Orthodoxy and St peter

[Nine_Two]

Read your post #7 and your quotation of the post you were responding to- the quotes are there and you responded to them already. It was this #7 that I replied to at first.

Fair enough. Then going back to your question which brought me to take up this digression,

I fail to see how this could have caused the fathers to presume that no errors could come from Rome? Those wise fathers?- They thought that good behavior of past Bishops (as if only Rome had demonstrated that?) alone could guarantee that no error could ever issue, even from different occupants of the see? I’ve never seen evidence of such a presumption issue from any institution, secular or religious, unless it was presumed infallible/guaranteed from error by Divinity, like the Muslim belief that their Qur’an or Prophet could not err

Assuming those are accurate quotes of the fathers, being repeated in proper context (which is an issue that has been brought up, but we will leave it for now), then we are left with the fact that even the Fathers of the Church are fallible men.

The Tradition of the Church and the accepted teachings of the fathers is established through consensus. One, two, three, even ten fathers saying one thing doesn’t make it true. A number of fathers spoke of apocotostasis, and yet this is not a teaching you find in the Catholic Church today and it is quite unpopular in the Orthodox Church as well.

 

[Marybeloved]

Fair enough. Then going back to your question which brought me to take up this digression,

Assuming those are accurate quotes of the fathers, being repeated in proper context (which is an issue that has been brought up, but we will leave it for now), then we are left with the fact that even the Fathers of the Church are fallible men.

The Tradition of the Church and the accepted teachings of the fathers is established through consensus. One, two, three, even ten fathers saying one thing doesn’t make it true. A number of fathers spoke of apocotostasis, and yet this is not a teaching you find in the Catholic Church today and it is quite unpopular in the Orthodox Church as well.

Well, you’ve just taught me a new word I have never even heard before- Apocotostasis…

Anyway, fair enough, I suppose (the Father’s lack of infallibility)- But really my point was that even then there was a belief about some type of infallibility enjoyed by Rome, whether or not we believe they were wrong. Some Orthodox make it sound like Vatican I Council just came up with it, right out of a magic hat in the 1800s and presented it to the world.

 

[Nine_Two]

Well, you’ve just taught me a new word I have never even heard before- Apocotostasis…

Anyway, fair enough, I suppose (the Father’s lack of infallibility)- But really my point was that even then there was a belief about some type of infallibility enjoyed by Rome, whether or not we believe they were wrong. Some Orthodox make it sound like Vatican I Council just came up with it in right out of a magic hat in the 1800s and presented it to the world.

Learning is fun.
Now say it 10 times fast.

That’s a fair enough criticism. The belief in some sort of infallibility certainly predates Vatican I. I’m not enough of a Historian of Catholicism to know when it arose, but certainly I accept the possibility that it arose relatively early, even likely pre-schism.

 

[Paul_theApostle]

**
“Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail” (Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 [A.D. 393])
-Augustine

“Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?” (Letters 59 [55], 14 [A.D. 256]).

• Cyprian of Carthage**

So according to you Orthodox guys the 'gates of hell ,have prevailed over the See of Peter
where it says there that the gates dont prevail

and

where it says no errors can come,now we have the Orthodox saying ‘Errors have come’

You say that further on down the centuries ,Rome fell into error and heresy etc
but how can it when the Saints believed and stated Rome cannot make error and that the Gates of hell will overcome the church?

yes i know you guys are theological warriors and lose patience over these Catholic quotes
but any moderate info /knowledge or easy to understand posts are appreciated

 

[Hesychios]

Peace

So you say absolutely that you are still in the true fold ,havnt strayed

I am not here to argue with you.

You asked the question and I answered it.You can believe whatever you seem to have already set your mind to.

Peace

 

[Paul_theApostle]

.You can believe whatever you seem to have already set your mind to.

yes…along with a few billion others…

 

[Hesychios]

In the end, Pope Leo and Patriarch Michael excommunicated each other and their respective churches. But more than 900 years later, in 1965, Pope Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras I of Constantinople removed the mutual excommunications.

Which shows one how reliable a source like Dummies.com really is.

Pope Leo was dead, Patriarch Michael did not excommunicate him, and they don’t even know it.

 

[Cavaradossi]

What those two cardinals did was in my opinion simply the straw that broke the camels back. The rivalry and hatred between the West and East built up over the course of hundreds of years. The fact is that the Eastern Church set itself up as a rival to Rome. The Byzantine Bishops constantly sided with the emperor, with persistent opposition to the Pope. 1.

The Roman Catholic Church has simply built up in understanding of the Faith through the life of the Church and it’s Ecumenical Councils.

1. Catholic Encyclopedia

But what do you call Rome’s actions, like making Charlemagne emperor, when there was already a legitimate lineage of Roman emperors out in the East? Rome did some rather provocative things as well. To say that the ‘Byzantines’ (a name they never called themselves, by the way) were trying to set themselves up as a rival to Rome does not really parse well with history.

 

[mardukm]

But what do you call Rome’s actions, like making Charlemagne emperor, when there was already a legitimate lineage of Roman emperors out in the East? Rome did some rather provocative things as well. To say that the ‘Byzantines’ (a name they never called themselves, by the way) were trying to set themselves up as a rival to Rome does not really parse well with history.

Ever since the marriage of Church and State, there was always a Western Emperor, and an Eastern Emperor.

Why do you claim that Rome’s making Charlemagne emperor in the West was provocative, since it was already the way of things for hundreds of years?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Marybeloved]

Are the two of you saying (above) that Roman/Byzantine political (secular) bickering is what caused the religious schism in the Church? And is anyone here seriously trying to excuse either the patriarch or the cardinal for their grave sins against the Church of God?

 

[mardukm]

Not to answer for Hesychios, but he already answered that those fathers are not infallible and did not forsee a future where Rome erred.

The excommunication of Patriarch Michael Cerularius was not for the reason you listed, there was a list of reasons, some of them so ridiculous that it puts even the more reasonable in doubt.

The trampling of the Eucharist of the Latins was indeed one of the accusations. The original purpose of the delegation (with Cardinal Humbert) was to discuss the closing and desecration of Latin churches in Constantinople and the ejection and abuse of Latin clergy by the Greeks. This was the Greek response to the Normans forcing the use of unleavened bread on Greek Churches in southern Italy. Of course, though the Normans were Latin Catholics, the Pope had no control over them. The original letter signed by the Pope included the rationale that even though the Normans had forced the use of unleavened bread on Greeks, the Greek churches and clergy in Italy never encountered the kind of abuse that the Latin churches and clergy in Constantinople experienced.

I think the Easterns need to fess up to their role in the Great Schism.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Paul theApostle,

I would add to your quotes St. Ignatius of Antioch’s statement in his Epistle to the Romans that the Church of Rome was INSEPARABLE from the Grace of God, and purified from every strange taint, a laud not contained in any letter to the other Churches.

I would also add the obvious implication of the Council of Sardica’s attribution to the bishop of Rome the prerogative to be the court of last appeal for deposed bishops. The fact of the matter is that most bishops were deposed for heresy. If the Church did not trust that Rome could rightly judge heresy from orthodoxy, it would have been useless to universally recognize such a role by the Roman See. In fact, the Council of Sardica specifically recognized this role of the bishop of Rome “in honor of St. Peter.”

From these quotes,it seems clear the Chair of Peter resides in the Roman church

I adhere to Pope St. Gregory the Great’s teaching that the sedes of Peter existed with Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, with Rome holding the primacy/supremacy.

The unique Petrine headship of the bishop of Rome was never intended by the Fathers to be utilized unilaterally, but rather in communion with his brother bishops and the Church, exactly as the Catholic Church has taught to this very day (despite the misrepresentations of Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates).

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

The trampling of the Eucharist of the Latins was indeed one of the accusations. The original purpose of the delegation (with Cardinal Humbert) was to discuss the closing and desecration of Latin churches in Constantinople and the ejection and abuse of Latin clergy by the Greeks. This was the Greek response to the Normans forcing the use of unleavened bread on Greek Churches in southern Italy. Of course, though the Normans were Latin Catholics, the Pope had no control over them. The original letter signed by the Pope included the rationale that even though the Normans had forced the use of unleavened bread on Greeks, the Greek churches and clergy in Italy never encountered the kind of abuse that the Latin churches and clergy in Constantinople experienced.

I think the Easterns need to fess up to their role in the Great Schism.

Blessings,
Marduk

I suppose next you’ll want us to fess up for removing the filioque from the creed.

 

[mardukm]

I suppose next you’ll want us to fess up for removing the filioque from the creed.

Nah. Just the things that the Easterns did do wrong. Can you do that?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[BrianH]

Theres 2 problems here:
1- Some books are not in the Newadvent page u cited. They simply are not there (and this happens with many fathers). And I dont think theres a website that contains all books really.
2- And sometimes the quotes are not cited correctly here.
Augustine spoke of the chair of Anastasius in the same book u cited, but u will find it in chapter 51. Its just a matter of lookin.

So have you personally seen these quotes in the context of the books from which they are cited (and if so how can I access them)?

 

[BrianH]

**
"
“Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come**?” (Letters 59 [55], 14 [A.D. 256]).

• Cyprian of Carthage

They deal with this quote in this link.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=59659

 

[Volodymyr]

The Normans forcing the use of unleavened bread on Greek Churches in southern Italy. ** Of course, though the Normans were Latin Catholics, the Pope had no control over them.**

As you can guess a discussion of insults and problems one millennium previous is very big problem - especially why you as Roman Catholic should feel burden of errors of Bishop of Rome, or I as Ukrainian Orthodox feel burden of errors of Patriarch Constantinopl. But I am finding it quite interesting that many ardent Catholics here believe that since St. Peter the authority of Bishop of Rome has always been recognized as infallible and universal. At least you recognize that that the Normans did not think so!! But in any case, much problems on both sides - God will tell us what is our share of guilt! But for now we must work together to prevent world from returning to paganism. non-Christians look at Orthodox and Catholics thinking we are such stupid ones - as our moral laws and family standard are being forgotten, rejected and made even illegal - we are arguing about who was more to blame for such things 1,000 years ago. OK, God forgive us, we are not Catholics, God forgive you, you are not Orthodox. But together we must make all peoples know and come to believe in Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As you can guess a discussion of insults and problems one millennium previous is very big problem - especially why you as Roman Catholic should feel burden of errors of Bishop of Rome, or I as Ukrainian Orthodox feel burden of errors of Patriarch Constantinopl. But I am finding it quite interesting that many ardent Catholics here believe that since St. Peter the authority of Bishop of Rome has always been recognized as infallible and universal. At least you recognize that that the Normans did not think so!! But in any case, much problems on both sides - God will tell us what is our share of guilt! But for now we must work together to prevent world from returning to paganism. non-Christians look at Orthodox and Catholics thinking we are such stupid ones - as our moral laws and family standard are being forgotten, rejected and made even illegal - we are arguing about who was more to blame for such things 1,000 years ago. OK, God forgive us, we are not Catholics, God forgive you, you are not Orthodox. But together we must make all peoples know and come to believe in Our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ.

Amen:thumbsup:

Merry Christmas,

 

[Mickey]

I would add to your quotes St. Ignatius of Antioch’s statement in his Epistle to the Romans that the Church of Rome was INSEPARABLE from the Grace of God, and purified from every strange taint, a laud not contained in any letter to the other Churches.

And of course we also know that Rome was the capital city of Christianity and St Ignatius’ quote has nothing to do with any sort of supremacy of Rome.

If the Church did not trust that Rome could rightly judge heresy from orthodoxy, it would have been useless to universally recognize such a role by the Roman See.

And yet Pope Honorius was declared to be a heretic.

The unique Petrine headship

(despite the misrepresentations of Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates).

As many times as you set forth these new theological terms…they are still foreign to the ear.

 

[Mickey]

I think the Easterns need to fess up to their role in the Great Schism.

Easterns?