Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[jam070406]

I think you should know that Saint John spent most of his life not even in communion with Rome, and he never recognized a bishop anywhere that claimed universal jurisdiction.

It has been stated before, you conflate primacy and supremacy. The one does not support arguments for the other.

Did he not, at one point, find refuge in Rome?
Why are you attempting to pit St. John against Rome?
What is the historical context with his not being in communion?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Seems to be you would referring to St John not me since I am quoting him. Maybe there’sa later quote where he changed his mind or said something contrary which superceeds this quote?

St. John Chrysostom was ordained by Meletius of Antioch, and spent 17 years in schism with Rome, only entering into communion with Rome when he was chosen to be the Patriarch of Constantinople. Had that not happened, he probably would have lived his entire life out of communion with Rome. St. John Chrysostom’s Peter (and the Peter of Orthodox Christians) is not the papal “Peter” that you are thinking of.

 

[rinnie]

It works, but take a moment to think about what you’re saying.

How can God be One, and yet Three? Makes no sense at all.

How can God the Father be the origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit and yet all are equal? Makes no sense at all.

How can Our Lord be both 100% man and yet 100% God? Makes no sense at all.

How can Our Lady be the Mother of God, and yet not precede God? Makes no sense at all.

How can the bread and wine become the Body and Blood and yet still look and taste like bread and wine? Makes no sense at all.

How can a woman give birth to a man, and yet remain a virgin? Makes no sense at all.

How can the Cross, a torture device of humility and shame be our standard and yet the means of the Ultimate Victory? Makes no sense at all.

How can a priest be a sinful man, and yet still absolve us of our sins? Makes no sense at all.

How can…and yet…it does!

Its quite simple. God revealed himself to us as the Father to Abraham in the word. You agree with this I am sure. The word of God, I always call it (you have to say this in a real deep way THE VOICE).

Okay now he said he would send down his SON. He made himself HUMAN through the Son by being the WORD MADE FLESH. By becoming Man revealed himself though the Son AS the Son. Same God,

Then when he entered back into heaven he revaled himself to the CHURCH as the Holy Spirit. Same God.

So what you see as 3 separate Person, you still have only seen ONE GOD.

Go never quit communicating with us. He did with Abraham leading him by his words. Jesus in person through the Apostles, ANd now he is still communicating to us by the Power of his Holy SPirit. He is using his mind to translate truth to the Minds of the Leaders of the Church as he promised. He is stiil alive and here in the church.

Now how can a Priest a sinful man absove sins? Simple, He has no power. God is working through him, A priest never said he could do anything on his own power. It is God resolving sins through the person of the Priest is all. It is GOd speaking through him.

That would be the same as saying how could Judas rely the word of God becasue he turned to the devil. Did the sins of Judas change the truth he learned from God, O course not.

How can a women remain a virgin by the Power of GOd, What are you saying ANYTHING is imposible for GOd to do? I disgree nothing is impossible for him to do he is God.

How can one man save us by his sins, simple when it is GOd himself who dies to show us his love for us, how else can a Human relate to a human to show the divine. You tell me how much more could God have showed you in a human way his love for you, then by dying for you?

 

[jam070406]

You wish it were that simple, but Matthew 16:18 is interpreted in different ways by the Church Fathers. Of course, the most embarrassing one is St. Augustine who interprets the rock to be Christ (there is even an entire thread on CAF dedicated to explaining away this inconvenient “patristic blunder”).

What in the world does the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom have to do with politics. That’s just insulting.

LOL, one doesn’t simply “refuse” subjugation under Islamic rule, at least not if you want to keep your head. And let us not forget the long and shady history of the popes in the west, especially when they were propped up by secular powers or when we had situations where there were as many as three anti-popes running around at once.

That’s like blaming the Pope for anti-clericalism in 18th Century France. Your argument is a complete non-sequitur.

According to the Orthodox that would not have been the only blunder Augustine made.

 

[GaryTaylor]

I guess we’d all better quit believing in Christianity, then. There’s no way those people at Nicaea could have represented the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Christianity had only been tolerated in the Roman Empire for less than two decades then. ISN’T THAT AMAZING?.

What this has to do with the fact above means ZIP.

What you propose is a false union. Union will come only with a uniformity of essential faith, and the two sides are far from that point at this time…

NO I propose the Truth which is obviosly ignored with the EO and with Matthew and the Bible and History.

That argument only makes sense if you believe that the Pope is granted the divine right to rule from Peter, and that he alone is Peter’s successor…

Communion with Chair of Peter is the key. Which isn’t defined as you chose it to be but as it really is.

Again with Russia. You seem to be obsessed with the Russians and with alleging that due to the lack of separation of Church and state, Orthodoxy must somehow have been corrupted. I’d hate to break it to you, but until the 5th Century, the Pope was not separate from the state either. Also, the coronation of Charlemagne was in fact an attempt to reproduce the lost union between Church and State (and it succeeded to some degree)…

Russia seems to a major issue I hate to break it to you.

Fine, I suppose we’ll consecrate the Vatican to the Holy Spirit who proceeds only from the Father. Does that sound amenable to you?.

Sounds like an issue no-one is talking about.

You are mistaken if your litany of insults against the Orthodox church will help break any sort of deadlock.

What insults the cold hard truth must be insulting to you.

 

[Cavaradossi]

According to the Orthodox that would not have been the only blunder Augustine made.

Augustine is has unfortunately become a bogeyman to the Orthodox. I remember reading that he himself admitted that a lot of his musings on Original Sin were in fact speculation and that his opinions on the matter were not authoritative. He’s certainly not that objectionable when you read him as a Father of the Church; he only becomes objectionable when you make him into one of the primary Fathers (instead of one of many) of the Church.

 

[jam070406]

St. John Chrysostom was ordained by Meletius of Antioch, and spent 17 years in schism with Rome, only entering into communion with Rome when he was chosen to be the Patriarch of Constantinople. Had that not happened, he probably would have lived his entire life out of communion with Rome. St. John Chrysostom’s Peter (and the Peter of Orthodox Christians) is not the papal “Peter” that you are thinking of.

St. John appealed to Rome and was appointed after the Patriarch was deposed. A power you would claim Rome did not have.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Augustine is has unfortunately become a bogeyman to the Orthodox. I remember reading that he himself admitted that a lot of his musings on Original Sin were in fact speculation and that his opinions on the matter were not authoritative. He’s certainly not that objectionable when you read him as a Father of the Church; he only becomes objectionable when you make him into one of the primary Fathers (instead of one of many) of the Church.

Fact again is St Augustine seems to be used when it fits the EO’s need’s. What, two pages back he’s quoted to prove an EO point? So which way is it?

 

[Cavaradossi]

What this has to do with the fact above means ZIP.

You stated that the oppression of Orthodoxy under Communism and Islam weakens its claim to being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I say that therefore, we must apply your strange standard to the pre-Nicene Christians, meaning that all of Christianity is invalid, since they were persecuted under the Roman Empire from the very beginning (and really, they didn’t hold Ecumenical Councils for three centuries? How pathetic)

NO I propose the Truth which is obviosly ignored with the EO and with Matthew and the Bible and History.

You want our churches to stop “bickering” over serious theological issues and instead enter into false union in order to combat the secular world. This is called false union. Union will only come when a unanimous statement of faith can be made.

Communion with Chair of Peter is the key. Which isn’t defined as you chose it to be but as it really is.

That is because Peter’s chair fell into error and defined itself to be something that it is not. We invite Peter’s chair to return to her original position—provided that theological agreement can be reached, of course.

Russia seems to a major issue I hate to break it to you.

You are the one who cannot stop talking about Russia. I am technically in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, under the Ecumenical Patriarch, so what Russia does is of little concern to me, so long as they never fall into heresy.

Sounds like an issue no-one is talking about.

That is because we are not so tasteless as to try something like that

What insults the cold hard truth must be insulting to you.

Indeed, you do insult the cold hard truth of Orthodoxy, and thus it insults me

 

[jam070406]

Augustine is has unfortunately become a bogeyman to the Orthodox. I remember reading that he himself admitted that a lot of his musings on Original Sin were in fact speculation and that his opinions on the matter were not authoritative. He’s certainly not that objectionable when you read him as a Father of the Church; he only becomes objectionable when you make him into one of the primary Fathers (instead of one of many) of the Church.

Then why rely on his interpretation of Matthew 16?

 

[GaryTaylor]

"Originally Posted by Cavaradossi
You wish it were that simple, but Matthew 16:18 is interpreted in different ways by the Church Fathers. Of course, the most embarrassing one is St. Augustine who interprets the rock to be Christ (there is even an entire thread on CAF dedicated to explaining away this inconvenient “patristic blunder”).

I can’t see where its embarrasing in fact St Paul states this in his letter to Carthage. Lacking a bit on scripture context I see. Since the Church in Carthage was worshipping St Peter and Apollos, St Paul corrected the error. But pointed to the Mystical body of Christ in Rome?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Fact again is St Augustine seems to be used when it fits the EO’s need’s. What, two pages back he’s quoted to prove an EO point? So which way is it?

I could say the same thing about the Roman Catholic apologists. They use Augustine to support themselves and dismiss him as “being in error” when his position (like his interpretation of Matthew 16:18) is inconvenient for the view which they are trying to defend.

 

[jam070406]

You stated that the oppression of Orthodoxy under Communism and Islam weakens its claim to being the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. I say that therefore, we must apply your strange standard to the pre-Nicene Christians, meaning that all of Christianity is invalid, since they were persecuted under the Roman Empire from the very beginning (and really, they didn’t hold Ecumenical Councils for three centuries? How pathetic)

You want our churches to stop “bickering” over serious theological issues and instead enter into false union in order to combat the secular world. This is called false union. Union will only come when a unanimous statement of faith can be made.

That is because Peter’s chair fell into error and defined itself to be something that it is not. We invite Peter’s chair to return to her original position—provided that theological agreement can be reached, of course.

You are the one who cannot stop talking about Russia. I am technically in the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America, under the Ecumenical Patriarch, so what Russia does is of little concern to me, so long as they never fall into heresy.

That is because we are not so tasteless as to try something like that

Indeed, you do insult the cold hard truth of Orthodoxy, and thus it insults me

Can you provide a writing that says Rome can lose it’s place of honor?
It would seem if you are not willing to be in communion this would be a grave dishonor.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Then why rely on his interpretation of Matthew 16?

Honestly, I think it’s more of a spiteful thing. People see so many references to Augustine to support papal supremacy that they get sick of it and point out that he interprets Matthew 16:18 to point to Christ, not Peter. In truth, the Fathers didn’t really seem agree on one interpretation or another of that verse, nor did it really seem to matter to them who the Rock was (St. Augustine actually points that out in his Retractationes where he says that whether the Rock is Peter or Christ is unimportant, but that he personally prefers it to be Christ).

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Cavaradossi,

St. John Chrysostom was ordained by Meletius of Antioch, and spent 17 years in schism with Rome, only entering into communion with Rome when he was chosen to be the Patriarch of Constantinople. Had that not happened, he probably would have lived his entire life out of communion with Rome. St. John Chrysostom’s Peter (and the Peter of Orthodox Christians) is not the papal “Peter” that you are thinking of.

This is absolutely false. St. Meletius of Antioch was in schism with the Paulianist party, but he was not in schism from Rome. St. Basil himself did not accept the Paulianist party in Antioch, but you would be hard-pressed to try to claim that he was in schism from Pope St. Damasus. The very fact that the Synod of Antioch in the late 370’s (I forget the exact date) under the presidency of St. Meletius accepted the Tome of Damasus (on the Holy Spirit) as its own, the fact that this Tome was in the hands of the Antiochenes because they appealed to Pope St. Damasus on the question of the Holy Spirit in the first place (see the Letters of St. Basil), proves that St. Meletius himself was not in schism from Rome.

That St. Meletius was in Schism from Rome, and by relation, then so was St. Chrysostom, is a myth - a myth that is unfortunately perpetuated by many historians, even reputable ones. The Catholic Answers website itself perpetuates this myth, I think.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[GaryTaylor]

I could say the same thing about the Roman Catholic apologists. They use Augustine to support themselves and dismiss him as “being in error” when his position (like his interpretation of Matthew 16:18) is inconvenient for the view which they are trying to defend.

I don’t find his take on Matthew a issue at all. Should we go through it “once again”.

The real issue is you confuse “communion” with rolling out the red-carpet for you. Sorry to be so blatant but the EO is in schism not Rome. But of course the “real” insults come the reverse way.

 

[jam070406]

I could say the same thing about the Roman Catholic apologists. They use Augustine to support themselves and dismiss him as “being in error” when his position (like his interpretation of Matthew 16:18) is inconvenient for the view which they are trying to defend.

Augustine did not break communion with Rome.

 

[mardukm]

Dear EO brethren: Could you accept “universal jurisdiction” if it actually meant simply “universal solicitude or care” instead of “universal control?”

Dear Catholic brethren: Can you accept the same thing? I know that I presonally have had debates with Catholic Absolutist Petrine advocates on this very point. Our own Popes have expressed the Petrine ministry as a form of service and love for the Church (indeed, as St. Ignatius of Antioch has put it - a “presidency of love”). But Absolutist Petrine advocates view the Petrine ministry as the Pope having absolute power (in those exact words). Can my Catholic brethren see how off-putting that can be, even to Eastern and Oriental Catholics?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Cavaradossi]

Can you provide a writing that says Rome can lose it’s place of honor?
It would seem if you are not willing to be in communion this would be a grave dishonor.

The ecclesiology of the Church in the first millennium would support the idea. When sees would have conflicts, they would enter into schism until the conflicts were resolved, and Rome didn’t really seem to be viewed as the font of unity for all of Christendom. As an example, take the schism in Antioch with Meletius (since we were mentioning him earlier in relation to St. John Chrysostom). Paulinus, backed by Rome and Alexandria, claimed to be the legitimate bishop of Antioch. Meletius died, leaving Flavian as his successor. Paulinus died leaving Evagrius as his successor. Flavian, with help from St. John Chrysostom prevented the election of another successor to Evagrius, after Evagrius’ death. The schism was then healed.

Who was right? It’s really hard to say. Who entered into disunity? It is again hard to say, especially since Antioch was not in communion with Alexandria and Rome, but it was in communion with Constantinople, which did remain communion with Alexandria and Rome. The structure of the early Church, even Post-Nicaea, was far from recognizing Rome as being the source of all unity within the Church.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Augustine did not break communion with Rome.

Nor did he break communion with Constantinople, Alexandria or Antioch.