Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[steve_b]

The iconoclast emperors lived in the 8th and 9th century.

That wasn’t the point
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=9490604&postcount=492

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

What’s your point?

 

[steve_b]

What’s your point?

You’ve got your dates and eras mixed up.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

You’ve got your dates and eras mixed up.

Nope.

I said that the whole of moden-day Greece was, up until the Iconoclast emperors, under the direct jurisdiction of Rome.

 

[steve_b]

Nope.

I said that the whole of moden-day Greece was, up until the Iconoclast emperors, under the direct jurisdiction of Rome.

And I said Emperors and Church for the 1st 4 centuries didn’t mix. State and Church had nothing to do with each other. It wasn’t until Constantine legalized Christianity that there was any consideration between the 2 entities.

Therefore the argument that Corinth was controlled by Rome (the emperor), ergo Clement (bishop) was the one to settle sedition among the bishops in Coritnth doesn’t work. Church and State are not together. At this time in history they are opposites with each other. It’s a very weak attempt for non Catholics to try and argue against a very clear example of papal jurisdiction in it’s infancy, in action accross national boarders “during” apostolic times. John is still alive and living in either Ephesus or on the isle of Patmos. Both locations are closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome. One could ask, why didn’t Corinth seek John’s help who was much closer to them.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

I’m leaving my home tomorrow and won’t be back for about a week, so I’ll have to bow out of this discussion.

Thank you to Constantine, Credo ergo sum, and all the others who have discussed these matters with me and helped my understanding. May God bless you all and keep you close to Him.

I did find this reply on another thread to be a helpful summary of how I feel about the matter of 1 Clement.

Thanks again, everyone! I will probably read some more from this thread when I get back, but who knows where the discussion will have gone by that point.

Goodbye for now!

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

And I said Emperors and Church for the 1st 4 centuries didn’t mix. State and Church had nothing to do with each other. It wasn’t until Constantine legalized Christianity that there was any consideration between the 2 entities.

Therefore the argument that Corinth was controlled by Rome (the emperor), ergo Clement (bishop) was the one to settle sedition among the bishops in Coritnth doesn’t work. Church and State are not together. At this time in history they are opposites with each other. It’s a very weak attempt for non Catholics to try and argue against a very clear example of papal jurisdiction in it’s infancy, in action accross national boarders “during” apostolic times. John is still alive and living in either Ephesus or on the isle of Patmos. Both locations are closer to Corinth than Clement was over in Rome. One could ask, why didn’t Corinth seek John’s help who was much closer to them.

With Rome I meant the Pope, not the emperor. I believe that the Church of Corinth and of Greece were, from the first to the eight century, under the direct authority of the Roman Pontiff. That might be the reason they wrote to Clement instead of John.

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

I’m leaving my home tomorrow and won’t be back for about a week, so I’ll have to bow out of this discussion.

Thank you to Constantine, Credo ergo sum, and all the others who have discussed these matters with me and helped my understanding. May God bless you all and keep you close to Him.

I did find this reply on another thread to be a helpful summary of how I feel about the matter of 1 Clement.

Thanks again, everyone! I will probably read some more from this thread when I get back, but who knows where the discussion will have gone by that point.

Goodbye for now!

Have a good time! I like the comment in the link as well.

 

[Peter_J]

I’m leaving my home tomorrow and won’t be back for about a week, so I’ll have to bow out of this discussion.

Thank you to Constantine, Credo ergo sum, and all the others who have discussed these matters with me and helped my understanding. May God bless you all and keep you close to Him.

I did find this reply on another thread to be a helpful summary of how I feel about the matter of 1 Clement.

Thanks again, everyone! I will probably read some more from this thread when I get back, but who knows where the discussion will have gone by that point.

Goodbye for now!

Have a good trip.

 

[Peter_J]

I don’t see any evidence to that. They could have sent a legate to either one, but every time it was the Emperor. Because he is the only one who had universal jurisdiction, albeit a secular one. A bishop summoning another bishop shows that he has authority over the other bishop, and the bishops back then avoided this.

The question of whether a council is ecumenical or not cannot to boiled down to who called for it.

 

[Ubenedictus]

They take this mistaken notion from the fact that many different Geek verbs are translated inconsistently as procedit, like proienai, ekporeuesthai, procheo, and ekcheo, all of which are different in meaning. The Latin fathers simply lacked and misunderstood the theological nuance of Greek patristic writing. Because of these many meanings which have become conflated in the one Latin verb ‘procedere’ it is possible to read the Latin fathers in a manner consistent with the Greek ones, but it is not possible to do the same with later interpretations of the Latin fathers.

nah nah nah, they didnt take it from reading latin traslations of the greek fathers, can you provide proof of that? When augustine and co where writing that the holyspirit proceeds from father and son, they didnt say they got the idea from the greek fathers, about 70% of the latin fathers even before augustine wrote that the spirit proceeds from father and son. Besides augustine wasnt a latin alone guy, he understood greek and so didnt need a latin translation of d greek fathers.
Ubenedictus

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

nah nah nah, they didnt take it from reading latin traslations of the greek fathers, can you provide proof of that? When augustine and co where writing that the holyspirit proceeds from father and son, they didnt say they got the idea from the greek fathers, about 70% of the latin fathers even before augustine wrote that the spirit proceeds from father and son. Besides augustine wasnt a latin alone guy, he understood greek and so didnt need a latin translation of d greek fathers.
Ubenedictus

Augustine couldn’t really read and understand Greek. He says so much in his Confessions I think.

 

[Ubenedictus]

I think as I have stated, the orthodoxy of the Filioque isn’t the question in most of the minds who oppose it. I’ve come across many writings that have reconciled the Eastern and Western view. The problem generally is that Rome changed the Creed that was agreed upon by Ecumenical Council. Only an Ecumenical Council may change the Creed which is intended for all Christian Churches that carry the orthodox faith.

yeah and the CC believe florence is an ecumenical council, the filioque was added in agreed upon at florence.

The concern if valid. But as noted above, he went against a Catholic dogma. By defying the Pope he has went against the Pope’s authority. Thus justifying his excommunication.

he didnt just go agaist the popes authority he violated canon law and according to canon law that offense ‘guaranteed’ excommunication for those ordained and the bishop who ordained.

Why not? The Nestorians and non-Chalcedonians have been out of communion for a long time at this point. It’s not like this one is unprecedented.

because the latin church didnt see or consider it a full schism untill the 15th century.

Weren’t the Orthodox eventually considered heretics for denying Papal Supremacy even before it was a dogma?

Well, unless that idea has been there from the beginning, which has always been the Orthodox contention. Some point to the 8th century as the time when Rome started thinking of Supremacy this way.
Maybe the Ukrainian Catholic Church would be a better example. But I guess as long as the replacement Patriarch is from the UGCC, it won’t cause too much of an issue. Of course there will be those who will cry against the Pope meddling against the Church, I could see a good number of Ukrainian Catholics going to one of the Ukrainian Orthodox Churches should this happen today.

they certainly have a right to their own bishop. Tranfering bishop thru rites would be impratical.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

Augustine couldn’t really read and understand Greek. He says so much in his Confessions I think.

i seriously doubt that, augustine refused to use the vulgate for some reasons. He used the greek scriptures instead.
Ubenedictus

 

[Ubenedictus]

I learned that from Brother JR over at the Traditionalist thread that the Pope today cannot be tried, either by council within the Church or a secular court. Being a head of state, he does have diplomatic immunity.

i think i agree wit JR on this one, i will bet there is a document where the pope says he is exempted from secular law. I think when a pope is installed he is usually told to ‘rule over kings’.
Ubenedictus

 

[Credo_ergo_sum]

i seriously doubt that, augustine refused to use the vulgate for some reasons. He used the greek scriptures instead.
Ubenedictus

He used the Vetus Latina, Latin translations of the LXX which were there before the Vulgate.

 

[Ubenedictus]

Technically, any *Catholic *man can be. So yes, a canonically eastern Catholic man could legally be elected pope of Rome.

i would be careful here, the pope is the patriarch of rome, puting a a bishop who isnt in the roman arm will cause problems. Maybe the latins may also ask that they be made patriarch of russia.
Ubenedictus

 

[Nine_Two]

It was once the norm that individuals from all jurisdictions could lead other churches. I’m not certain when this changed, though it has changed in both the East and the West. My feeling is that it is more recent among the Greeks, and much older for the Latin’s and the Slavs.

edit: Gregory III seems to have been the last Easterner elected Pope, well before the Great Schism. After that it was dominated by Italians for a while.

 

[Hesychios]

edit: Gregory III seems to have been the last Easterner elected Pope, well before the Great Schism.

This was the end of the period when the Byzantine emperors were naming Popes. The college of Cardinals did not exist and the local synod (which in an ideal world would have done it’s own electing) could only accept this.

After that it was dominated by Italians for a while.

The local Roman magnate families came to dominate the selection process, since there were a lot of perks to the office every family tried to get a son in there.

For a while there was a particular political animal named Count Theophylact and his descendant family who influenced or controlled a few papal selections. Much later there were the great families from elsewhere around Italy (especially Colonna - Orsini) whose names keep popping up in history, as having donated several sons each to the church as they battled from inside the college of Cardinals for control of the election process.

 

[Nine_Two]

The Good ol’ Days™.

Point remains though, that it was once common place for individual bishops to rule a Church which did not have jurisdiction over them most of their lives. Even today it is fairly common for regular bishops not to be from the territory they are in charge of.