Define "Supremacy"

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Are we reading the same articles?

Do we know the reasons cited for the excommunication in the 1054 AD Bull of Excommunication which Cardinal Humbert laid on the altar of the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople at the time of Vespers, 16th July 1054?

After several centuries of bickering, Rome decided to cast the Eastern Catholic Church into an anathema.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

1. as I said in my previous post. If you object to the internals of the articles, then refute them. A bio on the names mentioned, and dates are either as they say, true or not, or somewhere in the middle.

1. to blanketly call into question the accuracy of these articles without proof is not acceptable.

I long ago gave up being so naive as to expect consistency and accuracy in the 1913 articles in the Encyclopedia. Didn’t someone start a thread on that a couple of months back.

My question stands unanswered…

What were the reasons given in the Bull of Excommunication?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Do we know the reasons cited for the excommunication in the 1054 AD Bull of Excommunication which Cardinal Humbert laid on the altar of the Cathedral of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople at the time of Vespers, 16th July 1054?

After several centuries of bickering, Rome decided to cast the Eastern Catholic Church into an anathema.

Within the articles I posted the chronology of events was laid out.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Bishop Arsenius, in “The Chronicle of Church Events,” describes the action of the papal legates thus:

"And so, the papal legates, “having become bored by the opposition of the patriarch,” as they said, decided on a most insolent action. On the 15th of July, they entered the Church of Hagia Sophia, and, while the clergy were preparing for the service at the third hour of the day on Saturday, they laid a bull of excommunication on the main altar in full view of the clergy and people present. Going out thence, they shook off even the dust from their feet as a testimony against them, according to the words of the Gospel (Mathew 10: 14)), exclaiming: “Let God see and judge.”

"Thus does Cardinal Humbert himself portray the deed. In the bull of excommunication, it was said incidentally: “As for the pillars of the Empire and the honorable, wise citizens, the city (that is, Constantinople) is most Christian and Orthodox. [Humbert could not offend the Emperor; he wanted to live the city unscathed] But as for Michael, who is unlawfully called patriarch, and the champions of his stupidity, innumerable weeds of heresies are scattered in it… Let them be anathema, let them be anathema maranatha (I Corinthians 16:22). Amen.”

"After this, and in the presence of the emperor and his grandees, they orally pronounced: “whoever obstinately begins to oppose the faith of the holy Roman and apostolic throne and its sacrificial offering, let him be anathema, let him be anathema maranatha (that is, let him be excommunicated and let him perish at the coming of the Lord) and let him not be considered a Catholic Christian, but a heretical Prozymite (that is, those who do not accept unleavened bread and prefer leavened bread). So be it, so be it, so be it.”

“The insolence of the papal legates stirred up the whole population of the capital against them; only thanks to the emperor, who esteemed their position as emissaries, were they able to freely depart.”

Bishop Arsenius, “The Chronicle of Church Events”

In response, a Constantinopolitan council gave the papal legates over to anathema. From this time, the pope ceased to be commemorated in all the Eastern churches at the divine services.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

Within the articles I posted the chronology of events was laid out.

I know the chronology, better than the Encyclopedia which is outdated and biased.

What reasons were cited in the Bull of Excommunication?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Have to leave you for a while… time for a Christmas meal with the Catholic members of my family.

So to all…

**Merry ** Christmas!

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I long ago gave up being so naive as to expect consistency and accuracy in the 1913 articles in the Encyclopedia. Didn’t someone start a thread on that a couple of months back.

As I said before, refute with evidence.
Fr Ambrose:

My question stands unanswered…

What were the reasons given in the Bull of Excommunication?

You began your objection by citing the Bull of excommunication. Therefore, I assumed you were going to make a specific point from that document.

Here is the lead up to the excommunication. newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm If you object to the points made, then offer evidence to the contrary. The cast of participants are all mentioned here.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

As I said before, refute with evidence.

You began your objection by citing the Bull of excommunication. Therefore, I assumed you were going to make a specific point from that document.

Here is the lead up to the excommunication. newadvent.org/cathen/10273a.htm If you object to the points made, then offer evidence to the contrary. The cast of participants are all mentioned here.

We are all familar with the history of bickering between Rome and Constantinople.

But these are only peripheral things.

The crux of the matter is -

– What were the theological points which justified Rome excommunicating the Eastern Catholics?

– Of what heresy did the Easterners stand guilty in the eyes of the Supreme Pontiff?

– Is there *any * real basis at all for Rome’s excommunication?

This is the only vital point and it is the one to which you will not make a response

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Father Ambrose,

With sound reasoning being used, we have seen that the basis for excommunication by Rome had been a few issues that Rome had no problem with for around 1000 years prior to the excommunication. Today, the see of Rome has no theological problem with those issues that had been expressed as the basis of excommunication which is certainly evidenced in appearance by way of the “unia”.

We have also seen that words can be used with a cast of participants to create distortions or even used as a deflecting device pertaining to the subject matter. It is quite evident that when the core issues are wisely brought back into focus the reality found in Truth does not change. What does change are the practitioners of the distortions as well as their followers sometimes for the better and sometimes for the not so better. Such realities also cannot be distorted by words for these are the things that are found in the core of our souls and are known by God.

Welcome back from exile Father Ambrose, your presence is certainly appreciated. Thank you for bringing so much to my attention.

“When one man helps another by word or deed, let them both recognize in this the grace of God. He who does not understand this will come under the power of him who does.” St Mark the Solitary

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Matthew P.:

Welcome back from exile Father Ambrose

Thank you Matthew, and thank you to everyone else who has made me welcome.

I am now home from my family’s Catholic Christmas, with several pounds of Christmas pudding inside me and one or two glasses of very nice bubbly…

Now it is high time to begin a preparation for my own feast of the Nativity of the Christ Child on Old Christmas, 7th January. So I bid you all adieu until then and pray that Christ our God will bless your own celebrations and refresh our spirits.

This night is the eve of the great Nativity,
Born is the Son of Mary the Virgin,
The soles of His feet have reached the earth,
The Son of glory down from on high,
Heaven and earth glowed to Him,
All hail! let there be joy!

'Tis frenzy blind,
'Tis witlessness, 'tis madness wild

• Since still to deathward all life tends -
  To be unfriends with Mary’s child.

Mór báis mor baile
mór coll ceille mor mire
olais airchenn teicht do écaib
beith fo étoil maíc maire.

attrib. to the Irish Saint Siadhal (Sedulius), 5th century
Thesaurus Palaeohibernicus

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Ok, I have to confess… the last few hours I have actually been testing to see how much homework people do

In fact, one of the reasons given in the Bull of Excommunication is that the Eastern Catholics had *removed * the filioque from the Creed.

You’ll see immediately that this is complete nonsense. It is a far worse reason to throw the East out of the Church than either the married priests or leavened bread charge.

It’s historically inaccurate and it really ought to be a major embarrassment to those who were so ignorant of the Creed, of its history and theology and of its formulation by the Ecumenical Councils that they truly believed that accusing the East of *removing the filioque * was cause to excommunicate the Eastern Catholics The Pope had this seriously wrong. Humbert had this seriously wrong. The filioque was never in the Creed in the first place.

 

[twf]

Fr:

1. There was NO pope at this time. The chair was vacant. (At least according to ewtn.com/vexperts/showme…3&number=409072)
2. The Cardinal’s charges were wrong…but a cardinal is hardly infallible.
3. Despite all the fingerpointing the Orthodox have been doing…the Patriarch was to blame as well. (He excommunicated the entire Latin Church!)

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear TWF,

Candinals can’t write bulls of excommunication they require a Papal seal, I think it is usually applied by means of the Popes ring and some sort of wax. Nevertheless the legates had been from the papacy, and the bull of excommunication had been approved or produced by the reigning pontiff who was alive when the Bull was written and reposed before it was delivered. Are Papal bulls retractable?

Have a wonderful Christmas!

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[prodromos]

twf:

1. Despite all the fingerpointing the Orthodox have been doing…the Patriarch was to blame as well. (He excommunicated the entire Latin Church!)

No
Father Ambrose:

In response, a Constantinopolitan council gave the papal legates over to anathema. From this time, the pope ceased to be commemorated in all the Eastern churches at the divine services.

Only Cardinal Humbert and those with him were excommunicated.

John.

Merry Christmas, Christ is born, Rejoice!

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

We are all familar with*** the history of bickering between Rome and Constantinople.***

But these are only peripheral things.

The crux of the matter is -

– What were the theological points which justified Rome excommunicating the Eastern Catholics?

– Of what heresy did the Easterners stand guilty in the eyes of the Supreme Pontiff?

– Is there *any *real basis at all for Rome’s excommunication?

This is the only vital point and it is the one to which you will not make a response

Do you think the excommunication occured because of historical bichering?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Ok, I have to confess… the last few hours I have actually been testing to see how much homework people do

In fact, one of the reasons given in the Bull of Excommunication is that the Eastern Catholics had *removed *the filioque from the Creed.

Do you have a link to the original Bull of excommunication document?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

We are all familar with the history of bickering between Rome and Constantinople.

But these are only peripheral things.

The crux of the matter is -

– What were the theological points which justified Rome excommunicating the Eastern Catholics?

You’ve said before that, you don’t trust my sources that I post because you think they’re biased. If I said the same about your sources, we would be in no-man’s land for discussion, correct? The cast of players in this issue are known. We can read their biographies.

For purposes of discussion, look over this article. The internals have some interesting topics for review. Names and events can be looked up individyally for details if one is interested. But apparantly, the final breach between us occured in 1492, not 400 years prior. Therefore, some healing must have taken place in those 400 years albeit not perfect. newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

I have read your posts. There is quite a bit in them to address. As such I thought I would start with the things that I found the most odd in the realm of invincible ignorance.

"Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it."

I assume that someone like the Protestant Martin Luther might be in some trouble from the above statement. Would you agree with that?

I make it a point not to judge a persons soul, only their actions. I think he would be hard pressed to appeal to invincable ignorance for his actions. But that’s just my opinion. That and $2.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.
Matthew P.:

For quite sometime there has been a schism between the Orthodox Church and the Latins. I assume you agree with that as well?

yes
Matthew P.:

By the way that New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia has quite a few very significant errors in it.

Here is a good article kind of long on the first Vatican Council
orthodoxchristianity.net/texts/Bulgakov_VaticanDogma.html

General statements like this don’t do me much good without specifics. What errors are you speaking of?

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Here is the part that I thought Steve might find to be of some interest. You do know Steve that there are some people with a profound understanding on these matters who have spent many hours studying these things that are Latins in every sense of the word, some of them find it very disturbing to say the least.

It is no doubt a historical fact that Peter himself not only erred, but actually denied Christ; that not Peter, [snip]…

[41] Of course Catholic theologians insist on drawing distinctions: they maintain that “as a private scholar, as a lay sovereign, as simply the Bishop of Rome, as the primate of Italy, as the patriarch of the West, the pope is not infallible; he is infallible solely and exclusively as the supreme head of the Church, and then only when speaking *ex cathedra…*Hence, decrees dealing with discipline, instruction, ecclesiastical policy or administration, as well as those applying the doctrine of faith to particular instances have as little to do with papal infallibility as the occasions on which the pope, though pronouncing on matters of doctrine, does it not in the solemn, universally-binding form *ex cathedra” *(Pohle, Kirchenlex. 244). All these abstract discriminations avail nothing in the face of the concrete unity of the bearer of absolute power as a person. They merely show that with regard to this question theologians are at a loss and do not know what to make of the Vatican dogma.

1. Before the HS was sent to the apostles to lead them into all truth, they could err. I’m sure you’ll agree, Peter was a much different man after the HS descended on him than before.
2. Are there errors in scripture, or is scripture infallibly the word of God? (I’m not talking about translations, I’m referring to scripture itself)
3. In order to refute infallibility using Honorius as the example, you need to refute it based on how Vatican 1. Not your own imaginations or someone elses. Or it’s just an elaborate strawman. Look up the qualifications for infallibile statements by a pope based on Vatican 1, there is where it was difined.

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

While you are mentioning Saint Paul I thought I would mention that the Orthodox Church of Greece knows well that it is in straight forward continuity with the early Christian communities that Saint Paul founded in Corinth,Thessalonica, Philippi, Athens. Those Churches that remain faithful members of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church do not accept the innovations of the Latins. As we know well the venerable tradition and intact teachings of the Orthodox Christian east will implicitly oppose your understandings. It seems to me in the scripture you have quoted we can clearly see that Saint Paul exhorts his brothers to remain steadfast. Why is that for instance when Constantinople was sacked by the Latins who sought to change the traditions and teachings of the Orthodox Church you have failed to mention that in reference to Saint Paul it would require quite a bit of utter nonsense to suggest that the Bishop of Rome and the developing actions of the Latins have been good for unity. So much has changed for the Latins that is difficult to believe. Suffice it to say that infallibility was not a tradition of the early Church. Even when the Latin errors that are in direct contradiction with Hoy writ so very clearly like denying children the Eucharist until they have reached the age of reason of seven years old or so you resort to talk around it while the reality remains the same irrespective of your words.

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Matthew 19
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Matthew 26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

Romans 16:17-19 17I urge you, brothers, to watch out for those who cause divisions and put obstacles in your way that are contrary to the teaching you have learned. Keep away from them. 18For such people are not serving our Lord Christ, but their own appetites. By smooth talk and flattery they deceive the minds of naive people. 19Everyone has heard about your obedience, so I am full of joy over you; but I want you to be wise about what is good, and innocent about what is evil.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

During apostolic times, John is still alive on Patmos, Clement of Rome is settling sedition in Corinth of the bishops there. What of the other Church’s you mention in the East? Why didn’t they step in to settle this? If this East West issue was Sooooo clear, and Rome wasn’t considered the “presider” as Ignatius calls her, the Church which all must agree, Irenaeus, and the Chief Church, the chair of Peter and source of priestly unity, as Cyprian says then Corinth should have turned East for their resolution. But they didn’t… They went to Rome.