Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Nine_Two]

Well that’s a little silly, Steve B. If I wanted to make sure that my letter gets delivered to the Vatican, would I be better off addressing it to “Vatican City” or to “The Holy See”? The mail-carrier would probably know what I mean (especially if the Vatican is on his regular route), but it’d be better addressed to Vatican City. This doesn’t mean that if I refer to it as “The Holy See” instead, suddenly Vatican City disappears or something.

Apparently the Postal Services rule the world. They’re like lizard people.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well this is interesting. You write a post that talks about protestants over and over, and then when someone responds to it you say “Protestantism doesn’t belong on this thread.”

It is April Fool’s Day already?

More of a brick wall than a jester.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Rome the see, wasn’t listed 1st because Rome is the capital of the empire and where the emperor resided, it’s listed 1st because the Church of Rome is Peter’s see.

Why do all this for Constantinople? When it was Byzantium, it wasn’t an ancient see.

There WERE no patriarchates in the beginning. Prior to Byzantium becomming Constantinople, you know already various ECF’s had to say re: Rome and all the other Churches.

There was an understanding of order, but the Bp of Rome was not limited as the other bishops were.

You skipped over alot of history there.

Prior to Constantinople

• ~250 a.d. "to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access**."Cyprian**Epistle 54 newadvent.org/fathers/050654.htm
• ~180 a.d. All must agree with Rome ( Church of Rome) [Irenaeus Bk 3, Ch 3, v 2-3]Chapter 3
• ~107 a.d. Rome (the Church) hold the presidency Ignatius letter to the Church of Rome
• ~80 a.d. Clement of Rome settles sedition among bishops in Corinth Greece

You have taken Cyprian completely out of context. St. Cyprian did not hesitate to disagree with Pope St Stephen on the matter of the Baptism of heretics. In fact if you read the whole text of St. Cyprian’s “On the Unity of the Catholic Church” you will find that he rejected Roman primacy.
In the East as any historian knows sees were ranked according to the position of the city within the Roman Empire. After St. Constantine built Constantinople as the New Rome, the Archbishop of Constantinople took second rank to Rome as provided at the 2nd Ecumenical Council and equal rank as provided by the 4th Ecumenical Council. Canon 28 of Chalcedon shows that the East did not recognize the claims of Rome to universal jurisdiction. Rome only had a primacy of honor during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils

Archpriest John W. Morris
Go back and read Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council. It clearly limits the authority of the Bishop of Rome and affirms the independence of Alexandria and Antioch…

 

[Richca]

You have taken Cyprian completely out of context. St. Cyprian did not hesitate to disagree with Pope St Stephen on the matter of the Baptism of heretics. In fact if you read the whole text of St. Cyprian’s “On the Unity of the Catholic Church” you will find that he rejected Roman primacy.
In the East as any historian knows sees were ranked according to the position of the city within the Roman Empire. After St. Constantine built Constantinople as the New Rome, the Archbishop of Constantinople took second rank to Rome as provided at the 2nd Ecumenical Council and equal rank as provided by the 4th Ecumenical Council. Canon 28 of Chalcedon shows that the East did not recognize the claims of Rome to universal jurisdiction. Rome only had a primacy of honor during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils

Archpriest John W. Morris
Go back and read Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council. It clearly limits the authority of the Bishop of Rome and affirms the independence of Alexandria and Antioch…

Since canon 3 of Constantinople I which placed Constantinople after Rome in honor and canon 28 of Chalcedon were not accepted by Rome, these canons cannot be considered ecumenical canons.

 

[josie_L]

There was no official ranking until after the First Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325. In the East the ranking was based on the status of the see city, not its Apostolic foundations. When Constantinople became the new capital of the Roman Empire, it was only natural that it be given equal status to the old capital of the Empire. The 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constntinople I in 381 gave Constantinople 2 rank. The 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 451 gave Constantinople equal rank with Rome. These ranks were purely honorific. The canons also prevented one Patriarch from interfering in the eternal affairs of another Patriarch.
No Roman Pope ever exercised authority over the Eastern Patriarchates. His authority was limited to the West by canon VI of the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325. Only slowly did the Popes begin to claim authority over the Eastern Patriarchates. The firs time that Rome claimed authority over Constantinople was during the Patriarchate of St. Photius. Even then the Pope appealed to a council for support of his decision to refuse to recognize St. Photius. Pope Nicholas I lacked the authority to act on his own. Historically, the Bishop of Rome did not exercise universal jurisdiction during the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Only an Ecumenical Council representing the entire Church had such authority, not the Pope. That is not a matter of opinion. That is a matter of historical fact.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Well, as a Catholic I disagree with your “facts”, the universal jurisdiction that was given as such to Popes was due to Petrine privileges, i.e., it was rooted in Christ’s own words to Peter (Sacred tradition supports the view that Peter held singular privileges, and that his successors in Rome would hold these privileges in perpetuity). Moreover, if the pope’s role as the successor of Peter, as Christ claimed, is to strengthen the Brethren (not just specific brethren, but all), then, it need not imply that because he has universal jurisdiction he must act alone in order to strengthen the brethren, i.e., he can use an ecumenical council to uphold the faith of his brothers. What an ecumenical council cannot do is disregard the pope’s decisions on matters of faith and morals, and/or hold a synod without the pope’s final ratification. In the words of Pope St. Gelasius (ca. 492):

“The first See both confirms every synod by its authority, and guards by its continuous rule, by reason, to wit, of its supremacy, which, it received by the Apostle Peter from the mouth of the Lord, the Church nevertheless seconding, it both always has held and retains. . . We will not pass over in silence what every Church throughout the world knows, that the See of the Blessed Apostle Peter has the right to absolve from what been bound by the sentence of any prelates whatsoever, in that it has the right of judging of the whole Church; neither is it lawful for anyone to pass judgment on its judgments, seeing that the canons have willed that it may be appealed to from any part of the world, but that from it no one be permitted to appeal.”

 

[theistgal]

Since I’m getting ready to start a retreat, I’m officially banning myself from this and all other CAF threads for 7 days.

Folks, you’re on your own!

 

[Cavaradossi]

Irrelevant? Wait a minute.

Looking at the ranking of sees Before and after Constantinople

(BC) before Constantinople

1. • Rome
   • Alexandria
   • Antioch
   • Jerusalem
   (AC) After Constantinople
   
   1. • Rome
      • Constantinople
      • Alexandria
      • Antioch
      • Jerusalem
      What changed?
      • Constantinople took 2nd spot behind Rome
      • Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were put behind Constantinople, moving each see down one spot. Can we hear a holy COW to that one?
      • The patriarchal system was introduced by the East to equalize authority among 5 sees, (pentarchy) and move chief authority away from Rome the chair of Peter. Another holy COW!!!

1. 1. 
      Incorrect. Jerusalem originally was not a patriarchate, and was not even afforded the honors of a metropolitan see (look at the canons of Nicaea). If one were to look at the ranking of the sees before the First Council of Constantinople (which, as far as I am aware, the Roman Catholic Church accounts as an ecumenical council), it would not have had Jerusalem in the fourth place, but rather much lower, because it was, according to canon 7 of Nicaea, still subordinate to the local metropolitan at that time, and it was in fact not afforded the right of being ranked fifth until the Council of Chalcedon (before which it did not rank fourth).

 

[Cavaradossi]

Since canon 3 of Constantinople I which placed Constantinople after Rome in honor and canon 28 of Chalcedon were not accepted by Rome, these canons cannot be considered ecumenical canons.

But as far as I know, they were accepted by the Council of Constantinople of 869, which Rome has accepted since the 12th century as the eighth ecumenical council.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

So the Roman Pope has a line item veto of Councils?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Since canon 3 of Constantinople I which placed Constantinople after Rome in honor and canon 28 of Chalcedon were not accepted by Rome, these canons cannot be considered ecumenical canons.

Rome does not have the authority to veto the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. Rome accepted the 5th,6th,and 7th, Ecumencial Councils. If you read the official decisions on these councils, you will see that they all follow the same formula. They ratify the decisions of the previous Ecumenical Councils and then state their decisions. By accepting, the 5th, 6th and 7th Councils, Rome accepted the decisions of the 4th Ecumenical Council. Rome did not have a line item veto of the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils. The Pope was subject to the authority of the Ecumenical Councils as the case of Pope Vililus during the 5th Council, Constantinople II in 553 shows. The 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680 did not hesitate to officially condemn Pope Honorius I for heresy. Canon 28 of Chalcedon stands as a witness to the fact that the Eastern Patriarchs never recognized the universal jurisdiction of Rome, but only recognized Rome as holding a primacy of honor as first among equals like that held today in Eastern Orthodoxy by the Ecumenical Patriarchate. Even in your own history, read the canons of the Council of Constance in 1415 which proclaimed that the Pope is subject to the authority of Ecumenical Councils. You cannot honestly read the history of the Church and argue that the papacy as it has existed since 1870 was not the product of a long development and that the East never recognized the papal claims.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

But as far as I know, they were accepted by the Council of Constantinople of 869, which Rome has accepted since the 12th century as the eighth ecumenical council.

It is interesting to note that the papal legates at the Council of 869 demanded that Patriarch Ignatius and the council recognize the authority of the Pope to unilaterally make declarations on the doctrine of the Church, Patriarch Ignatius and the rest of the council refused and told the papal legates that only the agreement of all 5 Patriarchs of the Church can make doctrinal proclamations. The canons of 869 in no way recognize papal supremacy or the authority of the Pope to intervene in the affairs of the Patriarchate of Constantinople. If you want proof that the Popes did not exercise universal jurisdiction, the Council of 869 is your proof. The Eastern Orthodox do not recognize the Council of 869. We recognize the Council of 679 during which the papal legates promised not to add the filioque to the Creed, a promise that Rome broke in 1014.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[spina1953]

To steve b: Your post #1148 Now there are five patriarchs at the head of the Church, seems to me that there are five heads of the Church. I see your point. I guess being number one does not count. Expoundig on your thought correct me if I am wrong; what would happen if all five Patriarchs disagreed with other? or for the matter in an Ecumunical Council? it sounds scary to me. Thats why I think the Pope has the autority given him by Jesus, someone needs to keeps others in line and use authority when needed. it also means that when all are in agreement than the Pope pronounces it.

 

[spina1953]

to Pst #1155: As to the Crusades I agree, however, just because the Pope has power and authority does not mean he has to use it or exersize it.

 

[spina1953]

To joiseL your post #1162 You make a sense and your point are great! your post of #1165 is to me spot on! coukld not have explained it better!!!

 

[spina1953]

About post #1147: Concerning theSacraments yes I understand the Orthodx Chrismte Confrim) immediately after their baptism,whereas the Catholic Church practice first Communion then Conformation later. tere is a reason for this as one begins to learn the Catholi faith and its teachings it takes tme before one idss ready to recieve Conformation as when one does they become full members of the Curch to defend it against all false teachings as well as herecies at oleast that is how it was explained to me. As to the proper order of the Sacraments where did that come from? I never heard of it nor has anyone I know taught that. Where is there a proper order of Sacruments and why would itmake any difference if one is Baptized then one can recieve te Sacraments as they learn wht it means to recieve a Sacrament.

 

[RyanBlack]

About post #1147: Concerning theSacraments yes I understand the Orthodx Chrismte Confrim) immediately after their baptism,whereas the Catholic Church practice first Communion then Conformation later. tere is a reason for this as one begins to learn the Catholi faith and its teachings it takes tme before one idss ready to recieve Conformation as when one does they become full members of the Curch to defend it against all false teachings as well as herecies at oleast that is how it was explained to me. As to the proper order of the Sacraments where did that come from? I never heard of it nor has anyone I know taught that. Where is there a proper order of Sacruments and why would itmake any difference if one is Baptized then one can recieve te Sacraments as they learn wht it means to recieve a Sacrament.

This is the current practice of the Roman Church. Eastern Catholics baptize, and immediately chrismate and admit to communion, just as the Orthodox. This was also the universal practice of the ancient Church. Furthermore, even though the Roman Church stopped communing infants in the Middle Ages, it was only in fairly recent times that Rome placed reception of communion before administering confirmation.

 

[spina1953]

To Ryan Black Post 1179> I agree wit what you stated. I was only commenting on what frjohnmorris was saying.

 

[frjohnmorris]

To steve b: Your post #1148 Now there are five patriarchs at the head of the Church, seems to me that there are five heads of the Church. I see your point. I guess being number one does not count. Expoundig on your thought correct me if I am wrong; what would happen if all five Patriarchs disagreed with other? or for the matter in an Ecumunical Council? it sounds scary to me. Thats why I think the Pope has the autority given him by Jesus, someone needs to keeps others in line and use authority when needed. it also means that when all are in agreement than the Pope pronounces it.

It is no longer just 5 Patriarchs. There were 5 Patriarchs in 1054, but today there are 15 autocephalous Churches in Eastern Orthodoxy, so it now requires the agreement of all 15 autocephalous Churches. It is not as difficult as it sounds, because the doctrine of the Church is already well established and does not change. We have disagreements on administrative matters, but not on doctrine. If we have disagreements on administrative matters, it sometimes takes some time to work them trough. A Roman Catholic cannot criticize us for our administrative disagreements, because the Protestant Reformation began as a dispute over doctrine among Roman Catholics, but despite the authority of the Pope the disagreements were not resolved but instead led to a permanent schism and the fracturing of Western Christianity by one division after another.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Nine_Two]

Seven Patriarchs in 1054. Bulgaria was added in 927, and Georgia in 1010.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Seven Patriarchs in 1054. Bulgaria was added in 927, and Georgia in 1010.

I stand corrected. The granting of autocephaly and recognition of its primate as a Patriarch by Constantinople shows that the Eastern Church did not recognize the universal jurisdiction of Rome because Rome was not consulted on the matter because Bulgaria fell under the authority or Constantinople. Antioch originally had authority over Georgia. However, in 480 Antioch raised the primate of the Georgian Church to the rank of Catholocos, and Patriarch in 1010. Once again an indication that Antioch and the rest of the East did not recognize the universal jurisdiction of Rome, because Antioch had the authority to grant autocephaly to one of its daughter Churches.
The major problem with the modern Roman claims is that it can easily be shown that the East never recognized the position of the Bishop of Rome as holding anything but a primacy of honor, because the Bishop of Rome was a successor to St. Peter and Bishop of the old capital of the Empire.

Archpriest John W. Morris