Define "Supremacy"

[GAssisi]

Dear John,

Your argument from travel expedience is hard to accept. Rome is over twice as far away from Corinth as Patmos is. If you base the travel on seafaring alone, Rome is easily three times further away from Corinth as Patmos is.

The majority of scholars are more inclined to date the letter at A.D.97, the persecution regarded not as the one instigated by Nero, but by Domitian. With regards to the apparent existence of Temple sacrifices, it seems more rational, since the letter is pedagogic and exhortative in nature, to interpret the present tense in those passages as an “ideal present,” a literary tactic utilized for teaching or expository writing.

As far as personal relations is concerned, I think that would not be as important as the fact that John is an Apostle. Besides, how could the Church in Corinth have known that Clement was a co-worker of Paul?

John was certainly of sound mind in his old age, unless one regards the Book of Revelation as the rantings of senile mind.

God bless,

Greg

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

John was pushing 90. He died about the year 100. His sphere of activity was confined to Asia Minor. Would any decent person go and badger an old man about their silly church squabbles?

Did John say yeah I’m an apostle, but don’t badger me about your silly stuff I’m old and retired? To you, sedition is just a “Church squabble”? John still had at least 10 more years to his life after the event we’re talking about. And we don’t know John was pushing 90 years old at the time. This event in Corinth took place around the year 90, but John may have neen a much younger man than 90 years old. As far as your point “John was confined to Asia Minor,” how far is Patmos from Corinth? Answer, it’s a whole lot closer than Rome is to Corinth. JPII is well into his 80’s, having survived an assasination attempt by a muslim kook, shot twice by him, and is also suffering from parkinsons. Yet he still has a marvelous mind, and he remains focused on the job God wants for him. Would St John do less? I don’t think so. John wrote the book of Revelation AFTER Clement wrote his letter to Corinth.*** You suggest It’s not okay for Corinth to badger John because of his age but it’s okay for God to badger John to write Revelations, even though he is an old man.*** C’mon, lets stay real. The question remains, why did Corinth go to Rome for an answer and not to John the apostle?

 

[steve_b]

prodromos:

You said yourself that they were delayed in their response due to the persecution of the church under Nero which places the writing of the letter in A.D. 69 This is confirmed by Clement referring to the ongoing sacrifices in the Temple at Jerusalem which was not brought to an end until the Temple was destroyed in A.D 70…

I said the persecutions started with Nero. Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian all succeeded Nero, and continued the persecutions by the time Clement writes his letter to Corinth. John has not yet written the book of Revelation…

prodromos:

However, Clement was not Bishop of Rome until the twelfth year of Domitian’s reign, A.D. 93, so he could not have written the letter as bishop of Rome.

I answered this above.

prodromos:

As I mentioned above, it was easier to get from Corinth to Rome, and as been mentioned earlier Clement was a close companion of Paul who had founded the church in Corinth, so they naturally had a closer affinity to him. It is quite possible that they knew him personally.

John

As long as an apostle is still alive, living not far from Corinth, this begs the question.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

This is the later understanding of the Church of Rome, but it does not accord with that of the Universal Church.

Then why are you confirming only 7*** ecumenical*** councils?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

Well, the Pope, writing in this document of 1967 is happy enough to use “Roman Catholic Church” repeatedly, so obviously he wasn’t too stressed by the Protestant revolt.

The point was, how one uses the “Roman” qualifier.
Fr Ambrose:

It is really part of recent Catholic urban legend to downplay the use of “Roman Catholic” and nothing to do with the Reformation or the Anglicans or the Jehovah’s Witnesses. The new distaste for the word “Roman” seems to stem from the post Vatican II period when the national Conferences of Catholic Bishops were hell bent on emphasising “collegiality” and their new found freedoms vis-a-vis control from Rome. So they removed “*Roman *Catholic” from their letterheadings, their telephone directory entries, their noticeboards outside churches, the names of educational institutes, etc.

The official name of the Church is the Catholic Church. There is no distaste for the word Roman. It’s all in how one uses the word.
Fr Ambrose:

All the same if you do an internet search you will find that some diocese are still proudly proclaiming themselves as “Roman Catholic.” Guess their bishops, like the Pope, are not too concerned about the Protestant Reformation

Roman is a rite. Like Byzantine Catholic is a rite within the Catholic Church. All are equally Catholic. It’s perfectly acceptable to use or not use “Roman” Catholic. However, when there are various rites within the same diocese, or towns, it’s convenient to give the particular qualifier.
Fr Ambrose:

As an example, have a look at the webpage for the “**Roman Catholic **Diocese of Phoenix”
diocesephoenix.org/

Yes and the Byzantine Catholics in Phoenix have a web page as well.

diocese.com/site/parish/phoenix/assumption_bvm_ukrainian/n

ukrainianchurch.org/

Roman and Byzantine rite Catholics living in the same city will find it handy when the Roman and Byzantine qualifiers are added. Particularly when a Catholic of either rite visits a city for the first time.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

The reason that (what eventually became) the USCCB did not use the term “Roman Catholic” is because its members included Catholics of other rites besides the Roman Rite, nothing so subversive as you suggest.

I do not know why Orthodox (and Protestants) keep perpetuating the myth (lie?) that the notion of “collegiality” was a new thing at Vatican II. Vatican II was intended to be a continuation of Vatican I. Most of the topics covered in Vatican II were already proposed at Vatican I, except that the impending war made it impossible to vote on those platforms at the time.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

Can you substantiate this?

On another thread a Catholic contributor pointed out that this was rejected by modern Catholic ecclesiology…

See
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?=325027&postcount=10

Fr.

The URL says “NO Link Specified”.

Meanwhile, I suggest you look at this from an ANGLICAN Website (Seems Archbishop Hepworth has been busy):

St. John Chrysostom on the Apostle Peter
bringyou.to/apologetics/num52.htm

You’ll find 90 quotes from St. John Chrysostom regarding the Primacy of the See of Peter. I believe he’s a Doctor of the Church and well regarded in the Eastern Chruch.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

John was pushing 90. He died about the year 100. His sphere of activity was confined to Asia Minor. Would any decent person go and badger an old man about their silly church squabbles?

Fr.

God Badgered the Apostle John about the Apocalypse just a couple of years later, which was a far more onorous project than listening to a few complaints and writing a letter.

And, anyone notice now old Pope John Paul II is and that he’s got Parkinsons. Is anyone NOT bothering him “about their silly church squabbles”? or, Hasn’t he taken on the most ambitious Christian Reunification Project since the Ukranian Catholic Church in the form of bringing the Traditional Anglican Church (and whoover will join us) into union with the See of Peter as the Anglican Catholic Church (worldwide - 500,000 members)?

And, Wasn’t the Apostle John also gearing up to write the Gospel of John and a couple of Epistles (probably with the aid of a Secretary and AFTER The APOCALYPSE)?

What’s a few questions and a letter compared to that?

In Christ, Michael

 

[Traditional_Ang]

steve b:

Then why are you confirming only 7*** ecumenical*** councils?

Steve:

Fr. Ambrose adnits on those Councils of the Undivided Church, before the bad fellings and Ill Communication that brought on the Schism of Lateran.

Unlike the Ecumenical Patriarch, his Patriarch (that of Moscow) does not accept the removal of the Writ of Excommunication by the Ecumenical Patriarch or the most kind words spoken by the same towards the Pope last month.

That’s why he doesn’t accept any Councils after the first 7.

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

Steve:

Fr. Ambrose adnits on those Councils of the Undivided Church, before the bad fellings and Ill Communication that brought on the Schism of Lateran.

Unlike the Ecumenical Patriarch, his Patriarch (that of Moscow) does not accept the removal of the Writ of Excommunication by the Ecumenical Patriarch or the most kind words spoken by the same towards the Pope last month.

That’s why he doesn’t accept any Councils after the first 7.

In Christ, Michael

I am not sure what you want to say here. On the face of it you seem to be saying that the Ecumenical Patriarch has removed the Anathemas and that he now accepts the RC Councils - from Lateran I to Vatican II?

 

[GAssisi]

I did not quite understand Steve’s point about the 7 ecumenical Councils either.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

I am not sure what you want to say here. On the face of it you seem to be saying that the Ecumenical Patriarch has removed the Anathemas and that he now accepts the RC Councils - from Lateran I to Vatican II?

Fr.

I am simply stating that, to the best of my knowledge, you accept neither the Councils after the Schism of Latern nor the lifting of the Writ of Excommunication. I am not saying that the Ecumenical Patriarch (the “Patriarch of the Empire”) accepts any Council after the first 7.

If I am mistaken, I will stand corrected.

I thought this was a DISCUSSION and not an ARGUMENT. I therefore, posted that as an explanation as to why you might not accept what Catholics accept. Obviously, NO good deed goes unpunished.

If you wish to explain why you refuse to accept any Council of the Catholic Church between Lateran I and Vatican II, please do so.

In Christ, Michael

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I am not sure what you want to say here. On the face of it you seem to be saying that the Ecumenical Patriarch has removed the Anathemas and that he now accepts the RC Councils - from Lateran I to Vatican II?

The original point I made was, the pope is who makes these councils ecumenical. Otherwise they are synods, and their conclusions are not binding on the entire Church, unless the pope declares such .

The lifting of the anathemas is another issue. Since no ONE speaks for Orthodoxy, no patriarch in the East can bind all of Orthodoxy to anything. Too bad!

May I remind you of the URL you posted earlier.
praiseofglory.com/lifting.htm



I guess this means nothing to the Orthodox, but it means pleanty to Catholics.

 

[Orthodoc]

[If you wish to explain why you refuse to accept any Council of the Catholic Church between Lateran I and Vatican II, please do so.]

Because they are not representative of the entire Catholic Church but only a part of it (the western part under Romes authority).

Ecumenical Council - An Ecumenical Council is an assembly of representatives from the entire Church, legally convoked, for settling controversies in doctrine, formulating dogma, and setting canons of faith and morals.

Orthodoc

 

[steve_b]

Traditional Ang:

Steve:

Fr. Ambrose adnits on those Councils of the Undivided Church, before the bad fellings and Ill Communication that brought on the Schism of Lateran.

Unlike the Ecumenical Patriarch, his Patriarch (that of Moscow) does not accept the removal of the Writ of Excommunication by the Ecumenical Patriarch or the most kind words spoken by the same towards the Pope last month.

That’s why he doesn’t accept any Councils after the first 7.

In Christ, Michael

Michael,

I think my point was too obtuse. All I meant by it was that the pope made these councils Ecumenical. When we look at the remaining councils, no pope, no undivided Church, and no more Ecumenical councils. The pope is the key. Of course to Catholics, we continue to have ecumenical councils.

As we have seen in the most recent posts from Fr Ambrose, even the ecumenical Patriarch can’t speak for all of Orthodoxy, therefore apparantly, nothing can be solidified between Catholics and the Orthodox. Except for the Orthodox who want to participate. What a shame.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Traditional Ang:

If you wish to explain why you refuse to accept any Council of the Catholic Church between Lateran I and Vatican II, please do so.

The Church of Rome was, via the anathema against Humbert and the papal legates to Constantinople, accepted as being in toto under an anathema. Over time all the Christian Churches accepted this. Rome fell into schism and eventually heresy.

This is the reason that the Ecumenical Patriarch and all the Orthodox Church have no interest in accepting any Councils convened by the Church of Rome. From 1054 onwards Rome wass isolated from the Universal Church and her spiritual health suffered accordingly.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

The Church of Rome was, via the anathema against Humbert and the papal legates to Constantinople, accepted as being in toto under an anathema. Over time all the Christian Churches accepted this. Rome fell into schism and eventually heresy.

---

This is the reason that the Ecumenical Patriarch and all the Orthodox Church have no interest in accepting any Councils convened by the Church of Rome. From 1054 onwards Rome wass isolated from the Universal Church and her spiritual health suffered accordingly.

By definition, the chair of Peter can’t be isolated from the universal Church. Those who are divided from the chair of Peter are the ones isolated.

As Cyprian said,

**First Edition: **

"And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep’ (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, 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. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord.** *If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?" *Cyprian]

One Church, One faith, One chair built by Jesus.

Rome is the chair of Peter and the pope is Peter’s successor. Cyprian said that as well.

As Cyprian says, If one doesn’t remain united to the One Church, One faith, and One chair of Peter, can he imagine he still holds the faith? If he deserts the chair of Peter, can he be confident he is in the Church?

The anathamas have been lifted. You need to make some decisions.

 

[mtr01]

Fr Ambrose:

The Church of Rome was, via the anathema against Humbert and the papal legates to Constantinople, accepted as being in toto under an anathema. Over time all the Christian Churches accepted this. Rome fell into schism and eventually heresy.

This is the reason that the Ecumenical Patriarch and all the Orthodox Church have no interest in accepting any Councils convened by the Church of Rome. From 1054 onwards** Rome wass isolated from the Universal Church and her spiritual health suffered accordingly**.[emphasis mine]

:bigyikes:

Mat 7:3 And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye?
Mat 7:4 Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye?
Mat 7:5 Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

Fr Ambrose:

The Church of Rome was, via the anathema against Humbert and the papal legates to Constantinople, accepted as being in toto under an anathema. Over time all the Christian Churches accepted this. Rome fell into schism and eventually heresy.

This is the reason that the Ecumenical Patriarch and all the Orthodox Church have no interest in accepting any Councils convened by the Church of Rome. From 1054 onwards Rome wass isolated from the Universal Church and her spiritual health suffered accordingly.

Fr. Ambrose:

Our Lord commanded us to go into ALL Nations, making disciples of ALL Men and batizing them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. This is commonly called “The Great Commission”.

As of the present, 1 out of every 6 people on this earth belong to the Catholic Church Church in Union with the See of Peter.

Most of that has been accomplished by carrying out this “Great Commission” or by the process of evangelization. It was NOT done by “Sheep Stealing”, but by converting PEGANS and UNBELIEVERS to our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

At the present time, the Bible has been translated into more languages than I can count, most of these for Catholics, and most of these into alphabets created for that purpose.

Now, most of us now about St. Cyril and his work of creating a Russian alphabet and then translating the Bible and Divine Liturgy into Russian.

How have the various autonomous Orthodox Churches participated in fulfilling this commandment of our Lord? What have they done to make disciples of all Nations?

In Christ, Michael

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

[/quote]

I don’t see the problem. The Church of Rome takes the same attitude to us. I would not apply the hypocrite verses to them. They are simply maintaining the integrity of their outlook, just as the Orthodox are. Why should that get them a :bigyikes: