Orthodoxy, Papacy

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ferde,

Say what?! What does ‘primacy’ mean then? Oh wait! I remember. He gets the drumstick at Thanksgiving. Gotcha.

Wasn’t that an inappropriate remark? Have you been following the discussions in the Eastern Catholicism forum on the differences between the Absolutist Petrine, the High Petrine, and the Low Petrine positions? It is the Low Petrine advocates who think that “primus inter pares” is a merely honorific position.

However, not all Eastern Orthodox are of the Low Petrine position. The recent colloquy between the EO and CC in Ravenna (the one that the ROC did not attend because of the inclusion of the Estonian Orthodox Church, which is recognized by the EP, but not the MP) agreed on a High Petrine position. So the Low and High Petrine positions both exist in the EOC (just as the Absolutist and High Petrine positions both exist in the CC). I’m sure there are many EO who are struggling with which position to hold, so please don’t just lump them all together in the Low Petrine camp and give snide remarks to our EO members.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Dear brother Ferde,

Wasn’t that an inappropriate remark? Have you been following the discussions in the Eastern Catholicism forum on the differences between the Absolutist Petrine, the High Petrine, and the Low Petrine positions? It is the Low Petrine advocates who think that “primus inter pares” is a merely honorific position.

However, not all Eastern Orthodox are of the Low Petrine position. The recent colloquy between the EO and CC in Ravenna (the one that the ROC did not attend because of the inclusion of the Estonian Orthodox Church, which is recognized by the EP, but not the MP) agreed on a High Petrine position. So the Low and High Petrine positions both exist in the EOC (just as the Absolutist and High Petrine positions both exist in the CC). I’m sure there are many EO who are struggling with which position to hold, so please don’t just lump them all together in the Low Petrine camp and give snide remarks to our EO members.

Blessings,
Marduk

It was a joke! Sheesh! Where’s the sense of humor?

Thanks for the run-down. I didn’t realize it was that complicated. High and low. Why isn’t it just what it is? Is the text that complicated? Is the Lord’s intention that complicated? Is the history of the Church that complicated?

I’m sorry (again) if I offended you.

 

[prodromos]

He wrote a shallow sloppy piece without evidence to back up his accusations. That’s nonsense no matter what continent you’re on.

If he was writing a doctrinal thesis or an apologetic piece to convince other Catholics to leave communion with Rome then you might have a point. What he wrote was a personal testimony, years after the fact and far from the very library where he made his discoveries. If you ever write a personal testimony then I will expect you to hold yourself to the same standard as you demand of the then Hierodeacon Paul. Make sure you include names, addresses and contact details of every person or place you mention, as well as page number and ISBN of any quotations or references.

So his requirements for providing evidence for what he says, and being thorough in his communication is suspended because he was a monk who later was made a bishop?

No. Since he is not writing an academic piece there are not the requirements you demand. Being a monk, and later a bishop it would be reasonable to assume that he is committed to truth and honesty and therefore would not be making this stuff up. I can’t ask you to prove a negative and provide evidence showing what he said to be false, but can you give any basis to your assumption that he is making this stuff up (ie lying)?

Maybe that works for Orthodox, but not for people who require substance and proof behind accusations.

If his target audience was Catholics I would agree with you.

I think that if anyone took his article seriously, they would have pulled that information and posted it long ago, if it even exists.

I can assure you that I do take it seriously (sorry if I disappoint you), and do intend to research the matter when time and resources permit. I promise you will be the first to know if you are still hanging around on these forums. It may not be for some years as I am unlikely to be doing any travelling until my kids have all gone through school (and perhaps university).

 

[Nine_Two]

It was a joke! Sheesh! Where’s the sense of humor?

Thanks for the run-down. I didn’t realize it was that complicated. High and low. Why isn’t it just what it is? Is the text that complicated? Is the Lord’s intention that complicated? Is the history of the Church that complicated?

I’m sorry (again) if I offended you.

Being a joke doesn’t stop something from being offensive, there is a time and place for jokes, and in the right context that may have been amusing.

Why isn’t it just what it is? What is it? The ultramontane view which only came to prominence in the last few hundred years?

Have you ever read the text? Looked at all the different denominations out there, read the history and looked at the disputes which have risen up? Of course the text is complicated, of course the history of the church is complicated. It just becomes easy when you dismiss everything you disagree with out of hand based on previously held prejudices.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Being a joke doesn’t stop something from being offensive, there is a time and place for jokes, and in the right context that may have been amusing.

If one has the proclivity to take offense, anything can be offensive. Are we in a sacred place? Is this a sacred liturgy we’re involved in? We’re a group of individuals in a public forum chatting about our faith. If humor is out of place under those circumstances, then it has no place here. I apologize to you, too. I will strive in the future to be as grim and humorless as required.

Why isn’t it just what it is? What is it? The ultramontane view which only came to prominence in the last few hundred years?

I disagree with you the ultramontane view is as recent as you say.

Have you ever read the text? Looked at all the different denominations out there, read the history and looked at the disputes which have risen up?

I’ve read the text many times and it’s perfectly clear to me as it was to the ECFs. You are well educated in the history of the Church and you know the attitude of the ECFs to the Bishop of Rome by their writings and their actions. They speak for themselves and do not support your opinion. Vatican I didn’t invent ‘the ultramontane view.’ Vatican I defined existing doctrine in response to the Protestant heresies and Luther’s attacks against the Church and the Papacy.

Are you suggesting that the existence of thousands of Protestant sects is a validation that their heresies are truth? Are you suggesting the various Orthodox factions are all correct in what they believe and the disputes they have fomented are the will of God?

I believe the disputes that have arisen are the work of Satan, whose first and primary target is the Catholic Church. It is the Catholic Church that is leading the fight against the heathen secular world today. It is the Catholic Church that is under constant attack all over the world every day by unbelievers and other minions of Satan. It is Satan who has caused the Church to be broken into all those denominations you mentioned. Your use of them in defense of your opinion is misplaced, IMO.

Of course the text is complicated, of course the history of the church is complicated. It just becomes easy when you dismiss everything you disagree with out of hand based on previously held prejudices.

I disagree the text is complicated. The history of the Church is complicated in the particulars – the quest to define the true nature of Christ in the early centuries, for example – and to the extent we make it complicated, but not in the larger view. The Lord promised the Spirit would guide His Church to all truth and that He will be with us until the end of the world. The Catholic Church has always relied on those promises and always will. That may be too simplistic for you, but it’s not complicated.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

It is not our fault the Cardinals Frederic and Humbert pulled the church at Rome out of the Orthodox Communion. This happened when there was no sitting Pope.

Cardinal Frederic later became a Pope, knowing full well how wrong it was he did nothing to rectify the situation when he could, he initiated a schism while the Pope was dead and he perpetuated it during his own reign.

So if you could, you would have to ask him why the bishops of Rome are outside of the church. That’s where it started.

What gave the Eastern bishops who abandoned the Church the right to reject the primacy of Rome?

It was either established and true or it was false from the beginning.

The Church established by Jesus didn’t change.

 

[Nine_Two]

What gave the Eastern bishops who abandoned the Church the right to reject the primacy of Rome?

It was either established and true or it was false from the beginning.

The Church established by Jesus didn’t change.

The primacy which Rome claims was false from the beginning, and infact was not claimed at the beginning.

 

[Nine_Two]

If one has the proclivity to take offense, anything can be offensive. Are we in a sacred place? Is this a sacred liturgy we’re involved in? We’re a group of individuals in a public forum chatting about our faith. If humor is out of place under those circumstances, then it has no place here. I apologize to you, too. I will strive in the future to be as grim and humorless as required.

Cute. Belittle your opponents and then play the victim.

I disagree with you the ultramontane view is as recent as you say.

Really? That’s great! You going to try to assert that? Or are you just going to say “I disagree”, Of course to prove your position you need to prove the ECF all had an ultramontane view.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The primacy which Rome claims was false from the beginning, and infact was not claimed at the beginning.

If this is the case, then why did the Eastern Bishops all share this belief with Rome for hundreds of years?

**Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)
A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch. **
If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

**John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715) **

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)
St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

**St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) **
Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Cute. Belittle your opponents and then play the victim.

Less than cute. Closer to grim and humrorless.

Really? That’s great! You going to try to assert that? Or are you just going to say “I disagree”, Of course to prove your position you need to prove the ECF all had an ultramontane view.

ChestertonRules has done a good job of that, hasn’t he? I gave you credit for knowing the quotes he posted (and others). Were you not aware of them or just ignoring them?

I note you have nothing to say about the rest of my post.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The primacy which Rome claims was false from the beginning, and infact was not claimed at the beginning.

Was it false or not claimed? It can’t be both.

 

[Nine_Two]

If this is the case, then why did the Eastern Bishops all share this belief with Rome for hundreds of years?

**Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450)
A native of Antioch, Theodoret ruled under the Antiochean Patriarch. **
If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives. (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)

**John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715) **

The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren. (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)
St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828)

Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles. (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

**St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826) **
Writing to Pope Leo III:
Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Those quotes don’t reflect an ultramontane view.

 

[Nine_Two]

Was it false or not claimed? It can’t be both.

It was false from the first time it was claimed, it was not claimed at the beginning of the Christian faith. I shouldn’t have to clarify something like that.

 

[Nine_Two]

ChestertonRules has done a good job of that, hasn’t he? I gave you credit for knowing the quotes he posted (and others). Were you not aware of them or just ignoring them?

I note you have nothing to say about the rest of my post.

Again, those quotes don’t confirm ultramontanistic views, and I didn’t answer the rest of your posts because they were either strawmen, or based upon axioms being argued, that is they were begging the question.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Those quotes don’t reflect an ultramontane view.

So you say.

What view do they reflect? Certainly not your view.

What gives you the right to reject the views of these patriarchs?

 

[Eric_Hilbert]

Comin’ close to the 1000 post limit folks.
Time to wrap it up (or start sequel thread).

 

[steve_b]

If he was writing a doctrinal thesis or an apologetic piece to convince other Catholics to leave communion with Rome then you might have a point. What he wrote was a personal testimony, years after the fact and far from the very library where he made his discoveries.

You used his piece to support yours and his claim. Therefore, you knew, proof was going to be asked of you…agreed? If your source was a serious source who made such discoveries seriously, like your source claims, they usually document their proof meticulously without being asked. It’s automatic… But nothing was there.
p:

If you ever write a personal testimony then I will expect you to hold yourself to the same standard as you demand of the then Hierodeacon Paul.

We’re talking about YOUR source not me. HE made claims and gave no references in all the places one looks for references.
p:

Make sure you include names, addresses and contact details of every person or place you mention, as well as page number and ISBN of any quotations or references.

That’s not the point. This isn’t about me. You used a source to make provacative points. The source had no proof any of it happened.
p:

there are not the requirements you demand. Being a monk, and later a bishop it would be reasonable to assume that he is committed to truth and honesty and therefore would not be making this stuff up.

By you posting that piece here on CA, there IS a requirement for accuracy. He made claims against the CC and substantiated nothing.
p:

I can’t ask you to prove a negative and provide evidence showing what he said to be false,

I’m asking you to prove what he said is TRUE.
p:

but can you give any basis to your assumption that he is making this stuff up (ie lying)?

Where’s his proof?
p:

If his target audience was Catholics I would agree with you.

You used his article to target CAF, the largest Catholic forum on the world wide web.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Again, those quotes don’t confirm ultramontanistic views,

Perhaps we should define ultramontanistic views. What’s your definition?

and I didn’t answer the rest of your posts because they were either strawmen, or based upon axioms being argued, that is they were begging the question.

Now ***that’***s cute!

 

[Nine_Two]

So you say.

What view do they reflect? Certainly not your view.

What gives you the right to reject the views of these patriarchs?

The only quote there that supports an ultramontane view there was the one by John VI, who was a heretic who led Constantinople into schism with Rome, which draws into question the source your using. He certainly didn’t set an example of believing anything close to what he said. The other two certainly say nothing contrary to what I have acknowledged regarding the primacy of Rome.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

The only quote there that supports an ultramontane view there was the one by John VI, who was a heretic who led Constantinople into schism with Rome, which draws into question the source your using. He certainly didn’t set an example of believing anything close to what he said. The other two certainly say nothing contrary to what I have acknowledged regarding the primacy of Rome.

Your opinion is inconsistent with reality.

I guess I’ll just wait for you to come to your senses!