Define "Supremacy"

  • Thread starter Thread starter GAssisi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Even though the words “I will give unto thee” were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23) The verb in Greek for “ye remit”, aphete, is second person plural, obviously not referring to one person only. Had the authority been granted to Peter alone, the text would read, “whose soever sins thou remittest”, but since “ye” is plural, we understand that the gift was given to all the apostles. Also, the words “I will give” indicate a future time, namely after the resurrection. The actual granting of the authority to remit sins takes place on the occasion described in Jn. 20:23, when, after the resurrection, the Lord breaths on all the assembled disciples.
Click to expand...
"Jesus entrusted a specific authority to Peter: ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ The ‘power of the keys’ designates authority to govern the house of God, which is the Church. Jesus, the Good Shepherd, confirmed this mandate after his Resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ The power to ‘bind and loose’ connotes the authority to absolve sins, to pronounce doctrinal judgements, and to make disciplinary decisions in the Church. Jesus entrusted this authority to the Church through the ministry of the apostles and in particular through the ministry of Peter, the only one to whom he specifically entrusted the keys of the kingdom. " (CCC, 553)
 
Dear Steve,

I see the letters of Pope Honorius to Sergius were burned as a result of Pope Honorius having no interest in teaching a heresy. Quite a concoction Pope Honorius wasn’t teaching heresy he was just talking about teaching it, but really he didn’t mean it and all those other hierarchs from the east and west had been confused? A very sad story.

Dear Sarah,

I’m familiar with the Latin understanding.

After all this is really all to no avail as it has been for centuries now.

Thank you for your time.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
 
[Without the popes approval, none of those councils were binding on the Church.]

Huh? Out of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church -
  1. Not one was called for by a pope.
  2. Not one was presided over by a pope.
  3. Not one was even attended by a pope.
And nowhere, in any canon of any of those councils does it state any counceil has to be ratified by a pope in order to become a recognized council.

Orthodoc
 
Dear Orthodoc,

I know you are able to understand the below and how the Protestants understood infallibility.

What did some of the pre-schism early church fathers have to say about ‘Peter and the ROCK’ -

Cyprian, unwilling to grant even a simple primacy to the Bishop of Rome, considers that “the whole body of bishops is addressed
in Peter.” St. Cyprian rightly concludes that the “Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter.” (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate,
cap. 4-5)

“I believe that by the Rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles.” (St. Hilary, 2nd Book on the Trinity)

Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18, et. al.) NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM applies these
passages to the Roman bishops as Peter’s successor. How many Fathers had busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose
commentaries we possess, Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Theodoric… has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Peter is the consequence of the commission and
promise to Peter. Not one of them has explained the Rock or foundation on which Christ will build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but
they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter’s confession of faith in Christ, often both together. Or else they thought Peter was the foundation equally with the other apostles,
the twelve being together the foundation stones of the Church." (Ignaz von Dollinger, The Papacy and the Council, p. 91)

“This one (Peter) is called a rock in order that on his FAITH (Rock) he may receive the foundations of the Church.” - St. Gregory Nazianzen,
26th Discourse

“The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession.” - St. John Chrysostom, 53rd Homily on St. Matthew

“The Rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Peter. It is on this Rock of the confession of faith that
the Church is built.” - St. Hilary of Poitiers, 2nd book on the Trinity

Hilary wrote the first lengthy study of the doctrine of the Church in Latin. Proclaimed a “Doctor of the Church” by the Roman See in 1851, he is called the Athanasius of the
Western Church.

Cyril of Alexandria

Upon St. John, Book JJ, Chap. XII

'“The word “Rock” has only a denominative value-it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles.”

In his Letter to Nestorius, St. Cyril says:

“Peter and John were equal in dignity and honor. Christ is the foundation of all -the unshakeable Rock upon which we are all built as a
spiritual edifice.”

“Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from
this Rock that Peter has been named.” - St. Jerome, 6th book on Matthew

“Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but the faith of St. Peter of which it was said, ‘the gates of hell shall not
prevail’; certainly it is the confession of faith which has vanquished the powers of hell.”

“Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name… to Peter because he borrowed from the Rock the constancy and solidity of
his faith- thy Rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a Rock, thou shalt be in the Church, for the Church is
built upon the Rock… (the profession of faith in Christ Jesus).” - St. Ambrose: The Incarnation

(Note: St. Ambrose often spoke disparagingly of the Bishop of Rome as usurping the legitimate rights of other bishops in the Church. Cf. On the Incarnation, On St. Luke, and
On the 69th Psalm.)
 
St. Augustine, one of the most renowned theologians of the Western Church, claimed by the Roman See as “Father and Doctor”, says:

“In one place I said… that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock… but in fact it was not said to Peter, “Thou art the Rock,” but rather “Thou art Peter.” The Rock was
Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, “the Rock”… (ed, for his faith) …Between these two sentiments let the reader
choose the most probable.” (St. Augustine, Retractions - 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13)

St. Augustine also adds: "Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them “I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee.”
(ibid.)

To Augustine, this made Peter somewhat less than an infallible teacher, without his fellow bishops and all the faithful by his side. It is this statement by Augustine which Pope
Hadrian VI (1522-25) had in mind when he declared:

“A Pope may err alone, not only in his personal, but official capacity.”

In still another letter Augustine quotes Cyprian, with whom he is in full agreement:

“For neither did Peter whom the Lord chose… when Paul afterwards disputed with him… claim or assume anything and arrogantly to himself, so as to say that he held a primacy
and should rather be obeyed by newcomers…”

Finally, Augustine concludes, near the end of his earthly life, with these words on the “Rock of the Church”:

“Christ said to Peter… I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, ‘I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of
Cephas’ - however, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ.” (Retractions, 13th Sermon)
 
I thought Augustine made this remark when Pope Innocent’s letter came to confirm the Council of Charthage’s decrees.

“Rome’s reply has come: the case is closed”

Enough proof that he recognized the Pope’s jurisdiction and supremacy in matters of Faith.
 
Dear Aris,

Augustine has spoken case closed?

Augustine was one Saint and much of what he said was the subject of much controversy. The filoque comes foremost to my mind. You will not find the official incorrect notion of the infallibility of the bishop of Rome until much latter in the history of the west. Comments can be taken and escalated to escalate the notion of Papal infallibility.

Thanks.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
 
Dear Aris,

Here is some additional information for your consideration in response to your last post.

Roma locuta est, causa finita est…

"First, Augustine never made the remark as it is usually stated. The phrase comes from Augustine Sermon (cxxxi, 10 in P.L., XXXVIII, 734)

This sermon concerned part of the process of Augustine’s struggle with Pelagius and Caelestius over the issue of free will [not Donatism as has been posted on several discussion lists].

This sermon was given in Carthage on 23 September 417 after the receipt of a letter from Pope Innocent I. The crucial phrase is

“Iam de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem
apostolicam inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa
finita est”.

“Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about this
matter; the replies have come back; the matter is settled.”

This is often read as if Augustine was placing papal authority above that of councils, as if it were the last word. In ths instance, the case was most certainly not settled.

Pope Innocent had actually died on March 12, 417 and the new pope Zosimus proceeded to reopen the case (so much for ‘causa finita est’) and to be favorable moreover to Pelagius. It was eventually the emperor Honorius who condemned Pelagius and Caelestius and only then did Zosimus finally follow the emperor’s lead and condemned Pelagius which he did in mid
418."

For further information on this see AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO by Peter Brown
(1967)
 
“Augustine was not steadfast in his interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Above, Augustine equated the rock with Peter’s faith, Peter’s successors, and Peter himself. It was during his controversies with the Manicheans, Donatists, and Pelagians that he emphasized the role of Christ and identified “this rock” with Christ. In his dealings with the Manicheans, the nature of God was in the forefront; with the Donatist, it was the nature of the Church and clergy; with the Pelagians, it was the nature of grace and its originator, Jesus Christ. Augustine equated “this rock” with Christ not to downplay Peter’s primacy, rather to emphasize Jesus Christ. Against all these heresies, Augustine stressed that the Church’s foundation and grace rested upon a divine and not a human person. Nevertheless, Augustine remained steadfast in his understanding of Peter’s primacy and the primacy of the Roman See. Augustine did not reject the Petrine interpretation, in favor of which he cites Ambrose’s hymn, but leaves it to the reader to choose. Simon remains a rock, a secondary rock dependent on the Rock-Christ, for Augustine writes, 'Peter having been named after this rock ’
(Retractations 1:21).”

“I present a few passages from Augustine regarding Peter’s primacy among the Apostles. These texts alone clearly shows Peter’s primacy was not simply one of honor but included authority over the Apostles.

“Among these [apostles] it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19)… Quite rightly too did the Lord after his resurrection entrust his sheep to Peter to be fed. It’s not, you see, that he alone among the disciples was fit to feed the Lord’s sheep; but when Christ speaks to one man, unity is being commended to us. And he first speaks to Peter, because Peter is first among the apostles.”
(Sermon 295:2-4 (A.D. 410), in WOA3,8:197-199)

“So does the Church act in blessed hope through this troublous life; and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship.”
(On the Gospel of John, Tract 124:5 (A.D. 416), in NPNF1, VII:450)

“For as some things are said which seem peculiarly to apply to the Apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning, unless when referred to the Church, whom he is acknowledged to have figuratively represented, on account of the primacy which he bore among the Disciples.”
(On the Psalms,108[109]:1(A.D. 418),in NPNF1,VIII:536)”

As in Matt 16:18 Augustine asserts Christ as the foundation of foundations of the Church and subordinates Peter’s foundational role over the Apostles to Christ, we find Augustine’s understanding of John 21:17 similar. According to the bishop of Hippo, Christ is the pastor of pastors and subordinates Peter’s supreme pastorship over the Apostles to Christ,

“Christ was entrusting Peter with his lambs to feed, while he himself was feeding Peter.”
(Sermon 146:1(A.D. 455-411) in WOA3,4:445)

In Peter’s pastoral mission, Augustine sees a personification of pastoral unity. “And every time in reply he affirmed his love, he entrusted him with the care of his flock. Every time, you see, that Peter said ‘I love you,’ the Lord Jesus said to him, ‘Feed my lambs, feed my sheep’ (Jn 21:15-17). The one man Peter represents the unity of all shepherds or pastors of the Church but of the good ones, who know how to feed Christ’s flock for Christ, not for themselves.”
(Sermon 147:1(A.D. 412) in WOA3, 4:448)

to be continued…
 
Hence, Augustine is able to compare the leader of the Israelites with the leader of the Apostles! “The Lord, indeed, had told His disciples to carry a sword; but He did not tell them to use it. But that after this sin Peter should become a pastor of the Church was no more improper than that Moses, after smiting the Egyptian, should become the leader of the congregation.”
(Reply to Faustus the Manichean, 22:70 (A.D. 400), in NPNF1, IV:299)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
This single passage from Augustine in his rebuttal to the Faustus the Manichean clearly equates the preeminent authority of Moses over the Israelites with Peter over the Church. Moses had no equals in authority. Likewise, Peter was the pastor over the Church including the rest of the Apostles and had no equals in authority.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
“This gospel that has just been read about Christ the Lord, and how he walked over the surface of the sea, and about the apostle Peter, and how, by growing afraid as he walked, he staggered, and by losing confidence began to submerge, until by confessing he again emerged; this gospel is advising us to take the sea as meaning the present age and this world, and the apostle Peter as representing the one and only Church. Peter, you see, is the first in the class of the apostles, and the readiest in expressing love of Christ, and is often the one who answers for all … So then, this self-same Peter, blessed by being surnamed Rocky from the rock, representing the person of the Church, holding the chief place in the apostolic ranks…”
(Sermon 76:1-3 (A.D. 412), in WOA3, 3:311-312)

Between 397 and 398, Augustine wrote to the Donatist Glorius and his colleagues. In the letter, Augustine chronicles the history of the Donatist schism and inserts a poignant comment regarding the See of Rome:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
“All the more should he have feared to break the peace of unity, because Carthage was a great and famous city, whence the evil might spread from the head through the whole body of Africa. Besides, it was in touch with the overseas countries, and enjoyed widespread fame. Certainly, it had a bishop of no ordinary authority, who was able to pay no attention to a crowd of hostile conspirators, when he saw that he was united by pastoral letters to the Church of Rome, where the primacy of the apostolic chair has always flourished, and to those other countries from which the Gospel came to Africa, itself, and when arrangements were made for him to plead his case if his opponents should try to win over those churches from him.”
(To Glorius et. al., Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397-398), in FC, XII:187)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Augustine clearly ascribes the See of Rome the primacy of the apostolic chair. This passage is in perfect harmony with Augustine ascribing a primacy to St. Peter, “Peter … holding the chief place in the apostolic ranks…” (Sermon 76:3)

(St. Augustine, St. Peter & the Papacy, by Steve Ray)
 
Dear Sarah Jane,

Could you ask Steve Ray what Augustine thought about the doctrine of infallibility or what Augustine would say about the excellence found in the notions of indulgences? For these things and many more have assaulted the unity found in Peter. The Orthodox Church would not argue against primacy however when a see falls into error as Rome has such a consideration is impossible.

When Augustine wrote as he did as I mentioned before he was the source of much controversy, certainly he was not addressing the papacy of today.

The Church Father Saint Gennadios Scholarios sums things in a rather concise way.

“we believe in the Church; they (the Latins) in Augustine and Jerome.” The Church holds to our Lord’s dogmas and teachings that were commonly given by the holy apostles and councils.

Since Augustine out of human weakness presented ideas that had been in or made into contradiction or conflict with the Churches teachings another Father St. Photios for instance more or less says don’t go there and let these pious Latin fathers alone, because their doctrines conflict with the decision the Ecumenical Councils and Holy writ.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
 
Matthew P.:
Dear Steve,

I see the letters of Pope Honorius to Sergius were burned as a result of Pope Honorius having no interest in teaching a heresy. Quite a concoction Pope Honorius wasn’t teaching heresy he was just talking about teaching it, but really he didn’t mean it and all those other hierarchs from the east and west had been confused? A very sad story.
Click to expand...
The bottomline is, Honorius didn’t want the subject discussed, therefore he didn’t teach error, nor had any intention of teaching error, and you should be able to see clearly that, infallibility as the Church defines the doctrine, is not at issue here.
 
Orthodoc said:
[Without the popes approval, none of those councils were binding on the Church.]

Huh? Out of the first seven Ecumenical Councils of the undivided church -
  1. Not one was called for by a pope.
  2. Not one was presided over by a pope.
  3. Not one was even attended by a pope.
And nowhere, in any canon of any of those councils does it state any counceil has to be ratified by a pope in order to become a recognized council.

Orthodoc
Click to expand...

Without the popes approval, the councils spoken about would be synods, not ecumenical councils… As such, not binding on the entire Church.
 
Dear Steve,

Popes are not anathematized as Honorius was if they remained silent and didn’t want the subject discussed. They are anathematized when they are advancing or supporting heresy. That is how that works. Those athematizing bishops are not stupid and are surely very compassionate if one renounces a teaching that is not in accordance with Orthodox thought.

The fact of the matter is that the 6th Ecumenical Council III Constantinople held in 680-681 A.D Pope Honorius was excommunicated from the Church for teaching and promoting heretical teachings. In fact, at two following Ecumenical Councils that decision was upheld. Read them and see for yourself. Additionally, he was also anathematized by name by Pope Leo II, and by every pope up through the eleventh century who took the oath of papal office. You may read the following yourself and you can either be honest with yourself and thus others or continue on with concoctions if you choose.

Session XIII: The holy council said: After we had reconsidered, according to the promise which we had made to your highness, the doctrinal letters of Sergius, at one time patriarch of this royal God protected city to Cyrus, who was then bishop of Phasius and to Honorius some time Pope of Old Rome, as well as the letter of the latter to the same Sergius, we find that these documents are quite foreign to the apostolic dogmas, to the declarations of the holy Councils, and to all the accepted Fathers, and that they follow the false teachings of the heretics; therefore we entirely reject them, and execrate them as hurtful to the soul. But the names of those men whose doctrines we execrate must also be thrust forth from the holy Church of God, namely, that of Sergius some time bishop of this God-preserved royal city who was the first to write on this impious doctrine; also that of Cyrus of Alexandria, of Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who died bishops of this God preserved city, and were like minded with them; and that of Theodore sometime bishop of Pharan, all of whom the most holy and thrice blessed Agatho, Pope of Old Rome, in his suggestion to our most pious and God preserved lord and mighty Emperor, rejected, because they were minded contrary to our orthodox faith, all of whom we define are to be subject to anathema. And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines.
Session XVI: To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema! To Paul, the heretic, anathema!..
Session XVIII: But as the author of evil, who, in the beginning, availed himself of the aid of the serpent, and by it brought the poison of death upon the human race, has not desisted, but in like manner now, having found suitable instruments for working out his will we mean Theodorus, who was bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Pyrrhus…and moreover, Honorius, who was Pope of the elder Rome…), has actively employed them in raising up for the whole Church the stumbling blocks of one will and one operation in the two natures of Christ our true God, one of the Holy Trinity; thus disseminating, in novel terms, amongst the orthodox people, an heresy similar to the mad and wicked doctrine of the impious Apollinaris (Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume XIV, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, pp. 342-344).
 
Matthew P.:
Dear Orthodoc,

I know you are able to understand the below and how the Protestants understood infallibility.

What did some of the pre-schism early church fathers have to say about ‘Peter and the ROCK’ -

Cyprian, unwilling to grant even a simple primacy to the Bishop of Rome, considers that “the whole body of bishops is addressed
in Peter.” St. Cyprian rightly concludes that the “Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter.” (De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate,
cap. 4-5)
Click to expand...
Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (*The Unity of the Catholic Church *4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (*Letters *43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly * in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another"* (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Cyprian’s letter to Pope Cornelius in Rome about heretics coming to visit Cornelius.

" they still dare-a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics-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;"

Cyprian sees peace and unity as those connected to the throne of Peter. In fact he questions whether those not in union with the throne of Peter, are even in the Church. Cyprian clearly sees the throne of Peter in Rome.

Based on what YOU say, Is Cyprian contradicting himself?

I’ll address your other quotes later.*
 
Dear Steve,

No, Cyprian was not contradicting himself he was speaking at a time when the Bishop of Rome adhered to Orthodox teachings and thought. The year 251 is well before 1054 or 2004 as much has changed with the Latins.

I think that the newer developments infallibility, supremacy both of which I still am unable to understand and in short the papacy of today are not being addressed by St. Cyprian of Carthage in the (A.D. 251) quote you have provided. Standing firm in a position of first over equals and not among equals would no longer convey equality. The “primacy” of Peter (which is more reasonable and understandable and hence not usually overly disputed) is significantly more different than infallibility and supremacy, in short, insofar as that is not the Orthodox tradition nor did it use to be yours. You are correct, St. Cyprian of Carthage and some other Church Fathers also regarded Peter to be the rock.”However, I don’t think that any of the Orthodox Church Fathers regarded the Bishop of Rome (the chair of the Holy Apostle and human being) to be a rock of supremacy and infallibility as can be clearly shown. I think that inclusive in their understanding regarding the person of Peter to be the rock is Peter’s confession , for he would not be a rock without his confession 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God”. For without this confession of faith and the holy mysteries (sacraments) given within the Church I don’t know what a person does. The Truth does not change whether in heaven or Hades or somewhere between. By the way those heretics that Cyprian was addressing had not been Orthodox Christians or Orthodox Bishops.

You could read the Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895, article XVIII in the link below. Actually the whole encyclical is a good read for an Orthodox perspective on the See of Rome.
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/ency1895.html

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
 
Dear Steve,

By the way if you read the Encyclical within the link of my above post you might notice that Leo III made a rather strong statement regarding the filoque that Saint Augustine mentioned.

VII
So then the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils believed and taught in accordance with the words of the Gospel, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but in the West, even from the ninth century, the holy Symbol of Faith, which was composed and sanctioned by Ecumenical Councils, began to be falsified, and the idea that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son to be arbitrarily promulgated. And certainly Pope Leo XIII is not ignorant that his orthodox predecessor and namesake, the defender of orthodoxy, Leo III, in the year 809 denounced synodically this anti-evangelical and utterly lawless addition, and from the Son (Filioque); and engraved on two silver plates, in Greek and Latin, the holy Symbol of Faith of the first and second Ecumenical Synods, entire and without any addition; having written moreover, These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the orthodox faith (Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxa).

There is a strange sort of thinking that goes on with the Latins which seems to be that truth is adjustable from time to time. The Council of Florence comes to my mind.

Pope Eugene IV’s dogmatic bull Cantate Domino, backed by the Council and proclaimed infallible the dogma of no salvation for anyone outside the Church.

“The most Holy Roman Church firmly believes, professes and preaches that none of those existing outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics, can have a share in life eternal; but that they will go into the eternal fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels, unless before death they are joined with Her; and that so important is the unity of this ecclesiastical body that only those remaining within this unity can profit by the sacraments of the Church unto salvation, and they alone can receive an eternal recompense for their fasts, their almsgivings, their other works of Christian piety and the duties of a Christian soldier. No one, let his almsgiving be as great as it may, no one, EVEN IF HE POUR OUT HIS BLOOD FOR THE NAME OF CHRIST, can be saved, unless he remain within the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.”

At the time that the above was written it seems to me that the Orthodox had been considered to be schismatics from a Latin perspective. The strangeness of such a statement is that the those in the unia who accepted Latin understandings ask for the intercessions of the Saints of the Orthodox who the Latins considered to be heretics and schismatics. For the Latins things have changed again for nowadays anyone can be saved and Pope Eugene IV’s dogmatic infallible bull is either not infallible or the Orthodox and any person who can have any hope of salvation are united with the Pope of Rome even if we are not in communion with Rome. In some unknown way we are with the Latins and we just don’t know it even if we don’t want to be. So much for free will. I thought about that when you had provided the below text.

*They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are
secretly * in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another"

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin**
 
Matthew P.:
This sermon was given in Carthage on 23 September 417 after the receipt of a letter from Pope Innocent I. The crucial phrase is
“Iam de hac causa duo concilia missa sunt ad sedem apostolicam inde etiam rescripta venerunt; causa finita est”.

“Two synods having written to the Apostolic See about this matter; the replies have come back; the matter is settled.”

This is often read as if Augustine was placing papal authority above that of councils, as if it were the last word. In this instance, the case was most certainly not settled.
Click to expand...
Matthew,

It is very clear what Augustine meant. The matter is settled because there is already the approval from Pope Innocent.

It would take a little twisting of logic to say he did not accept papal authority. As he said “it is settled”. Next issue please.

Now we were only talking of Augustine and how he viewed papal authority.

We need not bring the issue of another pope reopening the case. That you might have to prove again. 🙂
 
Dear Aris,

Is Augustines understanding below a Protestant position as well for you have indicated that is also my understanding and the Orthodox understanding of the matter. As with much that is said here this conclusion is wrong as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Matthew P.
Pope Honorius occupied the Chair of Peter. So I think it is important to remember that the rock of the confession of the person Peter “thou art the Christ the Son of the living God” was an inclusive part of Saint Peter who said those words. Then we have Pope Honorius who also believed that Christ was the Son of the living God but understood and taught that the natures of Christ in a way that the Orthodox Catholic Church did not agree with. What so you conclude from that?

(Matthew,

That is how the Protestants understood infallibility. It is not how infallibility is understood and defined by the Catholic Church.)

Keep in mind that the Latin west of looks to Augustine for theological things. Here is a bit of Augustines exegesis of the rock of Matthew 16 that seems to be in agreement with what I have written above. It should be clear that Pope Honorius was promoting heresy, hence so much for the idea of Papal infallibility.

You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven’ (Mt 16:15–19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, ‘They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ’ (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.

Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer (John Rotelle, O.S.A., Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (New Rochelle: New City Press, 1993), Sermons, Volume III/6, Sermon 229P.1, p. 327).

Aris,

You can’t take a few words of Augustine and say see there is your proof of infallibilty or Papal Supremacy. However anyone could to that with the words of several of the Church fathers to create it but that does not mean that it ever existed in the past. It does not exist for me or many others who are not Roman Catholics. It does exist for many Roman Catholics and the reality is that I have known many in my life who when speaking heart to heart do not believe it all.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin
 
Matthew,

I am not the one taking the words out of context here.

Augustine has been very consistent. He has not debunked primacy of the pope. There is no statement that says the Pope is not the leader of the Church. He in fact says that the Authority of the Pope comes from Christ.

I would like to ask you to judge infallibility by the definition of the Catholic Church not by how others outside the Holy Church define it.

Honorius was adjudged a heretic. But that should be examined carefully at how the council arrived at such a declaration. The letter of Honorius which was the basis of the anathema should be examined carefully. In it you will see that Honorius did not make any stand as to regards to doctrine. (which was why he was declared anathema). Please quote it here where Honorius made a specific stand in favor of heresy if you think otherwise. Also it should be noted what Pope Leo said in connection with that anathema.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top