioned above, this was also the position of many Orthodox theologians throughout the medieval and modern periods- including those generally considered “anti-Latin” such as Mark of Ephesus. A universal primacy is not the question. The nature of that primacy (appellate vs. immediate) and the alleged indefectibility of the Church of Rome is.

4. But what really undercuts your whole argument is the connection you make between the primatial ministry of a local primate with the primatial ministry of the Apostolic See. I agree- they are analogous. But you miss the fact that traditionally, the primatial ministry of a local primate (an archbishop, metropolitan, or patriarch) is not immediate. It’s appellate. To say that the Pope of Rome possesses appellate, not immediate jurisdiction over all the Churches- that is anathematized by Pastor Aeturnus at Vatican I.

A lot of the stuff written here is just cheap polemics, from both Catholics and Orthodox. The reality is that the issue is not at all clear, it requires hard historical legwork, and the pop apologetic material circulated among both sides is not sufficient to resolve the truth of the matter. There needs to be a real synthesis of the patristic material from East and West, including from the holy popes of Rome themselves- St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. Boniface, St. Stephen. These men were champions of the apostolic faith, and we must not dismiss their witness.

Offline kabane52

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #27 on: January 16, 2018, 04:43:25 AM »
Sharbel-

In terms of the biblical material, it’s much more likely that the promise of the keys in Matthew 16 is fulfilled in John 21 when Jesus makes Peter the shepherd of His sheep. Revelation picks this up when Jesus is described as holding the “Key of David” in Revelation 3, which comes from Isaiah 22- Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 echo Isaiah 22, where Eliakim is made steward of the Davidic palace (the word for palace and temple are identical, as the Temple is God’s throne-room). The “building” of the church and Jesus’ identity as the messiah all circulate thematically around this theme. Peter is being made chief steward of God’s Temple, in which is enthroned the Divine Son of David, thereby stitching together the OT imagery about God’s Palace and David’s Palace.

Anyway, Revelation 3 speaks of Jesus having a key which shuts so that no one can open and opens so that no one can shut. We again hear of a key in Revelation 20, where the angel is given a key and places Satan in the pit, which he “shuts.” This angel is likely a symbol of the Church, and if that is correct, then this vindicates the patristic interpretation of the keys belonging, in a sense, to all Christians through Peter.

In Revelation 21 we see twelve angels, symbolizing the twelve apostles, guarding twelve gates which are “open” and will not be “shut.” All of these themes are closely tied together and flow from the relationship of Matthew 16 and John 21. Twelve angels symbolize the twelve apostles because the seven “angels of the churches” in Revelation 2-3 are the bishops of those city-churches- remembering that the word “angel” means “messenger”, and they are being given letters to read liturgically to their local churches. The bishops, existing in apostolic succession (hence the number of twelve angels) serve as guardians to God’s temple-city, which is the Church.

This is the biblical foundation of the tradition of the Fathers, Latin and Greek alike, that the keys given to Peter are the keys which bishops hold. The word priest means “palace-steward.” Peter is given the keys because he is the steward of God’s temple-palace, the church. This is why Protestants are dead wrong in stating that the New Testament ministry is not one of priests. It absolutely is. Peter is given the keys of the priesthood, and all the bishops fulfill Peter’s role in manifesting Christ’s High Priesthood in their local Church, being the means through which His Eucharistic presence is made manifest. In John 21, Peter is told to “feed my sheep.” In the context of John’s Gospel, those words were last used in John 6, where the sheep are fed with the flesh and blood of Christ. This reinforces the patristic connection between the bishop and the Petrine ministry. I don’t have time to prove this right now, but in Revelation 21 the twelve stones correspond to the twelve apostles and likewise to the twelve tribes of Israel delineated in the connection between Genesis 49 and Exodus 28. The stone of Peter is emerald- which is the stone of Levi, the priestly tribe. So there are different patristic readings which are complementary- the keys are received through Peter by all Christians in one sense, they belong particularly to the bishops in another sense, and to the bishop of Rome in another sense, the Church of Rome being the center of communion for all the bishops of the Churches and, by that fact, fulfilling the Petrine ministry of each bishop.

St. Cyprian makes the headship of the bishop among the presbyters analogous to Peter’s role in the apostolic college. So there is a real authority wieled by Peter and his successors, and the principal heirs of that authority are the bishops- this is because the whole Church Catholic subsists in the local Church through the Eucharistic mystery. Yet, just as the whole divine nature subsists in each Divine Person- but only in communion with the other Two- it is crucial for the local Church to be realized as the Church Catholic in and through its communion with other Churches. Consequently, the preeminent successor of Peter is the bishop of Rome, the “Archbishop of all the Churches” and the “Head of all the Churches of God”, as Chalcedon calls him. That primacy is received from Christ- but only on the condition of orthodoxy. This is why, I think, immediately after Peter receives the keys, we are told that he is rebuked by Our Lord. It is meant to reinforce the conditional nature of the authority that St. Peter wields- and by implication, the same conditional nature applies to the authority wielded by his successors. The tradition of a Petrine office entailing a certain care for all the churches belonging to the bishop of Rome does go back very early- at least to St. Stephen in the third century, but probably further. St. Callistus appears to invoke it in the late second century, and St. Victor exercises his ministry in a certain “universal” fashion, calling for synods to be convoked all across the Christian world to resolve the question of the date of Easter.

Finally, I have not worked this out in detail, but many popes of Rome speak of the Petrine office as belonging to three Sees especially- Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. All three were founded by St. Peter (Alexandria through St. Mark), and Pope St. Gregory the Great even says that the See of Peter is “In three places the See of One.” St. Damasus enunciates the order of these three Churches as being grounded in their Petrine origins, and St. Leo the Great rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon because he felt that it denigrated the Petrine ministry which belonged by divine right to Alexandria and Antioch. In the Scriptures, the kingc often does have three special counselors which surround him, one of whom is preeminent above the other two. The Lord Jesus has Peter, James, and John, Peter being preeminent. It seems to me that in the communion of the churches, this ministry belongs to the Pope of Rome, the Pope of Alexandria, and the Patriarch of Antioch.

In the historical development of our traditions, certain practical imbalances have been created in the way the churches are governed. The West has become hyper-centralized, yet the East, without a real universal primate (it should be said that Constantinople’s primacy meant a lot more before 1453), has become a federation of national churches. Neither practice is apostolic. I say this as a person who believes that Orthodoxy has preserved the fullness of the apostolic faith while Roman Catholicism has not, so don’t take that statement in a relativistic fashion. But we both need to reform.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2018, 04:48:49 AM by kabane52 »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #28 on: January 16, 2018, 12:58:02 PM »
One more thing; the asking for confirmation from the Pope in terms of Councils and Patriarchs stems from the Apostolic Tradition of asking the first among the bishops for confirmation on matters, with the first among the bishops needing permission from the rest of the Church.

From Apostolic Canon 34:
"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."
http://www.voskrese.info/spl/aposcanon.html

The bishop of Rome was first among the bishops, and the bishops needed confirmation from Rome on Pan-Orthodox matters; however, according to this canon, the first among bishops has no right interfering in the affairs of other Churches, and cannot do anything if the Church as a whole rejects him.

The Pope was the leader; however, he had no jurisidiction over other bishops. He was a bishop and only a bishop; there was no universal "super-bishop" in the Early Church.
not so, here's why according to Saint Thomas

Now, that the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter and Vicar of Christ, is the first and greatest of all the bishops, is expressly stated in the canon of the Council which reads: “According to the Scriptures and definition of the canon we venerate the most holy bishop of old Rome as the first and greatest of all the bishops.”

This, moreover, accords well with Sacred Scripture, which both in the Gospels and in the Acts of the Apostles (cf. Matt. 16:18; John 21:17; Acts 1: 15-16, 2:14, 15:17) assigns first place among the Apostles to Peter. Hence, Chrysostom commenting on the text of Matthew !8: 1: The disciples came to Jesus and asked, who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven, says: “For they had created in their minds a human stumbling block, which they could no longer keep to themselves; nor did they control their hearts’ pride, because they saw that Peter was preferred to them and was given a more honorable place.”

It is also shown that the Vicar of Christ has universal jurisdiction over the entire Church of Christ. For it is recorded of the Council of Chalcedon how the whole synod acclaimed Pope Leo: “Long live Leo, the most holy, apostolic, and ecumenical, that is, universal patriarch.”

And Chrysostom commenting on Matthew says: “The power Footnote which is of the Father and of the Son himself the Son conferred worldwide on Peter and gave a mortal man authority over all things in heaven, giving him the keys in order that he might extend the Church throughout the world.” Footnote And in homily 85 on John: “He allocated James a determined territory, but he appointed Peter master and teacher of the whole world.” Footnote Again, commenting on the Acts of the Apostles: “Not like Moses over one people, but throughout the whole world Peter received from the Son power over all those who are His sons.”
It is also established from the texts of the aforesaid Doctors that the Roman Pontiff possesses a fullness of power in the Church. For Cyril, the Patriarch of Alexandria, says in his Thesaurus: “As Christ coming forth from Israel as leader and sceptre of the Church of the Gentiles was granted by the Father the fullest power over every principality and power and whatever is that all might bend the knee to him, so he entrusted most fully the fullest power to Peter and his successors.” And again: “To no one else but Peter and to him alone Christ gave what is his fully.” And further on: “The feet of Christ are his humanity, that is, the man himself, to whom the whole Trinity gave the fullest power, whom one of the Three assumed in the unity of his person and lifted up on high to the Father above every principality and power, so that all the angels of God might adore him (Heb. 1:6); which whole and entire he has left in sacrament and power to Peter and to his Church.”
And Chrysostom says to the Bulgarian delegation Footnote speaking in the person of Christ: “Three times I ask you whether you love me, because you denied me three times out of fear and trepidation. Now restored, however, lest the brethren believe you to have lost the grace and authority of the keys, I now confirm in you that which is fully mine, because you love me in their presence.”

Why do you expect people to listen to you on Papal Supremacy when you don't believe that the man in Rome is Pope?
you are confusing 2 issues, the papacy which is biblical and confirmed by the early Church fathers...you have no defense ,your position is defeated so what do you do ? you (or others) grasp at  wild theories of forgeries.
 Because your position is hopeless you  point out to the current crisis of the Church which presently has an anti pope and say ha ha , because my position is that we have an anti pope the papacy and papal supremacy not biblical....this argument doesn't hold water especially because you may not be aware, that the Church of Christ (Catholic Church) has predicted this end time scenario whereby an  anti christ will be in the Holy Place (the Vatican) . Mother Mary appeared at La Salette and predicted Rome would lose the faith...look into the Great Western Schism...
also the bible states when Jesus comes back the question arises whether he will find any faith on earth?

Prophecy of St. Nicholas of Fluh (1417-1487): “The Church will be punished because the majority of her members, high and
low, will become so perverted.  The Church will sink deeper and deeper until she will at last seem to be extinguished, and the succession of
Peter and the other Apostles to have expired .  But, after this, she will be victoriously exalted in the sight of all doubters.”

How very convenient for you.

First off, I thought the Catholic line was that private revelation is not binding on the entire Church like that.

Second, I've been told by Papal Supremacists that the Great Western Schism does NOT count as an interregnum because the Gregory XI/Boniface IX line was always the legitimate one. Which is it?

And regardless, Pius XII has been dead for 60 years, seems like a pretty long period of time to go with NO Pope at all as opposed to just rival claimants. And you chide Protestants for not having a priest to confess to...
I'm not saying these private revelations are binding, I'm illustrating how these end times were predicted by true popes, I have other quotes if needed.


 In the process we have seen a number of very important things – things quite relevant to our present situation.

• We’ve seen that antipopes can exist.

• We’ve seen that antipopes can reign from Rome.

• We’ve seen that all of the living cardinals, shortly after the election of Pope Urban VI, repudiated him (the true pope) and recognized Antipope Clement VII.  This illustrates that it’s not at all incompatible with indefectibility (i.e., the promises of Christ to be with His Church and the Papacy until the end of time) for all the cardinals to recognize an antipope.

• We’ve seen that most of the theologians of the time favored the third line, the Pisan line of antipopes.  This line of antipopes must have seemed like an attractive option for many because cardinals from both camps supported it.  This shows us how deceptive God will sometimes allow things to get without violating the essential promises He made to His Church.  Moreover, the majority of theologians’ support for the Pisan line demonstrates clearly that the common teaching of theologians on a particular matter (e.g., salvation), no matter how learned they are, is not binding, contrary to what some are asserting today.

• We’ve also seen that the principle that an open heretic cannot be regarded as the pope is ancient and was expressed by the leading canonist of the time, Baldus.

• We’ve seen that things were so bad and so desperate during the Great Western Schism that people didn’t see any way out of this disaster – a disaster in which people were offered, at one point, three rival bishops, three rival religious superiors, and three rival claimants to the Papacy excommunicating one another.

• Learning this can help us see clearly that what we have proven on doctrinal grounds, namely, that there has been a line of antipopes since Vatican II that has foisted upon the world a new counterfeit religion, which has reduced the true Catholic Church to a remnant (in fulfillment of Scriptural and Catholic prophecies about the deception of the Great Apostasy and the last days), is not a PATENT ABSURDITY, as some have wrongly said.

On the contrary, if God allowed the aforementioned disaster to occur during the Great Western Schism (which could have been, at worst, just a prelude to the Great Apostasy), with multiple antipopes reigning at once and the true pope the weakest of the three, what kind of disaster and deception would He allow with antipopes (without ever violating the essential promises He made to His Church) during the final spiritual tribulation, which will be the most deceptive of them all?  It is a PATENT ABSURDITY, and directly refuted by Catholic teaching and the facts of Church history, to assert that a line of antipopes which has created a counterfeit sect to oppose the true Church is an impossibility.  Further, it is outrageous in the extreme to assert that such a situation is “patently absurd” after having reviewed the undeniable facts we have put forward to prove it true.

I will end this article by quoting Fr. Edmund James O’Reilly, S.J.  He had some very interesting things to about the Great Western Schism in his book The Relations of the Church to Society – Theological Essays, written in 1882.  In the process he mentions the possibility of a papal interregnum (a period without a pope) covering the whole period of the Great Western Schism (almost 40 years).

We begin with a quote from Father O’Reilly’s discussion of the Great Western Schism.

    “We may here stop to inquire what is to be said of the position, at that time, of the three claimants, and their rights with regard to the Papacy.  In the first place, there was all through, from the death of Gregory XI in 1378, a Pope – with the exception, of course, of the intervals between deaths and elections to fill up the vacancies thereby created.  There was, I say, at every given time a Pope, really invested with the dignity of the Vicar of Christ and Head of the Church, whatever opinions might exist among many as to his genuineness; not that an interregnum covering the whole period would have been impossible or inconsistent with the promises of Christ, for this is by no means manifest, but that, as a matter of fact, there was not such an interregnum.”[26]

Fr. O’Reilly says that an interregnum (a period without a pope) covering the whole period of the Great Western Schism is by no means incompatible with the promises of Christ about His Church.  The period Fr. O’Reilly is speaking of began in 1378 with the death of Pope Gregory XI and ended essentially in 1417 with the election of Pope Martin V.  That’s a thirty-nine year interregnum!

Writing after the First Vatican Council, it is obvious that Fr. O’Reilly is on the side of those who, in rejecting Antipopes John XXIII, Paul VI, John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI, hold the possibility of a long-term vacancy of the Holy See.  In fact, on page 287 of his book Fr. O’Reilly gives this prophetic warning:

    “The great schism of the West suggests to me a reflection which I take the liberty of expressing here.  If this schism had not occurred, the hypothesis of such a thing happening would appear to many chimerical (absurd).  They would say it could not be; God would not permit the Church to come into so unhappy a situation.  Heresies might spring up and spread and last painfully long, through the fault and to the perdition of their authors and abettors, to the great distress too of the faithful, increased by actual persecution in many places where the heretics were dominant.  But that the true Church should remain between thirty and forty years without a thoroughly ascertained Head, and representative of Christ on earth, this would not be.  Yet it has been; and we have no guarantee that it will not be again, though we may fervently hope otherwise.  What I would infer is, that we must not be too ready to pronounce on what God may permit.  We know with absolute certainty that He will fulfill His promises… We may also trust that He will do a great deal more than what He has bound Himself by his promises.  We may look forward with cheering probability to exemption for the future from some of the trouble and misfortunes that have befallen in the past.  But we, or our successors in the future generations of Christians, shall perhaps see stranger evils than have yet been experienced, even before the immediate approach of that great winding up of all things on earth that will precede the day of judgment.  I am not setting up for a prophet, nor pretending to see unhappy wonders, of which I have no knowledge whatever.  All I mean to convey is that contingencies regarding the Church, not excluded by the Divine promises, cannot be regarded as practically impossible, just because they would be terrible and distressing in a very high degree.”[27]

Fr. O’Reilly is saying that if the Great Western Schism had never occurred people would say that such a situation is impossible and incompatible with the promises of Christ to His Church, and that we cannot dismiss the possibility of similar and perhaps worse things in the future because they would be distressing in a very high degree.

APPENDIX: CATHOLIC TEACHING THAT A HERETIC CANNOT BE A TRUE POPE

    Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “6. In addition, [by this Our Constitution, which is to remain valid in perpetuity We enact, determine, decree and define:-] that if ever at any time it shall appear that any Bishop, even if he be acting as an Archbishop, Patriarch or Primate; or any Cardinal of the aforesaid Roman Church, or, as has already been mentioned, any legate, or even the Roman Pontiff, prior to his promotion or his elevation as Cardinal or Roman Pontiff, has deviated from the Catholic Faith or fallen into some heresy:

    (i) the promotion or elevation, even if it shall have been uncontested and by the unanimous assent of all the Cardinals, shall be null, void and worthless;

    (ii) it shall not be possible for it to acquire validity (nor for it to be said that it has thus acquired validity) through the acceptance of the office, of consecration, of subsequent authority, nor through possession of administration, nor through the putative enthronement of a Roman Pontiff, or Veneration, or obedience accorded to such by all, nor through the lapse of any period of time in the foregoing situation;

    (iii) it shall not be held as partially legitimate in any way…

    (vi) those thus promoted or elevated shall be deprived automatically, and without need for any further declaration, of all dignity, position, honour, title, authority, office and power….

    10. No one at all, therefore, may infringe this document of our approbation, re-introduction, sanction, statute and derogation of wills and decrees, or by rash presumption contradict it. If anyone, however, should presume to attempt this, let him know that he is destined to incur the wrath of Almighty God and of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul.

    Given in Rome at Saint Peter’s in the year of the Incarnation of the Lord 1559, 15th February, in the fourth year of our Pontificate.

    + I, Paul, Bishop of the Catholic Church…”

    St. Robert Bellarmine: “A pope who is a manifest heretic automatically (per se) ceases to be pope and head, just as he ceases automatically to be a Christian and a member of the Church.  Wherefore, he can be judged and punished by the Church.  This is the teaching of all the ancient Fathers who teach that manifest heretics immediately lose all jurisdiction.” (De Romano Pontifice, II, 30)

    The Catholic Encyclopedia, “Papal Elections,” 1914, Vol. 11, p. 456: “Of course, the election of a heretic, schismatic, or female [as Pope] would be null and void.”

(This article may be quoted, spread and copied but the author’s name or our website: www.mostholyfamilymonastery.com must be given.  Copyright, Most Holy Family Monastery, 2006.)

Saying that "I don't like Vat II and thus this MUST be what those extrabiblical prophecies were about, therefore Sedevacantism must be ok," sounds an awful lot like making private revelation binding, to me. At least the Sedeprivationists aren't running out on the Pope they claim is so essential to any sure religious knowledge or functioning.


And yes, Fr. O'Reilly throws his opinion or speculation out there that a 39+ year interregnum is possible but that doesn't change the fact that this is not what the Great Western Schism really was. He admits that there was always a real Pope, even if a lot of people didn't recognize him. You can't really argue that "God let this happen to show us that long interregnums can happen" because that's not what happened then and we've never, in fact, really seen one longer than two years. Like I said, it's been 60.

At most, the Great Western Schism is an argument for Conclavism.
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,135
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #29 on: January 16, 2018, 01:00:27 PM »
A lot of the stuff written here is just cheap polemics, from both Catholics and Orthodox. The reality is that the issue is not at all clear, it requires hard historical legwork, and the pop apologetic material circulated among both sides is not sufficient to resolve the truth of the matter. There needs to be a real synthesis of the patristic material from East and West, including from the holy popes of Rome themselves- St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. Boniface, St. Stephen. These men were champions of the apostolic faith, and we must not dismiss their witness.
+1
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,135
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2018, 01:14:53 PM »
In terms of the biblical material, it’s much more likely that the promise of the keys in Matthew 16 is fulfilled in John 21 when Jesus makes Peter the shepherd of His sheep...
St. Peter is affirmed as a shepherd, for sure, but it's got little or nothing to do with Mt 16, but a lot to do with Mt 26, when he denied the Lord three times.  Not to mention that no particular authority proper to God was granted him then.

Anyway, Revelation 3 speaks of Jesus having a key which shuts so that no one can open and opens so that no one can shut. We again hear of a key in Revelation 20, where the angel is given a key and places Satan in the pit, which he “shuts.” This angel is likely a symbol of the Church, and if that is correct, then this vindicates the patristic interpretation of the keys belonging, in a sense, to all Christians through Peter.
No, not through St. Peter, but through whom the keys were given to, the Apostles.  The Church is Apostolic, not Petrine.

In Revelation 21 we see twelve angels, symbolizing the twelve apostles, guarding twelve gates which are “open” and will not be “shut.” All of these themes are closely tied together and flow from the relationship of Matthew 16 and John 21. Twelve angels symbolize the twelve apostles because the seven “angels of the churches” in Revelation 2-3 are the bishops of those city-churches- remembering that the word “angel” means “messenger”, and they are being given letters to read liturgically to their local churches. The bishops, existing in apostolic succession (hence the number of twelve angels) serve as guardians to God’s temple-city, which is the Church.
Exactly, TWELVE, not one.

This is the biblical foundation of the tradition of the Fathers, Latin and Greek alike, that the keys given to Peter are the keys which bishops hold...
Again, according to the Gospels, no key was given exclusively to St. Peter, but to all the Apostles at the same time in Galilee.  St. Peter is indeed first among the Apostles, but not their head nor their source of authority; Jesus is.

In the historical development of our traditions, certain practical imbalances have been created in the way the churches are governed. The West has become hyper-centralized, yet the East, without a real universal primate (it should be said that Constantinople’s primacy meant a lot more before 1453), has become a federation of national churches. Neither practice is apostolic. I say this as a person who believes that Orthodoxy has preserved the fullness of the apostolic faith while Roman Catholicism has not, so don’t take that statement in a relativistic fashion. But we both need to reform.
I confess that I have not dwelt on the history of governance in the Orthodox Church, but I did quite a bit in the Catholic Church.  However perfectly, or not, traditional governance was maintained in the Orthodox Church, it's closer to the Apostolic college than the Catholic one. 

I cannot help but relating the warnings by the prophet Samuel (cf. 1Sam 3) against a monarchy among the twelve tribes as applying also against the papacy. 
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline kabane52

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2018, 04:19:05 PM »
Various Fathers have said that Peter’s receipt of the keys signifies the receipt of the priesthood by all of the apostles. I agree with this. St. Peter is of course, not the source of authority in the Church. But he is placed at the forefront of the Twelve. I agree, following St. Cyril, that Jesus’ commission to Peter in John 21 was related to his denial of Christ- indeed, there are only two times in John’s Gospel where a charcoal fire is mentioned- when Peter denied the Lord, and when the Lord reinstated him. But I don’t think this exhausts the meaning of the text. Peter’s particular calling is evident throughout John. The Gospel of John is filled with symbolism which concerns the tabernacle (see Mary Coloe’s book on this), and the Tomb of Christ with the two overlooking angels corresponds to the Holy of Holies with the two overlooking cherubim. When John and Peter rush to the Tomb and Peter enters first, followed by John, this follows out the liturgical pattern found throughout Leviticus- the high priest ascends first for himself, and then for his people. The head is first burned as an ascension offering (translated loosely as burnt offeirng), and then the body ascends. Peter vests himself and then leaps into the sea in John 21- the theme of clothing in John is richly associated with priesthood, with Christ’s untorn garment alluding to the descriptions of the united garment of the high priest in Exodus.

Whether or not you find any particular comment here persuasive (and I’m just summarizing- there is a great deal of material to expand on this) is not really the point, and it’s not necessarily directed at you. But as Athanasius says, what matters is not the words one uses, but their meaning. There are liturgical texts and patristic witnesses which refer to Peter as the head of the apostolic college. What matters is its meaning. Peter is the icon, so to speak, of the whole episcopate. He receives the keys and thereby signifies their receipt by the Twelve and by the whole Church. The Church, then, is both apostolic and Petrine. The classic work edited by Meyendorff, “The Primacy of Peter” goes into the witness of the Eastern Church concerning the Petrine primacy.

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,135
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Metropolis of Denver
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #32 on: January 16, 2018, 04:43:12 PM »
Various Fathers have said that Peter’s receipt of the keys signifies the receipt of the priesthood by all of the apostles.
Since St. Peter did not receive any keys of his own, but together and at the same time, not even firstly, with the other Apostles, this is factually false.  All the Apostles received the keys and thus the priesthood together and at the same time.
Sanctus Deus
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ
Άγιος ο Θεός

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #33 on: January 16, 2018, 07:49:18 PM »
It undermines the idea of Matthew 16:18 being exclusive to Peter.
Note that the promise in Mt 16:18 is in the future tense.  The promise is fulfilled in Mt 18:18 not exclusively to St. Peter, but to all the Apostles.  Since no other keys were given to St. Peter, it stands that the authority that he received was not any different from the one given to the other Apostles.  On the contrary, St. Paul assured us that there are no "super Apostles", i.e. an Apostle over the other Apostles (cf. 2Cor 11:5).

No
No other apostle is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. In Matthew 18:18, we
read that all the Apostles are given the power to bind and to loose; but Peter alone is
promised the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven in Matthew 16:19. This shows us that
the power which is given to all the Apostles to bind and to loose in Matthew 18:18,
must be exercised under the keys which are given alone to Peter. Peter has a unique
position of authority in the Church.

We see here, in John 21, that Jesus entrusts all of His sheep to St. Peter. The
dogmatic First Vatican Council of the Catholic Church said that this moment in John
21, after the Resurrection of Jesus, was the moment that Jesus actually gave to St.Peter the keys and the authority over His church which He had promised him in
Matthew 16.
It’s important to emphasize that this moment after the Resurrection, in John 21, was
the point at which Jesus made St. Peter the first pope. This is significant because
some non-Catholics bring up St. Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ in John 18:25 and
following. When Peter denied Jesus Christ, it was before the Crucifixion and
Resurrection. Jesus had not yet given St. Peter the authority as pope. The words in
Mt. 16:18-20 promise the keys of the Kingdom to St. Peter. They promise that Jesus
would build His Church upon Him and make him the prime minister of His Church,
but that office was not conferred upon Peter until after the Resurrection, by these
words in John 21:15-17. Therefore, St. Peter’s denial of Christ poses no problem at
all for Catholic teaching on the papacy.

St. John Chrysostom, Homilies on John, 88, 1, 4th century: “Jesus saith unto
him, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And why, having passed by the others, does He speak
with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth
of the disciples, the leader of the band... the denial was done away, Jesus
putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth
not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but
saith, ‘If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren.’” (Nicene and Post-Nicene
Fathers, First Series, Vol. 14:331)

2 cor 11:5

the explanation:

For I suppose. Many understand this as spoken ironically, and alluding to the false apostles,
who called themselves great. But it ought rather to be understood in a literal sense, that God had
performed as many and great miracles by his hands, as by any of the apostles. S. Paul here wishes to
refute those who called themselves the disciples of Peter, and other apostles.

Offline 123abc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #34 on: January 18, 2018, 07:20:29 PM »
A lot of the stuff written here is just cheap polemics, from both Catholics and Orthodox. The reality is that the issue is not at all clear, it requires hard historical legwork, and the pop apologetic material circulated among both sides is not sufficient to resolve the truth of the matter. There needs to be a real synthesis of the patristic material from East and West, including from the holy popes of Rome themselves- St. Leo, St. Gregory, St. Boniface, St. Stephen. These men were champions of the apostolic faith, and we must not dismiss their witness.
+1

Call me simplistic but I really don't think the issue is all that difficult to figure out. The question, at least for me, is boiled down to: Were the dogmatic proclamations of Vatican I (infallibility in Faith and morals, pope above an Ecumenical Council, rules without or against the consent of the Church) the unchanging faith of the Catholic Church from Apostolic times or can it be clearly shown to be a development? And if a development, can it be shown that Christians of early centuries would have recognized Vatican I papal supremacy as at least compatible with their understanding of the bishop of Rome's role?


Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
  • Most Precious Blood of Jesus, Save Us!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #35 on: January 19, 2018, 08:14:30 AM »
Quote from: Kabane
That the Archbishop of Athens is “Head of all the Churches of Greece” does not entail that he can interfere in the daily affairs of the Churches under his jurisdiction. St. Leo was described by Chalcedon as “Archbishop of all the Churches.” This is crucial, since the jurisdiction of the archbishop is as delineated by Apostolic Canon 34. His role is that of coordinating the churches, resolving disputes among them, and hearing appeals. He is not entitled to overrule a local Bishop in an issue strictly internal to that diocese.

Ok. Your position is a reasonable evaluation of the canonical Tradition. It reminds me of some Orthodox scholars like Fr. Nicholas Afanaseiff and Fr. Alexander Schmemann. You admit at least the Roman Church serves as court of appeals in disputes between local Churches, as codified in the canons of Sardica etc. You look at Ephesus and this was how St. Cyril and Nestorius both appealed to Rome. At the history of Chalcedon, you see St. Peter Chrysologus write to Eutyches "We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it." Fr. Philip in fact said a similar thing before the whole Council of Ephesus. You have St. Maximus and St. Theodore the Studite absolutely insist on the same principle in overthrowing Monothelitism and Iconoclasm; and it's not difficult at all to show that this principle itself (which you admit) logically entails the indefectibility of the Roman Church (because it is the final court of appeals); indeed, explicit testimonies of both St. Maximus and St. Theodore to the special protection the Roman Church enjoys in virtue of the divine promise to St. Peter abound, as I trust you know.

Now, in the first place, if the Roman Church is the last court of appeals, how can you justify remaining separated from Her communion and therefore from Her jurisdiction as final court? How can anyone say at one and the same time "I admit the supreme court can resolve disputes between high courts when both parties appeal to it" but "I refuse to be subject to the supreme court's jurisdiction, lest it rule against me. That's not consistent. You look at the decree of Lyons and allowance was made for this view (Gallicanism had not yet been explicitly condemned). "When disputes concerning the Faith arise, it is by Her judgment that they must be settled". This almost mirrors the statement of St. Peter Chrysologus. St. Theodore assures us "the gates of hell have never prevailed (against Rome) and never will until the consummation", not according to any human judgment, but "according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie". Sources I will provide if you ask.

Btw, Those who speak of "falsification" (an empirical concept) in regard to Catholic Faith don't understand it. Faith is simply proved once and for all by the authorities of Scripture and Tradition, or the promises of Christ. Faith cannot be falsified, as if it were some mere scientific theory only. Rest later.

Fr. Afanaseiff wrote in his work, the Church which presides in love, "Rome's vocation [even before Nicaea] consisted in playing the part of arbiter, settling contentious issues by witnessing to the truth or falsity of whatever doctrine was put before them. Rome was truly the center where all converged if they wanted their doctrine to be accepted by the conscience of the Church. They could not count upon success except on one condition -- that the Church of Rome had received their doctrine -- and refusal from Rome predetermined the attitude the other churches would adopt. There are numerous cases of this recourse to Rome...."

And Fr. Schmemann agrees "the Church of Rome -- 'presiding in agape,' according to St. Ignatius of Antioch. This formula and the definition of the universal primacy contained in it have been aptly analyzed by Fr. Afanassieff and we need not repeat his argument here. Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement. It is only for the sake of biased polemics that one can ignore these testimonies, their consensus and significance."
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

Offline Rohzek

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,159
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #36 on: January 19, 2018, 12:17:37 PM »
Btw, Those who speak of "falsification" (an empirical concept) in regard to Catholic Faith don't understand it. Faith is simply proved once and for all by the authorities of Scripture and Tradition, or the promises of Christ. Faith cannot be falsified, as if it were some mere scientific theory only. Rest later.

You are wrong. Even St. Paul opened the door to empirical scrutiny in the epistles when he said that if Christ was never crucified, then the faith is dead. Furthermore, you are yourself endorsing empiricism even as you condemn it to belonging to a separate enterprise when you speak of scripture and tradition as supporting your particular faith. That in itself is a form of empiricism.

123abc's critique of some of your arguments are quite fair. You said that the institution of the papacy prevents schism. Historical evidence from the past century especially falsifies such claims. This evidence does not disprove your notion of the papacy as being a unique and divinely established institution, but it does disprove your original statement concerning the papacy's effects in history. It is on you to either rebut the detailed arguments mustered against you, or for you to clarify any misunderstanding of your original statement.
"Il ne faut imaginer Dieu ni trop bon, ni méchant. La justice est entre l'excès de la clémence et la cruauté, ainsi que les peines finies sont entre l'impunité et les peines éternelles." - Denise Diderot, Pensées philosophiques 1746

Offline 123abc

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 44
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #37 on: January 19, 2018, 08:48:58 PM »

Btw, Those who speak of "falsification" (an empirical concept) in regard to Catholic Faith don't understand it. Faith is simply proved once and for all by the authorities of Scripture and Tradition, or the promises of Christ. Faith cannot be falsified, as if it were some mere scientific theory only. Rest later.

Emperical claim: Knowledge received by the senses, particularly by observation and experimentation

You wrote: "if there is no visible head of the Episcopate on earth, how are the faithful to avoid schism and identify the Church by Her marks" which implies that the office of the papacy is the guarantor of this unity. Since this unity is observable (those bishops being in union with the pope) this makes yours an emperical claim and thus, falsifiable. So...

The office of the papacy is the guarantor and sign of unity in the RCC
but
the Catholic Church has undergone numerous internal schisms in the last 60 years
so....

The Papacy does not guarantee unity even among those claiming to be Vatican I believing Roman Catholics.

Do you attend schismatic masses(SSPX, SSPV) etc.?

BTW, your comment about the faith not being able to be falsified is a red herring. We're talking about the papacy and it's claims, not the Faith.

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
  • Most Precious Blood of Jesus, Save Us!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #38 on: January 20, 2018, 02:28:13 AM »
Ok. If you want to go there, we will. Now, here's the difference, there are episcopi vagantes in both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church today (non-canonical bishops, as you know, abc), but here's the thing about episcopi vagantes in the Catholic Church - they admit they are episcopi vagantes!

E.g. Bp Sanborn wrote an article admitting "I have no authority/jurisdiction" Have you ever heard a Bishop, especially one making an extraordinary claim, say such a thing? He is bound to say so because even he does not deny Catholic bishops can only obtain jurisidiction and appointment to episcopal office by the confirmation of the Pope. Thus, almost all sedevacantist bishops are self-admitted episcopi vagantes and vagrant clerics, and can easily be seen by the faithful to be such, until the Pope confirms them.

Sedevacantists are also an extremely tiny majority, maybe 0.01% of all professing Catholics. More importantly, Catholic doctrine which they themselves admit tells them they can obtain ordinary jurisdiction and permanent faculties only from the Pope. Catholic doctrine also tells the faithful not to listen to bishops who have not received their share in the power of the Keys from Peter's hands.

Dom Prosper Gueranger explains "We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honor and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers."

This applies also to Orthodox bishops - all Orthodox bishops are episcopi vagantes who lack the power of jurisdiction. And all Orthodox priests lack faculties to absolve and excommunicate, for these are acts proper to true judges. Having separated from the Throne of St. Peter, they lose all jurisdiction. Upon Papal confirmation, however, they would immediately receive it all back. It's not that modern theologians don't know these things, they know it as well as we do and admit it when pressed, it's just that they don't want to say it *out loud* as the impossibility of exercising regular jurisdiction without communion with Peter's Throne is deemed a decidedly non-ecumenical doctrine.

As for me, I'm an Indult traditionalist. I support traditional priests in canonical communion with Rome working for restoration cum Petro et sub Petro. That includes St. Peter's Fraternity (FSSP), the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata (FFI) and yes, the SSPX whose Masses I attend. Your information regarding them is out of date. Pope Francis himself granted them jurisdiction and faculties to absolve so that their confessions are recognized. If you know the relevant doctrine, you see this is equivalent to granting them jurisdiction. If, however, any "traditional" priest said he would cut off communion with Rome, I and my family would cut off communion with him. There is no Tradition outside of communion with the Apostolic Roman Church of 2000 years.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 02:28:36 AM by Xavier »
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 831
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #39 on: January 20, 2018, 03:33:20 AM »
Quote
This applies also to Orthodox bishops - all Orthodox bishops are episcopi vagantes who lack the power of jurisdiction. And all Orthodox priests lack faculties to absolve and excommunicate, for these are acts proper to true judges. Having separated from the Throne of St. Peter, they lose all jurisdiction. Upon Papal confirmation, however, they would immediately receive it all back. It's not that modern theologians don't know these things, they know it as well as we do and admit it when pressed, it's just that they don't want to say it *out loud* as the impossibility of exercising regular jurisdiction without communion with Peter's Throne is deemed a decidedly non-ecumenical doctrine.
This.

The Orthodox Church either have the keys, the power to bind and lose or it doesn't. The papal claims stand or fall on this.

My opinion is: judging by the fruits - the keys of heaven are in the orthodox church and not with the papacy.
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 03:35:07 AM by Vanhyo »

Offline kabane52

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 15
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #40 on: January 20, 2018, 06:58:45 AM »
The reason I am out of communion with the Bishop of Rome, even as I acknowledge the Church of Rome’s divine vocation as the primate of the Church, is because I understand the canonical jurisdiction of the primate to hinge on Orthodox faith- that is to say, the Church of Rome is not doctrinally indefectible. This is the teaching of St. Symeon of Thessaloniki and St. Mark of Ephesus, both of whom acknowledged the Pope’s divine primacy of appellate jurisdiction, but taught that his canonical position depended on his profession of the Orthodox faith, which, in virtue of the recitation of the Filioque in the Creed with reference to a hypostatic procession, he did not have.

I think this is fairly easy to prove. When Maximus was told (wrongly), that the Pope was about to commune with the monothelites, he did not reply by denying it and invoking the Pope’s petrine charism of indefectibility. He simply stated that if they were right, then he would no more commune with Rome than he would commune with Sergius of Constantinople. Similarly, we know that at the Council of Chalcedon, the Council Fathers critically analyzed Pope St. Leo’s Tome before receiving it as theologically orthodox- such is inconceivable if the Roman Church were held to be intriniscally indefectible.

Primacy and conciliarity are two interrelated and mutually necessary loci of authority for the Church. Consider the words of the Fifth Ecumenical Synod, referring to Pope Vigilius’ continued insistence on the orthodoxy of the Three Chapters. I am aware that there was imperial pressure in this respect, but we both recognize it as an Ecumenical Council, so imperial pressure or not, its decrees are authoritative.

“And to this end we brought to his [Pope Vigilius’] remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures.

And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles: ‘It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.’

But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood.

Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: ‘A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong as a well-founded kingdom;’ and again in Ecclesiastes he says: ‘Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.’”

This is very difficult, I think impossible, to reconcile with Vatican I. This is an Ecumenical Council of the Church telling the Pope of Rome that he cannot act unilaterally to impose his theology on the Church. I am aware of the statements to which you refer. I do not consider them to forcibly prove your position since: 1) Maximus’ statement above contradicts your reading of this directly, 2) an Ecumenical Council of the Church, its highest authority, explicitly rejected the notion that the papacy can act unilaterally, 3) both Popes Vigilius and Honorius were rebuked and condemned by an Ecumenical Council for heretical teaching- the old notion that Honorius was rebuked for “failing to teach the truth” rather than heresy is just not sustainable if you read the primary documents, and so isn’t held today by historians, even conservative Catholic historians. There are a couple of possiblities when it comes to St. Theodore’s words: First, it could simply be typical Byzantine hyperbole. Anyone familiar with the Byzantine Liturgy knows how profuse this is. The Theotokos, for example, is called the “only hope of mankind.” St. Theodore, as a monastic regularly immersed in this liturgical tradition, would be aptly familiar with this. I think this is the most likely optinon. 2) St. Theodore might hold this, but simply be wrong. After all, sometimes the Fathers are wrong, and the other witnesses I cited carry a higher authority.

I think really, what mitigates against the view you wish to propound is the deafening silence in the great controversies of the undivided Church as to the Papacy’s role of the absolutely certain and indefectible criterion of orthodox faith. If this were the case and the Church professed it universally, then why didn’t St. Athanasius point this out to the Arians? Why not just once? Why did St. Vincent of Lerins, a Western Father, composing a treatise on how to distinguish Orthodox and heretical teaching, not once say that it was agreement and communion with the See of Rome which served as that criterion? The simplest answer is that your position simply was not held.

As for the quotation you adduce from Fr. Philip, I don’t see how it proves your position. First, the Bishop of Rome as Primate of the Church of course held a certain auctoritas- for the quotation to prove your position, it would have to be something which could not be said given my position. But second, and more specifically, Pope St. Celestine had already condemned Nestorius and stricken him from the diptychs at Rome when the Council of Ephesus met: and yet they addressed Nestorius as the “Most Religious Archbishop of Constantinople” at the beginning of the Council, entailing that the final judgment of his case belonged to the jursidiction of the Council. Third, similar statements were made by St. Sophronius of Jerusalem about the Church of Alexandria. He stated that he “received the definitions” of the Pope “as if they were those of Peter” and those of the Patriarch of Alexandria “as if they were those of Mark. I have seen this quoted by Roman Catholic apologists with the latter words hidden by an ellipses, which I find not a little dishonest. So this was common language for the Fathers of the Undivided Church, and if it didn’t imply a charism of infallibility for the Pope of Alexandria, then why does it imply such for the Pope of Rome.

Actually, in that vein, consider what Pope St. Gregory the Great says about the Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, all of which traced their origins to the Apostle Peter. Writing to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria, St. Gregory writes:

“Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter's chair who occupies Peter's chair.

 And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep.

Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.”

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm

As you can see, St. Gregory holds that all three Churches participate in the Petrine chrism. It was for this reason that St. Leo the Great, commenting on the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, rejected it. St. Leo held that it denigrated the Petrine prerogative of Alexandria and Antioch. I actually agree with him and support the restoration of the Nicene order (which is going to be necessary if communion is to be restored with the Copts anyway.) But this is very difficult to reconcile with the Roman Catholic teaching. St. Gregory makes statements like this in almost all of his letters to Eulogius of Alexandria, and never once states that he is more of a Successor of Peter than Eulogius is. When Rome’s apostolic primacy was distinguished from Alexandria and Antioch’s, it was done so by appealing to Paul’s role in the Roman Church, or, as St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, wrote, Paul “equally made Rome special in Christ the Lord.” This is a direct contradiction to Vatican I, for which the Petrine chrism is the sole necessary AND SUFFICIENT reason for Rome’s prerogatives.

You mention Gallicanism briefly. A few things. First, the Council of Constance, which is held to be ecumenical by Rome, explicitly decrees the superiority of the judgment of a Council to the judgment of the Pope. Now, while you might say “the pope did not confirm that decree” and exercised a line-item veto over it, the issue is that the Council was convened in order to choose the correct pope, given the Western schism. If the authority of the Council was only so because the Pope confirmed it, then how do we know it chose the true pope? In order for its resolution to have force, it would have to possess intrinsic authority. This puts you in the same position that the Protestant has with respect to the canon of Scripture. If tradition is not inspired, how does the Protestant know which books are in the canon? And if Constance’s authority depended on the confirmation of the Pope, how do you know it chose the true Pope? Second, the name “Gallicanism” is a name given in order to give the impression that this was a very brief and local abberration, doctrinally speaking. Actually, conciliarism was extremely widespread among Catholics of the medieval period, and it persisted for centuries, into the 19th century. In fact, one could make a strong case that outside of Italy, conciliarism was the normative teaching of the Catholic hierarchy- there’s a reason it wasn’t condemned at Trent. There were too many bishops on the Council who were concilarists and appealed to Constance.

I strongly encourage you to read Francis Oakley’s excellent monograph on this subject: “The Concilarist Tradition.”
« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 07:06:52 AM by kabane52 »

Offline Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 11,980
  • too often left in the payment of false ponchos
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #41 on: January 20, 2018, 08:34:20 AM »
Quote
I think this is fairly easy to prove. When Maximus was told (wrongly), that the Pope was about to commune with the monothelites, he did not reply by denying it and invoking the Pope’s petrine charism of indefectibility. He simply stated that if they were right, then he would no more commune with Rome than he would commune with Sergius of Constantinople. Similarly, we know that at the Council of Chalcedon, the Council Fathers critically analyzed Pope St. Leo’s Tome before receiving it as theologically orthodox- such is inconceivable if the Roman Church were held to be intriniscally indefectible.

Which is funny considering that the people who most lose it over things Pope Francis says are also often so big on Papal Indeffectibility.
On an extended hiatus from this site. Please pray for me and my family.

I'm sorry to any that my posts might offend.

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,214
  • Love God with All your heart and all your Soul
  • Faith: Holy Catholic Church - Latin
  • Jurisdiction: Archdiocese of Pretoria
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #42 on: January 20, 2018, 09:16:20 AM »
I think this is fairly easy to prove. When Maximus was told (wrongly), that the Pope was about to commune with the monothelites, he did not reply by denying it and invoking the Pope’s petrine charism of indefectibility. He simply stated that if they were right, then he would no more commune with Rome than he would commune with Sergius of Constantinople. Similarly, we know that at the Council of Chalcedon, the Council Fathers critically analyzed Pope St. Leo’s Tome before receiving it as theologically orthodox- such is inconceivable if the Roman Church were held to be intriniscally indefectible.

Well even this is kind of acceptable. Except for the part of breking communion with Rome. You are not obliged to follow false teaching even from Rome. Infallibility doesn’t mean that everything that comes out of the Pope’s mouth is infallible. It’s a lot more narrow than that.

Chalcedon actually initially accepted the Tome of St Leo on its face as the authoritative teaching on the two natures of our Lord. The only reason it was later examines was not because it had to be but because a small segment of Egyptian bishops and other parts doubted the language. So to console them the council opened up a commission to demonstrate how the Tome reconciled to St Cyril’s theology.


Quote
You mention Gallicanism briefly. A few things. First, the Council of Constance, which is held to be ecumenical by Rome, explicitly decrees the superiority of the judgment of a Council to the judgment of the Pope. Now, while you might say “the pope did not confirm that decree” and exercised a line-item veto over it, the issue is that the Council was convened in order to choose the correct pope, given the Western schism. If the authority of the Council was only so because the Pope confirmed it, then how do we know it chose the true pope?
We know this because it was convened for this very purpose and all sides of the schism accepted its authority to do so. Thus this includes the true pope giving authority to it to do just that. Councils called for special occasions can only do what they are called for and nothing more until the pope ratifies anything else they do. Such councils are properly called “imperfect councils” in catholic theology. These include councils that choose pope’s and those that declare the heresy and divine deposition of the pope to have taken place.

Quote
In order for its resolution to have force, it would have to possess intrinsic authority.
Only to do what they are called for and nothing more. In the case of Constance it was the election of the Pope. Anything else would need pall comfirmation to have ecclesiastical force as this obeys the ancient traditions and canons of the church that no decisions may be made without the consent of the Roman bishop.


« Last Edit: January 20, 2018, 09:27:06 AM by Wandile »
During the Iconoclastic Crisis, Stephen the Faster challenged the assembled Bishops at Hiereia:

"How can you call a council ecumenical when the bishop of Rome has not given his consent, and the canons forbid ecclesiastical affairs to be decided without the pope of Rome?"
-Stephen the Faster

Venerable Benedict Daswa, Blessed Isidore Bakanja and St Charles Lwanga, martyrs, pray for the Church today

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 553
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #43 on: January 20, 2018, 10:26:46 AM »
Ok. If you want to go there, we will. Now, here's the difference, there are episcopi vagantes in both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church today (non-canonical bishops, as you know, abc), but here's the thing about episcopi vagantes in the Catholic Church - they admit they are episcopi vagantes!

E.g. Bp Sanborn wrote an article admitting "I have no authority/jurisdiction" Have you ever heard a Bishop, especially one making an extraordinary claim, say such a thing? He is bound to say so because even he does not deny Catholic bishops can only obtain jurisidiction and appointment to episcopal office by the confirmation of the Pope. Thus, almost all sedevacantist bishops are self-admitted episcopi vagantes and vagrant clerics, and can easily be seen by the faithful to be such, until the Pope confirms them.

Sedevacantists are also an extremely tiny majority, maybe 0.01% of all professing Catholics. More importantly, Catholic doctrine which they themselves admit tells them they can obtain ordinary jurisdiction and permanent faculties only from the Pope. Catholic doctrine also tells the faithful not to listen to bishops who have not received their share in the power of the Keys from Peter's hands.

Dom Prosper Gueranger explains "We, then, both priests and people, have a right to know whence our pastors have received their power. From whose hand have they received the keys? If their mission come from the apostolic see, let us honor and obey them, for they are sent to us by Jesus Christ, who has invested them, through Peter, with His own authority. If they claim our obedience without having been sent by the bishop of Rome, we must refuse to receive them, for they are not acknowledged by Christ as His ministers."

This applies also to Orthodox bishops - all Orthodox bishops are episcopi vagantes who lack the power of jurisdiction. And all Orthodox priests lack faculties to absolve and excommunicate, for these are acts proper to true judges. Having separated from the Throne of St. Peter, they lose all jurisdiction. Upon Papal confirmation, however, they would immediately receive it all back. It's not that modern theologians don't know these things, they know it as well as we do and admit it when pressed, it's just that they don't want to say it *out loud* as the impossibility of exercising regular jurisdiction without communion with Peter's Throne is deemed a decidedly non-ecumenical doctrine.

As for me, I'm an Indult traditionalist. I support traditional priests in canonical communion with Rome working for restoration cum Petro et sub Petro. That includes St. Peter's Fraternity (FSSP), the Franciscan Friars of the Immaculata (FFI) and yes, the SSPX whose Masses I attend. Your information regarding them is out of date. Pope Francis himself granted them jurisdiction and faculties to absolve so that their confessions are recognized. If you know the relevant doctrine, you see this is equivalent to granting them jurisdiction. If, however, any "traditional" priest said he would cut off communion with Rome, I and my family would cut off communion with him. There is no Tradition outside of communion with the Apostolic Roman Church of 2000 years.

does SUPPLIED JURISDICTION EXIST
yes or no?

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 476
  • Most Precious Blood of Jesus, Save Us!
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #44 on: January 22, 2018, 08:05:00 AM »
I like that you mentioned Pope St. Damasus' teaching on the three episcopal thrones that have a connection to St. Peter. I also favor the restoration of the ancient canonical taxis; it esteems Apostolic origin more than secular importance. As there are 3 orders of the clergy, as 3 bishops consecrate, it is fitting to show forth the reign of the Triune God by the reign of 3 sees having an Apostolic connection to St. Peter. As the Father is the Monarch in the Holy Trinity (and hypostatic procession doesn't deny that, more on that in a subsequent thread on Pope St. Leo's teaching against Sabellians), so in a reunited Church, Rome will have a headship of love among the 3, while Rome, Alexandria and Antioch will govern the Church collectively. I would urge you to read what Dom Prosper Gueranger, the great liturgist and theologian, wrote about these. 

"All spiritual authority comes from Peter; all comes from the bishop of Rome, in whom Peter will continue to govern the Church to the end of time. Jesus Christ is the founder of the episcopate; it is the Holy Ghost who establishes bishops to rule the Church; but the mission and the institution, which assign the pastor his flock, and the flock its pastor, these are given by Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost through the ministry of Peter and his successors. How sacred, how divine, is this authority of the keys, which is first given by heaven itself to the Roman Pontiff; then is delegated by him to the prelates of the Church; and thus guides and blesses the whole Christian world!

We have already seen how, at the commencement, there were three chairs: Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch; and all three were sources of the canonical institution of the bishops of their respective provinces; but they were all three chairs of Peter, for they were founded by him that they might preside over their patriarchates, as St. Leo, St. Gelasius, and St. Gregory the Great, expressly teach"

Did you notice Pope St. Damasus says the Holy Roman Church is without stain or blemish and is secured by the divine promise to St. Peter? Can you show me the application of the divine promise to Alexandria or Antioch? In fact, the Roman Pontiffs teach clearly and often that the Roman Church's indefectibility (not the Roman Pontiff as a private person, who can err; but the Roman Church in Her official judgments) is guaranteed by God's promise; Pope St. Hormisdas professed it in a dogmatic confession as did many Eastern Churches. Pope St. Innocent, Pope St. Gelasius, Pope St. Sixtus III, Pope St. Celestine and others beside Pope St. Hormisdas mention it. You may have read this before but just count the number of times the divine promise to St. Peter (gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church built on St. Peter) is specifically undestood to be true of the Roman Church rhttp://catholicity.elcore.net/PrimacyOfTheRomanChurch.html

Quote
Why did St. Vincent of Lerins, a Western Father, composing a treatise on how to distinguish Orthodox and heretical teaching, not once say that it was agreement and communion with the See of Rome which served as that criterion?

Oh, but he did. In treating of the rebaptism controversy, and praising Pope St. Stephen's zeal in extinguishing it, he admits his authority to pass judgment to decide the question "as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place" and so could definitively determine a disputed question of faith. Is that not that the course St. Peter Chrysologus counselled Eutyches to follow when Monophysitism arose? Rome's judgment is especially to be sought on disputed doctrinal and disciplinary issues. As for St. Athanasius, he authored the canons of Sardica, which command all bishops to have recourse (this is not a suggestion, but a requirement) to the judgment of the Roman Pontiff as the head of the priesthood. So if a bishop of the local Church passes judgment against a faithful laity, and the laymen protests against this, the canons require both the bishop and the layman to present themselves for judgment to the Roman Pontiff. This is not what the modern Greek Orthodox Church does. It is still followed, however, in the Catholic Church.

Here's the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas "Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church,” etc., cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot...Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See, shall not be recited during the sacred mysteries"
Locution, Aug 18, 2014: "They will realize that I have released an ocean of graces which have changed their darkness into light. They will realize that they have been freed from the past century of diabolical control. They will also know that this great gift has come through the consecration of Russia made by the Holy Father in communion with all the bishops in the world. http://locutions-forever.org/locutions/show/2014-08-18/1-the-overcoming-of-separation