Let's talk about primacy of honour

[mardukm]

Dear brothers Ignatios and John VIII,

You have both given some thought-provoking statements. Unfortunately, I will not be able to respond sufficiently until Wednesday.

For now: Brother John VIII, please reflect on the fact that the great majority of instances when bishops (East, West and Orient) appealed to the bishop of Rome did NOT occur in the setting of an ecumenical council. Sometime this coming week, I will give you several classic examples (if others have not done so by the time I return).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

To be honest with you this the first time I hear of this, that he has 2 votes, ( check the recent voting 2004 in the Antiochian Patriarchate in Damascus concerning the American archdiocese, it says that each would have one vote, it didnt say anything about the Patriarch having two votes)

I am more familiar with the particular customs in Southern Russia than I am of those in the Antiochian Church. But although customs vary from one jurisdiction to the next they are all based on the same principles that come from the apostles of Christ. The custom of the chief hierarch having 2 votes is Russian and I do not know if the Antiochian Patriarchate follows a similar custom. It follows the idea in the Old Covenant where the tribe of Israel that held the birth-right got a double portion if the inheritance. (The Pope can lose this primacy just as the tribe of Reuben lost the birthright to Joseph!)

Again I do not think that this is a clear cut as you are saying it, simply because the Synods are the highest authority in the Church

Whether it be a local synod or an ecumenical council, the church follows traditions based on what we have received from the apostles of Christ. The Synod is the highest authority in the Church, but when there is no Synod held the patriarch is the highest at that time. During an ecumenical council the one who is chief in the council holds a position of power that can affect the entire Church. But outside the ecumenical council the hierarch only has power to effect his own jurisdiction and no further.

However, we as Orthodox believe that St. Peter was indeed in Rome and he preached there etc…there is no absolute proof, except some quoting, But if the Orthodox Church believe he was there, then this is good enough for me, I will stick to it, BUT as for he was the First bishop of Rome this is a long shot

About St. Peter being the first Bishop of Rome. I am certain that he in fact was the first Bishop of Rome. I used to think that Linus was the first Bishop, and that he probably was ordained by St. Paul. But I am now sure that this is not correct; let me explain why. As I’m sure you know St. Peter served as the first Bishop of the See of Antioch for seven years from 45-53 and then was succeeded by Bishop Evodius from 53-68. But St. Peter didn’t die until 65! I think we can safely conclude that Saint Peter was not deposed; nor is it possible that there could be two bishops at the same time in the See of Antioch! Therefore, the only way that Saint Peter could be removed from the See of Antioch before his death and another be placed in his stead is that he had to have been transferred to another See. We also know that Saint Peter went to Rome and was martyred there in 65; and that Bishop Linus became bishop in Rome in 65, the same year that Saint Peter died. It therefore must be that Peter served as the first Bishop of Rome for 12 years from 53-65. I believe the reason the records don’t clearly spell this out is because of the extreme persecution that existed in Rome at that time, as Christians were being martyred as often as they can be found. Anyone who was elected to the See of Rome also knew that this was in effect a death sentence for him. Even St. Ignatius of Antioch went to Rome to be martyred.

Many teachers in the church, particularly in Rome, felt that the “ecumenical patriarch” needed to be a successor of St. Peter. The “Rock” of St. Peter is the Orthodox faith itself, so the primary reason that the ecumenical patriarch should be a successor of St. Peter was because it was believed that this would make it a lot less likely that he would fall into heresy. But this was not taught as the exclusive right of Rome, as Pope Gregory said after saying that the patriarch of Constantinople ought not to be called the ecumenical patriarch because Constantinople was not founded by St. Peter; he also clearly said that it would be okay for the church to make either Rome, Alexandria, or Antioch the ecumenical patriarch since all three of these were founded by St. Peter.

As I see it, this was simply a superstition, that somehow a jurisdiction that was founded by St. Peter would not fall into heresy. Even St. Clement of Rome, I think, was superstitious as he said he believed in the mythical bird called the “Phoenix”! The real meaning of the Church being founded on the Rock of St. Peter is that we should all be united as one by holding to the same Rock, which Rock is the orthodox faith. When our Lord said “upon this rock I will build my church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” it very well may be the “the Gates of Hell” referred to is heresy, but the active force here is not the Gates of Hell; the Chruch is the active force. The Church defeats heresy, but heresy does not defeat the Church, but this is true only if the Church is active. If the Church chooses not to act against heresy, then heresy can overcome the Church. And one of the best things that Satan can use to cause a church not to be active in this regard is to make them think that it doesn’t have to worry about anything because God has divinely protected them from any error so they can rest easy. What a mistake it is to think this way!

 

[rad]

I came to a conclusion if the pope’s didn’t have these fictional powers as supreme pontiff,and infallibility , Vatican two would of never been allowed to happen,the traditional catholic bishops in council would never of allowed these drastic changes…this is what happened when a pope is given super powers and can overide a council of bishops…and they just become the popes yes men instead… even if they disagree with him,my 2 cents worth…

 

[JJR1453]

Greetings to you JJR,
as for the examination of the historical record, when I did examined them I did with an open mind

Well, that is certainly good to hear, I too have come to my conclusions based largely on history; of course coupled with a fair amount of prayer and openness.

“their Orthodoxy” is what made him succeed, it is evident in what the Bishops proclaimed in that Council, and only through “their orthodoxy” did he succeed, what he was weary of is the influence of the See of the Pope Discorus at that time since they( the Alexandrians) were the leaders (If you will) in that time.

Two years before Chalcedon was held Ephesus II(Robber synod), for which it was a terrible disaster. Dioscorus being its main promoter, he denied the papal legates their presiding place; refused to allow the reading of Leo’s Tome; and to quote the letter written from the council fathers assembled at Chalcedon to the emperor Marcian, Dioscorus “had barked at the apostolic see itself” and “even attempted” to excommunicate Leo.

Hefele sums it up well when he states:

“How easily misled, however, and how uncertain in doctrine, many Greek bishops were, the Robber Synod had more than sufficiently shown. the desire of the Pope, that the synod should be held in the West, that is, should be attended by many Latin bishops, was therefore quite legitimate, and dictated by his interest in orthodoxy.” (History of Councils, Vol. III)

Could you possibly elaboarte on your assertion that: “they( the Alexandrians) were the leaders (If you will) in that time.”?

But, to stick to the subject at hand, isn’t the above a clear indication that the Pope of Rome is not what the RCC today claims, if he was then why should he be weary of the outcome of that Council, all he had to do is say the way he sees it and excommunicate whoever doesn’t follow his command or declare it a dogma on his own. also if he is the president as we see the claim is in this thread, then, all he had to do is say “there shall not be a council” or " the Council will be held in Rome", if he was the president as defined by the RCs he would have had many ways that he could have used, other then submitting to the wish of the others, If he was the president he wouldn’t have “begged” with “groan and tears” but instead he would have had issued a “bull” and the examples are many if we were to go on.

You seem to be a little hazy on how Rome views her bishop in regards to councils. Again, a reading over St. Leo’s letters make apparent the fact that Leo *was * the one who was working behind the scenes to get the council called. If you will recall, Leo tried ernestly to persuade Emperor Theodosius II to call for a council accomplish that which the Robber Synod had failed to do. Until then the synod had not acepted the confirmation of the apostolic see and thus was rendered void. Theodosius would not assent and upon his death and Pulcheria’s decision to take the hand of Marican, the two new catholic orthodox heirs made known that they would call for the council. For Pulcheria and also the Western Emperor Valentinian III had all received letters from Leo requesting a council. So in summary, Leo’s ardent manuveurs, which were also at the request of many including Flavian of Constantiniople, was the main contributor to the convocation of the synod. But – as it should be well noted – Leo did not see it to himself to call the council without the Emperor, and it was the Emperor that was charged with sending the letters to notify all those within the Empire of its convocation. Again, the Pope only has to confirm the council, although it should be well observed of Leo’s determining actions that called for the eventual convocation.

Now, Technically and according to the E.C. Pope Discorus was not named as heretic nor he was condemned as such, but on the Ground that he did not show up after calling him to summon three times by most of the Bishops :

He was a heretic in so far that he refused the reading of Leo’s Tome that was the basis of the orthodox profession at Chalcedon. Also, he “even attempted” to excommunicate Leo, and Im sure, no one disputes Leo’s orthodoxy, for if this is under dispute, then the orthodoxy of the church would also be under the same question.
(CONT’D)

 

[JJR1453]

So, according to your above, we find again another sign that the Pope of Rome is not what the RCs are seeing him to be in the history, for if he was, then Marcian wouldn’t have made the calling of the Council but the Pope would have.

Correct, in so far that the Pope must confirm the council. Constantinople I was confirmed by Chalcedon, before that it was not seen as Ecumenical, as only the East was called to the council in order to deal with the rapant attacks of Arianism in those parts. As for Nicea I, Hefele well notes:

“An examination of the signatures of the Council of Nicaea
leads us again to the same conclusion. It is true that there
are many variations to be found in these signatures, if several
manuscripts are consulted, and that these manuscripts are
often faulty and defective, as Tillemont has conclusively
shown ; but in spite of these defects, it is a very significant
fact, that in every copy, without one exception, Hosius and
the two Roman priests sign the first, and after them Alexander
Patriarch of Alexandria signs. On this subject the two
lists of signatures given by Mansi may be consulted, as well
as the two others given by Gelasius : in these latter Hosius
expressly signs in the name of the Church of Rome, of the
Churches of Italy, of Spain, and of the West ; the two Roman
priests appear only as his attendants.” (History of Councils Vol. I)"

He elsewhere notes:

‘Socrates, in giving the list of the principal members of the Council of Nicaa, writes it in the following order : " Hosius, Bishop of Cordova ; Vitus and Vincentius, priests of Rome ; Alexander,
Bishop of Alexandria ; Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch ; Macarius, Bishop of Jerusalem." We see that he follows the order of rank : he would therefore never have placed the Spanish bishop, Hosius, before the great patriarchs of the East, if he had not been the representative of the Pope.’(Hist. of Coun. Vol. I)

I think if you view ecclesiastical history as such, it will soon become apparent of the Emperors might. You may even recall the times where Justianian in his reconquest had the power of confirming the Pope-elect in Rome, and this sort of thing even carried on in his successors for quite some time. As for the “presidency” of Ecumenical councils, I have much more to say. For there are an abundant amount of historical examples to view, but for now I must get back to my studies. For our discussion – which I am rather enjoying, and I thank you for – has already carried me far off my focus as it is.(Big test tomorrow) I promise to also respond to your other posts in the near future.

God bless brother,

JJR

NOTE Sorry I had to shorten up my post immensely, as the forum only allows for 6000 characters. First time that’s happened to me. Man, that sure is a bummer, having to cut some stuff after being told to shorten your post…

 

[Ignatios]

JohnViii

I am more familiar with the particular customs in Southern Russia than I am of those in the Antiochian Church. But although customs vary from one jurisdiction to the next they are all based on the same principles that come from the apostles of Christ. The custom of the chief hierarch having 2 votes is Russian and I do not know if the Antiochian Patriarchate follows a similar custom. It follows the idea in the Old Covenant where the tribe of Israel that held the birth-right got a double portion if the inheritance. (The Pope can lose this primacy just as the tribe of Reuben lost the birthright to Joseph!)

True, customs do vary slightly from one jurisdiction to another, but, in the ancient Patriarchates, I believe that the customs are the same.
However, as for he can overrule them all, then, what would happen is the case of the Patriarch of Jerusalem few years ago, that the synods ( all the Bishops that is), convoked a council, although, canonically the Patriarch is the one who has the right to convoke the synods, in some extreme cases they can do that, especially when they got a Pan Orthodox( all the Patriarchs ) decision backing them up, the first Pan Orthodox resolution gave him the opportunity to resign, but he insisted on not, then the second Pan Orthodox, backed the Synods up, deposed of him, and brought his ranking down to a Monk where he resides in a Convent.
So that is why I said in the case of a local Council it is not the same as it is in an ecumenical Council, BUT it is close, NOT the same though.

Whether it be a local synod or an ecumenical council, the church follows traditions based on what we have received from the apostles of Christ. The Synod is the highest authority in the Church, but when there is no Synod held the patriarch is the highest at that time.

True however that doesn’t mean that he can act without the Synods, remember?

During an ecumenical council the one who is chief in the council holds a position of power that can affect the entire Church. But outside the ecumenical council the hierarch only has power to effect his own jurisdiction and no further.

I must disagree with you on this one, the presidency in the Ecumenical council does not extend outside the Council, true,
But being the chosen president ( whomever he may be) in the ecumenical Council does not give him the power , to affect the entire Church, that would be waist of the time, for if it is so then there is no need for a Council, the duty of the president of an Ecumenical Council is to make sure that what had agreed on ( such as the matters that to be discussed allowing one to speak before the other, make sure the procession is going accordingly, keeping order in the Council so on so forth ) so it is more or less like the speaker of the house in the USA, to give an example, take the case of the fourth E.C. the Pope presided in the person of the legates in that particular council, if it was what you are saying that the President has the power to overrule and power to affect the whole Church, then the 28th canon in that Council wouldn’t have passed, but despite the rejection of that Canon by the Papcy the resolution was passed including the 28th canon. we can give many examples.
Such case as you described above exist only in the RCC.

About St. Peter being the first Bishop of Rome. I am certain that he in fact was the first Bishop of Rome. I used to think that Linus was the first Bishop, and that he probably was ordained by St. Paul. But I am now sure that this is not correct; let me explain why. As I’m sure you know St. Peter served as the first Bishop of the See of Antioch for seven years from 45-53 and then was succeeded by Bishop Evodius from 53-68. But St. Peter didn’t die until 65! I think we can safely conclude that Saint Peter was not deposed; nor is it possible that there could be two bishops at the same time in the See of Antioch! Therefore, the only way that Saint Peter could be removed from the See of Antioch before his death and another be placed in his stead is that he had to have been transferred to another See. We also know that Saint Peter went to Rome and was martyred there in 65; and that Bishop Linus became bishop in Rome in 65, the same year that Saint Peter died. It therefore must be that Peter served as the first Bishop of Rome for 12 years from 53-65. I believe the reason the records don’t clearly spell this out is because of the extreme persecution that existed in Rome at that time, as Christians were being martyred as often as they can be found. Anyone who was elected to the See of Rome also knew that this was in effect a death sentence for him. Even St. Ignatius of Antioch went to Rome to be martyred.

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

Certainty, In the case of St. Peter is “almost” absent in relation to Rome, the only valid references we have, is in his Epistles, the Epistles were dated as late as the 67A.D. and in that year again most of the scholars suggest that he was martyred, by appealing to his second epistle in which he speaks of the prediction of his Death during his imprisonment in Rome, and again most scholars suggest that it is dated most likely between the year 63 and 67. Most of the “suggestion” refere that he was martyred in the year 67A.d.

But to come to the certainty that you have proposed, we find ourselves in a massive collision with other historical( Biblical) records such as St Paul which there is more certainty and of course many valid evidences ( Biblical ).

With keeping in mind that we must some how observe the title of this thread.

If you suggest that St Peter was the bishop of Rome from the year 53-65, then how would you explain the Epistle of St Paul to the Romans which is dated no later then the year 57a.d. in which he speaks of having the Church at Rome to be established when he goes there and also speaking about going to Rome because he desire the built on no one foundation:
Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established;

The Church in Rome was not established yet ( established meant to receive the Holy Spirit)

And in the following one is clear and undisputed evidence that St.peter was not in Rome at the time of this Epistle 57a.d. (few scholars say that this epistle was written as early as the year 55a.d. and few others say that it was written as late as the 60a.d.)

Romans 1:15 So, as much as in me is, I am ready to preach the gospel to you that are at Rome also.

One can conclude from the above that the Romans some how had some ignorance of the Gospel to some extent at least, In which it made St Paul say to them that he will preach the Gospel to them also, It is not possible that St. Peter went to Rome and did not Preach the Gospel, all the above leaves us with that St. Peter was not in Rome up until this letter was written which is I think it is safe to say the year57a.d.

Romans 15: 20 . 20 It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.

If Peter had already established a church in Rome, it would be odd then to say that he’s going to a place where no one has established a church, and it is a sign also that Peter was not there yet, that they were asking St Paul to come to them, if they had St. Peter why asking for St. Paul?

As for he was in Rome, I think that he went there without any doubt, the extensive testimony from early times as early as St Ignatios of Antioch leaves very little doubt that he didn’t go to Rome.

Now let me conclude this very briefly since we are way off topic,
According to the many suggestions of the many scholars that St Paul had died in the year 67a.d. let me use here the work of a book that I purchased from the Monastery of Balamand that it was written by Joseph holzner about the biography of St Paul in his book “ Paul of Tarsus “and it was translated into the Arabic Language by the Late Patriarch of Antioch and all the Levant Elias the Fourth.

According to this work, St Paul had left Rome to the east after his first imprisonment where he preached in the city of Crete and then his trip to Spain sometime between 63a.d.and 66a.d. and then between the years 66a.d. and 67a.d. come back from Spain through Rome to the city of Nicopolis where he wrote his letter to Titus in the year 66-67a.d. and then it says that he was imprisoned and was martyred in the year 67a.d.
Now using all this, and not going into Linus become the bishop in the year 65a.d.(assumedly when St Paul left to Spain) I don’t see where you can fit St Peter as being a bishop in Rome never mind being the first bishop of Rome.

… When our Lord said “upon this rock I will build my church and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it” it very well may be the “the Gates of Hell” referred to is heresy, but the active force here is not the Gates of Hell; the Church is the active force. The Church defeats heresy, but heresy does not defeat the Church, but this is true only if the Church is active. If the Church chooses not to act against heresy, then heresy can overcome the Church. And one of the best things that Satan can use to cause a church not to be active in this regard is to make them think that it doesn’t have to worry about anything because God has divinely protected them from any error so they can rest easy. What a mistake it is to think this way!

I like the above one.

GOD bless you brother

JJR1453 I will respond to you in the next few days, GOD bless you too brother.

 

[JJR1453]

True the Pope doesn’t have to be the acting president when he is called to be so, he could do that through a legates, or even without being present, any of the Pentarchies Sees, all they have to do is to accept the Council and ratify it, and then if all did so, it becomes an ECUMENICAL, in which its resolution would be binding on all the Church, So if the Pope of Rome or any Patriarch did not ratify it, then it wont be an Ecumenical, unless the Bishop of a Church was a subject to something such as the case of Discorus, but even then others were appointed for the Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Hello again Ignatios, Greetings In Christ brother.

Quite right, Ephesus II was not only held without Rome, but distinctly against Rome and orthodoxy. Precisely why it met the end it did. However, I believe you may be arbitrarily form-fitting the “pentarchial churces” with that of Rome, when you speak of confirming councils. More on this below. For the historical timelime runs counter to these postulations.

let me try to clarify it,
But allow me first to make some corrections to your history with meekness, “ Constantinople II” was not until the year 553 A.D. and it was Eutychius of Constantinople, who presided in that Council.

Perhaps I have overlooked your “corrections”, for you have merely repeated what I have already written, viz. Rome was not present at Constantinople II.

And in the first Council( Nicea I) there were a legates from the See of Rome, the pope of Rome sent 2 or 3 legates when he heard that the Emperor convoked that Council ( in which the Emperor did not invite him nor notify him about it neither any of the Eastern Bishops)

So – if I am to understand you correctly – Constantine convoked the council without notifying anyone? The Sixth Ecumenical Council would seem to disagree:

*“On the other hand, it is undeniable that the sixth Ecumenical Synod in 680 expressly asserted that the Synod of Nicea was summoned by the Emperor and Pope Sylvester.” Hefele, History of Councils Vol. I) *

Also, Rufinus notes – in continuing Eusebius’ Church History – that Constantine summoned the Council in Nicea at the suggestions of the priests. True enough, ‘the priests’ is a rather vague description, but I would think it an all too bold assertion to assume that the churches were not notified about Nicea.

In the case of the 2nd E.C. all of its attendees were from the East.
Now, Nicea I(325 A.D.) and Constantinople I ( 381 A.D.) characteristically were not Ecumenical Councils, it wasn’t until later those 2 councils became Ecumenical in character. (in particular the second E.C.) Why? For I have explained few times I believe so far and that is, it takes all Five Pentarchies to make a Council an Ecumenical one, so in the above case those councils were involved the Eastern Churches but not the See of Rome in the beginning, and when later Councils came to be, Rome being present at those later Councils, submitted to them ( the first two that is) and thus they became Ecumenical since now their resolutions were accepted by all Five Pentarchies (Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople) I listed them not by Honor but according to the oldest first.
So I hope that I clarified this one enough for you.

Firstly, the Second Ecumenical council held in Constantinople was never intended to be a universal council, but merely a regional council of the East to address the Arian attacks that were ever prevelent in those parts. We see the distinction in the Third Ecumenical council held in Ephesus in Canon 7:

“When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.”

Notice how the council – assembled in 431 – makes no note of that of the Necene-Constantinoplian creed, wherein additions were made to the original Nicene Creed, and the council only sees Nicea as a binding; universal; and Ecumenical council. While the subsequent Ecumenical council held in Chalcedon(451) contrived the pentarchy twenty years later. So in turn, how can your pentarchial assertion be valid when we see the church holding to binding Ecumenical councils before the Pentarchy was ever brought about?

 

[JJR1453]

I am not trying to create anything, I just responded to what you were trying to create, and since I know quite a bit about the legend of the “legend of St. Andrew” ( although this is not what your Church believe concerning this ) thus I am aware of how the theory goes, and the reasoning used, however I did give you an Idea that the reasoning that you are trying to use to discredit the Holy see of Constantinople, the same would be used in the case of saint Peter in relation to the Roman See.
However, we as Orthodox believe that St. Peter was indeed in Rome and he preached there etc…there is no absolute proof, except some quoting, But if the Orthodox Church believe he was there, then this is good enough for me, I will stick to it, BUT as for he was the First bishop of Rome this is a long shot ( as you say in America).
I appreciate your encouragements, GOD bless you †, but I have done a lots of research in those areas, however extra info. Doesn’t hurt, what do you suggest? Maybe I have overlooked some info, if you can contribute, I would be greatly thankful since I am always open to more info.
But let me invite you in return into reading more about this issue from both sides again.
I do not mind going into any historical discussions actually I like to discuss the history side of the Church, I am not too much into discussing the Theology ( but few times I got dragged into it) especially when it comes to speaking about the Lord Holy Spirit, for such things, as St Gregory the Theologian said in his first theological Oration ( oration 27) third chapter “… Discussion of Theology is not for everyone, I tell you, not for everyone, it is no much inexpensive or effortless pursuit. Nor, I would add, is it for every occasion, or every audience, neither are all its aspects open to inquiry, it must be reserved for certain occasion, for certain audiences and certain limits must be observed. It is not for all people…etc”
However we must observe the title of this thread, but if you like maybe later you can open up a thread for that discussion.
GOD bless you abundantly†††

You are creating a parallel here, dear brother, when you state(quoted above):

“I am not trying to create anything, I just responded to what you were trying to create, and since I know quite a bit about the legend of the “legend of St. Andrew” ( although this is not what your Church believe concerning this ) thus I am aware of how the theory goes, and the reasoning used, however I did give you an Idea that the reasoning that you are trying to use to discredit the Holy see of Constantinople, the same would be used in the case of saint Peter in relation to the Roman See.”

So – if I am understanding you correctly – your assertion is that, by the same criterion, if St. Andrew be discredited with not preaching and having successors in Byzantium, then St. Peter is also discredited with not preaching and having successors in Rome? From your viewpoint, is this correct?

The tradition of St. Peter preaching and being martyred at Rome is very prevelent in the early 2nd Century by St. Ignatius, and later on in the same century also we find SS Irenaeus, Dionysius, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian. This is only in the 2nd Century, and obviously many continue to testify later down the line.

Conversely, allow me to quote from an Eastern Orthodox site that treats the subject:

“No one then claimed that the see of Constantinople had been founded by one of the Apostles. With the passage of time, however, as the controversy between East and West waxed hot, Byzantine apologists began to feel the need of counteracting the Roman tradition about Peter with one of their own.”

and it goes on to state:

‘The Patriarch Photius apparently made no use of the Andrean argument in his disputes with Rome, nor does Pope Nicholas Ι make any reference to it. But, beginning with the tenth century, and especially after 1204, Byzantine theologians delighted in tracing the descent of Constantinople from the “first-called” of the Apostles, who served thus as a buttress for their claim that the Church of Constantinople ranked highest in the whole of Christendom.’

It shows clear – and here the author has also left out that St. Ignatius did testify to being the successor of the apostles St. John & St. Andrew(Dvornik, The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and the Legend of the Apostle Andrew) – that the Byzantine legend is obviously something that can be believed and confessed – I certainly have no problem with that – but to look upon both traditions – Of Peter at Rome, and Andrew at Byzantium – with equal credability is certainly something that is foreign to objective analysis. I’d like to stress again; I have no problem with the Byzantine church confessing such legends and if it in any way bolsters their faith, then I would certainly encourage the tradition. Sometimes reality isnt always the most important caveat.

God bless brother Ignatios,

JJR

 

[Mickey]

“And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.”

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

Interesting. In another quote, St John says that St Paul is the teacher of the whole world.

 

[tdgesq]

Interesting. In another quote, St John says that St Paul is the teacher of the whole world.

St. Paul was a teacher of the entire world, at least as it was seen to exist at the time. Look at all of his epistles. Here is a good example from Chrysostom:

You see his [St. Paul’s] humble soul? You see how he sets himself below all saints, not merely below all the apostles? And feeling this towards all, he was aware how great a superiority Peter must enjoy, and he reverences him more than all men, and he esteemed him according to his dignity. The whole world was looking to Paul, the care of the Churches throughout the world was hung upon his soul, every day he transacted a thousand matters, all surrounded was he with business, presidency, corrections, counsels, warnings, instructions, the management of a thousand things; and setting all this aside, he went to Jerusalem, and there was no other pretext for his journey but to see Peter, as he himself says: ‘I went up to Jerusalem to visit Peter,’ so greatly did he honor him and set him before all.

1. According to St. John Chrysostom, Paul recognized the “superiority” of Peter while at the same time affirming that Paul was teaching the entire Church; and
2. St. John is not speaking of St. Paul’s teaching authority in relation to another See as he does between St. Peter and St. James here:

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

Does Chrysostom have anything else to say about the relationship between St. Paul, St. James, and St Peter? Yes he does:

So that even though John, though James, though Paul, though any other whatsoever, appears to perform any great deed after this, yet Peter excels them all, he that was the first to make way for their boldness, and open the entrance, and to enable them to enter with great confidence, like a river carried in mighty flood…Was he such after the Cross? Before the Cross, also, was he not more fervent than all? Was he not the mouth of the apostles? Did he not speak when all were silent, etc.

The final underlined portion being an obvious reference to the Council of Jerusalem at Acts 15:

And after there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them, by giving them the Holy Spirit just as he did to us, 9and he made no distinction between us and them, having cleansed their hearts by faith. 10Now, therefore, why are you putting God to the test by placing a yoke on the neck of the disciples that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear? 11But we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

12And all the assembly fell silent, . . . .

Chrysostom states that Peter did enjoy a place of honor in relation to the other apostles; that he was the mouthpiece of the apostles; that he was the teacher of the entire world contrasted to only the See of Jerusalem.

Without the approval of St. Peter, the decree of the Council of Jerusalem would not have bound the entire Church.

 

[tdgesq]

Btw, all of the St. John Chrysostom quotes come from this excellent article from John Chapman on Phil Vaz’s website.

bringyou.to/apologetics/apolog.htm

 

[Mickey]

St. Paul was a teacher of the entire world

Exactly!!!

And when I get access to my files, I will posts dozens of other St John Chrysostom quotes that you may be surprised to read. The consensus of fathers do not corroborate the Roman Catholic innovations of supremacy and infallibility. But then–I think we have already been down that road.

 

[Mickey]

Without the approval of St. Peter, the decree of the Council of Jerusalem would not have bound the entire Church.

Really? You are reading imaginary things into the Sacred Scripture.

 

[tdgesq]

Exactly!!!)

Whoops! You missed part of my post!

1. According to St. John Chrysostom, Paul recognized the “superiority” of Peter while at the same time affirming that Paul was teaching the entire Church; and
2. St. John is not speaking of St. Paul’s teaching authority in relation to another See as he does between St. Peter and St. James here:
   
   Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

Really? You are reading imaginary things into the Sacred Scripture.

Not at all! Are you saying that the decision at the Jerusalem Council as described in Acts 15 could have been made without St. Peter? Looking forward to your answer.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Mickey,

And when I get access to my files, I will posts dozens of other St John Chrysostom quotes that you may be surprised to read. The consensus of fathers do not corroborate the Roman Catholic innovations of supremacy and infallibility. But then–I think we have already been down that road.

No comment on the other quotes given by brother tdgesq from St. John Chrysostom?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Orthodox episcopate, clergy, and laity? Medoubts it. Which is the whole point. The Vatican does not feel it needs agreement from or consultation with Orthodox bishops to move ahead with supposedly universally binding claims.

Besides, it’s students of rhetoric that will say such a thing, because it sounds convincing. Students of history will note that the bishops of Rome get lots of petitions. Their popularity is no predictor of the Pope’s pronouncements (sorry, I’m in an alliterative mood today). I’m guessing part of the reason JPII lived so long was that he must have spent at least fifteen minutes a day laughing gaily at the nutty things people wanted him to do or say that particular week.

Your argument is also all “rhetoric.” Show us a single instance in the history of the Church when an ex cathedra statement was done WITHOUT the participation of the Pope’s brother bishops. Until then, your rhetoric will only sound convincing to those who would not be swayed by rhetoric OR historic facts.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

No comment on the other quotes

Uh… you want comment? Okay. I have a great veneration to St John Chrysostom and I love all his quotes.

 

[Mickey]

1. According to St. John Chrysostom, Paul recognized the “superiority” of Peter while at the same time affirming that Paul was teaching the entire Church

LOL! St John most certainly did not recognize St Peter as the supreme infallible pontiff.

Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem? I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

This says nothing as to pontiffs of post schism Rome being declared supreme and infallible. He also says that St Paul was the teacher of the world. You are reading imaginary things into the writings of St John.

Not at all! Are you saying that the decision at the Jerusalem Council as described in Acts 15 could have been made without St. Peter?

St Peter, St Paul, St Barnabus, and St James where invovled. St James made the judgement.

 

[Ignatios]

Two years before Chalcedon was held Ephesus II(Robber synod), for which it was a terrible disaster. Dioscorus being its main promoter, he denied the papal legates their presiding place; refused to allow the reading of Leo’s Tome; and to quote the letter written from the council fathers assembled at Chalcedon to the emperor Marcian, Dioscorus “had barked at the apostolic see itself” and “even attempted” to excommunicate Leo.

Hefele sums it up well when he states:

“How easily misled, however, and how uncertain in doctrine, many Greek bishops were, the Robber Synod had more than sufficiently shown. the desire of the Pope, that the synod should be held in the West, that is, should be attended by many Latin bishops, was therefore quite legitimate, and dictated by his interest in orthodoxy.” (History of Councils, Vol. III)

Could you possibly elaboarte on your assertion that: “they( the Alexandrians) were the leaders (If you will) in that time.”? emphasis are mine

Greetings and blessings JJR and all,
Hope you had a good thanksgiving,

First allow me to point out to you what I meant and/or was talking about ( In the blue) using your own posting ( the red highlighted Text in your posting)as just one of the many examples that History shows us, So the Highlighted in the red is clear evidence the Influence that the Bishop(s) of Alexandria possessed at that time, and if we read carefully we find that there was strife between the two Popes Alexandrian and Roman).
As for he attempted to excommunicate Pope Leo, actually he did excommunicate Pope Leo, as some records shows:
britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/164420/Dioscorus
‘’…The following year Dioscorus presided over the Robber Synod of Ephesus. With the support of the Eastern Roman emperor Theodosius II, he reinstated Eutyches, excommunicated Pope Leo I the Great for censuring Eutychianism, and deposed Patriarch St. Flavian of Constantinople for opposing Monophysitism…" beleive you would have seen this if you would consider looking into other sources than the newadvent or RC sites. Remember for one to get a better picture, must look on all sides.
I hope that I have put forth enough evidence to support my “assertion” concerning this.

As for, your first above posting, it is a history but I really lost what is your point from posting it, and what is the relation to what we are talking about which is the Primacy of Honor, you have moved away from the subject at hand. Dioscorus and the Alexandrian See was no more than side comment of mine, But let me attempt to try to bring you back to where we started, all the above and again proves that the Bishop of Rome was not as the RCC says he was in the E.C.

Now, looking again at Hefele’s, again,( Let us remember once and for all that Hefele is a Roman Catholic bishop of Rottenburg, Karl Joseph von Hefele 1809-1893), reading his “history”, one can find it more as an apologetic work in defense of his church rather than “history”.
The above is a “ COMMENTARY” NOT history, that is, coming from a Roman Catholic Bishop, it is no more then the “History in the eyes of a Roman Catholic Bishop” who is trying somehow to funnel the history to the benefit of his own church , I would be foolish to expect something from him that would not support his church’s claim. Although there may be some views that would not be in-line with the RCC of today, since changing in the RCC are evident throughout its history.

You seem to be a little hazy on how Rome views her bishop in regards to councils…

If you see me to be as such, that is fine, but why not give illustration for us how is that?

Continue…