Having doubts after looking at Eastern Orthodoxy, development of doctrine

[josie_L]

I think it’s safe to say that you will harm, not increase your credibility if you keep posting in this vain.

Quantity isn’t impressive unless you are willing to discuss the context of *each *quotation.

Edwin

Contarini, the fathers are quite clear (for those willing to see the truth) in what they wished to convey, i.e., the bishop of Rome aka the pope is the head of the Church and as such prime defender of the faith. God bless.

 

[josie_L]

Emperor Valentinian III (ca. 450 a.d):

“The primacy of the Apostolic See having been established by the merit of the Apostle Peter, by the dignity of the city of Rome, and by the authority of the holy Synod, no pretended power shall arrogate to itself anything against the authority of that See. For peace can be universally preserved only when the whole Church acknowledges its ruler [445 a.d.].” (Valentinian, in Ap. Neander, Hist. of Ch. iii. p. 246)

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus (ca. 450 a.d.):

“I, therefore, beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed Archbishop (Leo) to use his apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. **For that most holy throne has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds.” **(Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197)

Pope Celestine (ca. 423 a.d.)

“Placed as we are by God on a watchtower, . . . **our spiritual care fails not as regards places however distant, but extends through all places where the name of God is preached.” **(Celestine, Epist. iv. Univ. Episc. per Vienn et Narbonens Prov. n. 1. Galland, ix.)

Pope St. Innocent I (410 a.d.)

[To the Council of Milevis} Y**ea, why have you confirmed this by your own act, but that you know that, throughout all the provinces, answers to questions always emanate from the Apostolic spring. Especially, as often as questions of faith are agitated, I am of opinion that all our brethren and fellow -bishops ought not to refer but to Peter -

that is, to the Author of their name and honour - even as your friendliness has now referred (to ascertain) what may be for the common weal of all the churches throughout the whole world. For the authors of these evils must needs be more cautious, in seeing themselves, upon the report of two synods, separated from the communion of the Church, by the Decree of our sentence." (Innocent, Ep. xxx. ad Concil. Milev. n. 1,2, 6. Ib. p. 602-3)

"These are the things which it behooves every Catholic Bishop, having before his eyes the judgment of God, henceforward to observe. . . That if any causes, or contentions, arise between clergy of the higher, or even of an inferior order, the dispute be settled agreeable to the Synod of Nicaea, by an assembly of the Bishops of that same province, and that it be not lawful for any one . . . .to leave these priests (bishops), who by the will of God govern the Church of God, and to have recourse to other provinces. If any greater causes shall have been brought forward (or discussed), let them, after episcopal judgment, be referred to the Apostolic See, as the synod (of Nicaea) resolved, and a blessed custom requires." (Innocent, Ep. ii. ad Victric. n. 1,2,3,5,6, Galland. t. viii. p. 547)

Alcuin, English Monk (780 a.d.)

"Lest he be found a schismatic or a non-Catholic, let him follow the most approved authority of the Roman Church, so that we may ever have the examples of our salvation from the same place we received the beginnings of the Catholic faith." (Alcuin, Ep. 70)

The formula of Pope Hormisdas, a.d. 519, by the Eastern Emperor, Patriarch, and (Eastern) Bishops (and confirmed in 869 by the Fathers of the eight General Council) is as follows:

“In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See, shall not be recited during the sacred mysteries. This is my profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you Hormisda, the holy and venerable pope of the city of Rome.” (Form. Hormisd. Episc. Orient. Praescript. Denzinger’s Enchirid. p. 42, ed. 1874)

to be continued. . .

 

[crazzeto]

You now believe that they always had this authority, of course. But they did not officially claim it and it was not generally granted them.

Edwin

No, it was a long standing teaching of the Church which wasn’t made doctrinal until Vatican I… Any pope in the middle ages, if they so desired, could have claimed it and tried running amok with it…

Assuming of course we catholics were incorrect about the protection of infallibility afforded the roman pontiff

 

[Contarini]

No, it was a long standing teaching of the Church which wasn’t made doctrinal until Vatican I… Any pope in the middle ages, if they so desired, could have claimed it and tried running amok with it…

No, that is not what the evidence says.

The Popes of the eleventh century began claiming unprecedented jurisdictional supremacy. In the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Spiritual Franciscans came up with the doctrine of papal infallibility as a way of reining in the Popes (because then they could be held accountable to what their predecessors had said). In the nineteenth century, when the concerns had become epistemological rather than primarily juridical, Vatican I finally endorsed the theory of infallibility, which in the modern context strengthened rather than weakening papal authority.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople to Pope Hadrian II, 867 A.D., upon being restored to his See by Basil I in the conflict with Photios:

"Art has provided many physicians for the wounds in the limbs of men…but of wounds in the members of Christ our God and Savior, the Head of us all, and of His Spouse, the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the Supreme Chief and most powerful Word, Orderer, Healer and Master, the God of all, has produced one only and pre-eminent and most universal physician, that is, your fraternal and fatherly goodness. Wherefore He said to Peter, the great and chief Apostle: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it.’ And again, ‘I will give thee the Keys of the Kingdom of heaven, and whatever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven.’ For such blessed words He did not circumscribe and define to the Prince of the Apostles alone by a kind of chance, but through him He transmitted them to all who, after him as successors were to be made Chief Pastors, and divine and sacred pontiffs of Elder Rome. This is why, since the most ancient times, each occasion that heresy and prevarication have come to light, your predecessors on this throne, that is to say, the successors of the Prince of the Apostles, and imitators of his zeal for the Christian Faith, have torn up the tares and destroyed the members which were corrupt or incurably affected."

St. Methodius the Slav (9th century)

"It is necessary to know that this decision [the 28th canon] was not accepted by the Blessed Pope Leo. He did not approve the holy Council of Chalcedon on this point, but he wrote to the Council that he could not accept such a novelty, machinated by the doubtful Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople. Also, some bishops present at the Council refused to subscribe to the canon. And it is not true as this canon affirms that the holy Fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. It is because of the degree of his faith that Peter, the most exalted of the Apostles, heard these words from the very mouth of Our Lord: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep’. This is why he possesses among the hierarchs preeminent rank and the first See. For, if as this canon affirms, it is because it is was the capital that Ancient Rome possesses the Primacy, it is evidently Constantinople, now capital of the Empire, which has inherited this honor. But everyone knows that although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy. For the dignity and the preeminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power but by divine choice and by apostolic authority… How would it be possible because of an earthly emperor to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? Immoveable indeed, unto the end, are the privileges of Old Rome. So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council… " (testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

Pope St. Zosimus (417 a.d.):

“Although the tradition of the Fathers has assigned so great an authority to the Apostolic See , that no one should dare to dispute about a Judgment given by it, and that See, by laws and regulations, has kept to this; and the discipline of the Church, in the laws which it yet follows, still pays to the name of Peter, from whom that See (or discipline) descends, the reverence due, - for canonical antiquity, by universal consent, willed that so great a Power should belong to that Apostle, a Power also derived from the actual promise of Christ our God, that it should be his to loose what was bound, and to bind what was loosed, an equal state of Power being bestowed upon those who, by His will, should be found worthy to inherit his See, for he has charge both of all the Churches, and especially of the One wherein he sat: nor does he allow any storm to shake one particle of the Privilege, or any part of the Sentence of that See to which he has given his name as a foundation firm and not to be weakened by any violence whatever, and which no one can rashly attack but at his peril; - seeing then, that Peter is a Head of such great authority, and that he has confirmed the subsequent decrees (or statutes)of the Fathers; that, by all laws and regulations, both human and divine, the Roman Church is strengthened: and you are not ignorant, you know, dearest brethren, and as priests you are not ignorant, that we rule over his Place, and are in possession also of the Authority of his name, nevertheless, though so great be our Authority that none may refuse (or reconsider) our Sentence, we have not done anything, which we have not, of our will referred by letter to your knowledge, conceding this to the Brotherhood.” (Zosimus Ep. xi. Ad Africanos, Galland T. ix. pp. 15,16)

The fact of the matter is Promodos that the approval of the Pope with respect to synods and/or ecumenical councils was not a mere formality but a necessity.

 

[josie_L]

No, that is not what the evidence says.

The Popes of the eleventh century began claiming unprecedented jurisdictional supremacy. In the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Spiritual Franciscans came up with the doctrine of papal infallibility as a way of reining in the Popes (because then they could be held accountable to what their predecessors had said). In the nineteenth century, when the concerns had become epistemological rather than primarily juridical, Vatican I finally endorsed the theory of infallibility, which in the modern context strengthened rather than weakening papal authority.

Edwin

Now I know that there were quite a few popes during the Eleventh century who were appointed to the office of Peter through ill means (feudal lords taking advantage of the feudal anarchy of the times to prop up their papal candidates) I have a hard time swallowing your theory that papal infallibility was an invention of the Franciscans in order to rein in the ambitions of Popes, i.e., papal infallibility was already implicitly if not explicitly implied by the fact that the pope’s judgment on matters of faith and doctrine were necessary and final (just read all the fathers I quoted and the historical context behind them).

 

[crazzeto]

No, that is not what the evidence says.

The Popes of the eleventh century began claiming unprecedented jurisdictional supremacy. In the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the Spiritual Franciscans came up with the doctrine of papal infallibility as a way of reining in the Popes (because then they could be held accountable to what their predecessors had said). In the nineteenth century, when the concerns had become epistemological rather than primarily juridical, Vatican I finally endorsed the theory of infallibility, which in the modern context strengthened rather than weakening papal authority.

Edwin

That’s not true, how do you explain the letter of Clemet to the Corinthians? I’m sorry but it’s clear that Popes far earlier than the 13th and 14th centuries were claiming “unprecedented jusidictional supremacy” as you call it. Note that was in ~90AD, St. John who laid his head on our lord and saviours chest was still alive. There as long long (very long) history of the Pontiff’s having total juristiction over the whole of the church, going back to the begining with St. Peter.

 

[Contarini]

That’s not true, how do you explain the letter of Clemet to the Corinthians? I’m sorry but it’s clear that Popes far earlier than the 13th and 14th centuries were claiming “unprecedented jusidictional supremacy” as you call it. Note that was in ~90AD, St. John who laid his head on our lord and saviours chest was still alive. There as long long (very long) history of the Pontiff’s having total juristiction over the whole of the church, going back to the begining with St. Peter.

The fact that St. John may well have been still alive is a pretty weak argument on which to base the assertion that 1 Clement claims jurisdictional supremacy.

How about you show me what in the language of 1 Clement implies jurisdiction?
That Rome had prestige and primacy from the beginning I do not dispute.

Bear in mind that there is serious doubt as to whether Clement was a monarchical bishop, or as to whether there was such a bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Now I know that there were quite a few popes during the Eleventh century who were appointed to the office of Peter through ill means (feudal lords taking advantage of the feudal anarchy of the times to prop up their papal candidates)

I’m not referring to this situation but to the reforms that brought this era to an end. These reforms introduced the Cluniac model of centralized authority into the Papacy, and oriented the Papacy decisively away from the Mediterranean and the East and toward Western Europe. This led to the East-West schism, and to a series of developments in Western Christianity which arguably led away from the faith and practice of the early Church and certainly helped provoke the catastrophic schisms of the sixteenth century.

I have a hard time swallowing your theory that papal infallibility was an invention of the Franciscans in order to rein in the ambitions of Popes,

It’s not my theory (in origin). It’s Brian Tierney’s theory.

i.e., papal infallibility was already implicitly if not explicitly implied by the fact that the pope’s judgment on matters of faith and doctrine were necessary and final (just read all the fathers I quoted and the historical context behind them).

Have you read the historical context behind them?

Sometimes Rome’s role was decisive, sometimes it wasn’t. Pick quotes from people taking Rome’s side at times where Rome decisively supported the position eventually recognized as Orthodox and of course you can make it look as if papal infallibility was accepted early on.

And I think Tierney is wrong at least insofar as he assumes that the high medievals were right in their reading of the earlier material (so, for instance, they interpreted statements saying that “the church of Rome cannot err” as referring to the universal Church and not just the papacy–but this reads the more hierarchical model of the high Western Middle Ages back into the early Middle Ages).

Edwin

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I think, and I hope I’m characterizing this correct, that Hesychios is saying that the pope has the ABILITY AND POWER to dictate unilaterally at will and proclaim dogma without a council. Josie is saying that the pope does not operate that way and cannot.

I think the reality is that he “can” but “hasn’t.” What troubles Hesychios is that he “can” do so if he wants as it is written plainly in Catholic canon law. But Josie is correct when she says he really hasn’t. All the big decrees in Catholicism I read about had a papal commission of some kind of a council. Of course those councils were done without the Eastern patriarchs so Hesychios and Orthodox wouldn’t find much comfort in that, understandably. The pope does have the ability to throw out dogma without council, without advice, without anyone, if he wishes. I just haven’t seen him do it. But there can always be a first time…

Thanks for your fair (name removed by moderator)ut gurneyhalleck; I would like to just add to your analysis here; That everything that the Pope publilcly teaches or proclaims since Peter and his successors in the Popes never has nor cannot ever contradict or conflict with Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. The Pope is protected 3 fold here if and when he ever speaks ex-cathedra 1st by the Holy Spirit, 2nd by Sacred Scripture 3rdly by Apostolic Tradition, this is the guarantee of the Popes infallibility that many neglect to realize.

Now the Pope is not necessarily covered by these from his personal commentaries, encyclicals, books per say. He has freedom to speak just as you and I do about Christian teachings and interpretations. Yet when the Pope speaks for the whole of Christendom, this 3 fold protection appears, which Jesus gave personally authority to do so, we have the promise from Christ that, Jesus prayed for Peter and to be with him always.

The Pope does not go around inventing new teachings and making self proclaimed doctrines as is fasley presupposed by EO. The Popes have proven protecters of the Apostolic faith from the first 30+ Popes who were all martyred for this Catholic Faith. Any Pope in every age vowed to do the same. Christ built his Church upon “Rock” so that this same Rock cannot ever Change until he returns finding (Peter) the Pope tending his flock and feeding his sheep.

The one who does not realize this protection and authority Jesus placed upon Peter, border lines many of the heresies defeated by Rome.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I’m not arguing against anything you’ve said here. I am simply saying that the Pope can, if he wishes, proclaim dogma/doctrine unilaterally without a commission, synod, or (name removed by moderator)ut from others. He has that ‘ability’ if he so wishes to use it according to Catholic law. I’m not saying he’s abused it, will abuse it, or that he’s not a godly man. I’m simply saying that it’s a fact that he CAN proclaim from the Chair in a vacuum if he wishes. No commentary on whether he was or is inspired by the H.S. at all here, just looking at the legal side of things.

Blessings…

Thanks for your fair (name removed by moderator)ut gurneyhalleck; I would like to just add to your analysis here; That everything that the Pope publilcly teaches or proclaims since Peter and his successors in the Popes never has nor cannot ever contradict or conflict with Sacred Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. The Pope is protected 3 fold here if and when he ever speaks ex-cathedra 1st by the Holy Spirit, 2nd by Sacred Scripture 3rdly by Apostolic Tradition, this is the guarantee of the Popes infallibility that many neglect to realize.

Now the Pope is not necessarily covered by these from his personal commentaries, encyclicals, books per say. He has freedom to speak just as you and I do about Christian teachings and interpretations. Yet when the Pope speaks for the whole of Christendom, this 3 fold protection appears, which Jesus gave personally authority to do so, we have the promise from Christ that, Jesus prayed for Peter and to be with him always.

The Pope does not go around inventing new teachings and making self proclaimed doctrines as is fasley presupposed by EO. The Popes have proven protecters of the Apostolic faith from the first 30+ Popes who were all martyred for this Catholic Faith. Any Pope in every age vowed to do the same. Christ built his Church upon “Rock” so that this same Rock cannot ever Change until he returns finding (Peter) the Pope tending his flock and feeding his sheep.

The one who does not realize this protection and authority Jesus placed upon Peter, border lines many of the heresies defeated by Rome.

 

[crazzeto]

The fact that St. John may well have been still alive is a pretty weak argument on which to base the assertion that 1 Clement claims jurisdictional supremacy.

How about you show me what in the language of 1 Clement implies jurisdiction?
That Rome had prestige and primacy from the beginning I do not dispute.

Bear in mind that there is serious doubt as to whether Clement was a monarchical bishop, or as to whether there was such a bishop in Rome before the middle of the second century.

Edwin

No it’s not, particularly when St. John was living geographically next door to Corinth. It’s clear the Corinthians sought the judgment of the Bishop of Rome for a reason, because he has the authority and jurisdiction. The entire epistle implies this jurisdiction, and if you’re considering the Epistle rationally, then you will understand that it would not have been necessary to say “Pope Clement I to the Corinthians, let me start out by saying I’m claiming jurisdiction over you, great now let me continue with my letter”.

The Corinthians wrote him (despite having their own bishop, and John right next door) perciesly because he has the jurisdiction and authority to solve their doctrinal problems. If he did not, then writing Clemet would have been an utter waste of time.

 

[Contarini]

No it’s not, particularly when St. John was living geographically next door to Corinth. It’s clear the Corinthians sought the judgment of the Bishop of Rome for a reason

There is certainly a reason why they consulted him.

because he has the authority

Certainly there’s good reason to think that the church of Rome commanded great respect.

and jurisdiction.

No, you just leap to that assumption because it suits your purpose. You can’t actually show me where jurisdiction is implied, beyond going on about how supposedly remarkable it was that Rome would intervene.

The entire epistle implies this jurisdiction, and if you’re considering the Epistle rationally, then you will understand that it would not have been necessary to say “Pope Clement I to the Corinthians, let me start out by saying I’m claiming jurisdiction over you, great now let me continue with my letter”.

Of course not. So suppose you show me *specifically *where jurisdiction is implied. I’ve read the letter, and I don’t see it.

The Corinthians wrote him (despite having their own bishop

Where do you see a reference to a single bishop anywhere in this letter? Never mind that the leaders had been deposed anyway. You don’t actually seem very familiar with the content of the letter–you just know your apologist’s “talking points.”

and John right next door)

Ephesus isn’t next door to Corinth. It’s across the Aegean.

perciesly because he has the jurisdiction and authority to solve their doctrinal problems. If he did not, then writing Clemet would have been an utter waste of time.

Why is seeking the advice of a venerable sister church a waste of time?

No wonder your Communion has such an impoverished sense of collegiality, when you think it’s a waste of time to talk to anyone who doesn’t have direct jurisdiction over you!

(Note: I know I’m being unfair. But your attitude does exemplify why your Communion has certain problems, even though there are many Catholics with a much healthier sense of Church than you are showing.)

Edwin

 

[crazzeto]

There is certainly a reason why they consulted him.

Certainly there’s good reason to think that the church of Rome commanded great respect.

No, you just leap to that assumption because it suits your purpose. You can’t actually show me where jurisdiction is implied, beyond going on about how supposedly remarkable it was that Rome would intervene.

Of course not. So suppose you show me *specifically *where jurisdiction is implied. I’ve read the letter, and I don’t see it.

Where do you see a reference to a single bishop anywhere in this letter? Never mind that the leaders had been deposed anyway. You don’t actually seem very familiar with the content of the letter–you just know your apologist’s “talking points.”

Ephesus isn’t next door to Corinth. It’s across the Aegean.

Why is seeking the advice of a venerable sister church a waste of time?

No wonder your Communion has such an impoverished sense of collegiality, when you think it’s a waste of time to talk to anyone who doesn’t have direct jurisdiction over you!

(Note: I know I’m being unfair. But your attitude does exemplify why your Communion has certain problems, even though there are many Catholics with a much healthier sense of Church than you are showing.)

Edwin

Healthier in what sense, and to what end Edwin… Please just think about this for a minute, Corinth was in a state of Chaos as attested to by Clemet him self:

The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth, to them that are called and sanctified by the will of God, through our Lord Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, from Almighty God through Jesus Christ, be multiplied.
Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us;2 and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.3

Are these the kind of people that are going to stop just because you consulted a “honored sister church”? We’ve seen this kind of thing over and over again in the history of the Church, in many cases it took banishment from the empire of the offenders to put things right (something not possible in 90AD as the church was in persecution).

This is supported by the other fathers, like St. John Chrysostom:

He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.
[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].

Peter, as is his successor the teacher of the entire world, this is the understanding of the Pontiff’s jurisdiction. This has been constant through the ages, and finally defined at Vatican I

 

[Contarini]

Healthier in what sense

Not reducing everything to power and jurisdiction, but understanding that Christians are part of an organic Body who can relate to each other in ways other than ordering each other about.

Please just think about this for a minute

I have thought about this for a lot longer than a minute. Please do not patronize me.

Corinth was in a state of Chaos as attested to by Clemet him self

Indeed. So much for their “having their own bishop.”

Are these the kind of people that are going to stop just because you consulted a “honored sister church”?

Are they the sort of people who are going to stop just because ordered to do so by someone who supposedly has direct jurisdiction but has no means to enforce it?

Again, you show a strangely impoverished view of how authority works. By sending this letter, the church of Rome made it clear that the broader Church was on the side of the deposed leaders. We have no way of knowing just what kind of authority was being implied beyond this. For all that this letter tells us, Rome may have had some kind of jurisdiction over Corinth–or it may not. It just doesn’t prove what you want it to prove.

Trying to prove too much is the bane of apologetics.

We’ve seen this kind of thing over and over again in the history of the Church, in many cases it took banishment from the empire of the offenders to put things right (something not possible in 90AD as the church was in persecution).

Indeed.

This is supported by the other fathers, like St. John Chrysostom:

Peter, as is his successor the teacher of the entire world, this is the understanding of the Pontiff’s jurisdiction. This has been constant through the ages, and finally defined at Vatican I

Teaching does not necessarily imply jurisdiction, and Clement says nothing about Rome specifically in the passage you quote.

Edwin

 

[crazzeto]

Not reducing everything to power and jurisdiction, but understanding that Christians are part of an organic Body who can relate to each other in ways other than ordering each other about.

Wow, where did you get the idea that “I’m reducing everything to power and juisdiction”? I mean for real, where did you get this idea? It just so happens, our debate is about whether or not the Pope has the aformentioned jurisdiction, it is my contention that he does.

In all charity, to enter a debate about this subject with out expecting your “opponent” (for lack of a better word, I tend not to like it but I can’t think of a better one) to actually discuss the subject, even to focus on it… When it happens to be the subject matter at hand. At least those are my thoughts, I’m not not here talking about Christianity philisophically at large, I’m talking about the specific role of the pope in Christendom.

I have thought about this for a lot longer than a minute. Please do not patronize me.

Indeed. So much for their “having their own bishop.”

Are they the sort of people who are going to stop just because ordered to do so by someone who supposedly has direct jurisdiction but has no means to enforce it?

Again, you show a strangely impoverished view of how authority works. By sending this letter, the church of Rome made it clear that the broader Church was on the side of the deposed leaders. We have no way of knowing just what kind of authority was being implied beyond this. For all that this letter tells us, Rome may have had some kind of jurisdiction over Corinth–or it may not. It just doesn’t prove what you want it to prove.

Trying to prove too much is the bane of apologetics.

Indeed.

Teaching does not necessarily imply jurisdiction, and Clement says nothing about Rome specifically in the passage you quote.

Edwin

I’ll take the rest of your comments in bulk, by declaring an individual teacher of the world, as the Church is a teaching institution, implies that they have Jurisdiction. If they didn’t, then they’d really have no business offering opinion in any bishoprick outside of their own.

St. John (C) is specifically adressing the point of authority, the language he uses is "teacher of the World’.

 

[Contarini]

Wow, where did you get the idea that “I’m reducing everything to power and juisdiction”? I mean for real, where did you get this idea? It just so happens, our debate is about whether or not the Pope has the aformentioned jurisdiction, it is my contention that he does.

In all charity, to enter a debate about this subject with out expecting your “opponent” (for lack of a better word, I tend not to like it but I can’t think of a better one) to actually discuss the subject, even to focus on it… When it happens to be the subject matter at hand. At least those are my thoughts, I’m not not here talking about Christianity philisophically at large, I’m talking about the specific role of the pope in Christendom.

I understand that. My point was that you dismissed the idea that Clement might be relating to the Corinthians in any way other than a jurisdictional one by saying that in that case they would have been “wasting their time” to consult Rome.

If you weren’t “reducing everything to power and jurisdiction” you would have no reason to see jurisdiction in 1 Clement. Perhaps it would be more charitable to say that you are just desperate to find early evidence for the late-developing view of the Papacy you are defending, but I thought that would be even more insulting.

I’ll take the rest of your comments in bulk, by declaring an individual teacher of the world, as the Church is a teaching institution, implies that they have Jurisdiction. If they didn’t, then they’d really have no business offering opinion in any bishoprick outside of their own.

Again, you are “reducing everything to power and jurisdiction.”

St. John (C) is specifically adressing the point of authority, the language he uses is "teacher of the World’.

Authority, sure.

Here’s the bottom line: being a teacher doesn’t give you the authority to depose bishops and put in new ones. That’s a different kind of authority.

And again, you haven’t shown that Chrysostom was talking about Rome in this context. You simply assume that any language about Peter is any language about Rome.

Edwin

 

[Monica4316]

Here are some ECF quotes supporting the Papacy:

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

“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; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in 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 also what 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 [the apostles] are 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 [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]).

this one above suggests that the “chair of Peter” is not shared by all, but is a “single” chair, which shows there is only one Church… the last line also shows that the Church was not built on Peter’s confession, but on Peter himself.

there is also this, also from Cyprian of Carthage:

“Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting … You wrote … that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church” (ibid., 55[52]:1).

and

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men … when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside [the Church]. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (ibid., 55[52]:8).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).*

 

[Monica4316]

There can be made the objection, - maybe Peter had primacy, but all the bishops are his successors. But then there are these quotes:

“[Pope] Stephen … boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. … Stephen … announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter” (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]).

“*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]).

“*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).

“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]).

“In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . .” (ibid., 29:1).

Pope Leo:
“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom” (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445]).**

 

[Monica4316]

“As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter” (ibid., 110).

“If in your view, [Anastasius of Thessalonica], in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than what you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us. . . . Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen [to be apostles], but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one see of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head” (ibid., 14:11).

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

“Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out” (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]).

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 A.D. 431