W
Wandile
Guest
Thank you… I’ll edit my post
- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
I just wanted to give a further explanation of this for our readers.
When a bishop is deposed by the power of the Law, what normally happens is a higher ecclesiastical authority confirms the deposition by a decree. This is popularly interpreted by the regular observer to mean that the higher ecclesiastical authority is the one who has deposed the bishop – but it is actually the Law that has deposed the bishop.
The unique authority of the Pope of Rome lies in his prerogative to dispense from the deposing power of the Law (if the dispensation is truly merited, of course). This normally involves an ecclesiastical trial.
Those really knowledgeable in Church history will recognize that this is nothing novel, It is actually nothing more than an application of the ancient Canons of Sardica.
Blessings,
Marduk
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I clarified what I meant by “new doctrine” in another post. I simply meant making something doctrine, which had not been doctrine before. I in no way meant to imply that it was necessarily something novel (the Assumption is an excellent example), as that weakens my position. I do not believe the Bishop of Rome has the right or the privilege to pronounce anything as doctrine on his own.Straw man. Catholics do not believe the pope can pronounce new doctrine secondly th pope didn’t pronounce himself infallible (Which you assert), the 20th ecumenical council did
Oh and papal infallibility. Isn’t new at all:
From John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:
“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”
Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)
What if the school board says he is the only one allowed to?
Btw the catholic church says the magesterium is the sole interpreter of tradition and scripture, not the Pope alone. Another straw man.
To be continued…
The teachings of the Catholic Church make it clear that it doesn’t believe the Pope to be completely infallible, but rather infallible on issues of faith and morals. That quote from Patriarch John doesn’t seem to make that distinction (and I must comment I can find out nothing more beyond the fact that he used the regnal IV. Does Scott give a source for this excerpt?), which is strange on such an important matter. Either he was using the flowery language normal at the time - or he believed the Bishops of Rome to be much more than the Catholic Church says he is.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I think you’re reading a lot into the political reasons for creating Constantinople as a Patriarchal city. Do you have any evidence to back up the idea that it was done to lessen Rome’s own authority? While Rome seemed threatened, this doesn’t ever seem to have been the case.The point that I am making is that Rome had more traditional authority what can be read from the canons of the Ecumenical Councils. This was uncontested until there were political reasons to elevate a city See to a metropolitan See and made to be second to Rome. The authority of Rome was being contested by the authority of the emperor and his imperial capital. Constantinople was the emperors’ project and they certainly did not desire Rome to have its traditional authority.
You are the first Orthodox Christian that I have come across to say that.
It was a political move to lessen the preeminent authority of Ante-Nicene Rome and create a pentarchy of equals (Rome being first) and to give special favor to the imperial city above the non-Roman patriarchates established by St Peter and the universal Church. The idea of the pentarchy is foreign to Ante-Nicene tradition. There is nothing to suggest that the Ante-Nicene Church had a similar ecclesiology (for example a triarchy).
N
Nine_Two
Guest
According to that second quote (I don’t see any such claims in the first) there were some Canons to back up St, Maximos’s point. I’m always leery of texts taken from Catholic Encyclopedia or from the PG. All too often there is a lot of prooftexting in them. It would be nice to have some context.
You are correct, as I did concede.
I disagree. Christ had Peter gone off on his own away from the other apostles he would have been disobeying Christ. “Feed my sheep” was a command, not just the granting of permission to do so.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
And here we finally reach Universal Jurisdiction.
I’m aware that this is your position but how do you connect this to the accepted position as “Universal Teacher”?
I’ve never been in a school where a teacher could fire coworkers. And if you want to make a comparison with a principal, well they can’t just go take over any classroom they please, so they clearly don’t have teaching authority, just jurisdictional authority.
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Hey Nine_Two,
I know I said I was out, but I just want to help with that reference as I have Scott’s book and it is out of print. Before introducing the citation he writes:
“Pere Salaville has drawn attention to the same point in an article 21 in the Echos d’Orient, 1910 (p. 171), in which he deals with a letter written by John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (575-593) to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks who had a colony in his see-city. The letter, probably published first in Greek, and an Armenian version of which was in recent times discovered and published (1896) in Etchmiadzin, contains the following independent testimony to Eastern belief in the prerogative and function of the Apostolic See: …” (p. 359)
Regards,
Nick
F
frjohnmorris
Guest
When considering the position that the Bishop of Rome actually held in the ancient Church, the words of St. Cyprian of Carthage are particularly important because they clearly show that Rome merely occupied a primacy of honor, not of jurisdiction:
At the African Synod of 256, St. Cyprian said:
No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in freedom of his liberty and power posses the right to his own mnd and can no be judged by another than he himself can judge anoher…
In Epistle 71:3, he wrote “Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom he built His Church, when Paul later disputed with hm over circumcision, did not claim in insolently any perogatives for himself nor make any assumptions no say that he ought to be obeyed.
Writing about St. Cyprian’s view of the authority of Rome in Epistle 59,14, the great Patrologists Johannss Questen wrote, “Thus in the cathedra Petri is to him the ecclesia principalis and the point of origin of the unitas sacradotalis. However, even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees, because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese, 'since to each shepherd has been assigned one diocese, 'since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord.”
If he refuses to the bishop of Rome any higher power to maintain by legislation the solidarity of which he is the center, it must be because he regards the primacy as one of honor ant the bishop of Rome as primas iner pares. p. 376.
From Johnnes Quasten, Patrology vol. II, pp. 374-376.
Archpriest John W. Morris
At the African Synod of 256, St. Cyprian said:
No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in freedom of his liberty and power posses the right to his own mnd and can no be judged by another than he himself can judge anoher…
In Epistle 71:3, he wrote “Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom he built His Church, when Paul later disputed with hm over circumcision, did not claim in insolently any perogatives for himself nor make any assumptions no say that he ought to be obeyed.
Writing about St. Cyprian’s view of the authority of Rome in Epistle 59,14, the great Patrologists Johannss Questen wrote, “Thus in the cathedra Petri is to him the ecclesia principalis and the point of origin of the unitas sacradotalis. However, even in this letter he makes it quite clear that he does not concede to Rome any higher right to legislate for other sees, because he expects her not to interfere in his own diocese, 'since to each shepherd has been assigned one diocese, 'since to each separate shepherd has been assigned one portion of the flock to direct and govern and render hereafter an account of his ministry to the Lord.”
If he refuses to the bishop of Rome any higher power to maintain by legislation the solidarity of which he is the center, it must be because he regards the primacy as one of honor ant the bishop of Rome as primas iner pares. p. 376.
From Johnnes Quasten, Patrology vol. II, pp. 374-376.
Archpriest John W. Morris
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
A quotation was given in this very post forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11340503&postcount=716My issue is when I’m asking for a quote, I’d like to have a quote properly referenced.
iow the answer is no, a quote is not coming.
Look, I tried to stay on point. If I quote, I give the author and the reference, properly referenced.Shoot, I even give the link.
I don’t expect people to have to hunt for quotes I give to see if they are even valid, or if I’m putting spin on someone elses quote . If I paraphrase a quote I say it is a paraphrase. But I always give the reference so someone can look at the actual quote. If someone says it’s in Chrysostom’s exegesis on Acts, fine, then give along with giving me the quote, also give me the source properly referenced.
Here’s my responses on this to validate what I’m saying. This started the digging into what Chrysostom wrote
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337252&postcount=635 I gave a quote properly referenced
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337319&postcount=640 I asked for a quote in return
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337550&postcount=651 I gave more quotes properly referenced
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11337617&postcount=655 I respond to a contradiction of Chrysostom that was already quoted
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11340271&postcount=698 I reaffirm the need for needing that quote back in post 635.
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=11342595&postcount=750 in post 635 I posted a quote from Chrysostom from his Homily 88 on John. Then I ask for a quote in post 640 that validate what was being said by the poster. That’s fair. 115 posts later, still no quote given to my request. So when you say “I will do my utmost to not try to help you out in the future” I’m thinking to myself, you’ve done a great job of it from the beginning.
St. John Chrysostom explicitly writes that James was invested with “chief rule.” Perhaps now the needlessly rude and snide tone can be dropped (but I doubt that this reasonable request will be granted).
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Please, at least give the proper citation. That second is from the supposed letter to Peter, which we do not have in Greek (and though my Latin is pretty terrible, I’m not entirely sure that this English translation is exactly faithful to the extant Latin text). It is not from the Opuscula theological et polemica, and it certainly is not from PG 90, considering that Opusc. is in PG 91. But I suppose that truth and accuracy are the last thing on most people’s minds when it comes to prooftexting. So long as a quotation of the Fathers can be weaponized absent the proper interpretation according to the patristic phronema, even if one knows not whence it came or what its immediate context is, then I suppose it is fair game…
S
steve_b
Guest
It’s never rude or snide to ask for references. That way a response can deal with actual context.
Since we are talking about Crysostom’s views on authority, then one has to look at what St John’s body of work has to say when it comes to Peter’s role and the other apostles and in extension authority in the entire Church (Our Lord’s sheep)…true?
(emphasis mine)
“He (Jesus) puts into his hands (Peter) the presidency over the brethren. And He brings not forward the denial, nor reproches him with what had past, but says, 'If you love me, preside over the brethren …and the third time He gives him the same injunction, showing what a price He sets the presidency over His own sheep. And if one should say, ‘How then did James receive the throne of Jerusalem?,’ this I would answer that He appointed this man (Peter) teacher, not of that throne, but of the whole world.” [Chrysostom homily 88 on John]
Peter holds the highest position of authority in the Church worldwide. So when St John talks about Peter in the council at Jerusalem, Peter gives the answer to the problem they are dealing with, and James as bishop of Jerusalem, appropriately confirmed Peter’s teaching.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
Thank you for the reference. I was hoping he might have included enough information to find out a little more context.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
If you quote that passage just two more times all the Orthodox posters here will have to convert to Catholicism.
True story.
S
steve_b
Guest
Jerusalem added at the time of Constantinople?
S
steve_b
Guest
When Chrysostom was exiled he appealed to the pope for help, but his request was made too late for the pope to be able do anything to save him before John died…
newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm
Q
QNDNNDQDCE
Guest
“Thou art Peter and upon THIS ROCK I will build my Church.”
-Matthew 16:18
Renounce your schismatic ways!!!
D
dzheremi
Guest
Uh oh…he put it in a weird font…and underlined a few things…I can feel my commitment to traditional ecclesiology weakening…!
Forgive me.
To correct my statement, it was a political move to support the new capital. The lessening of Rome’s authority was a secondary result of that action.My point is that ante-Nicene Rome was held as a higher authority than the post-Nicene II, Eastern understanding of Rome. Rome certainly has always seen herself higher than what the Orthodox see her to be.
W
Wandile
Guest
Despite all the wild accusations against my true intentions. I apologize for the wrong reference. Nine_Two the second quote is from (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692)
- Status