Author Topic: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.  (Read 2066 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #45 on: January 22, 2018, 08:30:25 AM »
By the way, reception by the whole Church is held to be a sufficient sign that a Council was Ecumenical; but not a necessary condition that can be demanded in advance - since everything happened at Constance with the agreement of all, it is certain that it chose the true Pope. (Theologians and canonists also teach "universal recognition of a Pope is a sign and infallible effect of his legitimacy" cf. Billot, Wernz Vidal etc, which also answers sedevacantists) Thus, it is certain it became Ecumenical after his confirmation, and the difficulty is answered.

Quote
does SUPPLIED JURISDICTION EXIST yes or no?

Question: a priest, let's say "Old Catholic" is refused faculties by the Pope. Can he still absolve or pass judgment on the Catholic faithful, claiming jurisdiction will be supplied? The answer is no.

Supplied jurisdiction is a delegatio a iure, a delegation operative by the law itself. The jurisdiction thus supplied is tacit, and transient; it must usually be confirmed by appeal to the local bishop, or otherwise to Rome. The classic case is when a parish priest is in another diocese. He has no faculties there. But, a Catholic approaches him for absolution. Because of the pressing need, he absolves. But to be certain, he checks with the bishop; the bishop agrees and the act was certainly valid. But if this priest was uncanonically installed, especially if he had rejected the whole hierarchy, and was not willing to subject himself to their judgment, jurisdiction would not be delegated to him and his attempted absolution would be invalid. He must submit to bishop and receive faculties from them.

There is a more forceful proof still. Only a Pope can appoint a bishop to office, at least by confirming him, as we have seen. But if the Throne of St. Peter has been vacant for 60 years, and since all the bishops appointed to office by Pope Pius XII have died or resigned, it would follow that all episcopal sees are now vacant. But that is heretical, contrary to Apostolicity and indefectibility. It follows that you are mistaken, the See of St. Peter cannot be vacant for 60 years, and certainly not indefinitely, as you sedevacantists hold. This is the meaning of the dogma that St. Peter must have perpetual Successors in the primacy over the Church as Dom Gueranger explains. An indefinite interregnum is utterly incompatible with that dogma.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 08:34:41 AM by Xavier »
St. Irenaeus of Lyons: "that Tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the Faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An inquirer into Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #46 on: January 22, 2018, 09:46:45 AM »

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.


Rome wasn't always the final court of appeals from what I could gather - Chalcedon made Constantinople the final court of appeals at the time.

Canon 9:

"If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop's consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried."

Canon 17:

"Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example."

Of course, Chalcedon was an Ecumenical Council that certainly for geopolitics tried to shift power from Rome to Constantinople (something that still happens in the Orthodox Church, because the Church is run by human beings who want power), but Canon 28 is the one that seems to be contested by Catholics and Orthodox - nobody brings these two canons up, and how they were confirmed by the Pope.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 09:53:20 AM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Wandile

  • Peter the Roman
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,162
  • 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 #47 on: January 22, 2018, 02:59:37 PM »

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.


Rome wasn't always the final court of appeals from what I could gather - Chalcedon made Constantinople the final court of appeals at the time.

Canon 9:

"If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop's consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried."

Canon 17:

"Outlying or rural parishes shall in every province remain subject to the bishops who now have jurisdiction over them, particularly if the bishops have peaceably and continuously governed them for the space of thirty years. But if within thirty years there has been, or is, any dispute concerning them, it is lawful for those who hold themselves aggrieved to bring their cause before the synod of the province. And if any one be wronged by his metropolitan, let the matter be decided by the exarch of the diocese or by the throne of Constantinople, as aforesaid. And if any city has been, or shall hereafter be newly erected by imperial authority, let the order of the ecclesiastical parishes follow the political and municipal example."

Of course, Chalcedon was an Ecumenical Council that certainly for geopolitics tried to shift power from Rome to Constantinople (something that still happens in the Orthodox Church, because the Church is run by human beings who want power), but Canon 28 is the one that seems to be contested by Catholics and Orthodox - nobody brings these two canons up, and how they were confirmed by the Pope.


These canons apply to eastern churches as Constantinople being the foremost amongst them due to canon 28. Appeals to Rome continued after Chalcedon as Constantinople did not claim equal authority with Rome but acknowledged its inferiority to Rome. What Constantinople achieved was to dethrone Alexandria as the religious power in the east.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2018, 03:00:25 PM 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: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #48 on: January 22, 2018, 09:52:11 PM »
By the way, reception by the whole Church is held to be a sufficient sign that a Council was Ecumenical; but not a necessary condition that can be demanded in advance - since everything happened at Constance with the agreement of all, it is certain that it chose the true Pope. (Theologians and canonists also teach "universal recognition of a Pope is a sign and infallible effect of his legitimacy" cf. Billot, Wernz Vidal etc, which also answers sedevacantists) Thus, it is certain it became Ecumenical after his confirmation, and the difficulty is answered.

Quote
does SUPPLIED JURISDICTION EXIST yes or no?

Question: a priest, let's say "Old Catholic" is refused faculties by the Pope. Can he still absolve or pass judgment on the Catholic faithful, claiming jurisdiction will be supplied? The answer is no.

Supplied jurisdiction is a delegatio a iure, a delegation operative by the law itself. The jurisdiction thus supplied is tacit, and transient; it must usually be confirmed by appeal to the local bishop, or otherwise to Rome. The classic case is when a parish priest is in another diocese. He has no faculties there. But, a Catholic approaches him for absolution. Because of the pressing need, he absolves. But to be certain, he checks with the bishop; the bishop agrees and the act was certainly valid. But if this priest was uncanonically installed, especially if he had rejected the whole hierarchy, and was not willing to subject himself to their judgment, jurisdiction would not be delegated to him and his attempted absolution would be invalid. He must submit to bishop and receive faculties from them.

There is a more forceful proof still. Only a Pope can appoint a bishop to office, at least by confirming him, as we have seen. But if the Throne of St. Peter has been vacant for 60 years, and since all the bishops appointed to office by Pope Pius XII have died or resigned, it would follow that all episcopal sees are now vacant. But that is heretical, contrary to Apostolicity and indefectibility. It follows that you are mistaken, the See of St. Peter cannot be vacant for 60 years, and certainly not indefinitely, as you sedevacantists hold. This is the meaning of the dogma that St. Peter must have perpetual Successors in the primacy over the Church as Dom Gueranger explains. An indefinite interregnum is utterly incompatible with that dogma.

Note the following was written when Benedict XVI was "pope", how much worse is it now with Francis

Peter will have perpetual successors
in the Primacy over the Universal Church
Pope Pius IX,
First Vatican Council
, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, [Canon]. “If anyone then says that it
is not from the institution of Christ the Lord
Himself, or by divine right that the blessed
Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the
Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be
anathema.”
45
This is the favorite canon of those who argue ag
ainst the sedevacantist “thesis”; but, as we will
see, it also proves nothing for their position.
 Words and distinctions are very important. 
Understanding distinctions and words can often
be the very difference between Protestantism
and Catholicism.   
The canon from Vatican I condemns those who deny “
that Peter has perpetual successors in the
primacy over the universal Church
.”  Notice the phrase “perpetual successors
IN THE PRIMACY
.” 
This, as we have seen, does not mean and cannot mean that we will always have a pope.  That is
why it doesn’t say that “we will always have a po
pe.”  It’s a fact that there have been periods
without a pope.  So what does the canon mean? 
In understanding this canon, we must remember that there are schismatics who hold that St.
Peter himself was given the primacy over the un
iversal Church by Jesus Christ, but that the
primacy over the universal Church stopped with St. Peter. 
They hold that the Bishops of Rome
aren’t successors to the same primacy that St. Peter had
.  They hold that the full-blown force of
the primacy doesn’t descend to the popes, even thou
gh they succeed St. Peter as Bishop of Rome. 
Again: the “Orthodox” schismatic
s would admit that the Bishops of Rome are successors of St.
Peter in a certain way because they succeed hi
m as Bishops of Rome, but not successors with
the same jurisdictional primacy
 over the universal Church which St. Peter held in his life.  This
is the heresy that is the subject of the canon above.   
This heresy – which denies that a pope is the successor of St. Peter in the same primacy
perpetually
 (that is,
every time there is a pope until the end of time, he is a successor in the same primacy
,
with the same authority St. Peter possessed)
– is precisely what this canon condemns.
Pope Pius IX,
First Vatican Council
, Sess. 4, Chap. 2, [Canon]. “If anyone then says that it
is not from the institution of Christ the Lord
Himself, or by divine right that the blessed
Peter has perpetual successors in the primacy over the universal Church, or that the
Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in the same primacy, let him be
anathema.”
46
When we understand this we clearly see the meaning of this canon.  This is emphasized at the
end by the words “or that the Roman Ponti
ff is not the successor of blessed Peter
in the same
primacy
” let him be anathema.  The canon is not declaring that we will have a pope at all times
or that there won’t be gaps, as we clearly have ha
d.  The meaning of the canon is clear from what
it says.  It condemns those who deny that Peter
has perpetual successors in the primacy – that is,
those who deny that every time there is a true
and lawful pope until the end of time he is a
successor in the same primacy, with the same authority that St. Peter possessed. 

This canon proves nothing for the non-sedevaca
ntist, but it does prove something for us. 
Remember, Benedict XVI also rejects this dogma on the primacy of the popes!
BENEDICT XVI COMPLETELY REJECTS THIS CANON AND VATICAN I
Benedict XVI,
Principles of Catholic Theology
 (1982), p. 198: “
Nor is it possible, on the
other hand, for him to regard as the only possible form and, consequently, as binding
on all Christians the form this primacy has taken in the nineteenth and twentieth
centuries
[ed.- This means the schismatics don’t have to accept Vatican I]. 
The symbolic
gestures of Pope Paul VI and, in particular
, his kneeling before the representative of
the Ecumenical Patriarch [the schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras] were an attempt to
express precisely this
 and, by such signs, to point the way out of the historical impasse...
In other words, Rome must not require more from the East with respect to the doctrine
of the primacy than had been formulated and was lived in the first millennium

When
the Patriarch Athenagoras
 [the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch], on July 25, 1967, on
the occasion of the Pope’s visit to Phanar,
designated him as the successor of St. Peter,
as the most esteemed among us, as one who presides in charity, this great Church
leader was expressing the ecclesial content of the doctrine of the primacy as it was
known in the first millennium.  Rome need not ask for more.

47
This means, once again, that
according to Benedict XVI all Christians are not bound to believe
in the Papacy as defined by Vatican I in 1870.  This means that the “Orthodox” schismatics are
free to reject the Papacy.
  This is a blatant denial of Vatican Council I and the necessity of
accepting the primacy by the man who claims to be
 “the pope.”  Who will cry out against this
abominable madness?   
Pope Pius IX,
Vatican Council I
, 1870, Sess. 4, Chap. 3, ex cathedra: "...
all the faithful of
Christ must believe that the Apostolic See and the Roman Pontiff hold primacy over
the whole world, and the Pontiff of Rome himself is the successor of the blessed Peter,
the chief of the apostles, and is the true vicar of Christ and head of the whole Church
...
Furthermore We teach and declare that the
Roman Church, by the disposition of the
Lord, holds the sovereignty of or
dinary power over all others...
This is the doctrine of
Catholic truth from which no one can deviate and keep his
faith
 and salvation
."
48
Moreover, notice that Benedict XVI admits that Pa
ul VI’s symbolic gestures with the schismatic
Patriarch “were an attempt to express precisely th
is” – that is to say, his gestures (such as
kneeling before the representative of the non-Catholic, schismatic Patriarch Athenagoras)
expressed that the schismatics don’t have to believe
 in the Papacy and Vatican I!  Consider this a
smashing vindication of all that we have said
with regard to John Paul II’s incessant gestures
toward the schismatics: giving them relics; givi
ng them donations; prai
sing their “Churches”;
sitting on equal chairs with them; signing
common declarations with them; lifting the
excommunications against them.   
We pointed out again and again that these actions alone (not even considering his other
statements) constituted a teaching that the schismatics don’t have to accept the dogma of the
Papacy.  Countless false traditionalists and members of the Vatican II Church denied this and
tried to explain these gestures away as either
 merely scandalous or something else, but not
heretical.  Well, here we have Ratzinger – now
Benedict XVI, the new “h
ead” of the Vatican II
Church – admitting precisely what we said. 
In the section on Benedict XVI’s heresies, we co
vered in even more detail his other denials of
Vatican I.  We will not repeat all of that
here; please consult that section for more.
So, please tell me, dear reader:  who denies Vati
can I?  Who denies the dogmas on the perpetuity,
authority, and prerogatives of the Papal Office?  Who denies what Christ instituted in St. Peter? 
Is it the sedevacantists, who correctly point out
that a man who denies Vatican I is outside the
Church, outside of the unity – since he rejects,
 among other things, the perpetual principle of
unity (the Papacy) – and therefore cannot occupy
an office or head a Church which he doesn’t
even believe in? 
St. Robert Bellarmine (1610), Doctor of the Church: "
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."
St. Francis De Sales, Doctor of the Church: 

It would indeed be one of the strangest monsters that could be seen – if the head of
the Church
were not of the Church
.”
49
Or are the real deniers of the Papacy and Vatican I those who profess union with a man who
clearly doesn’t even believe in Vatican I; a ma
n who doesn’t even believe that the Papacy and
Vatican I are binding on all Chri
stians; a man who doesn’t even be
lieve that the Papacy was held
in the first millennium? 
The answer is obvious to any sincere and honest pe
rson who considers these facts.  It is Antipope
Benedict XVI, and all who obstinately insist on
union with him, who deny the Papacy; it is the
sedevacantists who are faithful to the Papacy.

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An inquirer into Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #49 on: January 22, 2018, 10:07:27 PM »
So, Sedevacantist: What does it mean for "the gates of hell to prevail against the Church?"
You must define this so Rome remains indefectible, and how the current state does not qualify for Rome falling into heresy.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #50 on: January 22, 2018, 11:06:36 PM »
So, Sedevacantist: What does it mean for "the gates of hell to prevail against the Church?"
You must define this so Rome remains indefectible, and how the current state does not qualify for Rome falling into heresy.
the gates of hell are the heretics, Rome has lost the faith, this was prophesised...
Our Lady of La Salette, Sept. 19, 1846: “Rome will lose the Faith and
become the seat of the Anti-Christ... the Church will be in eclipse.”

Pope Paul IV)
At the time that Paul IV issued the Bull (quoted below) there were rumors that one of
the cardinals was a secret Protestant. In order to prevent the election of such a heretic
to the Papacy, Pope Paul IV solemnly declared that a heretic cannot be validly
elected pope. Below are the pertinent portions of the Bull. For the entire Bull, see
our website.
Pope Paul IV, Bull Cum ex Apostolatus Officio, Feb. 15, 1559: “1...
Remembering also that, where danger is greater, it must more fully and more
diligently be counteracted, We have been concerned lest false prophets or
others, even if they have only secular jurisdiction, should wretchedly ensnare
the souls of the simple, and drag with them into perdition, destruction and
damnation countless peoples committed to their care and rule, either in
spiritual or in temporal matters; and We have been concerned also lest it may
befall Us to see the abomination of desolation, which was spoken of
by the prophet Daniel, in the holy place. In view of this, Our desire has
been to fulfill our Pastoral duty, insofar as, with the help of God,We are able,
so as to arrest the foxes who are occupying themselves in the destruction of the
vineyard of the Lord and to keep the wolves from the sheepfolds, lest We seem
to be dumb watchdogs that cannot bark and lest We perish with the wicked
husbandman and be compared with the hireling...
“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 anArchbishop, 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...”
With the fullness of his papal authority, Pope Paul IV declared that the election of a
heretic is invalid, even if it takes place with the unanimous consent of the cardinals
and is accepted by all.
Pope Paul IV also declared that he was making this declaration in order to combat
the arrival of the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel, in the
holy place. This is astounding, and it seems to indicate that the
Magisterium itself is connecting the eventual arrival of the abomination
of desolation in the holy place (Matthew 24:15) with a heretic posing asthe pope – perhaps because the heretic posing as the pope will give us the
abomination of desolation in the holy place (the New Mass), as we believe is the case,
or because the heretical antipope will himself constitute the abomination of
desolation in the holy place.
The Catholic Encyclopedia repeats this truth declared by Pope Paul IV by asserting
that the election of a heretic as pope would, of course, be completely null and void.
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."


we're in the end times

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An inquirer into Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #51 on: January 23, 2018, 11:39:09 PM »
So, the gates have prevailed against the Church you say.
Funny that the verse which has been the absolute basis of the Papacy is no longer valid.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2018, 11:39:32 PM by LivenotoneviL »
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #52 on: January 24, 2018, 12:19:37 AM »
So, the gates have prevailed against the Church you say.
Funny that the verse which has been the absolute basis of the Papacy is no longer valid.
no, the gates of hell have entered the holy place but have not prevailed against the true Church
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are
the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #53 on: January 24, 2018, 06:15:45 AM »
The excerpt you copy pasted does not answer the question, sedevacantist.

1. Do your bishops or priests have ordinary jurisdiction?
2. If they claim supplied jurisdiction, to what authority are they subject to in order to verify that claim? See the example of a parish priest in a neighboring diocese, he must verify the supply of jurisdiction with the local Bishop, or with Rome. He cannot claim what has been explicitly refused will be implicitly delegated.
3. Thirdly, it cannot come about that there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the Church (no diocesan bishops). Yet, that is what will come about when all bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII die or resign, which has already happened. So how can he be the last Pope?
4. How long do you think an interregnum can last? Only a Pope can appoint bishops to office and there must always be bishops in office. Hence, an interregnum cannot last indefinitely. If you think it can last a 100 or even a 1000 years, you reject the canon on perpetual Petrine succession as explained by Dom Gueranger. Please give specific answers, not a copy paste that doesn't address the questions raised.
« Last Edit: January 24, 2018, 06:17:01 AM by Xavier »
St. Irenaeus of Lyons: "that Tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the Faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #54 on: January 24, 2018, 11:31:29 PM »
The excerpt you copy pasted does not answer the question, sedevacantist.

1. Do your bishops or priests have ordinary jurisdiction?
2. If they claim supplied jurisdiction, to what authority are they subject to in order to verify that claim? See the example of a parish priest in a neighboring diocese, he must verify the supply of jurisdiction with the local Bishop, or with Rome. He cannot claim what has been explicitly refused will be implicitly delegated.
3. Thirdly, it cannot come about that there are no bishops with ordinary jurisdiction in the Church (no diocesan bishops). Yet, that is what will come about when all bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII die or resign, which has already happened. So how can he be the last Pope?
4. How long do you think an interregnum can last? Only a Pope can appoint bishops to office and there must always be bishops in office. Hence, an interregnum cannot last indefinitely. If you think it can last a 100 or even a 1000 years, you reject the canon on perpetual Petrine succession as explained by Dom Gueranger. Please give specific answers, not a copy paste that doesn't address the questions raised.
1. no

2. The authority comes from the same place this excommunicated priest gets it, in the following scenario who would verify any claim?

Canon 2261.2-3, 1917 Code of Canon Law: “...

the faithful may for any just cause ask the sacraments or sacramentals of one who is excommunicated,especially if there is no one else to give them (c. 2261.2).

3. Pope Pius XII was the last valid point because all the others since are heretics, so it be.I'm not saying there will never be another valid pope.

4. It lasts how ever long God seems fit, we should pray He gives us a valid pope.

We don't live in ordinary times, I hope you understand that.

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #55 on: January 24, 2018, 11:45:24 PM »
The excerpt you copy pasted does not answer the question, sedevacantist.


Also I would lie to know if you believe Francis holds the catholic faith, yes or no?
Is the new mass valid?
Is it following Catholic teaching to pray with leaders of other religions?

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An inquirer into Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #56 on: January 26, 2018, 12:40:23 AM »
So, the gates have prevailed against the Church you say.
Funny that the verse which has been the absolute basis of the Papacy is no longer valid.
no, the gates of hell have entered the holy place but have not prevailed against the true Church
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are
the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Also, Sedevacantist, the Church Fathers almost unanimously agree that the "gates of hell" refers to heresies.
It seems impossible that such a situation - where the visible Church just completely disappears - would occur, as it would contradict all of the Church Fathers.
Xavier is right on this one; the idea of Sedevacantism - at least, in terms of having no official connection to the Roman Catholic Church - seems impossible from a Roman Catholic perspective.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Xavier

  • Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 280
  • Faith: Catholic Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Apostolic Throne of St. Peter's
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #57 on: January 26, 2018, 08:34:13 AM »
That doesn't answer the quesrion, sedevacantist. Is it possible for there to be no bishops in office in the Church? Are you aware Vatican I says this is impossible. Not only all the Cardinals but also all the diocesan bishops appointed by Pope Pius XII have died or resigned. Therefore, it is dogmatically certain he cannot be the last Pope. Will get back to your question after you answer that.

Live, Pope St. Leo and the whole Council of Chalcedon clearly shows forth that the See of St. Peter in Rome is the centre of Catholic unity. The ongoings leading up to the Council (more on that in the other thread) show that the practice of appealing to the Apostololic Throne to pass judgment on disputed questions of Faith was universally taken for granted by all sides. Meanwhile, if we say the judgments of the Church of Rome is not protected by the divine promise, it becomes a free for all.

When did the Church of Rome then fall away from the Faith, and who is the authority to decide it had; at Ephesus, (as Nestorius said) Chalcedon, (as the Miaphysites say) or only at Lyons (as the Greek Orthodox say), or Vatican I and II (as some sects like Old Catholics and sedevacanitists say? Which authority is there to decide between these competing claims for certain. In truth, the Church of Rome is guaranteed to be secure forever by the divine promise, as both St. Maximos and St. Theodore testify, so all Catholic Christians are justified in remaining in Her communion.

1. "I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. ...I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith." (Eutyches to Pope St. Leo)

2. "When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar ... the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void."  (Patriarch Flavian to Pope St. Leo)

3. "We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome." (St. Peter Chrysologus to the monk Eutyches)

How, in the light of these and many other clear testimonies, Live, can it be maintained that the Throne of St. Peter in Rome was not guaranteed to pass the right judgment on all matters of Faith? Both the Tradition of the Church of Alexandria and that of the Church of Constantinople bears witness to it.
« Last Edit: January 26, 2018, 08:34:51 AM by Xavier »
St. Irenaeus of Lyons: "that Tradition derived from the Apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also the Faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority" http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #58 on: January 27, 2018, 09:34:29 AM »
So, the gates have prevailed against the Church you say.
Funny that the verse which has been the absolute basis of the Papacy is no longer valid.
no, the gates of hell have entered the holy place but have not prevailed against the true Church
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are
the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Also, Sedevacantist, the Church Fathers almost unanimously agree that the "gates of hell" refers to heresies.
It seems impossible that such a situation - where the visible Church just completely disappears - would occur, as it would contradict all of the Church Fathers.
Xavier is right on this one; the idea of Sedevacantism - at least, in terms of having no official connection to the Roman Catholic Church - seems impossible from a Roman Catholic perspective.
yes the heretics that are spewing their heresies. You and Xaviier have to respond to the fact of the Arian Crisis . That’s why St Athanadius said they have the buildings but we have the faith . You also have to respond to the fact that is the Church’s teaching that a pope if is guilty of being a heretic no longer is pope.  What u 2 are saying then is that a pope can never become a heretic. 

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox, Metropolis of Denver
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #59 on: January 27, 2018, 12:43:49 PM »
Here's the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas...
Indeed, Pope Hormisdas was the first Roman pontiff to claim supremacy over the whole Church, contradicting the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition.  Interestingly enough, he lived under Theodoric the Great, the 2nd Germanic king of Rome, who desired to restore its dominion over Byzantium.  Is it mere coincidence that the secular and ecclesiastic powers of Rome make the same claims in their respective dominions at the same time?
 
(Theologians and canonists also teach "universal recognition of a Pope is a sign and infallible effect of his legitimacy" cf. Billot, Wernz Vidal etc, which also answers sedevacantists)
Half of Christendom doesn't recognize the pope...
« Last Edit: January 27, 2018, 12:44:23 PM by Sharbel »
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #60 on: January 27, 2018, 01:30:26 PM »
The Sedevacantist Solution
The fundamental principle of this solution is that it is impossible
to identify the Novus Ordo with the Catholic Church.
It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in
matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline. If one admits
that the Novus Ordo changes in these matters proceed from the
Catholic Church, then one must admit that the Catholic Church
has defected. For these changes substantially contradict the faith,
morals, worship and discipline of the Catholic Church. But it is
impossible that the Catholic Church defect. Therefore it is impossible that these changes proceed from the Catholic Church.
Therefore it is impossible that those who have enacted these
changes (viz. Paul VI, John Paul I, & John Paul II) enjoy the jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, the mission from Christ to rule the faithful. If they did enjoy this jurisdiction, they would have enjoyed infallibility in these matters, as it is impossible for this authority to teach something false or to prescribe something sinful for the Church. The sedevacantist therefore insist s that one
cannot regard the modernist hierarchy as the Catholic hierarchy,since otherwise one would be associating heresy, sacrilege, invalid sacraments, error, and sinful laws with the Immaculate Spouse of Christ, making absurd the words of Christ, “he
Who hears you, hears Me” (Lk 10:16). In a word, the sedevacantist position is that
the modernist hierarchy cannot possess the Catholic authority which they claim to possess, because the Catholic authority is preserved by the assistance of the Holy Ghost from doing what these modernists have done.

to be continued

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,187
  • The BEST Rothschild
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #61 on: January 27, 2018, 03:34:15 PM »
So, the gates have prevailed against the Church you say.
Funny that the verse which has been the absolute basis of the Papacy is no longer valid.
no, the gates of hell have entered the holy place but have not prevailed against the true Church
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are
the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Also, Sedevacantist, the Church Fathers almost unanimously agree that the "gates of hell" refers to heresies.
It seems impossible that such a situation - where the visible Church just completely disappears - would occur, as it would contradict all of the Church Fathers.
Xavier is right on this one; the idea of Sedevacantism - at least, in terms of having no official connection to the Roman Catholic Church - seems impossible from a Roman Catholic perspective.
yes the heretics that are spewing their heresies. You and Xaviier have to respond to the fact of the Arian Crisis . That’s why St Athanadius said they have the buildings but we have the faith . You also have to respond to the fact that is the Church’s teaching that a pope if is guilty of being a heretic no longer is pope.  What u 2 are saying then is that a pope can never become a heretic.

Bad comparison. St. Athanasius was still a bishop in the line of succession, and you guys are all out of those. Also, as I recall, Catholic apologists love to make hay out of the fact that the Pope himself was never Arian.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #62 on: January 27, 2018, 04:56:25 PM »
So, the gates have prevailed against the Church you say.
Funny that the verse which has been the absolute basis of the Papacy is no longer valid.
no, the gates of hell have entered the holy place but have not prevailed against the true Church
St. Athanasius: "Even if Catholics faithful to tradition are reduced to a handful, they are
the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ.”

Also, Sedevacantist, the Church Fathers almost unanimously agree that the "gates of hell" refers to heresies.
It seems impossible that such a situation - where the visible Church just completely disappears - would occur, as it would contradict all of the Church Fathers.
Xavier is right on this one; the idea of Sedevacantism - at least, in terms of having no official connection to the Roman Catholic Church - seems impossible from a Roman Catholic perspective.
yes the heretics that are spewing their heresies. You and Xaviier have to respond to the fact of the Arian Crisis . That’s why St Athanadius said they have the buildings but we have the faith . You also have to respond to the fact that is the Church’s teaching that a pope if is guilty of being a heretic no longer is pope.  What u 2 are saying then is that a pope can never become a heretic.

Bad comparison. St. Athanasius was still a bishop in the line of succession, and you guys are all out of those. Also, as I recall, Catholic apologists love to make hay out of the fact that the Pope himself was never Arian.
you missed the point

 If the Church’s indefectible mission of teaching, governing and sanctifying required a governing (i.e., jurisdictional) bishop for the Church of Christ to be present and operative in a particular See or diocese, then one would have to say that the Church of Christ defected in all those territories where there was no governing Catholic bishop during the Arian heresy.  However, it is a fact that in the 4th century, where the faithful retained the true Catholic faith, even in those Sees where the Bishop defected to Arianism, the faithful Catholic remnant constituted the true Church of Christ; and therefore, in that remnant, the Catholic Church existed and endured in her mission to teach, govern and sanctify without a governing bishop.  This demonstrates that the Church of Christ’s indefectibility and mission to teach, govern and sanctify does not require the presence of a jurisdictional bishop.

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,187
  • The BEST Rothschild
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #63 on: January 27, 2018, 08:58:23 PM »
But if the Pope has universal immediate jurisdiction, then they would still able to be under him. So even if your reductio ad absurdum were valid (which I'm not saying it is), it would be more of a problem for sedevacantists than for anybody else.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #64 on: January 27, 2018, 11:55:23 PM »
But if the Pope has universal immediate jurisdiction, then they would still able to be under him. So even if your reductio ad absurdum were valid (which I'm not saying it is), it would be more of a problem for sedevacantists than for anybody else.
there' s no problem withthe sede position, the problem lies with people who believe the novus ordo are actually catholic


    Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see… If it has no other importance for modern man, a knowledge of the history of Arianism should demonstrate at least that the Catholic Church takes no account of popularity and numbers in shaping and maintaining doctrine: else, we should long since have had to abandon Basil and Hilary and Athanasius and Liberius and Ossius and call ourselves after Arius.” (The Faith of the Early Fathers, Vol. 2, p. 3.)

If the Arian heresy was so bad that approximately 1% of the jurisdictional bishops remained Catholic and 99% became Arian, and the Great Apostasy preceding the Second Coming of Christ is predicted to be even worse – the worst apostasy of all time – then one should not be surprised by the fact that there are barely any authentically Catholic priests in the world today and no fully Catholic jurisdictional (i.e., governing) bishops to speak of.

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 698
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #65 on: January 28, 2018, 05:31:55 AM »
Quote
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see
Key words here, it wasn't so that there wasn't orthodox bishops but rather the emperor was installing arians and removing the orthodox.

When the times changed back, the orthodox bishops/priests simply retook their positions.
Quote
The fundamental principle of this solution is that it is impossible
to identify the Novus Ordo with the Catholic Church.
It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in
matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline. If one admits
that the Novus Ordo changes in these matters proceed from the
Catholic Church, then one must admit that the Catholic Church
has defected. For these changes substantially contradict the faith,
or instead of starting your own brand new protestant group you could repent and revert back to orthodoxy ?
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 05:37:43 AM by Vanhyo »

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,187
  • The BEST Rothschild
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #66 on: January 28, 2018, 01:47:27 PM »
Quote
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see
Key words here, it wasn't so that there wasn't orthodox bishops but rather the emperor was installing arians and removing the orthodox.

When the times changed back, the orthodox bishops/priests simply retook their positions.

Good point. The faithful Orthodox of the time could just gather around their unlawfully deposed priests and bishops, I imagine. The ones that had not been exiled, at any rate.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 01:48:22 PM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #67 on: January 28, 2018, 03:16:42 PM »
Quote
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see
Key words here, it wasn't so that there wasn't orthodox bishops but rather the emperor was installing arians and removing the orthodox.

When the times changed back, the orthodox bishops/priests simply retook their positions.
Quote
The fundamental principle of this solution is that it is impossible
to identify the Novus Ordo with the Catholic Church.
It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in
matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline. If one admits
that the Novus Ordo changes in these matters proceed from the
Catholic Church, then one must admit that the Catholic Church
has defected. For these changes substantially contradict the faith,
or instead of starting your own brand new protestant group you could repent and revert back to orthodoxy ?
there's no own brand of protestantism, it's the Catholic faith of all times, you must repent and convert to save your soul

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An inquirer into Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #68 on: January 28, 2018, 03:27:56 PM »
Here's the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas...
Indeed, Pope Hormisdas was the first Roman pontiff to claim supremacy over the whole Church, contradicting the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition.  Interestingly enough, he lived under Theodoric the Great, the 2nd Germanic king of Rome, who desired to restore its dominion over Byzantium.  Is it mere coincidence that the secular and ecclesiastic powers of Rome make the same claims in their respective dominions at the same time?
 
(Theologians and canonists also teach "universal recognition of a Pope is a sign and infallible effect of his legitimacy" cf. Billot, Wernz Vidal etc, which also answers sedevacantists)
Half of Christendom doesn't recognize the pope...

On the contrary, I don't think the Formula of Pope Hormisdas means what you think it means - that is, implying Roman Infallibility. Rather, Rome is proclaiming itself to be Orthodox in it's Faith, and anybody who severs communion with the Orthodox Faith is a heretic and schismatic (which would involve breaking communion with Rome). That's my opinion, however nonetheless I could be wrong.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline LivenotoneviL

  • An Indecisive Sinner
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 797
  • Saint Gregory the Dialogist, Pray For Us!
  • Faith: An inquirer into Orthodoxy
  • Jurisdiction: Not a Catechumen, but OCA
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #69 on: January 28, 2018, 03:29:32 PM »
Quote
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see
Key words here, it wasn't so that there wasn't orthodox bishops but rather the emperor was installing arians and removing the orthodox.

When the times changed back, the orthodox bishops/priests simply retook their positions.
Quote
The fundamental principle of this solution is that it is impossible
to identify the Novus Ordo with the Catholic Church.
It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in
matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline. If one admits
that the Novus Ordo changes in these matters proceed from the
Catholic Church, then one must admit that the Catholic Church
has defected. For these changes substantially contradict the faith,
or instead of starting your own brand new protestant group you could repent and revert back to orthodoxy ?
there's no own brand of protestantism, it's the Catholic faith of all times, you must repent and convert to save your soul

The Catholic Faith of all times is Orthodoxy.
"Our wickedness shall not overpower the unspeakable goodness and mercy of God; our dullness shall not overpower God's wisdom, nor our infirmity God's omnipotence."
-Saint John of Kronstadt

Keep shining, star!

Offline Vanhyo

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 698
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Layman in the Bulgarian Orthodox Church
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #70 on: January 28, 2018, 03:53:46 PM »
The Catholic Faith of all times is Orthodoxy.
Correct. It is the Apostolic faith delivered once and for all to the saints believed in all ages and all places by all orthodox christians.

The novus ordo is the natural continuation of middle age roman catholicism, it is basically the same worldly spirit of pride and innovation, however since the modern age is far more wicked, this spirit is much more manifest and eye pocking.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 03:57:47 PM by Vanhyo »

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,187
  • The BEST Rothschild
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #71 on: January 28, 2018, 03:56:03 PM »
Quote
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see
Key words here, it wasn't so that there wasn't orthodox bishops but rather the emperor was installing arians and removing the orthodox.

When the times changed back, the orthodox bishops/priests simply retook their positions.
Quote
The fundamental principle of this solution is that it is impossible
to identify the Novus Ordo with the Catholic Church.
It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in
matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline. If one admits
that the Novus Ordo changes in these matters proceed from the
Catholic Church, then one must admit that the Catholic Church
has defected. For these changes substantially contradict the faith,
or instead of starting your own brand new protestant group you could repent and revert back to orthodoxy ?
there's no own brand of protestantism, it's the Catholic faith of all times, you must repent and convert to save your soul

It's one thing to say there's a Great Apostasy coming in which the Church will be reduced to a remnant (but with actual bishops and maybe a Pope, depending on one's ecclesiology, even if an antipope sits in Rome). It's quite another thing to say that this Apostasy can overcome God's "Visible Sign of Unity." That doesn't make any sense and does sound like a cracked out version of Protestant ecclesiology.

So really, I'd probably move to Kansas and become a follower of "Pope Michael" before I'd join up with whatever group you belong to. At least the Conclavists have a little bit more consistency.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox, Metropolis of Denver
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #72 on: January 28, 2018, 04:46:11 PM »
Here's the formula of Pope St. Hormisdas...
Indeed, Pope Hormisdas was the first Roman pontiff to claim supremacy over the whole Church, contradicting the Holy Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition.  Interestingly enough, he lived under Theodoric the Great, the 2nd Germanic king of Rome, who desired to restore its dominion over Byzantium.  Is it mere coincidence that the secular and ecclesiastic powers of Rome make the same claims in their respective dominions at the same time?

On the contrary, I don't think the Formula of Pope Hormisdas means what you think it means - that is, implying Roman Infallibility...
I'm confused.  As I emphasized above, I meant Roman supremacy.  Or do you mean that, in your opinion, Pope Hormisdas claimed Roman infallibility?  Of course, both usually come together, at times jockeying to be the justification of the other, but methinks that he primarily claimed supreme bishopric.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #73 on: January 28, 2018, 06:02:26 PM »
Quote
Fr. William Jurgens: “In the time of the Emperor Valens (4th century), Basil was virtually the only orthodox Bishop in all the East who succeeded in retaining charge of his see
Key words here, it wasn't so that there wasn't orthodox bishops but rather the emperor was installing arians and removing the orthodox.

When the times changed back, the orthodox bishops/priests simply retook their positions.
Quote
The fundamental principle of this solution is that it is impossible
to identify the Novus Ordo with the Catholic Church.
It is impossible, they say, because of the indefectibility of the Church in
matters of faith, morals, worship and discipline. If one admits
that the Novus Ordo changes in these matters proceed from the
Catholic Church, then one must admit that the Catholic Church
has defected. For these changes substantially contradict the faith,
or instead of starting your own brand new protestant group you could repent and revert back to orthodoxy ?
there's no own brand of protestantism, it's the Catholic faith of all times, you must repent and convert to save your soul

The Catholic Faith of all times is Orthodoxy.
No you should study more. The eastern schismatics lost the faith when they rejected the filioque , they allow for divorce clearly going against Christ’s own words. Papal supremacy etc

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #74 on: January 28, 2018, 06:07:33 PM »
The Catholic Faith of all times is Orthodoxy.
Correct. It is the Apostolic faith delivered once and for all to the saints believed in all ages and all places by all orthodox christians.

The novus ordo is the natural continuation of middle age roman catholicism, it is basically the same worldly spirit of pride and innovation, however since the modern age is far more wicked, this spirit is much more manifest and eye pocking.
You don’t know what you are talking about ,vatican 2 is a clear break from catholicism. There was no break in the midde ages. There are countless miracles of catholics which prove the catholic faith. Read up on Padre Pio for starters

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,187
  • The BEST Rothschild
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #75 on: January 28, 2018, 06:23:12 PM »
The Catholic Faith of all times is Orthodoxy.
Correct. It is the Apostolic faith delivered once and for all to the saints believed in all ages and all places by all orthodox christians.

The novus ordo is the natural continuation of middle age roman catholicism, it is basically the same worldly spirit of pride and innovation, however since the modern age is far more wicked, this spirit is much more manifest and eye pocking.
You don’t know what you are talking about ,vatican 2 is a clear break from catholicism. There was no break in the midde ages. There are countless miracles of catholics which prove the catholic faith. Read up on Padre Pio for starters

Miracle claims are a dime a dozen and thus don't prove anything between competing sects. Orthodox have plenty of them, Pentecostals have more.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline Sharbel

  • Glory to God in all things!
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 686
  • Faith: Catechumen
  • Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox, Metropolis of Denver
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #76 on: January 28, 2018, 08:22:05 PM »
You don’t know what you are talking about ,vatican 2 is a clear break from catholicism. There was no break in the midde ages. There are countless miracles of catholics which prove the catholic faith. Read up on Padre Pio for starters
Ergo, VII was not a break from Catholicism, since we have Sts. Theresa of Calcutta's and JPII's miracles.
ܩܕܝܫܐ ܐܢ̱ܬ ܠܐ ܡܝܘܬܐ

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #77 on: January 28, 2018, 09:57:22 PM »
You don’t know what you are talking about ,vatican 2 is a clear break from catholicism. There was no break in the midde ages. There are countless miracles of catholics which prove the catholic faith. Read up on Padre Pio for starters
Ergo, VII was not a break from Catholicism, since we have Sts. Theresa of Calcutta's and JPII's miracles.
who is his we? are you a catholic? give me proof John Paul 2's miracle

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #78 on: January 28, 2018, 09:58:53 PM »
The Catholic Faith of all times is Orthodoxy.
Correct. It is the Apostolic faith delivered once and for all to the saints believed in all ages and all places by all orthodox christians.

The novus ordo is the natural continuation of middle age roman catholicism, it is basically the same worldly spirit of pride and innovation, however since the modern age is far more wicked, this spirit is much more manifest and eye pocking.
You don’t know what you are talking about ,vatican 2 is a clear break from catholicism. There was no break in the midde ages. There are countless miracles of catholics which prove the catholic faith. Read up on Padre Pio for starters

Miracle claims are a dime a dozen and thus don't prove anything between competing sects. Orthodox have plenty of them, Pentecostals have more.
give me proof of a miracle from some pentecostal pastor, I don't want  a miracle that has happened to a non catholic, those have happened but not because of some leader of a false religion

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,187
  • The BEST Rothschild
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #79 on: January 28, 2018, 10:09:59 PM »
The Catholic Faith of all times is Orthodoxy.
Correct. It is the Apostolic faith delivered once and for all to the saints believed in all ages and all places by all orthodox christians.

The novus ordo is the natural continuation of middle age roman catholicism, it is basically the same worldly spirit of pride and innovation, however since the modern age is far more wicked, this spirit is much more manifest and eye pocking.
You don’t know what you are talking about ,vatican 2 is a clear break from catholicism. There was no break in the midde ages. There are countless miracles of catholics which prove the catholic faith. Read up on Padre Pio for starters

Miracle claims are a dime a dozen and thus don't prove anything between competing sects. Orthodox have plenty of them, Pentecostals have more.
give me proof of a miracle from some pentecostal pastor, I don't want  a miracle that has happened to a non catholic, those have happened but not because of some leader of a false religion

I'm not talking about proof. I doubt any Pentecostal miracle claims are actually true. I'm just saying that you can't prove one allegedly Christian sect over all others by appealing to miracle claims. Even if it were theoretically possible it would take a lifetime to not only thoroughly defend all of yours, but to debunk all possible competitors.
« Last Edit: January 28, 2018, 10:10:37 PM by Volnutt »
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things

Offline sedevacantist

  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 542
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #80 on: January 28, 2018, 10:25:01 PM »
The Catholic Faith of all times is Orthodoxy.
Correct. It is the Apostolic faith delivered once and for all to the saints believed in all ages and all places by all orthodox christians.

The novus ordo is the natural continuation of middle age roman catholicism, it is basically the same worldly spirit of pride and innovation, however since the modern age is far more wicked, this spirit is much more manifest and eye pocking.
You don’t know what you are talking about ,vatican 2 is a clear break from catholicism. There was no break in the midde ages. There are countless miracles of catholics which prove the catholic faith. Read up on Padre Pio for starters

Miracle claims are a dime a dozen and thus don't prove anything between competing sects. Orthodox have plenty of them, Pentecostals have more.
give me proof of a miracle from some pentecostal pastor, I don't want  a miracle that has happened to a non catholic, those have happened but not because of some leader of a false religion

I'm not talking about proof. I doubt any Pentecostal miracle claims are actually true. I'm just saying that you can't prove one allegedly Christian sect over all others by appealing to miracle claims. Even if it were theoretically possible it would take a lifetime to not only thoroughly defend all of yours, but to debunk all possible competitors.
Padre Pio's miracles are numerous, if you can debunk just 1 wouldn't that crush my position? I'm merely asking you for 1 miracle that can be proven from one of those leaders ,pastors of a false religion

Online Volnutt

  • Dull Sublunary Lover
  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,187
  • The BEST Rothschild
  • Faith: Evangelical by default
  • Jurisdiction: Spiritually homeless
Re: Roman primacy of jurisdiction in the time of patriarch Photius.
« Reply #81 on: January 28, 2018, 11:01:54 PM »
The Catholic Faith of all times is Orthodoxy.
Correct. It is the Apostolic faith delivered once and for all to the saints believed in all ages and all places by all orthodox christians.

The novus ordo is the natural continuation of middle age roman catholicism, it is basically the same worldly spirit of pride and innovation, however since the modern age is far more wicked, this spirit is much more manifest and eye pocking.
You don’t know what you are talking about ,vatican 2 is a clear break from catholicism. There was no break in the midde ages. There are countless miracles of catholics which prove the catholic faith. Read up on Padre Pio for starters

Miracle claims are a dime a dozen and thus don't prove anything between competing sects. Orthodox have plenty of them, Pentecostals have more.
give me proof of a miracle from some pentecostal pastor, I don't want  a miracle that has happened to a non catholic, those have happened but not because of some leader of a false religion

I'm not talking about proof. I doubt any Pentecostal miracle claims are actually true. I'm just saying that you can't prove one allegedly Christian sect over all others by appealing to miracle claims. Even if it were theoretically possible it would take a lifetime to not only thoroughly defend all of yours, but to debunk all possible competitors.
Padre Pio's miracles are numerous, if you can debunk just 1 wouldn't that crush my position?

Not really, no. It would depend on a lot of specifics. I would likely have to debunk all or most of them, and even then we would have to have a conversation about the specifics of what makes each one a non-miracle (deception on the Padre's part, deception on somebody else's part whether human or demonic, simple misconstrual by observers, etc). We would possibly also have to ask the question of why Padre Pio should count as evidence for your sect specifically over and against the Novus Ordo RCC (didn't Padre Pio bless Abp. Lefebvre's endeavors?) or even one of the Conclavist groups.

I'm merely asking you for 1 miracle that can be proven from one of those leaders ,pastors of a false religion

Well, you're not going to get it from me because I didn't set out to play dueling miracle claims with you. I. like Sharbel, only wanted to point out the futility of trying to use miracle claims to prop up the RCC over and against any other church.
Quote
The breath of Thine Holy Spirit inspires artists, poets and scientists. The power of Thy supreme knowledge makes them prophets and interpreters of Thy laws, who reveal the depths of Thy creative wisdom. Their works speak unwittingly of Thee. How great art Thou in Thy creation! How great art Thou in man!
Akathist Hymn- Glory to God for All Things