ORTHODOX-VATICAN - Bartholomew: With Francis, we invite all Christians to celebrate the first synod of Nicaea in 2025 [AN]

[Seraphignatius]

According to St. ignatius of Antioch: “In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”
There is no indication that the Bishop of Rome is somehow above the other bishops. The implication here is that the apostolic bishop is supreme by himself, not because he is under Rome. IOW, the bishops are equal.
When St. Basil wrote to the west for help against Arianism he addressed his letter thusly:
“To his brethren truly God-beloved and very dear, and fellow ministers of like mind, the bishops of Gaul and Italy, Basil, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia”
If the Bishop of Rome (or Italy) was the head of the Church, why then did St. Basil not address him as such? He places him on equal terms with the bishop of Gaul.
Once again we see and indication that the bishops are equal.

That isn’t very strong evidence. Especially not in light of two ecumenical councils where the separated eastern Churches agreed to the supremecy and universal jurisdiction of the pope. Especially when as early as the first century in the times when John the Beloved Disciple was still alive Pope St. Clement was writing to other Churches as one with direct authority over them. Especially not when all apostolic churches agree to some form of primacy belonging to Rome. You are trying to draw extraordinary conclusions from mere omissions when we have extraordinary support to the contrary. Peter, not James,John, or the rest, was given the keys to the kingdom which is a direct symbol of his authority in the name of the king who alone he is subordinate to. I have said elsewhere, even St.John Chrysostom said that Peter was appointed teacher not of the Chair (of the diocese), but of the world.

 

[Tomdstone]

That isn’t very strong evidence. Especially not in light of two ecumenical councils where the separated eastern Churches agreed to the supremecy and universal jurisdiction of the pope.

Well, I was asked for evidence from the Fathers of the Church indicating that the Pope was equal to the other bishops. I gave you two quotes from two different Fathers. Further, as far as the ecumenical councils are concerned, in 381 the Council of Constantinople (Second Ecumenical), was convened by the Roman Emperor Theodosius the Great, (not the Pope) and was presided over at first by St. Meletius of Antioch, who was out of favor of the Pope at that time.

 

[Seraphignatius]

Well, I was asked for evidence from the Fathers of the Church indicating that the Pope was equal to the other bishops. I gave you two quotes from two different Fathers. Further, as far as the ecumenical councils are concerned, in 381 the Council of Constantinople (Second Ecumenical), was convened by the Roman Emperor Theodosius the Great, (not the Pope) and was presided over at first by St. Meletius of Antioch, who was out of favor of the Pope at that time.

You were asked to show where they said he was first among equals; instead you provided quotes where such could only be inferred with a prior will to see it there. If an admiral writes a letter to all the other admirals but fails to distinguish between them in his adress does this mean that he acknowledges a five star admiral to be equal with a two star admiral?

Regarding the Council of Constantinople, that was a council of the orient until it’s dogmatic utterances were ratified at Chalcedon by the authority of Pope Leo the Great.
(It’s creed had probably already been ratified by Pope Damasus)

 

[Tomdstone]

You were asked to show where they said he was first among equals; instead you provided quotes where such could only be inferred with a prior will to see it there. If an admiral writes a letter to all the other admirals but fails to distinguish between them in his adress does this mean that he acknowledges a five star admiral to be equal with a two star admiral?

Regarding the Council of Constantinople, that was a council of the orient until it’s dogmatic utterances were ratified at Chalcedon by the authority of Pope Leo the Great.
(It’s creed had probably already been ratified by Pope Damasus)

That exact phrase was not used, but equality of bishops in rank can easily be inferred from the letters written by the Fathers. In a similar vein, can you give us a quote where a Father of the Church before 1000 AD ever said that the ex cathedra declarations of the Roman Pope are infallible, assuming that he is defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals which must be held by the whole Church.

 

[Wandile]

The exact phrase was not used, but equality of bishops in rank can easily be inferred from the letters written by the Fathers. In a similar vein, can you give us a quote where a Father of the Church before 1000 AD ever said that the ex cathedra declarations of the Roman Pope are infallible, assuming that he is defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals which must be held by the whole Church.

All bishops are equal in rank, not authority. A bishop is a bishop but a patriarch has more authority than a bishop so forth the one who has primacy at universal level is the highest authority. It goes :

Parish : Priest
Diocese: Bishop
Major area/patriarchate : Patriarch / Major Archbishop
Universal level : Bishop of Rome

Second , you ask for a quote demonstrating roman bishops infallibility ? Here :

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:

"'As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’** To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth**; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’"

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)

 

[Tomdstone]

If an admiral writes a letter to all the other admirals but fails to distinguish between them in his adress does this mean that he acknowledges a five star admiral to be equal with a two star admiral?

Yes, it does. Protocol demands that the person of highest honor be mentioned first. Would it be correct to begin a letter in the following manner:
To: Peter Joseph Jugis, Bishop of Charlotte , and Earl Alfred Boyea, Jr., Bishop of Lansing, and Francis, Bishop of Rome, and Richard Pates, Bishop of Des Moines :
I have a message of some importance, …etc.
What do you infer from such a letter except that the author of the letter believes that those bishops are equal in rank and authority and that there is no need to put the Bishop of Rome before the others? Of course it is wrong according to Roman Catholic protocol, but evidently, this is not what the author of the letter believes.

 

[Tomdstone]

All bishops are equal in rank, not authority. A bishop is a bishop but a patriarch has more authority than a bishop so forth the one who has primacy at universal level is the highest authority. It goes :

Parish : Priest
Diocese: Bishop
Major area/patriarchate : Patriarch / Major Archbishop
Universal level : Bishop of Rome

Second , you ask for a quote demonstrating roman bishops infallibility ? Here :

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:
“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)

First of all, the Pope is infallible only under certain restricted conditions, not mentioned by Patriarch john. Secondly, S. Herbert Scott says that he is citing Father Salaville in an article in Echos d’Orient, 1910, pg. 171. But Father Salaville is quoting from Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie (1 1910, p. 219) which is a Latin translation from the Armenian. The context of the quote is that patriarch John was a Chalcedonian and was arguing with those who opposed Chalcedon making his point by saying that Rome was on his side. The whole story is here:
google.com/books?id=z61wGcjprnsC&lr=&hl=de
Also at the African Synod of 256, St. Cyprian of Carthage said:
No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in freedom of his liberty and power posses the right to his own mnd and can no be judged by another than he himself can judge another…

 

[Seraphignatius]

Yes, it does. Protocol demands that the person of highest honor be mentioned first. Would it be correct to begin a letter in the following manner:
To: Peter Joseph Jugis, Bishop of Charlotte , and Earl Alfred Boyea, Jr., Bishop of Lansing, and Francis, Bishop of Rome, and Richard Pates, Bishop of Des Moines :
I have a message of some importance, …etc.
What do you infer from such a letter except that the author of the letter believes that those bishops are equal in rank and authority and that there is no need to put the Bishop of Rome before the others? Of course it is wrong according to Roman Catholic protocol, but evidently, this is not what the author of the letter believes.

It’s a weak case even then, but especially so when one considers that it wasn’t addressed to specific bishops, but to groups of them. I wouldn’t necessarily make special mention to the pope when I am writing all the bishops of Europe. (Or as in this case of Italy and Gaul)

 

[Seraphignatius]

First of all, the Pope is infallible only under certain restricted conditions, not mentioned by Patriarch john. Secondly, S. Herbert Scott says that he is citing Father Salaville in an article in Echos d’Orient, 1910, pg. 171. But Father Salaville is quoting from Zeitschrift für Katholische Theologie (1 1910, p. 219) which is a Latin translation from the Armenian. The context of the quote is that patriarch John was a Chalcedonian and was arguing with those who opposed Chalcedon making his point by saying that Rome was on his side. The whole story is here:
google.com/books?id=z61wGcjprnsC&lr=&hl=de

Which is relevant, because the bishop Rome is infallible. are you asserting that Patriarch John just made it up and hoped they would believe him about that? (Despite their calling BS on the whole Chalcedon thing.)

Also at the African Synod of 256, St. Cyprian of Carthage said:
No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in freedom of his liberty and power posses the right to his own mnd and can no be judged by another than he himself can judge another…

So none of the bishops assembled there at Carthage had papal authority. I don’t dispute it unless you’re claiming the pope was there, but even we were to take this as you mean for us to, that would only prove that both opinions existed prior to the schism that doesn’t change the fact that one of the two is wrong and that two ecumenical councils including the seperated eastern churches decided the matter in favor of the papacy. (In addition to still others excluding them.)

 

[Seraphignatius]

Bonus: The synod of Africa in 256 decreed that converts from heretical sects needed to be re baptized Pope Steven by virtue of the authority of his office as teacher of the world condemned the proclamation. (and rightly so according to sound theology.)

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

According to St. ignatius of Antioch: “In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the Sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church.”
There is no indication that the Bishop of Rome is somehow above the other bishops. The implication here is that the apostolic bishop is supreme by himself, not because he is under Rome. IOW, the bishops are equal.
When St. Basil wrote to the west for help against Arianism he addressed his letter thusly:
“To his brethren truly God-beloved and very dear, and fellow ministers of like mind, the bishops of Gaul and Italy, Basil, bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia”
If the Bishop of Rome (or Italy) was the head of the Church, why then did St. Basil not address him as such? He places him on equal terms with the bishop of Gaul.
Once again we see and indication that the bishops are equal.

I would not use these as prooftexts that all bishops are “equal.” The letter of Ignatius is addressed to the local congregation, and it is natural to tell the local congregation to reverence the local ruler of the flock, i.e., the bishop. He is certainly not telling the congregation to follow the bishop into heresy or schism apart from consideration of the broader Church. Ignatius is not writing a comprehensive treatise of ecclesiology, and there wouldn’t be much practical value in telling the laity to listen to the pope when in those days of limited communication, they might go their whole lives without hearing a word from the pope. Besides, you acknowledge the primacy of the pope so all this could have shown was that the Basil did not view the pope as deserving first address, which is separate from infallibility. The second letter is addressed to the entire Church in very large regions, not the pope in any particular way. It names only broad regions, not individual persons or sees. Neither example pertains to the pope.

You know quite well that there are no writings from the first millennium which give the definition of papal infallibility from Vatican I. However, there are places that speak of the pope’s authority in defining matters of faith and Rome’s indefectibility. This is necessarily equivalent to the Catholic position if strictly interpreted even if not as precisely defined. Whether these quotations are hyperbolic or simply mistaken is another question, but they are what they are. I think the strongest argument against an infallible papacy would be the fact that there are many historical cases of disobedience against the pope. Of course, that does not conclusively settle things anymore than schisms and heresies disprove the infallibility of the Church, which I am sure you believe even if you don’t believe the pope to be an organ of infallibility.

 

[Seraphim73]

In a similar vein, can you give us a quote where a Father of the Church before 1000 AD ever said that the ex cathedra declarations of the Roman Pope are infallible, assuming that he is defining a doctrine concerning faith or morals which must be held by the whole Church.

I think that’s a good point. Can anyone give us a quote?

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

What are the earliest quotes teaching the infallibility of the ecumenical councils? What standards should we apply to these quotes?

 

[Nine_Two]

What are the earliest quotes teaching the infallibility of the ecumenical councils? What standards should we apply to these quotes?

Which is why these quote wars are a waste of time (I believe that is your point, but I feel getting both a Catholic and an Orthodox to state it might drive home the point a bit better).

 

[Seraphim73]

Which is why these quote wars are a waste of time (I believe that is your point, but I feel getting both a Catholic and an Orthodox to state it might drive home the point a bit better).

A colossal waste of time.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Which is why these quote wars are a waste of time (I believe that is your point, but I feel getting both a Catholic and an Orthodox to state it might drive home the point a bit better).

Yes. The fact is that the Fathers only say so much, and they do not always speak as unambiguously and precisely as we would like or using the same language we would use.

 

[KathleenGee]

I heard from two local sources and now from the Sunday Visitor that the Schism was due to linguistic mistranslations, that the higher up’s know this today, but it is the lower rungs that are keeping the schism.

I cannot believe the conflict between the Russian Orthodox settlers in Crimea and the Greek Catholics in the Ukraine. We are so close to each other in faith. But I do have the impression that this one Russian Orthodox head is resisting any work in re-establishing unity, and Russia converting into the Orthodox fold about the same time…because if it comes into unity with the Latin West, it will go through its own house cleaning and reveal some of its actions in collusion with the KGB. That is my intuitive observation after going through the Sunday Visitor.

I could be dead before 2025, so I hope the conversion of Russia, they do have God…but that they leave this sectarianism, and Russia could be of great help in consideration of the Muslim expansion through terrorism.

 

[Aramis]

I heard from two local sources and now from the Sunday Visitor that the Schism was due to linguistic mistranslations, that the higher up’s know this today, but it is the lower rungs that are keeping the schism.

I cannot believe the conflict between the Russian Orthodox settlers in Crimea and the Greek Catholics in the Ukraine. We are so close to each other in faith. But I do have the impression that this one Russian Orthodox head is resisting any work in re-establishing unity, and Russia converting into the Orthodox fold about the same time…because if it comes into unity with the Latin West, it will go through its own house cleaning and reveal some of its actions in collusion with the KGB. That is my intuitive observation after going through the Sunday Visitor.

I could be dead before 2025, so I hope the conversion of Russia, they do have God…but that they leave this sectarianism, and Russia could be of great help in consideration of the Muslim expansion through terrorism.

Sadly, the Russian church at present will only accept union with Rome if it gets to be Rome. It’s one of two Orthodox Patriarchates to allow multiple rites - and has Latin Rite parishes outside Russia herself; but even then, it accepts only the Byzantine Rite within Russia…

 

[Tomdstone]

Sadly, the Russian church at present will only accept union with Rome if it gets to be Rome. It’s one of two Orthodox Patriarchates to allow multiple rites - and has Latin Rite parishes outside Russia herself; but even then, it accepts only the Byzantine Rite within Russia…

There is a beautiful Roman Catholic cathedral in Moscow that has the Roman Mass several times a day.

 

[dvdjs]

There is a beautiful Roman Catholic cathedral in Moscow that has the Roman Mass several times a day.

Aramis was talking of the acceptance of rites within the ROC. The presence of the RCC in Russia is a state matter, not one of acceptability to the ROC,