Let's talk about primacy of honour

[Ignatios]

…continued

…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.

So far, according to your above, I do not see any evidence of presidency as claimed by the RCC, but on the contrary all I see is a desparate moves and pleading, If he was as your church claim, then again he would have Issued a bull or convoked a council. But we do not see any of that.

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.

Still yet to give an evidence of the presidency that it was claimed by your church, all of the above does not support your claim, but the contrary, or where do you see a sign of the presidency of the Pope as claimed by your church in the above so far in relation to the ecumenical Councils.?

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.

Still, none of the above supports your claim, on the contrary the first Bolded sentence *“ … Leo did not see it to himself to call the council without the Emperor …”*is a clear evidence that your church in the beginning did not claim what it does today,

The Emperor was not charged, to use this word “charged” forgive me but it makes me laugh! the Emperor is the one who charges the others, it is clear from the historical records how he was a reference(if you will) to all’s actions, and those who didn’t they lost, and those who favored him won, as we see the case in Dioscorus.

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.

Confirm, like the rest of the Pentarchies, in order for that Council to be” Ecumenical”, for if he or others did not then it can’t be Ecumenical
Leo was a good negotiator, genius man, man with a great influence, indeed, and he achieved all that because of his great character, yes indeed if you are trying to say all the above, I have no problem with that, and I would add to it, that this is why he was called the Great, but if you trying to use this in order to turn it into an authority, then it is not, and the evidence is in the history that you have posted, if you take what you have posted, and try to compare it with the claim of today’s Papacy, it would contradict it, since there is no evidence of any authority, but on the contrary.
ldysinger.com/@magist/0451_Chalc_ec4/00a_start.htm
the emperor Marcian had, by an edict of 17 May 451, convoked the council for 1 September 451. Although the pope was displeased, he sent legates: Paschasinus bishop of Lilybaeum, Bishop Lucentius, the priests Boniface and Basil, and Bishop Julian of Cos. No doubt Leo thought that the council would cause people to leave the church and go into schism. So he wanted it to be postponed for a time, and he implored the emperor that the faith handed down from ancient times should not become the subject of debate. **The only business should be the restoration of the exiled bishops to their former positions. **

the last blue highlight, If he was in charge as the RCC claims why not issue an edict or a bull or what ever he has in his power to acheive that since he has the authority to do so, but this is what we see throught history everything is through the council.

 The council was convoked at Nicaea but later transferred to Chalcedon ... By their side were **the imperial commissars and those serving on the Senate, whose responsibility was simply to keep order in the council’s deliberations.**

The above is another clear evidence that even at some times there was, other than the President of that council who kept things in order, presidency in the council was not as some would like it to be.
Now, after viewing the above historical records, it is either I am misunderstanding you somewhere, or is it your quote above “… although it should be well observed of Leo’s determining actions that called for the eventual convocation …” is a dead smack contradiction to the historical record. Was that from yourself or from hefele? Seriously!

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…continued

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)

I will reposte this again, just for the record, concerning Dioscorus vs. Leo excommunication:
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.

Ok, what I have said before is that the Council did not name him as heretic or condemned him as such, even after they heard of what he had confessed, still did not condemned him for that, but mainly because he did not summoned when he was called three times. So according to the Council he was not heretic if he was then this council failed, which it would be absurdity, BUT, what strikes the most, and I probably shouldn’t be saying this, for many readers, may use it as a propaganda, however, it is my opinion and I very well could be wrong, and that is, try to read what the Council confessed and then what Dioscorus had confessed, and then compare the two together, there is not any difference really to speak of, the way I saw it, like this, Dioscorus said that the Nature of CHRIST is one ( and I believe this where everybody went crazy without hearing the end of it), that is Fully man and Fully GOD, where the council said that the CHRIST has “two” natures fully man and fully GOD … loool…. It is the same thing, the approach is different, it is just like 2x2=4 and 2+2=4*

 

[Ignatios]

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,

I don’t see the relation in your reply to what I have posted in the above, maybe you can clarify for me if I am missing something.
However to respond to your comments, Ephesus II was not held without Rome according to the historical records, using the ccel site:
“…condemned dyophysitism as a heresy, and deposed and excommunicated its advocates, including Theodoret, Flavian, and Leo. The three Roman delegates (the bishops Julius and Renatus, and the deacon Hilarus) dared not even read before the Council the epistle addressed to it by Leo,(This, moreover, made reference to the famous Epistola Dogmatica, addressed to Flavian, which was also intended to be read before the council. Comp. Hefele, ii. 352….) and departed secretly, that they might not be compelled to subscribe its decisions, Flavian was so grossly maltreated by furious monks that he died of his wounds a few days later, in banishment, having first appealed to a new council.

So the above is a multiple proof from history,
First, the council was not held without Rome as you asserted.
Second, and to comment again about you questioning my view of the Alexndrians being the leaders ( if you will) earlier, in that period of time, the above is another testimony how the pope of Alexandria was dominating.
And thirdly, that it was directed distinctly against the Orthodox (Rome was part of the Orthodox Church) whom Pope Leo with no doubt was Orthodox.
Fourth, just a remark, on how the Roman legate escaped ( My self I don’t blame them) but one might expect more out of THEE leading churchmen, such as Flavian the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople did as we see in the above.

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.

Are you trying to apply some of your logic to an E.C. that happened in the first millennium?
My friend, we can only use what had been written, many things in that time it makes the heads of modern scholars smoke, never mind your head and mine, you must understand that things were not clear cut as we wished them to be and in many cases there many records had been lost, not to mention to you to keep in mind the differences in thinking both for that time and for that society also in languages.
Here is some work from some respectful site the “ccel”:
Concerning Ecumenical Councils in General.
AN Ecumenical Synod may be defined as a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world. It is not necessary to make a council ecumenical that the number of bishops present should be large, there were but 325 at Nice, and 150 at I. Constantinople; it is not necessary that it should be assembled with the intention of its being ecumenical, such was not the case with I. Constantinople; it is not necessary that all parts of the world should have been represented or even that the bishops of such parts should have been invited. All that is necessary is that its decrees find ecumenical acceptance afterwards, and its ecumenical character be universally recognized…
… The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together at the commandment and will of Princes; without any knowledge of the matter on the part of the Pope in one case at least (1st Constantinople); without any consultation with him in the case of I. Nice, so far as we know; and contrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon, when he only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the synod. From this it is historically evident that Ecumenical Councils can be summoned without either the knowledge or consent of the See of Rome.

Please make my life easier and do some study and research on that, then talk to me and I will tell you where to find the best deal for a headache pills.

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…Continued

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

I never mentioned Constantinople II, I was speaking about the First 2 E.C., and I said that in the first E.Council Rome was not even invited or notified, but when the Pope heard about it he sent a legates, the second E.Council, the same thing happened, but this time no knowledge nor presence of any Western bishops, and I spoke about this to illustrate for you that Councils did take place without either attendance from Rome or knowledge of them by Rome in which later on became Ecumenical, since the subject that we started with, was about the presidency of Rome in the E.C. and that the RCs think that all the E.C. were presided over by the Pope and that there is no E.C without the Pope, and yet those Councils (1st&2nd) became Ecumenical despite all the mentioned situations, and they did become Ecumenical because all the Patriarchates accepted them, some sooner some later.
However Second Constantinople was attended by 6 Western bishops and it was with the knowledge of Rome, but the Pope boycott it in the beginning only to submit to its resolutions soon after, since they censored him and almost condemned him( actually they did condemned him in the beginning of the council but some historical records shows that they did indirectly or without naming him) however he was excommunicated by Some Western bishops from the communion of the catholic Faith, but then he asked the Patriarch of Constantinople to be restored to the communion:
“… At last the Pope Vigilius resigned himself to the advice of the Council, and six months afterwards wrote a letter to the Patriarch Eutychius, wherein he confesses that he has been wanting in charity in dividing from his brethren…” (Fleury. Hist. Eccl., Liv. xxxiii. 52.)
SO, so far we cant find anything that would confirm the claims of the RCC concerning the presidency of their Pope other than an “honor”.

So – if I am to understand you correctly – Constantine convoked the council without notifying anyone?

I believe you misunderstood me, None of the Eastern bishops notified Rome about the Council that is! And it is NOT that the Emperor didn’t notify 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)

Loool …. GOD bless Hefele, he had a great zeal for his church, he never left it out of “anything” at all, he surely made sure to include his church in every “historical” work he did. The above of Hefele is another example how prejudice he was in “his” historical records and I am referring to the “ … summoned by the Emperor AND POPE SILVESTER” Even the newadvent concede to much less than that. “…I also note that the translation in the English edition of Hefele’s History of the Councils (Vol. III., p. 51) is misleading and inaccurate, “Urged by the canons, and in accordance with the letter etc” - ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xi.html

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.

I will dismiss the above one since it is based on misunderstanding of what I have wrote.

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

Firstly, the Second Ecumenical council held in Constantinople was never intended to be a universal council,

I suggest to go back and read what I have said, It is obvious that I was referring to the first two Councils that they were not Ecumenical and it is clear also that I said that they became ECUMENICAL” only after they were Ecumenically ratified.

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?

Don’t you think you are getting into too many issues at the same time,
I suggest to carry one issue at a time until it is concluded, so you wont look like those who like to “hit and run”.
However, let me give a few pointers on the above,and in which you have said it yourself that only some 20 years later was declared as Ecumenical, now, for Pentarchy, maybe it wasn’t brought up at that particular council, nevertheless the pentarchy existed and it was fact and vibrant and that is why Rome had to submit to Cons.I under the sheer orthodoxy of that council, besides there is another element that I did mention briefly to someone else and that is the Emperor, who was the “equal to the Apostles” and had ecumenical power, as for the Nicene Creed, although the fathers said according to the records “…Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa." Nevertheless, the creed was recited in full according to both sections ( If I may use this word) of it Nicea and Consta. I.

The RCC still calls it the Nicene Creed, But do they recite only the Nicene part of it? Of course Not.
I think your comments above is overstretched.

Pentarchy was not from the beginning, but instead there was three pre-eminent Churches ( Rome, Alexandria and Antioch) , this is clear in the canons of the 1st E.C. even Jerusalem was mentioned, Now let me explain Again, that the first Ecumenical Council was not intended to be Ecumenical in the beginning, And the Second, Again was not Ecumenical in the beginning because although all the eastern Churches were there, but NOT the Western Churches. and Again if Rome or ANY of the Major Churches are not there then how could it be Ecumenical, but that doesn’t mean that the Eastern Church did not see the Pentarchy from the time of the Second Ecumenical Council, how could they not to, if they are the ones who elevated Constantinople and Jerusalem to the pentarchy level, if you want to say that Rome didn’t see it this way, then I would have no problem with it, if Rome OR an Ecumenical Council didn’t mention it that doesn’t mean that it didn’t exist nor would that mean that the last two were ignored as such, the only thing it would mean that they were not Ecumenically recognized as such, SO long it is not condemned by the E.C.

I believe I have explained this more than enough, I hope that I don’t have to go back to it again.
You must be able to see things other than through your church, and what I mean here is, that Rome is not the only thing that existed and without that church there was nothing that it was.

continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…Continued

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.”

I guess you misunderstood what I said, again, My words are focused on what you are trying to create and that is “ the legend of the Apostle Andrew” and therefore I said that I am not trying to create anything, since it is you who is creating something that is irrelevant to what the discussion was about.

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?

I don’t think you are understanding me correctly, No, but let me, explain it,
The same criterion or I prefer the word Reasoning, yes, but NOT about the preaching, IAW, it is the reasoning itself that you are using what is dangerous, why?
Because, if you apply this to the Apostle Andrew, then, the same must apply not only to St Peter but to all (t)raditions such as the dogma of the Assumption of Mary the Immaculate Conception and the other APsotles too since there is no records of the Churches that they established that it doesn’t mean that they didn’t establish any Churches, this is where your reasoning lead to, is a self destructive, and it is nothing but a theory, otherwise this would be hypocrisy, since in both cases we have nothing but tradition, If you wish to say that the case of St Peter is more elaborated and of earlier record, I have No problem with that but nevertheless, it is still a (t)radition, based on someone who heard from someone… and as for St Ignatios record there is nothing in there except for that phrase” I am not an apostle like Peter and Paul to give you commandments” but this proves nothing they gave commandments through an Epistles, and here I use the Epistles of Paul as well as Peter’s as a proof that commandements were given through an epistles also, Ireanaus and the rest, there is no testimony of first hand witness to any. The best one you “may” have an argument, is that of his own Epistle when he speaks of Babylon, but then it is not clear enough, why? to be brief,
because in St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, he greeted about 28 different individuals but didn’t mention Peter!!! In the whole Epistle,
And then in acts 28:15 "When THE brethren [of Rome] heard of us, they came to meet us” Nothing about Saint Peter,
Also Saint Luke always mentions by name important Apostles in the book of Acts. But he never mentioned St. Peter being in Rome or met up with St.Paul
Acts 28:17, 22-23 where he summoned all the chief of the Jews together, they knew nothing about the Gospel and they said that they only knew that everybody hate them the Christians that is. Could it be that St. Peter was there??? How could all the above be? I ask you, and St Peter was there !!! for at least 14 years by then??? And there were a clear evidence of ignorance of the Gospel,

And then in Second Timothy around the year 65ad. Paul describes the circumstances at length in this Epistle. In regard to his trial( his second trip to Rome), he said in II Timothy 4:16. “At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men [in Rome] forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge.” Here you have no escape, St. Peter was not there, could it be that he was there and he forsake St Paul after he was repented from denying CHRIST three time??? I ask you.

In Rome in 65 A.D. St Paul said: “Only Luke is with me” (II Tim. 4:11)

I have many many more that I can bring up concerning this case, And I can assure you that I can at least put you in a dilemma on whether St Peter was there or not, but I will not go further on this issue, Especially about the legend of St Peter being the first bishop in Rome as early as the year 32a.d. since there is more destructions in it than there is benefit.
I Like to assure you all, that I believe that St Peter was indeed in Rome, and the benefit of believing this maybe is not too great but it is not a dogma in the Orthodox Church, BUT he never was a bishop in Rome and defenetly not the first bishop in Rome, those are an example of what legends are, I will stop here for now, and I hope that you will too JJR and let us try to somehow observe the title of this thread.

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

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.

Like I said earlier if you are trying to say that the case of St Peter is more elaborated then I agree, if the testimony of those who spoke of it are earlier again I have no problem with that but, But it is still (t)radition.

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) –

But, I see that you have failed to mention other parts of that Orthodox site, to mention few of the same site:

At first, the Byzantine Church made no attempt to match the elaborate structure of testimony, archaeological and literary, which **had grown up **around the account of the foundation of the Roman Church by the Apostle Peter…

things were not as they were from the beginning in relation to the (t)radition of the Romans, they “grew up” as the time went, hwo could that be?

Next, they could turn to accounts of the life and activity of Andrew, which had been circulating in one form or another since the middle of the third century, if not before…

It must be admitted also that the history of the careers of all but a few of Jesus’ twelve disciples is shrouded in mystery because most of them, except for Peter and Paul, had the bad fortune to work in the remoter and less famous regions of the Empire, and partly on this account failed to attract the attention of a responsible historian who might have recorded their achievements in a manner that would command respect.
So, in the above is where one might ask, if it was not recorded then, can we say that only S.S. Peter and Paul established Churches, could it be that the other Apostles didn’t establish any Churches?, and if NOT which Churches could those be that they established?

If you desire to dismiss the theory of the “ legend of St Andrew” on the ground that there is no first hand record, then the same would naturally apply to many many other (t)raditions.

Also, your dismissal to the Constantinople claim, is not complete, since you only did so on the ground that there is no records of first hand witnesses to that claim, but also there is no first hand witnesses to prove that St Andrew was not the one who established the See of Constan., and here I would say that if we take a Map and dot every place the Apostles and along with the Disciples of Christ, that it was recorded in the Bible, it is very hard to say that they didn’t go through Byzantium( Constantinople) we also know that the Apostles went to all over the world, but do we have a record to every church, town and city they went and established, No, so in my opinion, It is equally absurd to say that he didn’t establish a church in there, since you have no record to prove that he didn’t, where in the case of St. Peter, we have biblical record that would deny Peter existence in Rome up to the time of the written record( biblical) in which it makes the RCC claim to St Peter as being the first bishop of Rome (St. Peter (32-67) Mother of all Legends, up to “the year 65/67” the Biblical record of St. Paul are undisputed, unless you are ready to dismiss the Bible as a “legend “ too.

And now lets move on to the rest:

“…bishop dorotheus at the end of the thirf century attributed that Byzantium was found by Saint Andrew”
“St. Andrew is said to have been responsible for spreading the tenets of the Christian religion though Asia Minor and Greece. Tradition suggests that St. Andrew was put to death by the Romans in Patras, Southern Greece by being pinned to a cross (crucified). The diagonal shape of this cross is said to be the basis for the Cross of St. Andrew which appears on the Scottish Flag.“
“St. Andrews bones were entombed, and around 300 years later were moved by Emperor Constantine (the Great) to his new capital Constantinople (now Istambul in Turkey)”
“…The larger part of St. Andrew’s remains were stolen from Constantinople in 1210 and are now to be found in Amalfi in Southern Italy. In 1879 the Archbishop of Amalfi sent a small piece of the Saint’s shoulder blade to the re-established Roman Catholic community in Scotland.”

Most of the above are from RC sites.

Continue…

 

[Ignatios]

…Continued

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

Let me ask you a question, about the theory of the “legend of St Andrew”, when did it start? is it as old as Dvornik’s theory? Or did it start when the rank of Rome was threatened by Constantinople? When I ask you? And then question your own answer with the word why.

And then finally , maybe the following is why you have no problem if some believes in this “legend”:
radiovaticana.org/en1/Articolo.asp?c=106196
Pope’s Speech Feast of St Andrew
(30 Nov 2006 RV) Pope Benedict XVI’s speech in the Patriarchal Cathedral of St George Istanbul, on the feast of St Andrew: Today, in this Patriarchal Church of Saint George, we are able to experience once again the communion and call of the two brothers, Simon Peter and Andrew, in the meeting of the Successor of Peter and his Brother in the episcopal ministry, **the head of this Church traditionally founded by the Apostle Andrew. **Our fraternal encounter highlights the special relationship uniting the Churches of Rome and Constantinople as Sister Churches.

Well, as the RCs say, “Rome has spoken the case is closed” so with that I will end it here, I hope.

May GOD Bless you all and forgive me if I offended someone, †††

 

[mardukm]

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

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.

We can look to St. John Chrysostom to prove that the Church believed St. Peter to be pre-eminent among the Apostles - which contradicts the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox opinion about St. Peter. I don’t recall brother tdgesq citing Chrysostom to demonstrate infallibility - that is your OWN red herring argument.:tsktsk: In fact, we do not need Chrysostom to conclude that St. Peter was infallible The Bible itself is sufficient for that. And we can also conclude from the Bible that St. Peter was the confirmer of the faith of the Apostles, as St. Paul dramatically demonstrated when he visited St. Peter to make sure “he was not running in vain.”

Claiming that St. Peter was not infallible (as you have done) as confirmer of the brethren is like saying God trusts men. For St, Peter to be the confirmer of his brethren in the Faith demands that God must have given him a special grace to be so, a grace that has its source from God, not from men. Do we find Jesus giving him this special grace? Indeed we do - he promised a special prayer for Peter to fulfill this purpose.

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

Yes, St. James made a judgment for the LOCAL council of Jerusalem. As he was the bishop of Jerusalem, it is only right that he made the judgment. Why you think that invalidates Peter’s pre-eminence among the Apostles requires some imagination.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mickey]

We can look to St. John Chrysostom to prove that the Church believed St. Peter to be pre-eminent among the Apostles - which contradicts the Protestant and Eastern Orthodox opinion about St. Peter.

Wrong again.

I don’t recall brother tdgesq citing Chrysostom to demonstrate infallibility

Oh–sorry. I suppose we all agree then that infallibility is an innovation.

In fact, we do not need Chrysostom to conclude that St. Peter was infallible

Because infallibility was not known in the undivided Church.

The Bible itself is sufficient for that.

I do not know which Bible you are reading.

And we can also conclude from the Bible that St. Peter was the confirmer of the faith of the Apostles, as St. Paul dramatically demonstrated when he visited St. Peter to make sure “he was not running in vain.”

St Paul did many things. He also corrected St Peter’s error.

Claiming that St. Peter was not infallible (as you have done) as confirmer of the brethren is like saying God trusts men.

Putting words in people’s mouths again? Some things never change.

For St, Peter to be the confirmer of his brethren in the Faith demands that God must have given him a special grace to be so, a grace that has its source from God, not from men.

All the Apostles had a special grace.

Do we find Jesus giving him this special grace? Indeed we do - he promised a special prayer for Peter to fulfill this purpose.

St Peter was about to deny Him three times.

The Apostles (plural) were the foundation.

Yes, St. James made a judgment for the LOCAL council of Jerusalem.

Amen.

Why you think that invalidates Peter’s pre-eminence

I do not invalidate St Peter in any way. I do not invalidate any of the Apostles. The Holy Orthodox Church has a great veneration for the feast of Ss Peter and Paul preceded by a three week fast.

 

[tdgesq]

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

I never said that he did. I just quoted what he did say, including that St. Peter excels Sts. John, James and Paul. In what way does Chrysostom mean that Peter excels them? Remember, this thread is entitled “Let’s talk about primacy of honor.”

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.

Actually, no one has yet produced a quote from Chrysostom that St. Paul was the the teacher of the world. He may have said it, because the fact is that Paul was teaching Christianity to the entire world. I suppose there were many who were not apostles doing the same thing. St. Stephen perhaps. The point being made is that Chrysostom gave St. Peter that title in reference to the authority of St. James over the See of Jerusalem. What does that mean in terms of St. Peter’s authority?

And again, I’m not injecting anything about the papacy in the post-schism world. I’m also not asking what these quotes don’t mean. I’m asking what they do mean in terms of St. Peter’s primacy of honor.

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

Obviously, but that wasn’t the question. The question was, and I quote:

“Are you saying that the decision at the Jerusalem Council as described in Acts 15 could have been made without St. Peter?”

Remember, where Acts 15 states this decree was distributed:

22 Then it seemed good to the apostles and the elders, with the whole church, to choose men out of their company, and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

23 and they wrote thus by them, The apostles and the elders, brethren, unto the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greeting . . . .

This decision could not have been made for the entire Church without St. Peter - could it, regardless of who pronounced the final judgment. Looking forward to an answer to my question.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

Sorry for this late posting. I had forgotten about it.

Mardukm, Blessings and greetings to you as well brother. and good to hear from you again.

Thank you. I am glad to be back as well.

the word “honor” does not mean that he has Jurisdiction over the whole Church.

Yes, I think we are all agreed that the word “honor” does not imply authority or jurisdiction. That word alone does not properly describe the Pope’s role in the Church, however.

If you like to use the word “prerogative” that is fine and well, so long it doesnt be translated into a jurisdiction, but yes he has the prerogative as to be the First to vote and the first to be asked for his advice or opinion … , but not jurisdiction.

I express the same reservations about the term “jurisdiction” as the Vatican Council Fathers expressed (BOTH Western & Eastern Council Fathers, btw) – namely, that it is liable to be misunderstood. I don’t think there is any need to explain what these possible misunderstandings could be, as you and other EO have often voiced them. That is why I prefer the word “prerogative” instead of “jurisdiction” in these matters. I do believe, however, that the Pope’s prerogatives can be exercised by him throughout the universal Church.

True, BUT ONLY, when he is “asked” to do so.

Isn’t that what I said?

IAW, If he wished to interfere without a request, then he would be oversteping his boundries.

I, too, believe that if the Pope interfered without request or invitation, then he is violating his prerogatives as set down by Vatican I. Vatican I dogmatically asserts that it is the Pope’s divine obligation to uphold the prerogatives of his brother bishops. Of course, I also believe that on a matter of Faith, morals, and a universal canon, the Pope not only has ordinary jurisdiction, but also immediate jurisdiction. But this, as asserted by Vatican I, must be done in such a way so as to preserve the prerogatives of his brother bishops. This means, to me, that the Pope cannot micro-manage the Church. His brother bishops are the God-ordained hierarchs of their particular Churches/regions. Management and care of their Churches belongs to them primarily and foremost. If and only if there is evidence that the doctrines, morals, and/or universal canons of the Catholic Church are not being properly followed or enforced by a Patriarch or Metropolitan Archbishop can the Pope intervene. A good example occurred in recent memory involving the election of the Chaldean Patriarch. After the permissible amount of time enshrined in universal canon law for the replacement of a Patriarch had expired, and the Chaldeans had not yet elected a new Patriarch, the Pope intervened and ordered a special convention to enforce the canon. The Pope did not need anyone’s permission to do that. It was his prerogative as Pope. However, being constrained by the dogmas of Vatican I, he couldn’t just step in at any time he so wished in the affairs of the Chaldean Church to enforce the universal canon. IIRC, the Pope actually waited almost another month past the canonical deadline in order to intervene. That demonstrates the respect he is divinely obligated to show his brother bishops as his fellow vicars of God.

as we see the case was in the African Church and then in the Photian Schism etc…

The Pope did not overstep his prerogatives as regards the African Church, nor during the Photian schism.

Re: the African Church. Prior to the rulings of the Great African Synod of 415(?), no canon addressed the right (or non-right) of any cleric to appeal to the Pope if the cleric disagreed with an adverse decision of his local Synod. Rather, it was common practice to do so. So there’s no way the Pope disobeyed any canon. The situation of Apiarus (I think that was the priest’s name) was more complicated because he came from “across the seas” and information was harder to get in that situation. Apiarus lied to the Pope and the inability to obtain immediate, CORRECT information on the matter caused the Pope to rule in favor of Apiarus. After a respectful correspondence between the two Churches (wherein Apiarus’ deposition was upheld by Rome), it was decided to make a new canon specifically addressing the issue for the good order of the Church. Read the documents yourself (CCEL should have it), and don’t depend on what may be anti-Catholic interpretations of the events.

Re: the Photian Schism. My understanding is that Photius asked the Pope for communion (as was the usual practice). The Pope denied it with the understanding that the prior Patriarch was unjustly deposed (or forced to step down). What part about that was “exceeding” his prerogative?

However there is another side to that Canon that you have mentioned and as I remember that there is a dispute over the appealing to the Bishop of Rome or the neighbouring bishop ( do not remember exactly but I will look it up if need to).

The dispute you might be thinking of is the one already discussed – it was the case of Apiarus. The Romans mistakenly assumed that Sardica granted clerics in general permission to appeal to the Pope (and also thought that these canons came from Nicea because the canons of Sardica were appended to the Nicene canons in their collections). However, upon investigation, it turned out that the canons granted only BISHOPS the right of appeal to the Bishop of Rome, as enshrined in the Sardican Synod, and validated by the Sixth and Seventh Ecumenical Councils.

(CONTINUED)

 

[mardukm]

(CONTINUED)

As for the Ancient Canon, this did not exist, but what is there is the following and I will give one only so we do not exhost the words here:

Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.
Sixth(6) canon of the first Ecumenical council: The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them… ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.viii.html

This canon reflects the normative course of events. In extenuating circumstances and emergency situations, the prerogative of the bishop of Rome in relation to the universal Church is exactly as I have stated.

Constantinople was granted the same right:
the 28th Canon of the Fourth E.C.

“… , and is equal to old imperial Rome in respect of other privileges and priorities, should be magnified also as she is in respect of ecclesiastical affairs, as coming next after her, or as being second to her…” Now second after her(Rome that is) does not signifies an inferior grade of dignity. Otherwise how could it be “EQUAL”? as we see in the above.

I believe you have misread the Canon. “New Rome” was “equal” to “Old Rome” ONLY IN TERMS OF IMPERIAL PRIVILEGES AND PRIORITIES. The Canon is absolutely clear that in terms of ECCLESIASTICAL affairs, “New Rome” was “coming after her (Rome that is),” “second to her.” You give improper focus on the term “equal” while neglecting the other portion that explicitly states that Constantinople is “second to her” (i.e., Rome).

I beleive you have made a mistake on the Canon# in the above, If I am the one who is mistaking, then I appologize

I’ll take the blame. The Latin Canons are numbered differently than the Greek Canons. Apostolic Canon 34 in the Latin collections is the same as Apostolic canon 35 in the Greek collections. I am working off a Protestant translation, which naturally uses the Latin convention.

1. The bishops of every country ought to know who is the chief among them, and to esteem him as their head, and not to do any great thing without his consent; but every one to manage only the affairs that belong to his own parish, and the places subject to it. But let him not do anything without the consent of all; for it is by this means there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified by Christ, in the Holy Spirit.
   The above is the discription of the Patriarch, NOT the Pope, everyone knows this, Mardukm, and I think you should to? otherwise you are minimizing the role of the Pope as it is understood by the RCC:
   "882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, "is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful."402 "For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered."403 ( from the CCC)
   Now, could what have been listed in the Apostolic Canon #35 be the discription of the Bishop of Rome as defined by the same?Obviously not.

Your understanding of the papacy seems to be a caricature. I have taken pains to combat this in many posts in the past, but perhaps you never read them. Though the Pope has a power that is full, supreme, universal and unhindered, this does not translate to capricious nor absolute power. When I have time within the next week, I will try to find those threads and post the links.

In any case, I will respond to your claim that this canon refers to the Patriarch. First of all, when the Apostolic Canon was written in the first century of the Church, the Patriarchal system was not even established. So it could not possibly refer to the Patriarchal system.

Secondly, the idea of a “head bishop” among bishops can only have come from the example of the apostolic college who had St. Peter as their head. It stands to reason that the apostles or apostolic men who enshrined this canon had in mind a position similar to St. Peter’s position among the apostolic college.

Thirdly, though I have not come across the original Greek of the text, I’ve read several translations of the canon, and EVERY single one of them is translated as you have it translated in your excerpt. However, the text as translated does NOT dictate the meaning that you propose. Rather, if you want it to mean what you mean (that is, as referring to every patriarchate or Metropolitanate), then the English reading should be “the bishops of EACH country ought to ackowledge who is their chief.” But that is not the way the text reads. If you did not already know, the Greek word translated as “every” is very different from the Greek word translated as “each.” In fact, the Greek word for “every” practically has the same meaning as “all.” If you read it with the word “all” – that is, “the bishops of ALL countries ought to acknowledge who is their chief” – then it is plainly obvious that it refers to the universal body of bishops, and not just the bishops of each country.

(CONTINUED)

 

[mardukm]

(CONTINUED)

Of course, this model of the apostolic college with a head is ALSO used on a smaller scale for Patriarchal Sees and Metropolitan Sees. But, as already noted, the idea of distinct regions of jurisdiction did not even come into the consciousness of the Church until the later third or fourth century. The original model was that of the Apostles with St. Peter as their head, a body representing the UNIVERSAL Church with a head (unless you can show us another model for the Church to follow). That is one of the reasons why the Catholic Church claims not only canonical establishment of the headship of the bishop of Rome, but also divine establishment. The original model, which applies to the UNIVERSAL Church, is DIRECTLY obtained from the model of the universal apostolic college. In distinction, the application of that model to SMALLER areas of jurisdiction (i.e., Patriarchates) only came about by CANON in the fourth century.
":

Now lets look at the following Canon:

1. A bishop must not venture to ordain out of his own bounds for cities or countries that are not subject to him. But if he be convicted of having done so without the consent of such as governed those cities or countries, let him be deprived, both the bishop himself and those whom he has ordained.

Well, the above one it surely puts this claim to rest, Therfore I rest my case on this one.

You “rest [your] case” prematurely. I’m not aware of the Pope ever making ordinations outside of his patriarchal territory. If you are, please let us know. Otherwise, I don’t see how this canon supports your argument about the Pope.

mardukm:

the Bishop of Rome has also been granted the ancient canonical prerogative whereby on a matter that involves the entire Church, his agreement is indispensable - i.e., the rest of the Church cannot do anything without his agreement.

Any Canons regarding this claim, would be greatly appreciated.
But there is None.

Read Apostolic Canon #34 again (#35 according to the Greek canons). Even if we disagree with the exact prerogative given to the head bishop, you cannot deny that even your Church admits that in the undivided Church of the first millenium, the bishop of Rome occupied this place, and will again do so when our Churches reunite.

BUT he still cant act without them and he holds no more voting power then the rest of them.

What canon do you rest this claim on? According to Apostolic Canon 34, in relation to the entire body of bishops, it is not bishop A nor bishop B nor bishop C, etc., whose agreement is necessary, but only the
head bishop’s. As already stated in the previous paragraph, the position of head bishop is occupied (and always has been occupied) by the bishop of Rome.

Marduk, before all, IN YOUR opinion and according to your knowledge, does the above discribe better the Bishop of Rome or the Eastern bishops.( Patriarchs)?

Marduk, then why is the RCC violate this canon? or the least to say that they do not follow it any more.
BUT what is more important, could you tell us when they (The RCC) stoped following this canon, since it is clear as the sun, that this Canon is discribing the Patriarchs and not the Pope of Rome.

As demonstrated above, the Catholic Church has not violated any of the canons. The canons above are fully and faithfully reflected by the ecclesiastical reality of the Catholic Church. In fact, I believe it is the Eastern Orthodox Churches who have violated the canons by divesting their Patriarchs of their due, canonical prerogatives. Our Eastern and Oriental Catholic Patriarchs possess and exercise actual jurisdictional authority over the bishops in their jurisdiction (a reality that also exists in the Oriental Orthodox Churches, btw), exactly as the ancient canons have historically asserted. Eastern Orthodox Patriarchs, on the other hand, only have honorific positions who have no actual authority or jurisdiction outside of their OWN immediate episcopal (i.e., LOCAL, not patriarchal) See.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[rad]

we disagree with the exact prerogative given to the head bishop, you cannot deny that even your Church admits that in the undivided Church of the first millenium, the bishop of Rome occupied this place, and will again do so when our Churches reunite.

I have seen this mooted by a few academic theologians but I have not heard of any bishops or laity (Orthodox) who would be willing to accept that the bishop of Rome will be the “head bishop” if the two Churches unite. Rome’s place in such a Church will need to be discussed at a major Council and it is likely that the other Churches and ancient Patriarcahtes will see Rome’s 1000 year isolation (as well as her unique development of ecclesiology, and authority and doctrine) as making it impossible to return to her former position.

 

[steve_b]

I have seen this **mooted **by a few academic theologians but I have not heard of any bishops or laity (Orthodox) who would be willing to accept that the bishop of Rome will be the “head bishop” if the two Churches unite. Rome’s place in such a Church will need to be discussed at a major Council and it is likely that the other Churches and ancient Patriarcahtes will see Rome’s 1000 year isolation (as well as her unique development of ecclesiology, and authority and doctrine) as making it impossible to return to her former position.

1. Practically speaking, given the way these specific terms are understood, what good is “Primacy of honor” (the topic of this thread) or “1st among equals” its companion, with regards to speaking of the pope?. Fr Ambrose who used to post here, said it well with one of the terms, and I would put the other with his comment as well…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=1587677&postcount=129

Both terms, in peoples minds, marginalize the pope, and strip him of his legitimate authority given by God.

1. Where do you get the idea that Rome is isolated?
2. Re: authority of Rome,

Could you show me where any of the Church records say all must agree with Constantinople,…or Antioch…or Alexandria… or Jerusalem?

But it IS said of Rome, by Irenaeus, 2nd century bishop, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle. Irenaeus was writing aginst heresies at the time. Irenaeus said all must agree with Rome, NOT because Rome is the capital of the empire, which ecclesiastically means nothing…but because of the Church of Rome’s superior origin. As you know, a heresy is an opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs. Therefore, if Irenaeus is saying all must agree with Rome, then THIS is the litmus of belief. Anyone in opposition to this is in heresy.

The unique development in ecclesiology and authority you hint at, came later from the Orthodox, NOT the Catholics.

 

[JJR1453]

Hello again Ignatios,

Thank you for all your words, and I shall return again over the weekend to offer some insight and suggestions. I believe you have misunderstood much of what I have written – most notably the Robber synod – but I shall seek to clear all this up upon my reply.

God bless brother,

JJR

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Steve,

Could you show me where any of the Church records say all must agree with Constantinople,…or Antioch…or Alexandria… or Jerusalem?

But it IS said of Rome, by Irenaeus, 2nd century bishop, disciple of Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle. Irenaeus was writing aginst heresies at the time. Irenaeus said all must agree with Rome, NOT because Rome is the capital of the empire, which ecclesiastically means nothing…but because of the Church of Rome’s superior origin. As you know, a heresy is an opinion or a doctrine at variance with established religious beliefs. Therefore, if Irenaeus is saying all must agree with Rome, then THIS is the litmus of belief. Anyone in opposition to this is in heresy.

The answer to your question will be that there are NO Church records that states agreement with the other Patriarchal sees are necessary. This is because, as already explained, the Apostolic Canon (#34 in Latin, #35 in Greek) states that the singular necessary agreement (or “vote”) belongs to the head bishop, which was (and is) the bishop of Rome. St. Irenaeus’ teaching coincides PERFECTLY with the said Apostolic Canon.

The unique development in ecclesiology and authority you hint at, came later from the Orthodox, NOT the Catholics.

I would second that, but I would also caution that you differentiate between the Eastern Orthodox, on the one hand, and the Oriental Orthodox, on the other. The Oriental Orthodox, as explained in the last paragraph of my last post, have always maintained a similar ecclesiological perspective as the Catholic Church. In fact, the Syrian (Oriental) Orthodox even regard Peter’s headship of the Apostles as a matter of DOCTRINAL faith, not merely ecclesiology. Due regard for a head bishop among ALL bishops (not just within a Patriarchate) in the OOC is missing (as it is in the EOC), but this was only due to the historical circumstances surrounding Chalcedon. I am confident, with prayer, that when reunion occurs between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches, the head bishopric of Rome will once again be recognized.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[steve_b]

Dear brother Steve,

The answer to your question will be that there are NO Church records that states agreement with the other Patriarchal sees are necessary. This is because, as already explained, the Apostolic Canon (#34 in Latin, #35 in Greek) states that the singular necessary agreement (or “vote”) belongs to the head bishop, which was (and is) the bishop of Rome. St. Irenaeus’ teaching coincides PERFECTLY with the said Apostolic Canon.

I would second that, but I would also caution that you differentiate between the Eastern Orthodox, on the one hand, and the Oriental Orthodox, on the other. The Oriental Orthodox, as explained in the last paragraph of my last post, have always maintained a similar ecclesiological perspective as the Catholic Church. In fact, the Syrian (Oriental) Orthodox even regard Peter’s headship of the Apostles as a matter of DOCTRINAL faith, not merely ecclesiology. Due regard for a head bishop among ALL bishops (not just within a Patriarchate) in the OOC is missing (as it is in the EOC), but this was only due to the historical circumstances surrounding Chalcedon. I am confident, with prayer, that when reunion occurs between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Catholic Churches, the head bishopric of Rome will once again be recognized.

Blessings,
Marduk

Point well taken. :tiphat: I’ll try and remember to differentiate in the future. Chalk it up to my laziness in not being more specific. Mea culpa

 

[rad]

as already explained, the Apostolic Canon (#34 in Latin, #35 in Greek) states that the singular necessary agreement (or “vote”) belongs to the head bishop, which was (and is) the bishop of Rome.

.Dear brother Mardukm,

I fear that you may be erring in your reading of the canon. It makes no mention of the bishop of Rome. Instead it addreses the situation of the head bishop in national Churches - Egypt, Antioch, Greece, Italy, etc.

“The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.”