Orthodoxy, Papacy

[rinnie]

Rinnie, I hope that you are not saying that God the Father was crucified on the cross, since that is a Trinitarian error. God the Son, Jesus Christ, was crucified on the cross, not God the Father or God the Holy Spirit. They are distinct Persons, remember.

Also, I think you’re a little confused on this thread. Earlier, you stated “Simon was changed to Peter Peter translates to Rock, Rock translates to Papa, Papa translates to Pope.”, and “Father is the same as Rock, just like Papa is the same as Father, Just as Papa is the same as Pope. They all mean the same thing for goodness sakes. Papa Pope Father, Rock all the same word.”

Unfortunately, this is not correct. Yes, Peter translates to Rock, and Papa “translates” to Pope. Rock does not translate to Papa. They are two different words. “Father” is not the same as “Rock”, though “Papa” is the same as “Father”, and “Pope”. Remember, the words for “Rock” and “Father/Papa” are two different words. Everyone agrees that Papa means Father. The problem is that you’re equating Rock and Father/Papa, when they are two different words from the Greek

It does in Greek. In the O.T as I stated Father can be seen as Rock. As I stated upon this Rock. Who is the Rock. God, God the FATHER. I never said THe pope is the Father. I was told to prove Rock means Father. It does. Is not God the Father?

Now in aramaic it is stated Kepha which is spelled Cephas in the English Bibles. It is Kepha in its Hellenistic form. Cephas is not Greek. But the greek word is indeed Petros for the word ROCK.

Kepha means rock. (Cephas) Rock in Greek is indeed Petros which translates into Papa which means Pope.

I am not saying GREEK because Jesus did not speak Greek to Simon when he changed his name to Peter to Rock to Kepha.

It is WHEN it became the GREEK word for Rock Petros that it became PAPPA which became POPE. That is where the word Pope came from the Aramaic word Keph which means Rock. It was its translation on Greek that made it Pope.

I never ever said that Jesus was not the Son of God if I did I did not mean to. I know that Jesus is One IN BEING with the Father. In the 3 Persons. Lets not go there. But I was told to Prove that ROCK could mean FATHER and I did. I used the Psalm to Prove it mean the word Father thats all.

But the Greek word for Peter or Rock is Petros which means Rock. The Aramaic word for Kepha is Rock also which means Father.

I never ever stated the Pope is God, But I will finish my point now. When Jesus stated upon this ROCK I will build my Church. IT proves that the Church that was given to Peter was built on Jesus Christ himself. And when he said you are Kepha he was stating that the keys were equating Simon and the Rock. It was proof of the Special authority given to him by the keys. It was showing the Power given to Peter by giving him the keys to the kingdom.

When Jesus changed his name to Peter it was for a special reason. And it was to PROVE his Authority on Earth that only God himself could give. Do you understand what I am saying? It not only tied O.T. into new it proved authority!!

Gotta go, been out all day and heading to a church meeting!

 

[patricius79]

I read an article from someone Eastern Orthodox claiming that the Seventh Ecumenical Council said that that Patriarchal consent of the Five Patriarchs wsa the basis of designating an Council Ecumenical.

But I can’t find any documentation of this from Nicaea II.

Likewise, what texts do the Orthodox bring forward showing that the early Church believed in the “first among equals” idea?

 

[rinnie]

Wow, either that was some mad backtracking or now you’re claiming the pope is Jesus and God.

No those are your words. You asked for PROOF that the word ROCK could refer to Father and I showed you. Now prove me wrong. As I asked!

 

[rinnie]

Real quick before I leave and get accused of something else. Let me say When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom that meant that here on earth what the Pope says here goes in heaven. What you bind on earth is bound in heaven. It is by the Power of the Holy Spirit that the Pope holds that Power.

Say what you want about me!! THats my faith. Jesus said it. I believe it. I don’t care who denys it.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I read an article from someone Eastern Orthodox claiming that the Seventh Ecumenical Council said that that Patriarchal consent of the Five Patriarchs wsa the basis of designating an Council Ecumenical.

But I can’t find any documentation of this from Nicaea II.

Here is the best source I’ve found for conciliar texts.

Link

Likewise, what texts do the Orthodox bring forward showing that the early Church believed in the “first among equals” idea?

Except for the canons setting the order of the patriarchates there is very little text one way or another stating how that plays out in practice. I am not aware of any documents that use the term “first among equals.” To be fair, I also am not aware of any documents giving the pope universal jurisdiction.

You do have the Apostolic Canons which lay out the way primacy should function. I do think the term “first among equals” describes this well.

Canon XXXIV

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit

You also have the 28th canon of Chalcedon which mentions “privileges” granted to Old Rome which are then also conferred on New Rome. You also have the 9th and 17th canons of the same council granting Constantinople the right to hear appeals.

Canon IX

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

(I’ve always thought this particular canon was interesting because it seems to make no exception for the Bishop of Rome; that the Archbishop of Constantinople had the right to hear appeals even in cases involving the Pope!)

Of course I’m no canon expert by a LOOONNGG shot, but these do seem to bear out the idea of “first among equals” quite well.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josie_L]

What a load of bollucks!

I’m still waiting for Josie to chime in and explain how a patriarch has more authority than another bishop.

John

You might want to look in your own backyard for the answer, i.e., the Orthodox. .

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Real quick before I leave and get accused of something else. Let me say When Jesus gave Peter the keys to the Kingdom that meant that here on earth what the Pope says here goes in heaven. What you bind on earth is bound in heaven. It is by the Power of the Holy Spirit that the Pope holds that Power.

Say what you want about me!! THats my faith. Jesus said it. I believe it. I don’t care who denys it.

I’m with you on that one, rinnie. Anyone who denies it has an agenda and their head in the sand.

The Lord did not come to teach denial!! He came to reveal the truth and the fulness of Christian truth resides in the Catholic Church. It’s been like that for a loooooong time.

 

[josie_L]

You do have the Apostolic Canons which lay out the way primacy should function. I do think the term “first among equals” describes this well.

Canon XXXIV

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit

That’s Catholic ecclesiology you’ve just described (in it’s most basic form), i.e., real bishops who act/exercise their authority in communion with each other but under the guidance of the Pope.

You also have the 28th canon of Chalcedon which mentions “privileges” granted to Old Rome which are then also conferred on New Rome. You also have the 9th and 17th canons of the same council granting Constantinople the right to hear appeals.

Canon IX

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

(I’ve always thought this particular canon was interesting because it seems to make no exception for the Bishop of Rome; that the Archbishop of Constantinople had the right to hear appeals even in cases involving the Pope!)

What the heck are you talking about, first, canon 28 was not accepted by Rome, Pope St. Leo the Great annuled it when asked for its confirmation by a rump of bishops (160 or less out of 600), second, the canon does not displace the primacy of Rome, third, the interpretation you have given for this canon is false as it would invalidate canon 3,4,5 of Sardica (which was accepted in the East at the council of Trullo), i.e., that all appeals ended with Rome?

Of course I’m no canon expert by a LOOONNGG shot, but these do seem to bear out the idea of “first among equals” quite well.

No, it does not.

 

[josie_L]

I read an article from someone Eastern Orthodox claiming that the Seventh Ecumenical Council said that that Patriarchal consent of the Five Patriarchs wsa the basis of designating an Council Ecumenical.

But I can’t find any documentation of this from Nicaea II.

Likewise, what texts do the Orthodox bring forward showing that the early Church believed in the “first among equals” idea?

They are refering to the theory of Pentarchy, which is just that a theory (the Orthodox have not confirmed this nor Conciliarism definitively), moreover, if this were true then wouldn’t we have to repudiate Chalcedon?

 

[patricius79]

Here is the best source I’ve found for conciliar texts.

Link

Except for the canons setting the order of the patriarchates there is very little text one way or another stating how that plays out in practice. I am not aware of any documents that use the term “first among equals.” To be fair, I also am not aware of any documents giving the pope universal jurisdiction.

You do have the Apostolic Canons which lay out the way primacy should function. I do think the term “first among equals” describes this well.

Canon XXXIV

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit

You also have the 28th canon of Chalcedon which mentions “privileges” granted to Old Rome which are then also conferred on New Rome. You also have the 9th and 17th canons of the same council granting Constantinople the right to hear appeals.

Canon IX

If any Clergyman have a matter against another clergyman, he shall not forsake his bishop and run to secular courts; but let him first lay open the matter before his own Bishop, or let the matter be submitted to any person whom each of the parties may, with the Bishop’s consent, select. And if any one shall contravene these decrees, let him be subjected to canonical penalties. And if a clergyman have a complaint against his own or any other bishop, let it be decided by the synod of the province. And if a bishop or clergyman should have a difference with the metropolitan of the province, let him have recourse to the Exarch of the Diocese, or to the throne of the Imperial City of Constantinople, and there let it be tried.

(I’ve always thought this particular canon was interesting because it seems to make no exception for the Bishop of Rome; that the Archbishop of Constantinople had the right to hear appeals even in cases involving the Pope!)

Of course I’m no canon expert by a LOOONNGG shot, but these do seem to bear out the idea of “first among equals” quite well.

In Christ
Joe

Thanks, Joe. that is interesting.

the 28th Canon of Chalcedon of course was submitted by the Patriarch of Contantiniple who apologized for it and submitted it to the Pope’s judgment. It was not regarded in the East (or West) as being canonical.

I’m not aware of those other Canons so I’ll have to look into that as well as I can.

As to the “Apostolic Canon” you brought up, this would seem to favor the Catholic position, since “all” in regard to the other Bishops could not mean literally every one since Bishops have always rebelled against Ecumenical Councils even.

It seems like quite a stretch to suppose that Canon 9, as given, was supposed to imply the equal authority of Constantinople with the Successor of Peter.

I know that St. Theodore, and Eastern fathers, wrote to the Pope Paschal:

In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge. (Letter of St. Theodor and Four Abbots to Pope Paschal
fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html

 

[rinnie]

I’m with you on that one, rinnie. Anyone who denies it has an agenda and their head in the sand.

The Lord did not come to teach denial!! He came to reveal the truth and the fulness of Christian truth resides in the Catholic Church. It’s been like that for a loooooong time.

You got it buddy. From the day that Jesus changed his name from Simon to Peter. The same way that he changed Abram to Abraham, Father Abraham that is Oops I better watch, I may get accused of calling him God too:shrug:

We are so so blessed to have the Holy Father to lead us to this day the way Jesus Promised. And he still holds the key’s And we have to remember what our dear Jesus told us. I will be with you until the end of time. And look at our Church from the day of Pentecost our Church has been led by Peter and is led by his successor to this day. We in the RCC have always had our Peter appointed by God.

Our dear Papa Petros Cephas Kepha Pope!! He is indeed our Holy Father. I like you will be true to him and his teaching’s until I take my last breath.

Only God makes it possible for the hearers to recognize that these chosen ones called prophets did speak for him…God’s Son continues to speak to us through those HE chooses to send in his name (Jn 15:16) They must not be self-appointed they must be called in his name Jer 23:13-28.

He did not leave us orphans, once he returned to his Father in glory he Called those he had chosen and anointed in the Holy Spirit to teach everything he had made know to them to proclaim it even to the ends of the earth

 

[josephdaniel29]

Thanks, Joe. that is interesting.

the 28th Canon of Chalcedon of course was submitted by the Patriarch of Contantiniple who apologized for it and submitted it to the Pope’s judgment. It was not regarded in the East (or West) as being canonical.

Well that’s simply not true. The 28th canon was expressly reaffirmed by the Quinisext Council.

**Canon XXXVI **

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

As to the “Apostolic Canon” you brought up, this would seem to favor the Catholic position, since “all” in regard to the other Bishops could not mean literally every one since Bishops have always rebelled against Ecumenical Councils even.

Including apparently the pope in the case of the 28th canon of Chalcedon.

That being said the pope, although he most certainly has sought consensus on issues, according to the plain meaning of Vatican I most certainly is not required to seek consensus on anything.

Vatican I

when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

It seems like quite a stretch to suppose that Canon 9, as given, was supposed to imply the equal authority of Constantinople with the Successor of Peter.

I don’t think it does either, but the 28th canon certainly does.

In Christ
Joe

 

[Nine_Two]

No those are your words. You asked for PROOF that the word ROCK could refer to Father and I showed you. Now prove me wrong. As I asked!

I didn’t ask for proof that it could, I asked for proof that it doesn’t.

At any rate your wordgames are dishonest, you play on complex theological themes, oversimplify them for the purpose of your games, and then challenge anyone to untangle them.

 

[josie_L]

Well that’s simply not true. The 28th canon was expressly reaffirmed by the Quinisext Council.

**Canon XXXVI **

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

But that particular canon was not accepted/confirmed by Rome either (in fact you provided the canon which proves the necessity of Rome’s assent on all matters of consequence). And as I mentioned earlier, canon 28 was struck down by Pope St. Leo the Great (there are ancient historians who have spoken of only 27 canons) so there could be no reaffirming it. By the way, this particular issue of putting Constantinople second over the Petrine sees of Alexandria and Antioch just confirms how entrenched caesaropapism was in the East, i.e., the Emperor of Constantinople trying to control the Church (a territory much vaster than his empire) through the see of Constantinople.

That being said the pope, although he most certainly has sought consensus on issues, according to the plain meaning of Vatican I most certainly is not required to seek consensus on anything.

Vatican I

when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.

Whatever he defined ex-cathedra would most certainly be supported by Tradition or was/is part of Tradition/Scripture, i.e., the deposit of faith (which in a sense is a consensus of the Church). Either way, the pope has always consulted the episcopate even for statements in which he spoke ex-cathedra (so you see he’s not a despot).

 

[Nine_Two]

I didn’t ask for proof that it could, I asked for proof that it doesn’t.

At any rate your wordgames are dishonest, you play on complex theological themes, oversimplify them for the purpose of your games, and then challenge anyone to untangle them.

That should be does. Not doesn’t.

 

[josie_L]

Well that’s simply not true. The 28th canon was expressly reaffirmed by the Quinisext Council.

**Canon XXXVI **

Renewing the enactments by the 150 Fathers assembled at the God-protected and imperial city, and those of the 630 who met at Chalcedon; we decree that the see of Constantinople shall have equal privileges with the see of Old Rome, and shall be highly regarded in ecclesiastical matters as that is, and shall be second after it. After Constantinople shall be ranked the See of Alexandria, then that of Antioch, and afterwards the See of Jerusalem.

Here is something I’d like you to read:

More testimonies from this Council could be quoted, Your Eminence, from this Council concerning a Roman Pontiff’s headship over the Universal Church, but the above surely suffice. As for the famous 28th “Canon”, Your Eminence is mistaken in declaring it to be a canon of the Council, for Pope St. Leo, keenly alive to the prerogatives of his see and eager to protect the rights of the other patriarchs rejected it outright: “The assent of the bishops [to the proposed 28th canon] we do not recognize and by the authority of the blessed Apostle Peter we absolutely annull” (Ep. CV). That canon was thus never received by the Universal Church or given ecumenical status. Moreover, the canon was rejected by Pope St. Leo not for any questioning of Rome’s Primacy of universal authority in the Church but rather for upsetting the traditional order of major sees in the East (which would soon be termed patriarchates). The ecclesiastical aggression of the imperial see of Constantinople was already obvious. When this canon was resuscitated by Byzantine emperors to justify Constantinople’s replacing Alexandria and Antioch in preeminence in the East, and suffering misinterpretation in the 9th century, it would be commented upon appropriately by no less than St. Methodius, Apostle of the Slavs, or perhaps one of his immediate disciples:

"It is necessary to know that this decision [the 28th canon] was not accepted by the Blessed Pope Leo. He did not approve the holy Council of Chalcedon on this point, but he wrote to the Council that he could not accept such a novelty, machinated by the doubtful Anatolius, then bishop of Constantinople. Also, some bishops present at the Council refused to subscribe to the canon. And it is not true as this canon affirms that the holy Fathers have accorded the primacy and honor to old Rome because it was the capital of the Empire. But it is from on high that it began, it is of grace divine that this Primacy has derived its origin. It is because of the degree of his faith that Peter, the most exalted of the Apostles, heard these words from the very mouth of Our Lord: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me? Feed My sheep’. This is why he possesses among the hierarchs preeminent rank and the first See. For, if as this canon affirms, it is because it is was the capital that Ancient Rome possesses the Primacy, it is evidently Constantinople, now capital of the Empire, which has inherited this honor. But everyone knows that although Emperors have dwelt at Milan and Ravenna and that their palaces are found there to our own day, these cities have not received on that account the Primacy. For the dignity and the preeminence of the priestly hierarchy have not been established by the favor of the civil power but by divine choice and by apostolic authority… How would it be possible because of an earthly emperor to displace divine gifts and apostolic privileges and to introduce innovations into the prescriptions of the immaculate faith? Immoveable indeed, unto the end, are the privileges of Old Rome. So in so far as being set over all the Churches, the Pontiff of Rome has no need to betake himself to all the holy Ecumenical Councils, but without his participation manifested by the sending of some of his subordinates, every Ecumenical Council is non-existent, and it is he who renders legal everything that has been decided in the Council… " (testimony discovered by the Russian Orthodox scholar A. Pavlov and first published in the Russian review Vizantiiskii Vremennik, t. iv. 1897; pp. 147-154)

credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/ethnikos.htm

 

[josephdaniel29]

But that particular canon was not accepted/confirmed by Rome either (in fact you provided the canon which proves the necessity of Rome’s assent on all matters of consequence). And as I mentioned earlier, canon 28 was struck down by Pope St. Leo the Great (there are ancient historians who have spoken of only 27 canons) so there could be no reaffirming it. By the way, this particular issue of putting Constantinople second over the Petrine sees of Alexandria and Antioch just confirms how entrenched caesaropapism was in the East, i.e., the Emperor of Constantinople trying to control the Church (a territory much vaster than his empire) through the see of Constantinople.

But regardless of what Pope Leo did the rest of the Church continued to behave as though the canon was in effect.

Whatever he defined ex-cathedra would most certainly be supported by Tradition or was/is part of Tradition/Scripture, i.e., the deposit of faith (which in a sense is a consensus of the Church). Either way, the pope has always consulted the episcopate even for statements in which he spoke ex-cathedra (so you see he’s not a despot).

What he has done and what he is required to do are two totally different things. The text of Vatican I clearly violate the letter and spirit of the Apostolic Canons.

In Christ
Joe

 

[josie_L]

But that particular canon was not accepted/confirmed by Rome either (in fact you provided the canon which proves the necessity of Rome’s assent on all matters of consequence). And as I mentioned earlier, canon 28 was struck down by Pope St. Leo the Great (there are ancient historians who have spoken of only 27 canons) so there could be no reaffirming it. By the way, this particular issue of putting Constantinople second over the Petrine sees of Alexandria and Antioch just confirms how entrenched caesaropapism was in the East, i.e., the Emperor of Constantinople trying to control the Church (a territory much vaster than his empire) through the see of Constantinople.

This should read “consent” not assent.

 

[prodromos]

You might want to look in your own backyard for the answer, i.e., the Orthodox. .

YOU made the claim, now you are unwilling to substantiate it

 

[prodromos]

Fine then prove me rock.

In the Jewish Bible. Psalm 118:22

Quote The Very ROCK that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.

Now you prove to me that the ROCK is not GOD THE FATHER. Show me where God the Father was not very Rock that was rejected and crucified on the cross.

What you have stated here is plainly in error as your own Catholic brethren have confirmed. You will not find anywhere or any time where the Church has taught that God the Father is the Rock and especially not that God the Father was crucified on the cross. The Church teaches that Christ is the Rock, but it does not follow that “Christ” therefore means “rock”. Christ is from the Greek for the Hebrew word “Messiah” which means “annointed one”. So even if what you claimed above was true, it would still not make the word “Father” mean “rock” or “rock” mean “father”.

When you can prove to me that Jesus Christ and God the Father are not the ROCK that the builders rejected and Rock did not mean Father then we can talk.

Done! So are you ready to talk?