C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I don’t believe so. Because if you look at historical writings, the way they convey events is very poetic, “mythological” if you will. We’re just of a different mindset today.
- Status
L
LionHeart777
Guest
continued…
Later, after another post or so I made, I gave a link to a citation (or citations) by Theodore Abu Qurrah, in which he was not addressing the Pope or someone in Rome, which I believes eliminates the deferntial language defense. I’ll cite it here:
Cavarodossi responded (in part) that:
“Theodore Abu Qurrah’s speculative theology (which to my knowledge has never received synodal sanction) simply cannot counter the evidence offered by praxis, such as the lack of any commemorations for the Pope in regular liturgies (if the pope were the chief hierarch of all, one would expect this to be so), and also the custom of a newly-elected pope sending out a typikon to the major patriarchates in the East upon his enthronement, containing a statement of faith and a request for his name to be added to the diptychs.”
(See his post #262)
I tried my best to respond about the Liturgical part which he further clarified in another post, in my post #292.
But I would like to call attention to his idea that Theodore Abu Qurrah’s theology is speculative.
Continued…
Later, after another post or so I made, I gave a link to a citation (or citations) by Theodore Abu Qurrah, in which he was not addressing the Pope or someone in Rome, which I believes eliminates the deferntial language defense. I’ll cite it here:
(Source: credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/theodore.htm ) (P.S. see this link for another proof of the Catholic position regarding the Pope and Ecumenical Councils by the pen of Theodore Abu Qurrah)
Cavarodossi responded (in part) that:
“Theodore Abu Qurrah’s speculative theology (which to my knowledge has never received synodal sanction) simply cannot counter the evidence offered by praxis, such as the lack of any commemorations for the Pope in regular liturgies (if the pope were the chief hierarch of all, one would expect this to be so), and also the custom of a newly-elected pope sending out a typikon to the major patriarchates in the East upon his enthronement, containing a statement of faith and a request for his name to be added to the diptychs.”
(See his post #262)
I tried my best to respond about the Liturgical part which he further clarified in another post, in my post #292.
But I would like to call attention to his idea that Theodore Abu Qurrah’s theology is speculative.
Continued…
D
dvdjs
Guest
We must be talking about different things. Have you read the article of Hart and on Taft?
This critiique is against polemics not poetics.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Continued…
At some point during this I cited from the “Decree of Damasus” in my post #266:
The citation from “Decree of Damasus”:
To which he responded in his post #268:
“It is just that, attributed to Pope St. Damasus. We don’t actually know who wrote it. What good is such evidence when we cannot even establish whether it is genuine, especially given the prevalence of fakes like the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore? Even if it were true that Pope Damasus believed in this, along with his whole Roman synod, such a decree was never approved of, nor enacted by any of the Ecumenical Councils, nor received into canon law.”
So, I accepted that he had doubts it was attributable to Pope St. Damasus, although I gave the Patristics scolar Jurgens’ opinion in my post #292. In that post I also used his own citation of Bishop Firmilian as evidence of Rome’s belief of the Divine Origin of the Papacy. Here is Firmilian from Cavarodossi’s post # 268:
“And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity.”
Any ways, sorry for the length, I was waiting for a response, for argument’s sake perhaps, as to when he believed Rome had the idea of the Divine Origin of the Papacy, hoping that he would concede at the very least that it was some time before the Great Schism. So without his response, I will still try and sum up my thought, hopefully justifying my digging up all of these passages.
So my questions my synopsis’ (hopefully not caricatures) of his responses to the evidence I gave are:
The evidence from
But to this I would ask:
How can the Byzantine evidence be explained away as deferential language alone when #'s 2 and 3 re taken into account?
How can Theodore Abu Qurrah’s theology be called speculative when #'s 1 & 3 are taken into account.
How can the Divine Origen of the Papacy be only Pope St. Damasus’ or the Romans’ belief given #'s 1 & 2 above?
And this is not all the evidence that attests to the pre- schism belief (East & West) of the Divine Origen of Papacy. Does anyone see what I’m getting at… sorry for the long explanation.
At some point during this I cited from the “Decree of Damasus” in my post #266:
The citation from “Decree of Damasus”:
Source: Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers Volume 1”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 404
To which he responded in his post #268:
“It is just that, attributed to Pope St. Damasus. We don’t actually know who wrote it. What good is such evidence when we cannot even establish whether it is genuine, especially given the prevalence of fakes like the Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore? Even if it were true that Pope Damasus believed in this, along with his whole Roman synod, such a decree was never approved of, nor enacted by any of the Ecumenical Councils, nor received into canon law.”
So, I accepted that he had doubts it was attributable to Pope St. Damasus, although I gave the Patristics scolar Jurgens’ opinion in my post #292. In that post I also used his own citation of Bishop Firmilian as evidence of Rome’s belief of the Divine Origin of the Papacy. Here is Firmilian from Cavarodossi’s post # 268:
“And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. For they who are baptized, doubtless, fill up the number of the Church. But he who approves their baptism maintains, of those baptized, that the Church is also with them. Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity.”
Any ways, sorry for the length, I was waiting for a response, for argument’s sake perhaps, as to when he believed Rome had the idea of the Divine Origin of the Papacy, hoping that he would concede at the very least that it was some time before the Great Schism. So without his response, I will still try and sum up my thought, hopefully justifying my digging up all of these passages.
So my questions my synopsis’ (hopefully not caricatures) of his responses to the evidence I gave are:
The evidence from
- St. Theodore: deferential language
- Theodore Abu Qurrah: speculative theology
- Rome (via St. Stephen of Pope St Damasus): only the belief of Rome.
But to this I would ask:
How can the Byzantine evidence be explained away as deferential language alone when #'s 2 and 3 re taken into account?
How can Theodore Abu Qurrah’s theology be called speculative when #'s 1 & 3 are taken into account.
How can the Divine Origen of the Papacy be only Pope St. Damasus’ or the Romans’ belief given #'s 1 & 2 above?
And this is not all the evidence that attests to the pre- schism belief (East & West) of the Divine Origen of Papacy. Does anyone see what I’m getting at… sorry for the long explanation.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Just to clarify, I mean this was my synopsis of his rebuttals to the evidence I brought up. I have taken the liberty of now bluing my imperfect take on his responses and left my evidence alone. (Sorry to insult anyone’s intelligence if that was obvious
Just wanted to make sure those weren’t taken as my beliefs (in blue.)
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
ConstantineTG,
With regard to your comment on Pope St. Leo I,
“Now, he has not abandoned the care of his flock (merely the West? Or the whole church?): and it is from his supreme and eternal authority that we have received the abundant gift of apostolic power and his succor is never absent from his work… For that firmness of faith which was commended in the prince of the apostles is perpetual, and as that on which Peter believed in Christ endures, so does that which Christ established in Peter endure also… The dispensation of the truth, therefore abides: and the blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock wherewith he has been endowed, has not abandoned the reins of the Church which he received… Thus is we act or decide justly, if by our daily supplications we obtain anything from the mercy of God, it is the work and the merit of him whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See”
Here St. Leo is speaking to the question of a post-apostolic church, something which the New Testament and Tradition prior to the end of the apostolic era do not engage with for natural reasons. Therefore your search for answers to questions concerning a post-apostolic church, even a church 2,000 years after the apostles, is futile if you are looking within the texts of the New Testament or extremely early Tradition. So what does Leo have to tell us about the organization of a post-apostolic church? Is is a free-for-all? Subject to the manipulation of the most intelligent people? St. Leo says that Jesus Christ has not “abandoned” his Church. Isn’t it interesting to know that this early Saint would make this assertion. It informs us that if the authority and organization, a living and contemporary voice for the Church, is not under some visible and clear direction, then Christ has abandoned his Church. Moreover what is even more interesting is how then St. Leo parallels Christ theoretically abandoning the Church to St. Peter theoretically abandoning the Church. In other words, Christ has not abandoned his Church because Peter has not abandoned his Church. It is precisely here that we see the motions of St. Leo’s thought process. St. Leo obviously believes that the “rock” of the Church is Peter alone (and possibly all bishops who surround him), and he also sees that the “care” of the “flock of the Lord” was entrusted to Peter, and this “care” of the “flock of the Lord” has not died with the physical death of Peter. In fact, Peter himself has not died, in the reasoning of St. Leo here. The “care” of the “flock of the Lord” is still governed by St. Peter for the whole Church, and it is his “power” that “lives” (continually/perpetually) and “whose authority prevails in His See”. Right here, St. Leo should have been charged with heresy and excommunication by every standing church in the whole world, if the modern Orthodox arguments are even cojent. What St. Leo is proposing here is that the “care” (authority, government, shepherding, organizing, etc,etc) of the “flock of the Lord” (presumably the catholic church) is in the hands of St. Peter whose authority lives in the See of Rome. It couldn’t get more clear. Whether the East understood he was claiming this is a rather speculative question (I personally think they did know), and we really cannot know. But what the Modern Orthodox should admit to is that if Leo did in fact believe this, then the East was simply unaware of this. But then this would mean that the Western Church was divided in theology from the Eastern Church in theology.
With regard to your comment on Pope St. Leo I,
“Now, he has not abandoned the care of his flock (merely the West? Or the whole church?): and it is from his supreme and eternal authority that we have received the abundant gift of apostolic power and his succor is never absent from his work… For that firmness of faith which was commended in the prince of the apostles is perpetual, and as that on which Peter believed in Christ endures, so does that which Christ established in Peter endure also… The dispensation of the truth, therefore abides: and the blessed Peter, persevering in the strength of the rock wherewith he has been endowed, has not abandoned the reins of the Church which he received… Thus is we act or decide justly, if by our daily supplications we obtain anything from the mercy of God, it is the work and the merit of him whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See”
Here St. Leo is speaking to the question of a post-apostolic church, something which the New Testament and Tradition prior to the end of the apostolic era do not engage with for natural reasons. Therefore your search for answers to questions concerning a post-apostolic church, even a church 2,000 years after the apostles, is futile if you are looking within the texts of the New Testament or extremely early Tradition. So what does Leo have to tell us about the organization of a post-apostolic church? Is is a free-for-all? Subject to the manipulation of the most intelligent people? St. Leo says that Jesus Christ has not “abandoned” his Church. Isn’t it interesting to know that this early Saint would make this assertion. It informs us that if the authority and organization, a living and contemporary voice for the Church, is not under some visible and clear direction, then Christ has abandoned his Church. Moreover what is even more interesting is how then St. Leo parallels Christ theoretically abandoning the Church to St. Peter theoretically abandoning the Church. In other words, Christ has not abandoned his Church because Peter has not abandoned his Church. It is precisely here that we see the motions of St. Leo’s thought process. St. Leo obviously believes that the “rock” of the Church is Peter alone (and possibly all bishops who surround him), and he also sees that the “care” of the “flock of the Lord” was entrusted to Peter, and this “care” of the “flock of the Lord” has not died with the physical death of Peter. In fact, Peter himself has not died, in the reasoning of St. Leo here. The “care” of the “flock of the Lord” is still governed by St. Peter for the whole Church, and it is his “power” that “lives” (continually/perpetually) and “whose authority prevails in His See”. Right here, St. Leo should have been charged with heresy and excommunication by every standing church in the whole world, if the modern Orthodox arguments are even cojent. What St. Leo is proposing here is that the “care” (authority, government, shepherding, organizing, etc,etc) of the “flock of the Lord” (presumably the catholic church) is in the hands of St. Peter whose authority lives in the See of Rome. It couldn’t get more clear. Whether the East understood he was claiming this is a rather speculative question (I personally think they did know), and we really cannot know. But what the Modern Orthodox should admit to is that if Leo did in fact believe this, then the East was simply unaware of this. But then this would mean that the Western Church was divided in theology from the Eastern Church in theology.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
It is not futile to search for something in Scripture if one wants to flaunt a teaching as dogma. If it is non-dogmatic, sure. Like I said, ecclesiology evolved. But we have to be honest about it, it was an evolution, things happened out of necessity of governance and not a dogmatic truth. The fact that the earliest claim of such an authority can be traced, even so this is only after stretching certain writings, to the 4th century means that this is something that came only much later and after a significant number of events have happened which triggered the desire for such claims.
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
ConstantineTG,
Thank you for your response.
You said that “Ecclesiology evolved”. I think all agree on that. Even protestants believe that their ecclesiology evolves. In fact , I think the protestants have a phrase in latin, something like “always reforming”.
Secondly, if I may kindly comment, your standards, if true, make me want to be a baptist. For issues such as infant baptism are not spoken about in the New Testament (a mere assertion that households included infants does not prove the point), and yet I believe this to be part of apostolic tradition. So what if Tertullian rejected it? The same with the Papacy.
If I really wanted to go back and do a thorough study of all the historical writings (including the New Testament) I would probably have to pick and choose what is orthodox and what is not myself, and I’ve actually thought this through and I think I’d end up with something like a Baptist who believes in the sacraments for Adults. But do you see how varied one can come out when using such subjective stradegies.
BTW, there are many other quotes where St. Leo clearly asserted (without proving) the universal authority of the See of Peter, which is not something in all bishops. If you wish to see those I can provide. But at this point, it seems as though you are stuck in the methodology which I believe is very much in common with protestants. This reminds me, you said in an earlier comment that Catholics think everything the protestants do is simply wrong. I beg to differ! I wish Catholics did bible study, exegesis, sunday fellowships, door to door/street evangelism, church discipline, local seminars, etc,etc,etc like the protestants do. And much of their theology is admirable. But what I see in common with your thinking and theirs is nothing the healthy aspects. It is the aspect which assumes we can take on the journey of faith by simply examining the New Testament and the relevant historical tradition which is strong enough for me to believe, and then conform to this ecclesiology.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
For one, I would disagree with your characterization of the Papacy being a phenomenon that appeared in the 4th century. Rather it is there in Scripture, and at least 3 authors that I gave in this thread (from East and West) testify to this fact; and it is implicit from Pope St. Clement on. Even Firmilian’s complaint against Pope St. Stephen shows that Stephen was aware of where his authority came by Divine Right (and I would argue that all Pope’s have been.)
Second, you haven’t answered the question about how the East let the alleged “heresy” which you claim sprang up at the earliest in the 4th century, the alleged “heresy” of the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope by Divine Right (putting aside the evidence I have shown you that far from giving it a pass, they believed the same!) How could, if what you are saying were true, St. Theodore the Studite say to the Pope who reigned a century or more after Pope St. Leo: “For You are truly the Source always pure from the beginning and always clear, of Orthodoxy ; You are the tranquil port where the whole Church finds sure shelter against all the tempests of heresy, You are the Citadel chosen by God to be the Assured Refuge of Salvation.” (Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott. London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 306. Emphasis mine.)
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
New Testament infant baptism when viewed in the whole of the New Testament understanding of original sin and when scripture states “ALL HAVE SINNED”
ActsChapter 2;36 Therefore let the whole house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified."…38 Peter (said) to them, "Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.
39** For the promise is made to you and to your children **
RomansChapter 5;8 But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us…12 Therefore, just as through one person sin entered the world, and through sin, death, and thus death came to all, inasmuch as all sinned…14 But **death reigned **from Adam to Moses, **even over those who did not sin after the pattern of the trespass of Adam, **…15 But the gift is not like the transgression. For if **by that one person’s transgression the many died, how much more did the grace of God and the gracious gift of the one person Jesus Christ overflow for the many. **…16 And the gift is not like the result of the one person’s sinning. For **after one sin there was the judgment that brought condemnation; ****but the gift, after many transgressions, brought acquittal. …17 For if, by the transgression of one person, death came to reign through that one, how much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and of the gift of justification come to reign in life through the one person Jesus Christ. …18 In conclusion, just as through one transgression condemnation came upon ALL, so through one righteous act acquittal and life came to all. **
19 For just as **through the disobedience of one person the many were made sinners, so through the obedience of one the many will be made righteous. **
1 CorinthiansChapter 15;22 For just as **in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life, **
MarkChapter 10
13 And people were bringing children to him that he might touch them, but the disciples rebuked them.
14 When Jesus saw this he became indignant and said to them, **"Let the children come to me; do not prevent them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. **
MatthewChapter 18;2 He called a child over, placed it in their midst,
3 and said, "Amen, I say to you,** unless you turn and become like children, 3 you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. **
4 Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.
5 4 And **whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me.
6 "Whoever causes one of these little ones 5 who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. **
JohnChapter 3
1 1 Now there was a Pharisee named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews…3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Amen, amen, I say to you, **no one can see the kingdom of God without being born 3 from above.”
4 Nicodemus said to him, “How can a person once grown old be born again? Surely he cannot reenter his mother’s womb and be born again, can he?”
5 Jesus answered, "Amen, amen, I say to you, no one can enter the kingdom of God without being born of water and Spirit. **
RomansChapter 6
3 Or are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
4 We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.
We do, take a look at your local Catholic Church bulletin, or just look at the home page to these CA forums that just a beginning. We are not as vocal as the protestant’s are.
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
Yes, I could have said that protestants are more vocal. My apologies. And you are right, Catholics do have those programs and services to the community.
With respect to infant baptism, it can be deduced, but there is no definitive teaching in respect to it. This is why my confidence in infant baptism is the Sacred Tradition.
With respect to infant baptism, it can be deduced, but there is no definitive teaching in respect to it. This is why my confidence in infant baptism is the Sacred Tradition.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Point well taken and thanks for the clarification
In Catholic theology we can’t have Sacred Tradition without sacred Scripture, the two along with the Magesterium is what hands down the full deposit of faith. That is why the whole of scripture has to be taken into account for infant baptism followed by the practice of the early church who were practicing these baptism’s of whole household’s before the sacred scripture was written.
Here is an early archeological find that gives physical credence to infant baptism in the early Roman Catholic church.
"A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years.
Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription:** “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. **[see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]
Those infant baptisms are dated prior to the New Testament canon being defined and possibly pre-date John’s writing of Revelations"… (quotes given by Prodigal Son 1)
It’s been so long, but does not the didache mention anything about baptism?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Baptism is mentioned in Scripture, and it is easy to make a conjecture between several passages which will prove the truth in infant baptism. However, Peter having a successor, not at all in Scripture. Even Matthew 16 makes no mention of any passing of the keys to anyone else. So your conclusion here is wrong.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Use of poetic language in the East is not to be always taken literally. I mean, the Coptic Pope calls himself the Judge of the Universe, even though we know that only God will be the judge. Yet also in Scripture we see the Apostles being promised 12 thrones on which they will judge the 12 tribes of Israel. How do you reconcile all of these?
Of course you sing praises of someone who has defended the faith. Just read all the Troparions and Kontakions of our Church to each and every martyr and confessor. Don’t you think it is a stretch to believe every Pope is by of himself infallible, based on the line you highlighted? We all know anyone can err, and such praise is only bestowed upon those who follow the narrow path. Such praises have been given to various non-Popes as well. This is the other side of this conversation. Whenever such praises are given to the Pope, the Catholics stand up and scream at how it proves Papal claims. Yet they gloss over the fact that such praises were also given to non-Popes. Where’s their infallibility and universal, supreme jurisdiction?
G
God_Seeker_1
Guest
ConstantineTG,
Code:
What evidence do you have to "prove" that infant baptism is taught in the New Testament?This logic of “rock” function is not absent from Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16. And we know this because Simon takes on name of the “Rock” precisely because he will now “function” as a “rock” under which a house is built. How do we know this? Because Jesus says “…and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hell will never prevail against it”. It is quite obvious that Jesus intends a “function” for this rock that is such a function to provide strength support for the structure of the “Church” when the outside forces begin to act upon it in the “future”, the gates of hell. We know that Jesus has this “future” act of forces being acted upon the Church when he chooses the kind of foundation to build the church off of.
And so we can conclude that Simon is taking on this “rock” function which is purposed for future attempts where forces act against the structure upon which the house is built. Therefore, Simon’s function as "rocK’ cannot simply mean he was the “first to believe in Christ”, for such a thing does not co-exist and accompany the life of the structure of the Church until the end of time. No, Simon takes on a “rock” function which is not a priority of time but is rather an administrative role, one of government, defining faith and morals, and ecclesiastical discipline. How do we know that?
Because Jesus describes this rock function in terms of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which are to be the tools used in including or excluding persons from participating in the communion of people who are being kingdomized (I’m sure the orthodox would like this word). Sinners in the congregation are taken care of by this keys of the kingdom…so it is not some abstract opening up of heaven by the gospel message, but is a disciplinary and administrative role.
So Peter, by His administrative authority, will ever continue to provide strength and support to the structure of the Church when the powers of hell act against it.
Even if the evidence is not conclusive, you have to admit that it is a reasonable conclusion.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I believe you are missing a key component of my argument. You have conceded that the claim of the Popes (from your view) is that the Papacy was established by Divine right, since the mid 4th century. It is not just a matter of these words being said (and I personally don’t believe the point you made with the Coptic Pope is convincing). But according to you the Roman Popes were teaching heresy since the mid 4th century… how would the East even commune with them if that is so let alone St. Theodore say such things?
My argument is not based on the one line I highlighted (nor is that of the Catholic Church.) This one line is though, an example of what I see repeatedly. If you believe the same praise is bestowed upon a Bishop saying his See has being the fountain of orthodoxy from the beginning, I would ask you to cite your source? (Obviously, you know I believe the Pope can’t error when speaking ex cathedra, but perhaps a topic for another thread.) Again, please cite a source where such praises (the fountain of orthodoxy) are bestowed upon another. On top of that, in regards to the Divine Origin of the Papacy, I have cited an Eastern source (Theodore Abu Qurrah) where the Pope was not being spoken to. There was also Pope St Stephen (via Firmilian) and Pope Damasus I (if you accept the attribution of that part of the “Decree of Damasus” to him.)
Here is one Easterner (albeit the laity) speaking to another:
The Empress Placidia to Theodosius:
‘according to the decree of the decision…of the Apostolic Chair, which in like manner we venerate as the head of matters…, the judgment be referred to the synod of the apostolic throne, in which he who was counted worthy to receive the keys of heaven first adorned the episcopal rule…’
(Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott. London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 188).
Just a note: where I have added (…) was me taking out the Greek words given in parenthesis.
Also:
"To the Empress Pulcheria, Placidia also wrote that the question might be referred to [quoting Placidia]
‘the apostolic throne, in which the most blessed of the apostles, Peter, who received the keys of heaven, first adorned the High Priesthood.’"
(Ibid.)
Regarding the 12 thrones, this does not rule out the fact that one has a special office among them. The Sanhedrin sat in an assembly if I’m not mistaken, but did all hold the exact same office?
(I realize that the analogy Placidia and I make to the High Priest is imperfect, but it serves our points nonetheless.)
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Scripture mentions the first three popes in the Roman Church, Peter, Linus and AnaCletus followed by Pope Clement this is confirmed by St. Irenaeus not to mention the early Church Fathers who list all the Popes who succeeded Peter as being of the True Church of Jesus Christ.
St.Irenaeus; "The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoeing in his ears, and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone in this, for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles.(Against Heresies, Bk. 3, Chap.3)
Christ confirms from scripture to be with Peter and His apostles to the end of the age. Jesus not only prayed and consecrated His disciples to Himself, “but also for those who will believe in me through their word so that they may all be one” John 17.
When Jesus placed Peter in the care of His flock, both Peter and Jesus leave the company of the apostles, when Jesus directly tells Peter not to concern himself with the disciple who was following them, but told Peter “You follow me”.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Regarding my last post:
In the second citation of gave, it very well could be that the reference to the “High Priesthood” is a reference to the Episcopate. Even so, in both of the citations I gave of her writing-, why the reference to St. Peter and the keys (Mt. 16:18) in the context of Roman Primacy? If this Primacy comes from Ecumenical Councils and nothing more, as you claim (and seems to be the Eastern Orthodox position, at least as it has ben represented in this thread), why not a reference to a Council or specific Canon instead?
In the second citation of gave, it very well could be that the reference to the “High Priesthood” is a reference to the Episcopate. Even so, in both of the citations I gave of her writing-, why the reference to St. Peter and the keys (Mt. 16:18) in the context of Roman Primacy? If this Primacy comes from Ecumenical Councils and nothing more, as you claim (and seems to be the Eastern Orthodox position, at least as it has ben represented in this thread), why not a reference to a Council or specific Canon instead?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
We can easily match you proof text for proof text. How about you explain the Fifth Ecumenical Council’s act of striking the Pope from the diptychs during its eighth session? Does this action not conflict with the type of papal primacy which you are attempting to advocate? Were they all heretics for doing so? How does a council headed by heretics then go on to become ecumenical?
Do you see how you present an unfair fait-accompli here? You present Constantine with a proof-text from St. Leo, and then tell him that he must either accept that St. Leo was an heretic, or that he was correct, and expect him to answer within the constraints of your false dichotomy (a clearly fallacious manner of reasoning). Furthermore, your reading of Pope St. Leo is far from being the only possible reading. In fact, it seems to me that you are equivocating, and taking authority to mean something different from the authority which is held by the episcopacy in general, something which is not obviously obtained from this passage you posted.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
Hey. Constantine and Godseeker; If sacred scripture lists the first 3 Popes; Peter, Linus, Anacletus and then is supported by sacred Tradition from St.Irenaeus apology against heresies see below, wouldn’t this be considered a deposit of faith?
- Status