Objections to the Orthodox?

[SFH]

I think your time would be better spent praying to the Good Lord to remove the veil from the Eastern Orthodox so they may recognize the fullness of the Faith and return to communion with the Catholic Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

We see Peter taking charge in the Gospels and book of Acts.

Not in Acts 15.

And it is rather odd that if St. Peter was so clearly made supreme leader in Matthew 16, why the disciples are asking who is the greatest in Matthew 18.

Note how we often see “Peter and the Apostles” indicating his primacy.

but nothing on supremacy, nor infallibility.

Hundreds after Constantinople was founded and the early ecumenical councils.

so?

That is nothing solid however, it is speculation based on what various different accounts say, and at the end of the day gratuitous. On top of that, according to this same quote St Andrew didn’t stop in Byz but went on westward from there.

So he went on Westward. He ordained St. Stachys (38-54) to the See of Byzantium before moving on.

The accounts all agree he went all around the Black Sea, through Greece into the Peloponessis, where he was martyred.

Contrast this with the strong testimony for places like Rome and Alexandria.

I don’t know what strong testimony you mean for either Rome or Alexandria. Their founders, like that of Byzantium, were known as a matter of fact. Byzantium wasn’t mentioned much before becoming the capital, but it was mentioned, with no other attribute to its founding.

But the “Andrew was in this general area” argument is not the solid testimony I am talking about. I’m talking about a strong testimony from the Fathers (especially the major ones) and testimony from early Ecumenical Councils…both of those sources testify to Peter and Rome.

The sources say he was in the general area AND in Byzantium SPECIFICALLY.

What do you mean by the Early Ecumenical Councils, because the first too don’t mention Peter and Rome.

Then my argument prevails because we have a non significant See emerging pushing itself above the historical ones. Further, the establishment of Byz by St Andrew is gratuitous at best, with no solid testimony of it.

The Ecumenical Councils elevated her. You seem to be blind to that fact.

And since the Fathers gave the reasons why they did-she was New Rome and the Capital-we don’t have to second guess them.

You may not like their reasoning, but that’s an entirely diffierent issue.

And, since as I have pointed out, the Orthodox Communion is NOT defined in reference to the EP, my own See is Alexandria and I’m now under Antioch, I don’t understand your fixation with St Andrew and Constantinople.

You are only further proving my point. This “elevation” was more political than anything, it is not part of the Apostolic Deposit, and it was Constantinople that led the charge to push Rome and the others out of the way.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but it had nothing to do with Rome at first, but Heracleia, whose suffragan Byzantium had been.

And the placing of Alexandria before Antioch, and both before Jerusalem were no less “political.”

The picture presented should be troubling to anyone looking at this objectively.

Is it available online?

Not at present it seems (the site I find it off of is down). I think it is his epistle xcvi.

Deposing the glorious St John is not a good example of Alexandria showing power, it was wrong and illegal and based on greed and politics.

You spoke of power, not motive. You claimed that Constantinople forced herself above Alexandria. St. John is a perfect example to disprove that.

When Nestorius was deposed it was an Ecumenical Council, not the lone St Cyril.

Again, I indicated no bishop acts alone (including Rome).

This isn’t a filioque thread, so I wont go into who did what, my point is that it was Constantinople who led the charge in going after Rome. Constantinople was leader in bringing up various charges, simply for the sake of throwing dirt, led the charge in inciting hatred, etc, etc, all so that Patriarch could emerge as head, it was a power grab more than anything.

Seems Old Rome can’t defend herself without trying to tear down New Rome.

When the schism happened, it happened only when the EP struck Rome from the diptych according to canon for interpolating the Creed. The Vatican was the one who stormed into Constantinople in a huff.

Historical and Apostolic roots are not grounds to give Alex and Ant authority and honor above the rest, regardless of how they rank head to head? That is rediculous. Nicea Canon 6 says it was the custom of the Bishop of Rome to grant Alexandria and Antioch their respective jurisdictions.

I have to leave for Vespers, but I’ll return to this: the canon doesn’t say any such thing. Rome was granting nothing. It was the custom of the Catholic Church.

You are just trying to muddy the waters away from the fact Constantinople had no buisiness rising up the way it did, pushing others out of the way.

Take it up with the Fathers of the Councils.

Nicea says a special custom with Jerusalem existed and that it shall be gratuitously elevated in honor, why it did not rank up with Alexandria is not relevant here.

You are trying to avoid the fact that the Fathers didn’t apply either you logic nor reasons in the formation of the Pentarchy.

You are just trying to muddy the waters to justify the invention of a See.

Sees are “invented” all the time. How else do you think the Church grows?

Nicea teaches there were existing customs regarding all three of those Sees, the details behind those historical customs is irrelevant, the fact is they existed and were recognized.

and the Fathers applied those customs and elevated Constantinople.

 

[Nicholas82]

I think your time would be better spent praying to the Good Lord to remove the veil from the Eastern Orthodox so they may recognize the fullness of the Faith and return to communion with the Catholic Church.

I will do the same for Catholics! Oooooooo- dueling prayers! Who will win???

 

[catholic1seeks]

On this thread, there are people who are deeply informed.

**I’m not, and I can’t really go on. I don’t know much, so I trust others will help get the truth out! **

There’s obvious bitterness in this thread, though.

I still believe that the Catholic Church expresses its unity and catholicity better than the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I will do the same for Catholics! Oooooooo- dueling prayers! Who will win???

IC XC

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Historical and Apostolic roots are not grounds to give Alex and Ant authority and honor above the rest, regardless of how they rank head to head? That is rediculous. Nicea Canon 6 says it was the custom of the Bishop of Rome to grant Alexandria and Antioch their respective jurisdictions.

Canon 6 says:

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

And the ancient epitomy:

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. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.viii.html

Rome was granting nothing, and the canon was just recognizing what was already tradition.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Because, as history shows, bishops do not always unanimously agree (in or out of council) on issues of faith and morals where it is very important for that the truth be discerned and then upheld.

Nita

History shows the Councils have worked.

 

[Nita]

History shows the Councils have worked.

For what?

 

[Mannyfit75]

Shrugging it off, again.
And the major reason why many other bishops ignored him was precisely due to Constantinople’s pressure and threats to them.

Constantinople led the charge, and it wasnt just about the filioque.

Actually the Constantinople is one of the Patriarchate Churches.

There are all founded by the Apostles. The original five are as follows:

1. Rome.
2. Constantinople.
3. Antioch.
4. Alexandria.
5. Jerusalem.

The original five patriarchs sat in Rome, Constantinople (now called Istanbul for secular purposes, but still called Constantinople in this ecclesiastical context), Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. In the East-West Schism of 1054, the one Latin-speaking patriarchate (Rome) and the four Greek-speaking patriarchates split, forming the hierarchies of the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches respectively. The Patriarch of Antioch moved to Damascus in the 13th century, during the reign of the Egyptian Mamelukes, conquerors of Syria. In Damascus a Christian community had flourished since apostolic times (Acts 9). However, the patriarchate is still called the Patriarch of Antioch.

The four orthodox patriarchates of the East, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, along with their counterpart in the West, Rome, are distinguished as “senior” (Greek: πρεσβυγενή, presbygenē), having had one of the Apostles or Evangelists as their first bishop: Andrew, Mark, Peter, James, and Peter again, respectively.

Second, have some respect with the Eastern Orthodox. At least they have valid Apostolic Succession, and Seven Sacraments. They are our sister Churches who have the same hopes of becoming One with us in the near future.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Canon 6 says:
Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges.
Rome was granting nothing, and the canon was just recognizing what was already tradition.

There are TWO ways this canon is read:
NON-Catholic: Let the customs regarding the Bishop of Alexandria prevail because the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch.

Catholic: Let the custom regarding Alexandria’s jurisdiction prevail BECAUSE this same custom has been traditionally granted to it by the Bishop of Rome.
The Non-Catholic interpretation is illogical and improbable, it would be like saying, “let the Senator of Ohio have jurisdiction in Ohio because the Senator of New York has jurisdiction of New York.” Or, “let the Ohio Senator rule over Ohio because the New York Senator is also a ruler.”

The Catholic interpretation makes sense, let that custom prevail because that custom has been traditionally granted by Rome.

Here is a full discussion on the matter:
bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

 

[Mannyfit75]

And there is a source from the writings of the Early Church Fathers that Constantinople See was founded by St. Andrew, brother of Peter. According to Wikipedia Inc,

Eusebius quotes Origen as saying Andrew preached in Asia Minor and in Scythia, along the Black Sea as far as the Volga and Kiev. Hence he became a patron saint of Romania and Russia. According to tradition, he founded the See of Byzantium (Constantinople; Source: The only bishopric in that neighbourhood before that time had been established at Heraclea) in AD 38, installing Stachys as bishop. This diocese would later develop into the Patriarchate of Constantinople. Andrew is recognized as its patron saint.

Andrew is said to have been martyred by crucifixion at Patras (Patrae) in Achaea. Though early texts, such as the Acts of Andrew known to Gregory of Tours,[3] describe Andrew bound, not nailed, to a Latin cross of the kind on which Christ was crucified, a tradition grew up that Andrew had been crucified on a cross of the form called Crux decussata (X-shaped cross) and commonly known as “St. Andrew’s cross”; this was performed at his own request, as he deemed himself unworthy to be crucified on the same type of cross on which Christ was crucified.[4] “The familiar iconography of his martyrdom, showing the apostle bound to an X-shaped cross, does not seem to have been standardized before the later Middle Ages,” Judith Calvert concluded after re-examining the materials studied by Louis Réau.[5]

Saint Andrew is the patron of Patras. According to tradition his relics were moved from Patras to Constantinople, and thence to St. Andrews (see below). Local legends say that the relics were sold to the Romans. The head of the saint, considered one of the treasures of St. Peter’s Basilica, was given by the Byzantine despot Thomas Palaeologus to Pope Pius II in 1461. In recent years, by decision of Pope Paul VI in 1964, the relics that were kept in the Vatican City, were sent back to Patras. The relics, which consist of the small finger, part of the top of the cranium of Saint Andrew and small parts of the cross, have since that time been kept in the Church of St. Andrew at Patras in a special shrine, and are revered in a special ceremony every November 30.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

There are TWO ways this canon is read:
NON-Catholic: Let the customs regarding the Bishop of Alexandria prevail because the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch.

Catholic: Let the custom regarding Alexandria’s jurisdiction prevail BECAUSE this same custom has been traditionally granted to it by the Bishop of Rome.

The interpretation held at all times, in all places, by everyone, i.e. Catholic:Let the customs regarding the Bishop of Alexandria prevail because the Bishop of Rome is also a Patriarch.

Vatican:Let the custom regarding Alexandria’s jurisdiction prevail BECAUSE this same custom has been traditionally granted to it by the Bishop of Rome.

The difference is key.

yes, this is like the problem with the Eliakim prophecy: not matter how elegant it is (and I don’t say it isn’t, if you already accept Vatican claims), it is of recent invenition.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=263227

The canon has been around for 16 centuries, and commented on extensively. And yet no one (including the GREEK Orthodox commentators, import below) have found this meaning in the GREEK.

A very Protetestant argument you give us, as if the Church had to be dug up by your spade

The Non-Catholic interpretation is illogical and improbable, it would be like saying, “let the Senator of Ohio have jurisdiction in Ohio because the Senator of New York has jurisdiction of New York.” Or, “let the Ohio Senator rule over Ohio because the New York Senator is also a ruler.”

Of course, you might have to know history, which your source doesn’t.

Rome and her patriarchate was coterminous with the Roman Empire of the West, the center of both the Patriarchate of the West (remember that?) and the Empire of the West being the Prefecture of Italy, Africa and [later officially] Illyrium. Of the myriads of dioceses (a secular term taken over later by the Church) were Latin speaking, and so largely homogenous. Rome was the only Apostolic See of first rank in the whole Empire of the West.
btw, when the Diocese of Italy was divided, the part with Rome (no longer a capital) was Italia suburbicaria: “Italy under the City *”, also referred to as "Diocese of the City of Rome. Your source seems not to like that fact:
…But whence did Calvin derive his information about those “suburban churches” which the Pope was “enjoined to take care of?” There is no trace of this in the canon. The wily heresiarch knew well enough that he was not quoting “the decree of the Council of Nicaea,” but Rufinus’s corruption of that decree.
…Rufinus [345 – 410] wrote a History of the Church in continuation of the immortal work of Eusebius, and inserted in it a Latin translation of the Nicene Canons. But his character of rhetorician did not permit him to give the decrees to his readers in the plain, unambitious style of the good Fathers of the Council. He was fain to embellish them and give them a high-sounding, antithetical form. The result of his lucubration upon our canon is the following sententious effusion: “Et ut apud Alexandriam, et in Urbe Roma vetusta consuetudo servetur, ut vel ille Egypti, vel hic Suburbicarum Ecclesiarum sollicitudinem gerat.”

The Empire of the East, the Prefecture of the East, was a different story: there were Two Sees of Apostolic first rank (Alexandria, Antioch), another which was going to be carved out of these two (Jerusalem) and many other Apostolic sees. In the case of Egypt, the Pentapolis had just recently been added to Diocese of Egypt. Throughtout the Prefecture the littoral had Greek speakers, but the interiors Coptic, Aramaic, etc. speakers.

What made up the Patriarchate of the West/Rome was clear, but what made up the patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, let alone Jerusalem (which was elevated in the next canon, not becoming a Patriarchate until Chalcedon. Cyprus wouldn’t have its autocephalacy recognized until Ephesus) was not.

The Catholic interpretation makes sense, let that custom prevail because that custom has been traditionally granted by Rome.

Did the custom of calling the patriarch of Alexandria “Pope” also been tradtionally granted by Rome? Odd, since at Nicea the custom had been in place for about a century, and Rome’s bishop wouldn’t be called it for awhile: since the Latin patriarch of Alexandria was appointed for the Crusaders, the Vatican wouldn’t let any of its three patriarchs there have the title, something that continues to the present day.*

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Here is a full discussion on the matter:
bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

First, let me quote:
The decree thus far is perfectly clear and reasonable; but it is not, to use St. Leo’s term, diaionizon. Its importance has not survived the ravages of time. Many an age has rolled by since those brilliant luminaries of ancient Christendom – Alexandria, Antioch, Heraclea, Caesarea, Ephesus – were extinguished. They were undoubtedly grand and princely in the day of their strength, but their greatness was of men and shared the inevitable fate of human things. Of what importance, save to the antiquary, are now those old patriarchates with their accessories of high prerogatives, august state, and far-stretching boundaries? If it was permitted to those ancient princes of the Church to revisit these mortal scenes, their self-esteem would probably be less mortified by finding that every vestige of their patriarchdoms has been swept away, than by perceiving how wonderfully well the Church of Christ gets along without them. And upon turning their eyes Romeward and beholding the “Bishop of Old Rome” seated upon the Rock of Peter as firmly and serenely as ever, it is possible they might recall St. Leo’s prophetic words: “A Church that is built upon any other foundation than that Rock which the Lord bath laid shall sooner or later come to grief.” [4]

I have read dumber things. But not many.

I have been to Alexandria and Antioch. The patriarchates still exist, Alexandria covering all of Africa, and Antioch now on every other continent except Antarctica (the Russian Church is there). And yes, they have continued to produce “luminaries” e.g. SS Nektarios (Alexandria) and Rafail (Antioch) the last century.

Heraclea? It’s chief claim to fame was the elevation of its suffragan, Byzantium reborn New Rome/Constantinople. Is that what he is trying to avoid saying?

Ephesus as a city already had declined by the time the Muslims came: the harbor silting up, the sea coast receding, and an earthquake saw to that. Yet she still produced St. Mark of Ephesus. Oooops. I forgot. You guys don’t like him.

Caesarea. Yes, Cappodocia is a loss, which we are consoled by her daughter, the Apostolic Church of Armenia.

If the Fathers looked Romeward after the Seventh Ecumenical Council, they would see, for the most part, a dissolute bishoprick in a clump of huts, culminating in the en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pornocracy.

If they looked they would have seen some strange things
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/Jean_Paul_Laurens_Le_Pape_Formose_et_Etienne_VII_1870.jpg
(is that the “Bishop of Old Rome” seated upon the Rock of Peter as firmly and serenely as ever?")
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cadaver_Synod

If they looked Romeward 1305 to 1378, they would have to look further: the Bishop of Old Rome had been dislodged from the Rock of Rome and was in Avignon.

And beyond that, they would have to look around: for a lifetime all of the West bickered on who was the Bishop of Old Rome.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Schism

And then of course, the West imploded into the Reformation and Counterreformation, the mess which is still with us.

At the time your source was written (1880) the papacy had cleaned up its act for the most part, and the last two occupants have lived up to your sources glossy description, but there’s quite a bit of leap frogging we have to do to get there.

I’ll continue on the “substance” of your source…

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Here is a full discussion on the matter:
bringyou.to/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

I made a post for this, but time expired for modification and I lost it. Lord willing, I’ll repost.

In the meantime, I will just point out that your source trashes everyone’s translation but his own, including Dionysios and Rufinus, who were near contemporary to the Council (his claim
The earliest Latin version – that which was read in the Council of Chalcedon – is more to the point: Quoniam et Romano Episcopo hmc est consuetudo; which coincides with our own
makes no sense: the Fathers of Chalcedon, like EVERY Ecumenical Council, conducted their business in Greek. So no need of any translation being read, they read the original, if they read it at all. Your source does praise the Protestant translations, just not the oldest (Calvin) who he claims is based on the oldest translation.

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Your last three posts have been almost pure fluff not even dealing with the main issue. You are going off on numerous tangents in an attempt to muddy the waters and spam. You even mockingly brushed off the main part about the two options regarding that canon:

1. Let the custom of the Bishop of Alexandria governing N. Africa remain because it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch.

2 )Let the custom of the Bishop of Alexandria governing N. Africa remain because this same custom was historically granted by the Bishop of Rome.

The first interpretation makes no sense, the second interpretation dose make sense whether you agree or not.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

Your last three posts have been almost pure fluff not even dealing with the main issue.

Yes, they have.

Your source obviously doesn’t know what he is talking about on anything, which casts doubts on his translation skills.

And he has to cast aside the Vatican’s translators and the earliest Catholic translators, and seek support from Protestant translators (one of which he says the translation matching his “It is about the only grain of truth I have discovered in his violent diatribe” Is there a smiley with a log?).

You are going off on numerous tangents in an attempt to muddy the waters and spam.

No, just showing that he is wrong in practically EVERY paragraph.

You even mockingly brushed off the main part about the two options regarding that canon:

Didn’t brush it off. Just stated the fact:

1. Let the custom of the Bishop of Alexandria governing N. Africa remain because it is customary for the Bishop of Rome to be a Patriarch.
   is how the Church everywhere at all times (even Rome, as SS Rufinus and Dionysius show) interpreted it and

2 )Let the custom of the Bishop of Alexandria governing N. Africa remain because this same custom was historically granted by the Bishop of Rome.

which, looking at your “authority,” 1500 years later dates only from the justification of Vatican I for “the prisoner in the Vatican.”

The first interpretation makes no sense, the second interpretation dose make sense whether you agree or not.

So much sense that no one saw it for over 1500 years. How Protestant. (btw, I saw your eliakim post, congratulations on moving it at least to the time of the Reformation).

Of course, those who can read the original don’t need the translation.

Let’s start with English:

2 )Let the custom of the Bishop of Alexandria governing N. Africa remain because this same custom was historically granted by the Bishop of Rome.

History means documents, you know, evidence.

There is no history of the Bishop of Rome giving the Bishop of Alexandria , after St. Mark and his Gospel, ANYTHING. Nothing, zilch, nada.

He didn’t give him the title Pope, which the Bishop of Alexandria has held since at least the mid 3rd cent. (the earlies attestation). The Vatican won’t let any of its patriarchs in Alexandria have the title (a departure from its titulature policy for Easterners who submit).

He didn’t give him the Paschalion/Comptus, which Rome and the rest of Christendom took from Alexandria, until Gregory XIII (1582).

He didn’t give him monasticism, which St. Benedict introduced in the West with his rule based on Egyptian practice, either directly or through other Easterners.

He didn’t give him Ethiopia or Nubia, both of which Alexandria Christianized.

Other than giving Pope Athanasius refuge, the Pope of Rome gave the Pope of Alexandria NOTHING.

So there is no “history” of Rome’s largess for canon VI of Nicea I to confirm.

Let’s be clear about this. We have a fare amount of material on the goings on in the Church before 325, much to the Protestants dismay. But we don’t have any document of the Pope of Rome given the Pope of Alexandria anything.

As to your analogy
The Non-Catholic interpretation is illogical and improbable, it would be like saying, “let the Senator of Ohio have jurisdiction in Ohio because the Senator of New York has jurisdiction of New York.” Or, “let the Ohio Senator rule over Ohio because the New York Senator is also a ruler.”

Let’s first change “senator” to “governor,” which is the more coherent analogy (or do we have to deal with an inability to see the other bishops as more than acolytes of the one in the Vatican?).
Next, change “Ohio” to “Vermont, Maine or Franklin,” which, as the history shows, is a more cogent comparison. As I stated above, the territory of Rome was not a question: it was the Whole Western Empire and the Diocese of Italy, Africa and Illyrium. In the East, there was two (and soon to be two more) patriarchates in one Eastern Empire. Libya had been detached from Africa and given to Egypt, NOT by the Pope of Rome, but Diocletian. Hence the question of borders.

Hence the analogy with Vermont, Maine and Franklin. All three states fought for independence at the same time as New York. But whereas New York had boundaries and a definitive goverment from royal charter, the other three did not: Vermont organized itself as a state although it was an independent republic, although nominally part of New York; Maine the exclave of Massachusetts with an undefined border (solved when the governor declared war on Britain in 1839, the only state governor to do so); Franklin was a cession movement in North Carolina before the Northwest Territory was organized. And so it was that, at admission as a state of the Union, the governor, actually a president, of Vermont was given jurisdiction like New York’s, Maine was given a governor (it was counties of no man’s land at the time) with jurisdiction, and Franklin, well, its governor had tried to gain admission to the Union, didn’t and then went to Spain for a loan, leading to him being arrested by the North Carolina millitia for treason, Franklin being given to the Northwest Territiories and eventually ending up as part of Tennessee (much like Ephesus ended up in Constantinople’s patrirarchate).

So, shall I go onto your source’s historical inaccuracies, or his transaltions problems next?