Papal Problems...:(

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alexius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It’s your church’s feast: the Feast of the Chair of Saint Pater at Antioch. You will have to explain it. Interesting that your church dropped the “at Antioch” part later, I suppose it was a matter of convenience.

The other Apostles had chairs all over the East as well. All of the Apostles, Peter among them, were all over the east, there are many Apostolic Sees. These were culturally advanced and prosperous cities with classically educated clergy. Even under the Caliphs they produced great theologions like Saint John Damascene.

Of course, in the west, there was only one Apostolic See. So for westerners, Rome seemed to be the only Apostolic See. After the church at Rome converted to a Latin liturgy, Greek fell out as a training necessity for the priesthood, and a whole body of theological literature was then generally unavailable to them.

Soon, after plagues, invasions and economic collapse, the population declined, public works fell into ruin, schools closed.

The west was in such a bad state for a while, the economy was in the toilet and literacy plummeted to single digits, that the Merovingian and Carolingian monarchs were appointing to the episcopate very illiterate and sycophantic men from families connected to the crown. Many if not most of these Frankish bishops had no real theological training at all, and their Latin was horrible.

Concubinage was still common among the elites, and bishops and priests kept them. Abbies were “owned” by powerful families and Abbots usually were absent, often at their hunting lodges spending the income provided by the monasteries.

So secular were clerics, that many bishops even rode off to battle on warhorses to smash heads for their princes and benefactors, they were a pretty dissolute bunch.

I stated earlier that the bishops of the Carolingian empire were so disreputable and ill educated that they were not invited to the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Rome itself plunged to a population of some 40,000 or less by the time of Charlemagne (from a high of over one million in late antiquity). The city was a real cultural backwater dominated by petty princes and distant monarchs. Even Popes were appointed by emperors and kings, the College of Cardinal electors did not exist until centuries later.

Bishops in Spain and Gaul routinely ignored the Popes opinion.

It was a time when ‘Trial by Ordeal’ (introduced by the Franks)was considered serious jurisprudence in western Europe, sanctioned by the bishops. The people allowed superstition, visionaries and mythmakers to dominate their thinking.

Someone claiming to be Isadore of Seville compiled a large list of fabrications about the church, even Popes were taken in by the fraud and promoted the forgeries.

The Papacy was born.

Michael
Hmmm…interesting post. Its news to me that Rome wants to surpress the fact that St. Peter was and preached at Antioch. It was actually Rome who tried to magnify this fact, and also that St. Peter’s disciple St. Mark was at Alexandria, in order to enlarge the idea of only having Apostolic Sees and not political ones, such as Constantinople. Of course we know what Byzantium did, they tried to claim St. John after Ephesus came under their see. Let us not forget also their “legend” of Andrew staying and preaching at Byzantium.

It may just be, as many notable historians have suggested, Rome’s “western barbarism” that constantly kept the “enlightened east” from fully retaining their many ingenious heresies.
 
It’s your church’s feast: the Feast of the Chair of Saint Pater at Antioch. You will have to explain it. Interesting that your church dropped the “at Antioch” part later, I suppose it was a matter of convenience.

The other Apostles had chairs all over the East as well. All of the Apostles, Peter among them, were all over the east, there are many Apostolic Sees. These were culturally advanced and prosperous cities with classically educated clergy. Even under the Caliphs they produced great theologions like Saint John Damascene.

Of course, in the west, there was only one Apostolic See. So for westerners, Rome seemed to be the only Apostolic See. After the church at Rome converted to a Latin liturgy, Greek fell out as a training necessity for the priesthood, and a whole body of theological literature was then generally unavailable to them.

Soon, after plagues, invasions and economic collapse, the population declined, public works fell into ruin, schools closed.

The west was in such a bad state for a while, the economy was in the toilet and literacy plummeted to single digits, that the Merovingian and Carolingian monarchs were appointing to the episcopate very illiterate and sycophantic men from families connected to the crown. Many if not most of these Frankish bishops had no real theological training at all, and their Latin was horrible.

Concubinage was still common among the elites, and bishops and priests kept them. Abbies were “owned” by powerful families and Abbots usually were absent, often at their hunting lodges spending the income provided by the monasteries.

So secular were clerics, that many bishops even rode off to battle on warhorses to smash heads for their princes and benefactors, they were a pretty dissolute bunch.

I stated earlier that the bishops of the Carolingian empire were so disreputable and ill educated that they were not invited to the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

Rome itself plunged to a population of some 40,000 or less by the time of Charlemagne (from a high of over one million in late antiquity). The city was a real cultural backwater dominated by petty princes and distant monarchs. Even Popes were appointed by emperors and kings, the College of Cardinal electors did not exist until centuries later.

Bishops in Spain and Gaul routinely ignored the Popes opinion.

It was a time when ‘Trial by Ordeal’ (introduced by the Franks)was considered serious jurisprudence in western Europe, sanctioned by the bishops. The people allowed superstition, visionaries and mythmakers to dominate their thinking.

Someone claiming to be Isadore of Seville compiled a large list of fabrications about the church, even Popes were taken in by the fraud and promoted the forgeries.

The Papacy was born.

Michael
ALL THIS AND MY QUESTION WAS NOT ANSWERED.

AGAIN, WHY THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE CHAIR OF ST PAUL, ST ANDREW, ST JOHN OR OTHERS BUT ONLY THE CHAIR OF PETER ? WHAT DOES THIS MEANS TO THE JEWS TO THE EARLY CHRISTIANS?
 
give me evidence such as this

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

Irenaeus of Lyons said, “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition” (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
 
My distinction is by no means arbitrary. It’s merely practical. The Pope is human and makes mistakes. The office is pure and faultless. There must be a distinction somewhere.
There is a distinction between office and person but not to the extent that the office can exist without any holders (barring death, of course). The Church has never affirmed this of the episcopal office and the bishops and we have no reason to affirm it of the papal office and the popes. I’ll elaborate on the implications of this below.
You allude to the fact that the Apostles were given infallibility when writing Scripture. But that doesn’t change the fact that they were fallible men. You questioned why the Church gives a position of such importance to fallible men. I answered by asking: Why did Jesus give such positions of importance to fallible men? You said that the Church shouldn’t and I answered that if that were the case, the Jesus should have spread the Gospel himself.
The apostles did have infallibility when they were performing their apostolic functions (e.g. writing Holy Scripture and establishing the Church). However, the Pope isn’t promised infallibility when he is performing his papal functions of “universal jurisdiction” or his association with ecumenical councils.

Thus, I find it very unlikely that the early Church would have given the Pope such roles while it simultaneously affirmed that he could become a heretic. While it can always be argued that the papal office remains inviolate as such heretical Popes would automatically fall from the Papacy, it still begs the question as to why the Church would invest such roles in people who can lose the ability to exercise them even when the Church needs their ministry most. That’s equivalent to having an episcopal office even while affirming that a time may come when there ceases to be any bishops.

This also raises questions about how essential the Papacy can be to the Church if heresy may rob the Church of the exercise of this office. None of the Fathers affirm that the Church may continue even while bishops cease, while the episcopal office remains. No, there is a clear understanding that the episcopal office must find realization in a bishop for the Church to continue. The Church must not only have the possibility of bishops in order to be the Church, it must actually contain at least one bishop. This is not reflected of the Papacy, where Popes may fall into heresy and leave the Church without a Pope for an unspecified period of time. This speaks eloquently to the fact that whatever the Church of the Fathers believed, they didn’t see the Papacy as being of the essence of the Church. Otherwise, they would have saw the Papal office as essential to be realized as the episcopal office is.
I haven’t found where in the Fathers’ writings there is a distinction, but if I do, I will respond.
I would like to see evidence of this distinction. While not denying that there may be a sharper distinction than I’m aware of, there seems to be a less defined understanding of the Papacy and its nature in the first millennium than there is in the second millennium.

God bless,

Adam
 
like this:

Optatus

You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas “Rock”]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Jerome

[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says, “With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,” the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a Church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the Church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails (ibid., 15:2).

The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, “He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!” . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria (ibid., 16:2).
 
I would like to see evidence of this distinction. While not denying that there may be a sharper distinction than I’m aware of, there seems to be a less defined understanding of the Papacy and its nature in the first millennium than there is in the second millennium.

God bless,

Adam
I absolutely agree with the above post. I would also like to add that there was also a “less defined understanding” on the divinity and oneness of Jesus before, and even after, the council of Nicea.
 
Augustine

If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman Church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today? (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, “Upon this rock I will build my Church” [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
 
Council of Ephesus

Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: “There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

there is no mention here of St. Peter’ s chair being everywhere like you said, if i understood you correctly.
 
I absolutely agree with the above post. I would also like to add that there was also a “less defined understanding” on the divinity and oneness of Jesus before, and even after, the council of Nicea.
Christians before, during and after the Council of Nicea knew the correct beliefs about Christ, even if a deep understanding of the mechanics of these beliefs were lacking. To argue otherwise is to ask how such a passionate defense of Holy Tradition could have been waged prior to, and resulting in, the Council of Nicea. In fact, any affirmation that the totality of Holy Tradition was unable to be taught as a matter of faith at any time in Church history renders any appeal of the Fathers to “Tradition” and an clear discerning of heresy, unexplainable.

God bless,

Adam
 
Christians before, during and after the Council of Nicea knew the correct beliefs about Christ, even if a deep understanding of the mechanics of these beliefs were lacking. To argue otherwise is to ask how such a passionate defense of Holy Tradition could have been waged prior to, and resulting in, the Council of Nicea. In fact, any affirmation that the totality of Holy Tradition was unable to be taught as a matter of faith at any time in Church history renders any appeal of the Fathers to “Tradition” and an clear discerning of heresy, unexplainable.

God bless,

Adam
With each issue in church history we must be careful as to not take each instane out of context. “Tradition” is something that is and always will be embedded in the church. However, we find that declarations of the faith only seem to arise when a heresy threatens a specific truth of the church. Let us take the Byzantine Iconoclasm, due you believe there was the same “deep understanding of the mechanics” of this truth of the church both before and after the second council of Nicea? Yes you are correct it is Holy Tradition and is always orthodox but did the church need it to be defined as to have a more clear view of this Tradition?
Tradition is truth and it is always there, however at different stages of the church’s life it has seen these truths with different degrees of clarity.

God Bless,

JJR
 
It may just be, as many notable historians have suggested, Rome’s “western barbarism” that constantly kept the “enlightened east” from fully retaining their many ingenious heresies.
I would venture to believe that it was the Holy Spirit acting on the undivided Church that squashed all heresies.
 
Augustine
We have already covered “Church Fathers wars”. Augustine, in his retractions, later said this:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.
 
Tradition is truth and it is always there, however at different stages of the church’s life it has seen these truths with different degrees of clarity.
A defined truth and an outright innovation are two opposing concepts. The clarity of the evident Scriptural teaching on the Trinity is one thing—the invention of a supreme infallible pontiff is another. 🤷
 
We have already covered “Church Fathers wars”. Augustine, in his retractions, later said this:

In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.
THE DISCUSSING IS NOT ABOUT WHO IS THE ROCK BUT ABOUT THE LIDERANCE OF PETER WHICH CLEAR IS CONFIRMED HERE WHEN HE MENTIONS OF THE KEYS BEING GIVEN TO PETER.
 
THE DISCUSSING IS NOT ABOUT WHO IS THE ROCK BUT ABOUT THE LIDERANCE OF PETER WHICH CLEAR IS CONFIRMED HERE WHEN HE MENTIONS OF THE KEYS BEING GIVEN TO PETER.
I cannot understand what you have written here.:confused:

P.S.–All capital letters do not enhance conversations. 😦
 
ws:

I can’t find liderance in the dictionary… did you mean literalness???

Scott
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top