- Status
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother rad,
As I stated, St. Irenaeus’ teaching on agreement with Rome perfectly coincides with the Apostolic Canon. If the Apostolic Canon refers only national Churches, why would St, Irenaeus, a bishop in GAUL, make such a statement about the bishop of Rome? Also, St. Irenaeus was a Greek. His book “Against Heresies” covered heresies in both East and West. Yet he nevertheless tells us that Rome’s teaching is the surest antidote to all these heresies.
Blessings,
Marduk
Another thing:
As I stated, St. Irenaeus’ teaching on agreement with Rome perfectly coincides with the Apostolic Canon. If the Apostolic Canon refers only national Churches, why would St, Irenaeus, a bishop in GAUL, make such a statement about the bishop of Rome? Also, St. Irenaeus was a Greek. His book “Against Heresies” covered heresies in both East and West. Yet he nevertheless tells us that Rome’s teaching is the surest antidote to all these heresies.
Blessings,
Marduk
I
Ignatios
Guest
Greetings Marduk and Blessings.
Very well then, if we agree that the word “honor” does not imply authority, and then somehow you implied that there is other than the word “honor” to illustrate the role of the Pope ( authority) in the Church , then by all mean present us with it.
If you are taking the word “Prerogative” to be something more than Primacy of Honor where it is to be understood as he can exercise this” prerogative” throughout the universal church, than this is Jurisdiction, and not honor anymore.
Your last sentence, is where the disagreements are, use whatever word you would like, it is the action that follows the word, what is being rejected as historically true. That is why I said as long as it is not turned into a Jurisdiction the word “prerogative” that is.
And that is why we say, that the Church from the early centuries looked at the Church of Rome or her Bishop as older brother (Honor)or in some instances called him father but that was only as of Honor since Rome had more influences because there was government people among them and many wealthy people and it was the Capital of the world in which they helped many Christians during persecutions and sent money to all the Churches etc…, and on those basis Rome was given the First in Honor amongst all the others, So again Rome has the Primacy of Honor yes.
Not exactly you didn’t mention, that this is so ONLY when he is asked to intervene, in which it makes a big difference, However, that Right was granted to him through an E.C. in which it makes it Clear that If the E.C. has the authority to grant such role to the Pope, wouldn’t that mean that the E.C. has the authority over the pope and not the other way around?
And, if an E.C. has the power to do so, likewise I believe can also retract it from him, after the Schism, he naturally had lost this privilege among the rest of the Apostolic Churches.
Besides, giving him the right to hear others appealing, “WHEN ASKED” to do so, is a mere honorable role, and not authoritative.
Authority in the RCC sense would be what is explained in the Modern RCC as I have displayed earlier from the CCC #882.
Marduk, In such cases what you believe is immaterial, In your above quote ( the 1st one on this post) you said the opposite —>"… I do believe, however, that the Pope’s prerogatives can be exercised by him throughout the universal Church”.
And then your last sentence above, contradict what the CCC#882 says "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
CCC#882 is self explanatory and very specific, Sorry, BUT what you are implying does not supersede 882 CCC.
Loool…you are stepping all over your self my friend, you keep rendering back and forth, he is but he is not, he is not but he is… here let me replay for you all the things you have been saying:
And then you said;
And then in the above, but not last, as we will see later on as those posts rolls you say
Continue…
I
Ignatios
Guest
.
All the above is so, IF they are in communion with the Pope, so it doesn’t matter if they are God-ordained or not, So the source of their authority is the Papacy.
The Pope according to the teaching of the RCC CAN micro manage anything he wills “ unhindered”, if he wills it, their care of their churches belong to them so long they are under the guidance of the pope.
My friend, Immediate Jurisdiction is explained in the CCC #882…
The CCC #882 express the words FULL, SUPREME AND UNIVERSAL POWER OVER THE WHOLE CHURCH, EXERCISED BY HIM ALWAYS " UNHINDERED". I don’t understand how one could manipulate this sentence
IAW, there is no limitations, it can’t get any more clearer than that, it is a clear cut, doesn’t matter what you and I think, this is the rules you have to obey it.
.
Now according to that same CCC#882, he doesn’t have to have to have “IF”, it is crystal clear what it says, FULL, supreme Power and unhindered, so, he has the liberty to act at will, where the 35th Apostolic Canon says that “ … LET HIM NOT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ALL”, over here there is no liberty to act at will, on the contrary the Patriarch, is constrained by the consent of all.
Besides there isn’t much other than “Faith and morals” in the church, what else could there be, maybe tell the bishops when to take a shower and when to go to bed?
In this we find a couple of proves, 1) that this above canon (35 c. Apostolic ) is a perfect match to the Role of the Patriarchs of the Orthodox Church and it is not a match of the Papacy since it is clear that the Pope and according to the his church that he can act ” without all “ as I have proved from the CCC 882, and as you have showed in some of your above statement, so after examining the Canon subject, namely the apostolic 35c. Does not support your claim that the pope’s primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church is canonical.
2) that according to this mentioned Canon above, and in particular where it states that “ … But let him not do anything without the consent of all…” it is found that your church is in violation with this canon. Since the Pope “…can intervene without the consent of all”.(outside his bishopric, throughout the whole world that is), where in the canons we can find such things? There is NONE.
according to the CCC#882, he has the power to intervene any time he wish, he can ordain, depose, annul, allow, declare dogma, convoke a council by himself without the consultations of others if he wish, dissolve a council etc… It is clear what it says!
Again, you are contradicting yourself I think, the blame is not on you but on the CCC since they say in one place one thing but they go back and they say there is no such a thing without the Pope agreement. Just to give you one example, when they speak about the E.C. or about the bishop infallibility or authority.
CCC 883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”
Let those who has eyes read and those who has minds comprehend. No further comments.
If he waited, it was because he wished to, but if he didn’t want to wait, he could have done that too, as you have explained in the prior quote.
And in the above is another violation of the Canon, since he acted without the consent or invitation from the bishops of that region since it is out of his canonical jurisdiction as prescribed in the canon.
Second canon of the second Ecumenical council: 2) Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries
Continue
I
Ignatios
Guest
BUT, Apirius disregard the regular course of appeal in Africa which was exactly prescribed. Which it was, that he had to go through the ordinary course of appeal in Africa itself…:
Re:…The pope at once accepted the appeal, and sent legates with letters to Africa to investigate the matter. A wiser course would have been to have first referred Apiarius to the ordinary course of appeal in Africa itself. Zosimus next made the further mistake of basing his action on a reputed canon of the Council of Nicaea, which was in reality a canon of the Council of Sardica. In the Roman manuscripts the canons of Sardica followed those of Nicaea immediately, without an independent title, while the African manuscripts contained only the genuine canons of Nicaea, so that the canon appealed to by Zosimus was not contained in the African copies of the Nicene canons. Thus a serious disagreement arose over this appeal, which continued after the death of Zosimus<-----ccel.org/ccel/herbermann/cathen15.html?term=Pope%20St.%20Zosimus
And the following is another non-Orthodox site:
North Africans vs. Rome
Code:
“A presbyter called Apiarius had been deposed by a bishop who was a friend of Augustine. Apiarius appealed to Rome over the authority of the North African Church to seek a reversal of their decision. Zosimus sided with Apiarius and judged that he should be reinstated. But the North African resolutely refused to submit to the decision of the bishop ofRome. Zosimus appealed to the canons of the Sardican Synod of 342 A.D. as the basis for his authority, mistakenly thinking they were part of the canons of Nicea…When it was finally determined that they were not from Nicea, the North Africans rejected these canons as giving the bishop of Rome any authority to interfere in the sphere of their jurisdiction. Significantly, in 424 A.D. at a synod at Carthage, the Church then passed a number of decrees forbidding all appeals in Church controversies to other sees apart from their own, especially the See of Rome.”So what we see from the above and as I said earlier, when the Pope overstepped his boundaries, they stood him up. It doesn’t matter whether he made a mistake or not. Another clear evidence that the Papacy was not as the RCC asserts concerning the Jurisdiction or his authority over the entire church…
And this is so in beginning of the 400s a.d.
.
I believe it was the Pelagian Coelestius who had lied to Pope zosimus and not Apirius. I think you should check again concerning this.
Let me finish with the following, which is BTW from a Roman Catholic BISHOP and historian, so there is no excuses that it was from anti-Catholic interpretations:
- On the 1st of May 418 a great synod (“A Council of Africa,” St Augustine calls it), which assembled under the presidency of Aurelius, bishop of Carthage, to take action concerning the errors of Caelestius, a disciple of Pelagius, denounced the Pelagian doctrines of human nature, original sin, grace and perfectibility, and fully approved the contraryviews of Augustine. Prompted by the reinstatement by the bishop of Rome of a deposed African priest, the synod enacted that “whoever appeals to a court on the other side of the sea (meaning Rome) may not again be received into communion by any one in Africa” (canon 17). See Hefele, 2nd ed., ii. pp. 116. sqq. (English translation, ii. pp. 458 sqq.); Mansi, iii. pp. 810 sqq., iv. pp. 377 sqq., 451 sqq.; Hardouin, i. pp. 926 sqq.
- The question of appeals to Rome occasioned two synods, one in 419, the other in 424. The latter addressed a letter to the bishop of Rome, Celestine, protesting against his claim to appellate jurisdiction, and urgently requesting the immediate recall of his legate, and advising him to send no more judges to Africa. See Hefele, 2nd ed., ii. pp. 120 sqq., 137 sqq. (English translation, ii. pp. 462 sqq., 480 sqq.); Mansi, iii. pp. 835 sqq., iv. pp. 401 sqq., 477 sqq.; Hardouin, i. pp. 943 sqq., 1241 sqq. (T. F. C.)
Now, all the above affirm what I have said and contradict your assertions, that there is nothing in the Canons, and that when the Pope overstepped his boundaries and intervene without the consent of the bishops subject, he was rejected and refuted.
Continue
I
Ignatios
Guest
I suggest that you read about it. since there is a lot more than what you mentioned above, and I can’t really sit here and right the whole history of it, but you must read it from both sides and not only the “newadvent” otherwise you going to find yourself being refuted.
I backed up mine with canons; can you back up yours above from the canons as well? Unless you can back it up with canons, it is … well … let me say empty words.
We must remember that we can give our opinion on things, but our opinions are not canons, and the canons were so, that no one would assume.
Continue
I
Ignatios
Guest
No sir, I must disagree with you strongly, with all due respect, I must say that you are reading into it things from your own mind, You cut-off the Canon to pieces in order to make it what you want to be, they call this reading out of context and where you added the word “ONLY” it is called forgery.
If the Canon started and ended where you had started it and ended it, that is “…ONLY IN TERMS OF IMPERIAL PRIVILEGES AND PRIORITIES…” that would be fine, but it didn’t, besides, you added the word “ONLY” where did this come from? Except your Imagination, Also you left out the key word (… SHOULD BE MAGNIFIED “ALSO AS SHE IS IN RESPECT OF ECCLESIASTICAL AFFAIRS…)
Now, if we link the text back together, and not separate them as you did and then remove the word that it didn’t exist in the text which you added, the word “ONLY” that is, the interpretation would be simple enough for a 12 years old to understand.
Here is a full blast of the Canon and please read it as it is with in context:
Everywhere following the decrees of the Holy Fathers, and aware of the recently recognized Canon of the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops who convened during the reign of Theodosius the Great of pious memory, who became emperor in the imperial city of Constantinople otherwise known as New Rome; we too decree and vote the same things in regard to the privileges and priorities of the most holy Church of that same Constantinople and New Rome. And this is in keeping with the fact that the Fathers naturally enough granted the priorities to the throne of Old Rome on account of her being the imperial capital. And motivated by the same object and aim the one hundred and fifty most God-beloved Bishops have accorded the** like** priorities to the most holy throne of New Rome, with good reason deeming that the city which is the seat of an empire, and of a senate, 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. And it is arranged so that only the Metropolitans of the Pontic, Asian, and Thracian dioceses shall be ordained by the most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople aforesaid, and likewise the Bishops of the aforesaid dioceses which are situated in barbarian lands; that is to say, that each Metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the Bishops of the province, shall ordain the Bishops of the province, just as is prescribed by the divine Canons. But the Metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the Archbishop of Constantinople, after the elections have first been conducted in accordance with custom, and have been reported to him. (Ap c. XXXIV; c. III of the 2nd and c. XXXVI of the 6th.) NOTE the canons that speaks of the same thing at the end, they include the apostolic canon.
So as we see, the words next after her or being second to her if they were to be understood as you are implying ( In which, one would have to cut them off from the rest and then insert a word that it didn’t exist in the TEXT in order to make them out of context), than they would have contradicted the statement “also as she is in respect of Eccles. affairs” “also” and “as she is”, means the same thing Rome possess so does Constantinople next after her or second to her, this denotes Honor in time. Since both were granted the same things on the ground of being Imperial cities BUT Rome was first in time since that Church was elevated to the Patriarchal system prior to Constantinople.
Also Trullo says the same thing.
BUT, are my interpretations correct according to history AND the canonists??? Why not take a look together at the Interpretation of one the brightest canonists in the Byzantine time and he was criticize by many for favoring secular power in which it works better in the case of Rome or it did in a one occasion at least.
On Constantinople replacing Old Rome
Balsamon, RP3, 146-150
Because it is frequently brought up - when it is necessary to submit the decision of Constantinople to appeal - it seemed necessary to me to add my opinion of this, and to give my reasons…the 4th canon of the Council of Sardica directs that the one who has been condemned has as security two appeals, and that the final judgement be by the pope of Rome…I say that since the decree of St. Constantine, the one given to St. Sylvester, and one which is covered by us in the interpretation of Chap. 1 of Title VIII of the present work, directs that the pope have all the royal powers, and that the Second Ecumenical Council and the Fourth gave the patriarch of Constantinople the privileges of the pope, and decrees with respect to this all honor, from necessity there is not appeal over his decision.
What is that tell you in the above? That Consta. Has the same exact privileges as the ones Rome had, so Again and again your false assertions gets stampede under the sheer weight of the truth of Orthodoxy.
continue
I
Ignatios
Guest
Loool… if there is anything that it is caricaturist in my understanding, it is coming from what you write concerning the subject matter.
If you have other meanings to Full supreme power over the whole church exercised unhindered only by the Pontiff whom is regarded as the Vicar of Christ, than, Full supreme power over the whole church exercised unhindered, do not mean what they say, anyhow please by all mean.
You seem to read too much into things, and your are highly intense in producing mental images, sorry for those words, but what should I do? give lies instead of truth? NO, here’s some writing from the Catholic Encyclopedia concerning when the Apostolic canons came to be:
“…. Some, like Beveridge and Hefele, believe that they were originally drawn up about the end of the second or the beginning of the third century. Most modern critics agree that they could not have been composed before the Council of Antioch (341), some twenty of whose canons they quote; nor even before the latter end of the fourth century, since they are certainly posterior to the Apostolic Constitutions. Von Funk, admittedly a foremost authority on the latter and all similar early canonical texts, locates the composition of the Apostolic Canons in the fifth century, near the year 400…”
SO, you are at false again my friend. However, according to what I have read that some of them are by the apostles maybe 20 of them, but the rest are from later different periods, as for the canon subject, all almost agree that it was Not until later centuries.
At least, give some references to what you are asserting, anyhow, could what you have said be true?.
It could, maybe, perhaps, but just as well, it could have not, especially if you read the history of how Patriarchate came to be from some historical books that I read while ago, patriarchate didn’t come from none existence to existence overnight! let me just give you glimpse of the things that I have read while ago:
And let us take Antioch for instance: when the Church was established at Antioch, that one particular church the assembly that is, grew in number to a point that the building or house where they gathered couldn’t fit them anymore, so they had some faithful go to another building or place and the Bishop who presided in that first Church ordained a presbyter ( Priest) to preside over that Assembly but the bishop kept consecrating the EUCHARIST and had the Deacon RUNNNN to the other Church building to bring the EUCHARIST to them ( here I have to mention that where the priest was allowed to consecrate the EUCHRIST by the Bishop) sometimes the Deacon use to spill or fall and waist the EUCHARIST so the Bishop permitted the priest to consecrate the EUCHARIST , thus you have now two churches that their bishop is one and the same, and those churches kept growing in number and likewise as they grew they added another Church and another until they spread to different town/city and then different region and all from the same bishop or city, still yet under the same bishopric that they originally moved from …” you must read for more on this on your own, I just gave you a glimpse of how things came to be.”
Now if you are refering to the word Patriarch that it didn’t aplied to the Metropolitans/ Bishops as a recognition title until 325a.d. than we find this is to be correct, but nevertheless, Some bishops (use whatever word you like Bishop Metropolitan Patriarch Popes etc…) had the role of Patriarch ( primate, prelates, Metropolitans, headbishops Popes etc…) prior to the Patriarch title came to be applied to those certain bishops, and we can see this from the canons themself when they refer to the"Ancient Customs":
the sixth(6) canon of the first Ecumenical council…Speaks about the Authority of the Bishops:
**Let the ancient customs prevail **which were in vogue in Egypt and…
Now this was so in the year 325a.d.
Continue …
I
Ignatios
Guest
Well I am glad that you noticed that this is not what the TEXT read, therefore where have you come up with this again? You must stick to what the TEXT READ and that is not what you implied, you suggested that the TEXT should read as you implied but then you acknowledge that this is not what the TEXT reads !!! besides the TEXT is for the BISHOPS who are not Patriarchs or Metropolitans, they are to know who the chief amongst them( the Patriarch or the Metropolitan that is, and NOT the Pope !!! looool.
HUH??? I do not consider my self worthy of speaking or interpreting the Greek language, and yet I still know what you have displayed in the above is not necessarily true those two words are very close in letters and meaning in the Greek that is: it is not to denote to anything except an expression, but not one would denote to bishops and the other denote to Patriarch, This is comedy.
Kathenas (καθένας)= any, apiece, each, everybody, everyone
Kathe (κάθε)= every
The difference is that the “each” is the same as “every” but the “each” has more expression or conforms/specific more than “every”.
Continue
I
Ignatios
Guest
Sorry but this is better than watching the three stooges,
Again, the word “all” is more general than the word “every” and it is used more widely than the other two words since it is a general but it is not the same in letter or meaning BUT it can be used instead of “every” or “ each” when there is a need to describe particular or general things if the sentence allows, so it is all depends what the writer is trying to convey across.
Oloi (όλοι)= all, everybody
Now if you take the word “everybody(καθένας)” and you look it up in the Greek dictionary, you will find under it the word “Kathenas” and “oloi”
You are off in your Greek also, looool… forgive me… besides why not read the Interpretation of this Canon :
Interpretation.
Just as, when the head is unwell and fails to function properly, the other members of the body also are ill disposed or even utterly useless, so and in like manner it may be said that if the one acting as head in the Church does not honor her fitly, all the rest of the body of the Church will be out of order and unable to function. It is for this reason that the present Canon ordains that all bishops of every province ought to know who is the chief among them, i.e., the metropolitan; and ought to regard him as their head, and not to do anything unnecessary without consulting him, as respecting, that is to say, anything that does not pertain to the parishes of their bishoprics, but, extending beyond these limits, have to do with the common condition of the whole province, as, for instance, do questions concerning the dogmas, matters involving adjustments and corrections of common mistakes, the installation and ordination of prelates, and other similar things. Instead, they are to meet with the metropolitan and confer with him in regard to such common matters, and decide in common on what appears to them the best thing to be done. Each of the bishops should do by himself, without consulting his metropolitan, only those things that are confined to the limits and boundaries of his bishopric and to the territories that are subject thereto. But just as bishops should do nothing of common interest without consulting the metropolitan, so and in like manner a metropolitan ought not to do anything of such common interest alone and by himself without consulting all his bishops. For in this way there will be concord and love, both between bishops and metropolitans and between clergymen and laymen. The outcome of this concord and love will be that God the Father will be glorified through His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, who acquainted men with the name of His Father and laid down the law requiring love, when He said: “By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one for another” (John 13:35). And He will be glorified in His Holy Spirit, which through Its grace has united us in one spiritual association. That is the same as saying that as a result of this concord the Holy Trinity — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit — will be glorified, in accordance with the voice of the Gospel which says: “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and may glorify your Father who is in heaven” (Matt. 5:16).
Concord.
Almost identically the same things are seen to be ordained also in c. IX of Antioch. That is why c. VI of the First Ecumenical Council commands that the ancient customs are to hold; those, that is to say, which had been prevalent in accordance with this Ap. c.; so that the patriarch of Alexandria had control of affairs in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, since such was also the custom in connection with the patriarch of Rome too. Likewise the patriarch of Antioch had control of his own provinces; and, in general, the same privileges were preserved to every Church and Metropolis, so that every metropolitan should have control over the provinces subject to him. Canon VII of the same Council ordains that the patriarch of Aelia, i.e., of Jerusalem, is to have the observance of the ancient honor and the dignity of his own Metropolis, Canon III of the 2nd commands that the patriarch of Constantinople is to have the highest honor. Canon VIII of the 3rd, too, demands that the rights belonging to each province be free from constraint and impurity again even as in the beginning, according to the old custom, and especially as respects those of Cyprus. In addition, c. XXXIX of the 6th confirms the same c. VIII of the 3rd.
That is “IFFFF” you read it this way, BUTTTTT it is NOOOOT to be read this way, BTW, did you count how many “IF” it took to turn this thing around unsuccessfully???
Murduk, you got to get real.
Continue
I
Ignatios
Guest
HUH? Wrong again,
Marduk, you are very smart man, are you trying to get me to teach all this for free? ( just joking).
Lets see if your assumption is right when compared with factors:
The First Ecumenical Council.
Canon six
Let the ancient customs prevail which were in vogue in Egypt and Libya and Pentapolis, to allow the bishop of Alexandria to have authority over all these parts, since this is also the treatment usually accorded to the bishop of Rome. Likewise with reference to Antioch, and in other provinces, let the seniority be preserved to the Churches. In general it is obvious that in the case in which anyone has been made a bishop without the Metropolitan’s approval, the great Council has prescribed that such a person must not be a Bishop. If, however, to the common vote of all, though reasonable and in accordance with an ecclesiastical Canon, two or three men object on account of a private quarrel, let the vote of the majority prevail.
**(Ap. c. XXXIV; cc. II of the 2nd; c. VIII of the 3rd; c. XXVIII of the 4th; c. XXXVI of the 6th; c. XIX of Laodicea; c. XIII of Carthage.)**Note at the end, there is a list of Canons that are categorized to be the same thing or speaks of the same thing, and with those your theories would come to an end.
How about the LORD JESUS the CHRIST???
The Fathers as well as the Holy Scriptures mentioned St. Paul extensively and many have said that S.S.Paul&Peter are on the same level, also St. John Chrysostom said that St. Paul governed the universe. Would like to go into those things, let me know I would be more than happy to share my info concerning this issue.
My friend you haven’t gave one single valid canon to support your assumption, not one, nor did you give any valid reference to your claim for the divinity establishment of Rome over the whole church.
So far you have failed utterly with all your attempts to make things valid despite the clarity of them, as I have showed and proved with deeds that it is not off my own but of canonist and canons, historians and history. Etc…
So. you still right where you have started, show us one valid canon, NOT your far stretched distorted versions, but simply the canon.
Continue
I
Ignatios
Guest
Very well then, since you are ignorant ( literally not offensively) I shall let the canonist explain this canon to you:
Interpretation.
This Canon too was ordained for the concord and good order of bishops and metropolitans. It says in effect that a bishop ought not to dare to confer ordinations outside of the boundaries of his bishopric, or to perform any other ecclesiastical function in those cities and countries that are not within his own territory (but neither has a metropolitan the liberty to go into the parishes of his bishops and perform ordinations or any other prelatical ceremony). Only then has he the liberty to perform such func¬tions, when he has been invited by the bishop of the region in question. If, nevertheless, it transpire that he did this without the consent and per¬mission of the bishops who control those cities and territories, let him be deposed who ordained men beyond his boundaries, together with those whom he ordained. For in such a case it would appear that there were two bishops in one and the same place, or two metropolitans, which is unlawful and prohibited by c. VIII of the 1st, and by c. XII of the 4th.
Hence, in its c. XX the Sixth Ecum. C. ordains that whoever goes to a strange bishopric and publicly teaches on his own account and of his own accord, without the local bishop’s permission, shall lose his position in the prelacy and shall be allowed to perform only the functions of a presbyter. Perhaps for no other purpose was this provision made than that of preventing the occurrence of this absurd anomaly, to wit, that of having two bishops at the same time in the same bishopric, one wanting this and the other that, which he dared to do. For if that was not the purpose that this council had in mind, why should it degrade the bishop to the rank of a presbyter, at a time when this degradation amounts to sacrilege, according to c. XXIX of the 4th? Besides, if a bishop teaching beyond his boundaries is unworthy, he ought to be unworthy also of the presbytery; but if he is worthy of the presbytery, why should he not be worthy also of the episcopate? So it is apparent that the reason why it reduces him to the rank of a presbyter is to leave one bishop again in one bishopric, and not two. For he sinned immediately against the episcopal office by causing two bishops to be in the same bishopric, on which account he is deposed therefrom; he did not sin, however, against the office of presbyter, since two or more presbyters are not prohibited from being in the same bishopric, wherefore neither is he deposed therefrom (although Zonaras and Balsamon say that anyone that teaches publicly contrary to the will of the local bishop is on this account reduced to the rank of presbyter, in order to humble him, on the ground that he became vainglorious and exalted him¬self). Hence sacred Photius (Title IX, ch. 11), to do away with the apparent contradiction of the canons — that is, of c. XXIX of the 4th and c. XX of the 6th -, proposed c. VIII of the 1st. Nevertheless, even when it comes to performing the office of a presbyter, a bishop from beyond the boundaries must obtain the permission and consent of the local bishop. If he does not have such permission, he cannot exercise the function; he simply has the standing of a laymen in that case as long as he remains in that foreign region, according to the canons. In order to sum up the entirety of the present Apos-tolical Canon, we may say thus: A bishop who performs a prelatical service in a strange bishopric, with the consent of the bishop thereof, is not performing it with the power and operation of his own episcopate (for in that case there would be two bishops in one bishopric as though possessing two distinct and separate powers and faculties); but, on the contrary, solely with the episcopal power and faculty of the local bishop (for in this case the two bishops are regarded as one bishop). And if this be so, as indeed it is, anyone that performs a prelatical function against the will of the local bishop, is deposed even from his own episcopal power, which, without possessing it, on the score of his being beyond his boundaries, he exercised; as well as from the strange episcopal power of the local bishop, which he might have possessed with the consent and permission of the latter, but which he stole and appropriated as his own.
Any further objection, then you must take it against the canonists.
Continue
I
Ignatios
Guest
Looooooool wishful thought, if the Holy Orthodox Church of GOD submit herself to any head other than the LORD JESUS CHRIST than the gates of hell prevailed over Her that is the Body of CHRIST That is the Church,
Now why not show me where My Church admits to what you are implying,(the Primacy of authority or Jurisdiction) of the Roman church over all the other Patriarchates and put this issue to rest, take your time if you don’t have it with you handy, will meet again next week next month next year, take your time and look, But if you are talking about Primacy of Honor, then there is no objection to that.
Marduk, lets keep the Pope out of this, and let me tell you if my Patriarch that I honor and respect and obey with everything I have, had declared today that he is the head of the church dogmatically, be sure that the next day I will be back in the middle east shouting and saying ANAXIOS ANAXIOS ANAXIOS=NOT worthy, and I can guaranty you that there would be a million like myself shouting the same thing and I guaranty you also that the day would not come up on him inside the Patriarchal building
" …will again do so when our Churches reunite…"
Your church or the Pope was granted no more than Primacy of Honor, and failed to achieve supremacy in the first millennium .
You failed in the next millennium to achieve your fallacies. Despite all the attempts .
Continue dreaming of such a fallacy, for the next 2 thousands years. Unless the LORD had come before then.
If we were to be united again, it would be no more than what was in the first millennium. If you Pope repent that is.
Continue…
I
Ignatios
Guest
I rest my claim on this from the same Canon 35 that is, and as I have showed in deed from a canonists and NOT my self, in particular where it says ““ … LET HIM NOT DO ANYTHING WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF ALL”, and if you read further in one of the other canons that I gave forth without implying anything of your own you will see clearly that voting and according to the majority, how things were and still are in the Orthodox Church.
I have already refuted your claim utterly from the same canon, by showing deeds canonists and history but you continue to reject it basing it on distorting, adding and read things into the canon that it does not exist in history nor by a canonist neither by historians.
As for the Pope had always occupied the head bishop in the whole world.
We know what your church is always trying to assert, BUT, the discussion is to give valid proof from the Canon, in which you still yet to bring forth, as we have refuted your assertions to the Canon 34(35) utterly from the canon itself and the canonists and historians.
Yes the RCC is indeed in violation if the Canon 35(34) as I have demonstrated numerous times before but you continues to reject it on the basis that the RCC didn’t violate it, I will display a couple of those violations for the record using the two listed earlier above by myself:
Canon 36(35), of the Apostolic canons where It says in effect that a bishop ought not to dare to confer ordinations outside of the boundaries of his bishopric, or to perform any other ecclesiastical function in those cities and countries.
In the Apostolic Canons, Canon 46 says this: "We order any Bishop, or Presbyter, that has accepted any heretics’ Baptism, or sacrifice, to be deposed; for “what consonancy hath Christ with Beliar? or what part hath the believer with an infidel?”
Canon 47: “If a Bishop or Presbyter baptize anew anyone that has had a true baptism, or fail to baptize anyone that has been polluted by the impious, let him be deposed, on the ground that he is mocking the Cross and death of the Lord and failing to distinguish priests from pseudopriests.”
50. If any bishop or presbyter does not perform the three immersions of the one admission, but one immersion, which is given into the death of Christ, let him be deprived; for the Lord did not say, “Baptize into my death,” but, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Therefore, O bishops, baptize thrice into one Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost, according to the will of Christ, and our constitution by the Spirit.
Check the didache for more on how to be baptized.
In the CCC the RCC states:
V. WHO CAN BAPTIZE?
1256 The ordinary ministers of Baptism are the bishop and priest and, in the Latin Church, also the deacon.57 In case of necessity, anyone, even a non-baptized person.
And the list goes on.
Why not provide us with a way to reply by giving your statements some value through showing what you are saying is genuine and valid?
GOD bless you and all †††
Forgive me if I offended you or anybody,
In CHRIST
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Ignatios.
I notice several of your answers is simply a matter of avoiding the issue. I will point these out and other erroneous assumptions in your answers when I respond this weekend.
Thank you for your response. It is good to let it all out in the open so the truth may be exposed.
Blessings,
Marduk
I notice several of your answers is simply a matter of avoiding the issue. I will point these out and other erroneous assumptions in your answers when I respond this weekend.
Thank you for your response. It is good to let it all out in the open so the truth may be exposed.
Blessings,
Marduk
I
Ignatios
Guest
Here is one of many:
EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS.
SESSION I.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VII., col. 53.)
[Certain bishops who had been led astray by the Iconoclasts came, asking to be received back. The first of these was Basil of Ancyra.]
The bishop Basil of Ancyra read as follows from a book; Inasmuch as ecclesiastical legislation has canonically been handed down from past time, even from the beginning from the holy Apostles, and from their successors, who were our holy fathers
and teachers, and also from the six holy and ecumenical synods, and from the local synods which were gathered in the interests of orthodoxy, that those returning from any heresy whatever to the orthodox faith and to the tradition of the Catholic Church, might deny their own heresy, and confess the orthodox faith,
Wherefore I, Basil, bishop of the city of Ancyra, proposing to be united to the Catholic Church, and ***to Hadrian the most holy Pope of Old Rome, and to Tarasius the most blessed Patriarch, and to the most holy apostolic sees, to wit, Alexandria, Antioch, and the Holy City, as well as to all orthodox high-priests and priests, ***make this written confession of my faith, and I offer it to you as to those who have received power by apostolic authority. And in this also I beg pardon from your divinely gathered holiness for my tardiness in this matter. For it was not right that I should have fallen behind in the confession of orthodoxy, but it arose from my entire lack of knowledge, and slothful and negligent mind in the matter. Wherefore the rather I ask your blessedness to grant me indulgence in God’s sight.
GOD Bless you †††
M
mardukm
Guest
You haven’t answered the question. This Church record does not say we MUST agree with all those other bishops. It simply reflects the personal testimony of a single hierarch whose orthodoxy was being questioned, and who wanted to cover all his bases. Try again.
Blessings,
Marduk
K
KingAlfred
Guest
I would imagine it has a lot to do with tradition. They simply belong to different traditions, and don’t want to submit to the authority of outsiders. I can’t blame them. I wouldn’t want to, either.
J
jimmy
Guest
None of the ancient documents of the Church say that agreement with the Roman Pontiff is necessary either. The fact is that the early bishops did not view themselves as having to appeal to Romes authority and did not feel they must have Romes consent. The pope did not attend any of the first seven councils and some of them the pope did not even have delegates(I think 1Constantinople). And some of the canons were openly rejected by Rome but this rejection by Rome was completely ignored. For example Canon 28 from Chalcedon which was rejected by Leo. It wasn’t accepted until the 13th century in the west but the east didn’t care.You haven’t answered the question. This Church record does not say we MUST agree with all those other bishops. It simply reflects the personal testimony of a single hierarch whose orthodoxy was being questioned, and who wanted to cover all his bases. Try again.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Jimmy,
The matter of faith and morals, I submit, is different. If you want to discuss that, let me know.
Blessings,
Marduk
Basically, you disagree that Rome was the head bishopric in the early Church - for if you agree that it was, then its agreement WOULD be necessary according to the apostolic canon. Please explain the rationale behind your statement, for historically speaking, it finds no support.
You misunderstand. To claim that Eastern Christendom’s adherence to a canon without Rome’s approval is reflective of Rome’s lack of universal jurisdiction is a senseless argument. The Pope’s consent is not required for a canon to be valid in the Eastern portion of Christendom; rather it is required in order for it to be UNIVERSAL (i.e., accepted by ALL of Christendom). Can you PLEASE show us where the Catholic Church claims otherwise? I had encountered this argument when I was an Orthodox NOT in communion with Rome, and my conscience dictated that I had to let go of such dishonest rhetoric (I’m not saying YOU are dishonest, and I know that this rhetoric does not come from you since I encountered it many years ago).
The matter of faith and morals, I submit, is different. If you want to discuss that, let me know.
Blessings,
Marduk
- Status