For Orthodox Christians here...re: St. John Chrysostom's support of the Papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter SingleMomMonica
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
mardukm said:
Dear brother jimmy,

You oppose universal jurisdiction because you misunderstand what it means. You think that it means the Pope micomanages the Church on all levels, and that nothing can be done without the Pope or that he can disregard his fellow bishops whenever he feels like it. But the actual teaching is that it refers to the Pope’s care and solicitude for the Church, the Pope does not have the authority to treat his brother bishops that way, but must rather uphold and defend the local authority of his brother bishops, and the bishops have prerogatives in their dioceses that not even the Pope possesses. I suggest you read our Eastern canons thoroughly, instead of taking little snippets to justify your exaggerated misunderstanding of the papacy (though I admit the canons are not perfect).
Click to expand...
The problem is that words like ‘care’ and ‘solicitude’ are vague words that mean nothing in the end because they can be interpreted to mean anything.
I’m not reading into anything. I think it’s just that you have let certain extremist Latin Catholics misinform you of the true nature of the papacy.
Click to expand...
You want to say that there has been no development. If you want to maintain that then you are going to have to read into the texts. Jurisdiction and infallibility are not a part of the Chrysostom statement.
Yes, the papacy is consistent with the early Church. And yes the development (i.e., the dogmatization of the ancient belief on the papal prerogatives) was warranted. The Truth of the dogmas established at Vatican 1 - RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD ACCORDING TO THE INTENTIONS OF THE FATHERS AT THE VATICAN COUNCIL, NOT ACCORDING TO THE EXAGGERATIONS OF EO POLEMICISTS WHO DERIDE THE PAPACY, NOR THE EXAGGERATIONS OF CATHOLIC POLEMICISTS WHO MAKE THE PAPACY MORE THAN WHAT IT IS - are unassailable.

You have never responded to my explanations that mitigate your exaggerated understanding of the papacy. An Eastern Byzantine Catholic at the Byzcath forum once noted the ironic fact that BOTH Eastern Orthodox and Catholic polemicists are working off of the SAME EXAGGERATED CARICATURES of the Catholic teaching on the papacy - one to oppose it, the other to support it. Besides, brother, my offer for discussion was for sister Monica, not to you (though your (name removed by moderator)ut is always welcome).

Blessings,
Marduk
Click to expand...
I respond because your statements are about my post. I follow the reading of the Catholic polemicists that you speak of because it is the straightforward reading. Your reading strikes me as simply an attempt to read around the meaning of the text by speaking of the vague words like ‘care’ and ‘solicitude’. Until there are actual limits placed on the authority of the pope (part of the definition of universal jurisdiction is that it can be exercised without limits) those words will have no meaning. They are fluff words; they make you feel good but there is no force behind them.
 
oneharpdown said:
St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen DISAGREED. Cyprian did not simply acquiesce to the Pope, nor did the Pope speak from a chair of infallibility on this matter. Pope St. Stephen appealed to tradition.

St. Augustine writes about this conflict and says that the matter would have been resolved if an ecumenical council had taken place. That is to say, the Council was above the Pope.

Regarding the primacy of honor- what’s not to understand? Power and authority are not implied by honor. The Queen of England has a place of honor, but not much governing authority, and certainly not a charism of infallibility.
Click to expand...
St. Cyprian and Pope St. Stephen did not just disagree (St. Cyprian was against sacred Tradition when he proposed to rebaptize “heretics” outside of the Church, in fact, his belief on this matter is what propelled the Donatist heresy). Furthermore, a council was held by St. Cyprian and other Eastern bishops who unanimously expressed that rebaptism was necessary and TRUE for heretical Christians to reenter the Church (which goes to show how infallible councils are without the participation of the Pope, whether directly or indirectly). When this was brought to the attention of the Pope (through I believe St. Cyprian himself), the bishop of Rome, he overruled this council’s decision because as you mentioned the Church had never believed or taught that heretics needed to be rebaptized (unless it was not done in the trinitarian form and with water), because of this, the eastern bishops “suddenly” saw the error of their ways, despite having earlier decided through an “infallible” council that heretics needed to rebaptized, when the Pope had spoken. Moreover it makes you wonder why it was necessary to seek the approval of the Pope when they had already established what they believed to be truth through a council, could it be because every council needed the participation of the bishop of Rome to ensure its validity?

As for your understanding of “primacy of honour”, well, the fact of the matter is that St. Peter was given a special authority quite different from the other apostles (this is scriptural), so as such his authority would continue on through apostolic succession and only one person (the bishop of Rome) could attain this succession. What point would Jesus have in specifically handing the keys of the kingdom to one man only to have it shared by others upon St. Peter’s death (and please note Isaiah 22:22 when responding to this)?
 
jimmy said:
This quote from St. John Chrysostom doesn’t say what you want it to say. No where in the text does he mention or even hint at an idea of universal jurisdiction. No where does he hint at the idea that the pope can make a decision for the whole Church. What it hints at is simply a hope that through the pope things will be resolved.

All scholarly research addresses the past as it was, not in light of the present. We cannot read the fathers of the fourth century as if they were papists who professed papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. It is anachronistic because these concepts were not present. The early Church was not structured around the concept of corporate unity as the modern Catholic Church is. Each individual Church was self-governing, and it was to the local bishop that the people were obedient (not the pope). Excommunication was not the same as it is today; it was simply to break communion. The patriarchs did have a great deal of authority in the fifth and sixth centuries but the question is what is the nature of this authority. Was it a juridical authority in which they had a divine right so to speak to force themselves on the other bishops of their patriarchate: or was it simply a matter of political influence over the local churches?

The papacy is a development and to say otherwise is to laugh in the face of all historical study. No historical theologian will say that it did not develop. This idea was rejected long ago and it has been accepted by the Catholic Church that there has been a development of the doctrines. That is emphasized by Cardinal Newman and every other modern theologian. Theologians of the 13th through16th centuries often tried to say that none of it developed but the fact is that it has. The emphasis is now placed on consistency. Is the developed papacy consistent with the early Church? Is the development warranted?

The authority of the pope as defined at the Vatican Councils has been discussed ad nauseum and I don’t feel like discussing it again. It gets a little old and exhausting. But, nevertheless, we disagree on the issue.
Click to expand...
Jimmy, I grow weary of your failed understanding of Catholic doctrines, if you feel as you do then please do us all a favour and convert. I say this because I don’t relish having people here calling themselves Catholic when they propose another theology altogether (it confuses people and provides fodder for those who disagree with us) . It is also in my opinion a disservice to Catholics (and the Catholic Church) to see you speak as you do.
 
A website claims Rotschil, The one that has acces to Vatican money funded and CREATED Jehow Witness:
"** Indeed it was the Rothschilds who funded the Jehovah’s Witness operation into being**, along with other Illuminati bankers, through “contributions” by organizations like the Rothschild-controlled B’nai B’rith. This was proved in a court of law in 1922. One of the key people involved in this was Frank Goldman who later became President of B’nai B’rith. Why would an organization set up (in theory) to help Jewish people and promote the Jewish faith, be funding into existence the Jehovah’s Witnesses??? I think the name Rothschild answers the question. Russell was also a high degree Freemason and Knights Templar. He promoted Zionism, another Rothschild creation (see Hitler was a Rothschild), on behalf of his friends and backers. "
Are the protestants creted and funded by Rotschild, 30 000 of their Groups? There is an historical document saying something like this:
“In…societies in which we established protestantism and discord”
Who is We? Is Rotschild a part of WE?
 
jimmy said:
For a long time it was the tradition, both east and west, to recieve only a couple times a year. Penance was often like this where a person would be kept from communion for long stretches of time before they were reintroduced to communion. They would have like 3 year penance where they would not recieve the Eucharist.
Click to expand...
You speak of tradition with a small t, correct? Also, please define what is deserving of such a penance as being denied the eucharist for me? Do you think for example that SingleMomMonica should be denied the eucharist even after reconciliation simply because she converted to the Catholic faith (was that considered a grave sin in the early Church?). It would seem according to the Orthodox Church that because she partook of the sacraments outside of their faith system, she is unclean and must do penance. I don’t believe that a person should be denied the eucharist if they are truly penitent and furthermore, only committed the wrong of having converted to the Catholic faith (which is not really that dissimiliar to Orthodoxy). I would like to quote from the book “The Imitation of Christ” by the Augustinian monk Thomas A Kempis, if you please:

“If you seek healing for your passions and habits, and desire to be made stronger and become more vigilant against the devil’s deceits and temptations, then you must have frequent recourse to the fountain of grace and divine mercy, the fountain of goodness and purity. Aware of the great fruit and healing power within the Sacrament, the enemy tries with all his might - in every way and at every opportunity - to hinder and prevent the faithful and devout person from receiving it.”

I think it’s quite clear under the circumstances that imposing such a restriction on the eucharist is harsh and unnecessary.
And they all recognize there has been a development in the doctrines of the papacy. No legitimate historical theologian would say that the papacy was as it is from the beginning. Even Pope Benedict himself speaks about the development of the papacy in some of his books. In his book The Nature and Mission of Theology he speaks of the development of the authority of the papacy in the 12 and13th centuries for a few pages.
Click to expand...
I have no disagreement with development of doctrine and moreover as I have reiterated in another post, development of doctrine is not innovation. The deposit of faith moreover includes a primacy role for the successors of St. Peter therefore it should be evident in Church history and Tradition in some form or another (with delineations and refinements made along the way) that this is true.
No one has ever said that every word spoken in a council or recorded in the documents is infallible. You could read the records of Vatican II and find several statements made by bishops that you would strongly disagree with. The Council of Chalcedon read the letter of Ibas out without any condemnation of it. They reinstated Ibas to his see. But later at the Second Council of Constantinople in 553 the letter (it is part of the ‘three chapters’ controversy) was condemned as heretical. Should we assume that because no one condemned the letter of Ibas at Chalcedon that they consequently supported it? No, there is neither a statement for or against it.
Click to expand...
I never stated that every word spoken at a council is infallible, however, I find it quite interesting that something this early on in the history of the Church should be spoken at a council (with no condemnations whatsoever in later councils as is the case with Ibas) without it causing some consternation amongst those who believe that the bishop of Rome is not the successor to Saint Peter?

Council of Sardica

“*f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . **let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” **(canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Optatus of Milevus

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

“*f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment” (canon 4).

Council of Constantinople I*

“The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome” (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).

catholic.com//library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp*
 
A website claims Rotschil, The one that has acces to Vatican money funded and CREATED Jehow Witness:
" Indeed it was the Rothschilds who funded the Jehovah’s Witness operation into being, along with other Illuminati bankers, through “contributions” by organizations like the Rothschild-controlled B’nai B’rith. **This was proved in a court of law in 1922. **One of the key people involved in this was Frank Goldman who later became President of B’nai B’rith. Why would an organization set up (in theory) to help Jewish people and promote the Jewish faith, be funding into existence the Jehovah’s Witnesses??? I think the name Rothschild answers the question. Russell was also a high degree Freemason and Knights Templar. He promoted Zionism, another Rothschild creation , on behalf of his friends and backers. "
Are the protestants creted and funded by Rotschild, 30 000 of their Groups? There is an historical document saying something like this:
“In…societies in which we established protestantism and discord”
Who is We? Is Rotschild a part of WE?
 
I didn’t actually kept the links. But the text has some. I can look into history of my computer and find links:
This is from web:
"Early in the 19th century the Pope came to the Rothschilds to borrow money. The Rothschilds were very friendly with the Pope, causing one journalist to sarcasticly say “Rothschild has kissed the hand of the Pope…Order has at last been re-established.“39 The Rothschilds in fact over time were entrusted with the bulk of the Vatican’s wealth.** The Jewish Ency., Vol. 2, p.497states**, ,It is a somewhat curious sequel to the attempt to set up a Catholic competitor to the Rothschilds that at the present time (1905) the latter are the guardians of the papal treasure.”** Researcher Eustice Mullins **writes that the Rothschilds took over all the financial operations of the worldwide Catholic Church in 1823.(40) Today the large banking and financial business of the Catholic Church is an extensive system interlocked with the Rothschilds and the rest of the International Banking system. The great wealth of the Russian Czars was entrusted to the Rothschilds, $35 million with the Rothschild’s Bank of England, and $80 million in the Rothschild’s Paris bank. The Rothschilds financed the Russian Revolution which confiscated vast portions of the Orthodox Church’s wealth.”
 
I do think Orthodox people have a duty to push Catholics out of error and to defend Catholics, as Catholics did the same in the past.
The error helps nobody . It is important, as some miracles has shown to keep the purity of beliefs and not to let unchristian people be able to make decisions in Church. Beside this, there are orthodox people speaking with God and I don’ remember anyone of this men to seek being Catholic after this, on contrary they speak out loud for keeping orthodoxy.
 
By the way, I was also told by another poster (who shall remain nameless) that the Vatican financed communism so it could destroy the Orthodox church (for those of you who don’t believe me I have witnesses, namely KyivAndrew and Peter).
 
Wow, I’m starting to understand what the poor Jews had to go through (we Catholics or rather the Catholic Church are now being blamed for all the evils of this world, scapegoats for a world which is losing the way, the life and the truth).

p.s. The irony that he/she believes that the Church funded the KKK (let alone the others you mentioned) is that the KKK was created initially to counteract the waves of Catholic immigrants to America (their hatred henceforth expanded to other peoples).
 
I don’t know about other info . I found the information and I warned you. I do think the best would be to look into Rotschild biography and I don’t think that top financier of Catholic Church should be a non Christian. This is basic.
 
From web. No comment:
"TEILHARD DE CHARDIN IN HELL
"Many of Our clergy have become blinded through their love of worldly pleasure and riches. Many have accepted a soul once high as a priest. Teilhard is in hell! He burns forever for the contamination he spread throughout the world! A man of God has his choice as a human instrument to enter into the kingdom of satan.
“Man will not defy the laws of God without going unpunished. You are a perverse generation, and you call the hand of punishment down fast upon you.” Our Lady, March 18, 1973
OMISSIONS
“The Father is always the final judge, but We do not condone evil, and you must speak out in defense of the truth. If you are silent in the face of destruction, you hold great responsibility for the loss of souls. If you cannot stand and fight for My Son, can you expect Him to recognize you and stand before the Father in your defense when you come over the veil? All who deny My Son shall be denied.” - Our Lady, April 6, 1974
TURN BACK
“Awaken from your slumber, My pastors. You will turn back now and retrieve what you have lost when you have succumbed to the errors of humanism and modernism. Do not be filled with pride. Be humble and accept your cross. Acknowledge before mankind that error has been followed, for to err is human, My children. But when you know you have made a mistake, what have you to gain but to follow this road of folly. Turn back and start again.” Jesus, August 14, 1976
GREATEST SORROW
"The greatest sorrow that smites My Heart, My children, is the desecration to My Son’s Body. These abominable acts are being committed by His own in His houses, His churches upon earth.
“I repeat again that none shall bring the sacred Body of My Son, His Body and Blood, to another but a legally-ordained priest with consecrated hands. I say, My children, consecrated hands, blessed hands, washed clean by the Holy Spirit! No man shall render excuses for defilement of My Son’s Body.” - Our Lady, May 14, 1977 "
 
DISCARDED
“My child, I know you are in wonderment of why Michael is holding the chalice with anxiety. I must tell you: within the chalice in Michael’s hands are the Hosts collected from throughout the world that had been discarded by the faithless. I have asked that My Son’s Body be protected upon earth. But many clergy now have cast aside My warnings from Heaven, and His Body has been placed and thrown on the floors, and into the water fonts of many of My Son’s churches throughout the world.” - Our Lady, May 17, 1986

SACRILEGE
"My Son is not pleased with the manner in which His Body and Blood is being given to all of the humans upon earth.
“Communion in the hand has not been, and will not be accepted by Heaven. This is a sacrilege in the eyes of the Eternal Father, and must not be continued, for you only add to your punishment when you continue on in the ways that have been found to be unpleasing to the Eternal Father.” - Our Lady, June 30, 1984

ONLY EXCEPTION
"Only in dire need of death shall a man—I say a man, not a woman or a child—shall a man be given the power through the legally-ordained priest to bring in urgency and haste the Host to the dying!
“This debasement to My Son’s Body shall not go unpunished!” - Our Lady, August 21, 1975

SON OF SAM
"I have always asked you, the Eternal Father has written it in the good Book, your Bible, to always test the spirits. My children, the evil, the spirits of darkness always reveal themselves with time. They cannot conceal their farce and lies. My children, you will understand now that satan is trying to conceal his nature and his being to mankind to deceive you. If you do not believe in the existence of Lucifer, satan, and his agents, demons, he can go forward working his will among you unseen, unknown, unbelieved, but creating disaster and death to souls.
“My children, the man you call ‘Sam’ is satan in a human body. He has powers beyond what most human beings could understand.” Our Lady, November 21, 1977

ILLUMINATI
“There is a group in the United States and the world, a group that started many years ago, calling itself the Illuminati, coming from the word ‘light bearer.’ Naturally, My children, this light that they bear stands for Lucifer, and as such they have gone through the world secretly known as Luciferians. They have brought into your country, the United States, and your neighbor Canada, a group of witchcraft practices. Well have they laid their plan to destroy your children with drugs, using your school systems, your medias of communication, your newspapers, your televisions, your radios: every means of communication has been infiltrated by the members and sub-members of the Illuminati, a conglomeration of individuals and powers and principalities throughout the world, and banking systems. As you well know, My children, money has always been the root of all evil, and many have sold their souls to get to the head.” Our Lady, November 25, 1978

POSSESSED CARDINAL
St. Theresa - “There are four agents from hell upon earth. One is now—”
Veronica - Oh, and Theresa is pointing, and I see Saint Peter’s. It’s a very large church. It’s very large. Oh, and I see this horrible-looking thing. This thing, he’s going now into the door. He’s very smug-looking. Oh, and he’s now gone into a back room—in the room off the church; it’s a room off the side of the church. There’s a lot of people gathered there. There are cardinals and bishops. I can tell by the way they’re dressed.
Now one is going over, and he’s counting. He’s saying: “One! two! three! four! five! six!” And he’s placing his hand now on the chest of the cardinal. Now as I watch—oh! Oh, I see him—he’s just like … oh, he’s like evaporating into his body; he’s just going right in! Now I can’t see him anymore. But I see—oh! Oh! Now I see—oh, my! Oh! Our Lady says:
Our Lady - “Yes, My child, you will have no fear in speaking out, for they must be warned.”
Veronica - I see now that the one, the cardinal, is now taking off his—he has a very wide hat. Now as he’s taking it off he’s smiling, but as he takes it off, his hat off, he has ears like a, like a devil—these things coming out of his head like a devil! And he’s holding up the number—he’s holding up his hand: five and one make six. - June 8, 1973

CARDINAL BENELLI*
“My child, you must understand I have cried to you often to recognize the faces of evil about you. They come as angels of light with ravenous hearts. You will not judge, My child, but you will pray for these who have fallen away… Already, recognize the evil that has come forward from stopping the prayers within the last two weeks, My child. Already in Rome, as I gave you in the past, the man called Benelli has come forward to approach the Seat of Peter and to bring upon Rome the full reign of 666 on the Seat of Peter! I beg you, I implore you, as your Mother, to listen! I have warned you now upon your earth; I have come to you as a Mediatrix between God and man, imploring you to listen to My counsel and My direction. The forces of hell are loosed upon your earth now. They try to stop all missions from Heaven. It is the final battle of the spirits; the forces of good and evil now entangle en masse.” - Our Lady, June 4, 1977
 
Ah, Adrian is posting from Bayside messages (a condemned Marian “apparition”). Seriously… get a new hobby.
 
CONDONING HOMOSEXUALITY
"We see a church of man being built, a church that has no angels guiding it, a church that is made, as the true Church of My Son is being chipped away at, undermined by My Son’s own priests! How dare you debase My Son’s heritage by allowing all evil to be condoned in His Church!
"You men who are formerly of the light an have given yourselves to the darkness, you condone this foul act of homosexuality. And why? As satan inspires you and directs you, you go about looking for excuses for sin! You condone it with permissiveness!
 
Actually, no, you’re breaking the rules by posting them here. You have been notified… !
 
ONLY MEN
"In the Holy Sacrifice that I left with you, I did not ask for women to be upon the altar, nor try to be a high priestess. They carry this on in the churches of satan; therefore, it shall not be carried on in My Church.
“When I had the Last Supper with the Apostles, My Mother was not present. If I had it in My power from the Eternal Father to make a priestess, I would surely have chosen My Mother; but, no, there were no women present at the first Dedication.” Jesus, October 2, 1987

HERESY*
“Already We hear you clamor for the ordination of woman. No woman shall stand in My House to represent Me! How dare you bring in this heresy to My House! I shall go among you and I shall sling you out from My temples!” Jesus, December 27, 1975

REBELLING AGAINST HER DESTINY
"Woman must return to her place as woman, for she has been misled. Was it not woman who fell to satan in the beginning?
“Her disobedience to the will of God brings much sorrow upon her and her children. It would be better now, My children, if woman would be silent, for she does not know the road she is traveling. It is only satan who has set her to rebel against her destiny.” Our Lady, March 24, 1974
 
These and the ones above are from web.No comment .

“THIS GROUP OF SATAN”

"It is in the direction of the Eternal Father that you remove from your country the forces of satan now running rampant in the grouping you call the United Nations.
Code: 
 "You must as a nation take yourself away from this group of satan. You have opened your doors to the enemies of God! These enemies do not defend you, but they wait to pounce upon you like vultures! They are bringing you down to your knees now, My children. Like vultures, they will await their time." - Our Lady of the Roses, September 13, 1974
U.N. A BROOD OF VIPERS

“America, you will remove yourself, as a country, from that brood of vipers in your city that has set itself up to govern the world’s peoples and lead them to destruction.” - Our Lady of the Roses, December 7, 1971

SEAT OF EVIL

“You have allowed the evil to grow strong in your country. You will remove from your country this seat of evil that grows strong in your city. The mark of the beast has labeled your city Babylon! Open your heart and eyes now to the truth, before it is too late. You are being blindly led to your own destruction. The brood of vipers within your city must be removed at once!” - Our Lady of the Roses, February 1, 1972

THE GODLESS United Nations…

Veronica - I see the floor in the chamber of the League of Nations, but I do not see faces behind the desks. I see serpents, their tongues lashing out in every direction.

Our Lady - “Where is the godhead in this group? What is their true purpose, as they play with the lives of millions? Liars, sent by the father of all liars! Trust not in the ways of man, but place your full trust in your God.” - Our Lady of the Roses, December 31, 1970
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top