S
Seamus_L
Guest
From an Orthodox point of view your position makes sense, but to hear people within the Catholic Church who are in constant apology mode is another matter.
- Status
D
dzheremi
Guest
Just out of curiosity, would you hold the same view regarding, for instance, the lifting of the excommunications by Patriarch Athenagoras I and Pope Paul VI in 1965? I ask because I have a hard time understanding how Cardinal Ratzinger’s comment goes even close to that far, and I doubt that many RCs have a problem with the Catholic-Orthodox Joint Declaration of 1965. So I’m kinda wondering where the metaphorical “line” is here.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Okay,but it does not negate the authority he or she has been given or empowered. Questioning his or her judgement is another issue. The issue here is authority one has or possess,not decision making.
N
Nicea325
Guest
Okay,then what is the issue then?
Context my friend,if it is not read in the proper context,then it is only a pre-text.
Not a problem. Sorry,but I am busy and haven’t had the time to open up my sources. I need to get my books on the ECF’s and post them once I have time.
Exactly! And he is not advocating a system based on merely “honor” as many EO’s claim. And who ever said Rome can neve be wrong? You reading far to much into things that simply are not there.
Honesty? Force a doctrine that history does not support? Are you SERIOUS? Really? Have you ever bothered to study the writings of countless ECF’s? I am shocked you would even believe such nonsense. That the Orthodox’s view is true to the early church? Do you really believet Rome has fabricated all this up? Apparently you have never studied the ECF’s in depth have you? Do really believe I am fabricating all of this out of a bogus historical hat? Direct you to the ECF’s supporting PRIMACY…for the 10th billion time. I’ll give you scores of references to buy and read.
And you think you have provided exhaustive evidence saying otherwise? No…the ECF"S, councils and HISTORY are against you and you will still deny it even it was posted on your forehead. No…the pope is not against me or else he would have rejected his position,since he would have realized it was all fabricated up,thus making it FALSE.
B
byeveryword
Guest
The clincher is what Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus wrote in leading the delegation of Asian bishops against Bishop Victor of Rome’s decision regarding the Easter controvesy:
Here is what Eusebius records that Polycrates wrote,
We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord’s coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate. He fell asleep at Ephesus. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead ? All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said ’ We ought to obey God rather than man’.…I could mention the bishops who were present, whom I summoned at your desire; whose names, should I write them, would constitute a great multitude. And they, beholding my littleness, gave their consent to the letter, knowing that I did not bear my gray hairs in vain, but had always governed my life by the Lord Jesus (Eusebius. The History of the Church, Book V, Chapter XXIV, Verses 2-7 . Translated by A. Cushman McGiffert. Digireads.com Publishing, Stilwell (KS), 2005, p. 114).
Who was Bishop Polycrates referring to? St. Peter and the other apostles when they refused to obey the High Priest’s command not to preach in the name of Jesus Christ.
(Acts 5:29).
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
The idea that the pope has universal jurisdiction (which you ascribe to primacy).
And in what context should it be understood? If what I have posted is taken out of context (and fails to convey the message St. Augustine intended), then explain how it should be properly understood. I am asking for you to show me the "correct’ interpretation.
Very well, I shall await your sources, though I ask that you post one or two at a time so they may be thoroughly discussed.
I am countering your claims that appealing to Rome proves universal jurisdiction. Because Rome can be wrong (and other appeals can be made), your argument is invalid.
My study of the early Church fathers led me to leave Rome. I was raised Protestant and through the persuasive efforts of several Catholic apologists, I converted. By selective (and often out-of-context) quoting, these apologists convinced me both of the errors of Protestantism and the “truth” of Catholicism. It was not, however, until I entered seminary that I began to read the Church fathers in depth. What I discovered completely shook the foundations of what I understood Christianity to be. Rome has departed from so many canons and teachings, arguing its adherence to early Church tradition is an impossible task. Rome recognizes this and that is the idea behind doctrinal development. Lets take your username for a second. You obviously have profound respect for the First Nicene Council, so why does Rome violate :
Canon 4 :
“It is by all means desirable that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops of the province. But if this is difficult because of some pressing necessity or the length of the journey involved, let at least three come together and perform the ordination, but only after the absent bishops have taken part in the vote and given their written consent. But in each province the right of confirming the proceedings belongs to the metropolitan bishop.”
Canon 20 :
“Since there are some who kneel on Sunday and during the season of Pentecost, this holy synod decrees that, so that the same observances may be maintained in every diocese, one should offer one’s prayers to the Lord standing”.
What are you talking about? The pope agrees with me. While he certainly supports your view of the papacy, he does not ascribe to the idea that this belief has always been present. According to his own words, the Orthodox Church upholds the ancient tradition.
C
copperblade
Guest
I guess I really don’t know what does “jurisdiction” mean in terms of primacy vs supremacy.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And I am countering yours that the early church was founded on a system of honor. And this has nothing to do with right or wrong,but what was established.
And my study of the NT in depth confirmed which Apostle held the primacy. There is no hint of all 12 held a equal power. Name one Apostle aside from Peter who Christ gave the keys to bind and loose? Well I do not know what you read and who made the commentaries. And the ECF’s made me believe firmly about the Primacy and the system of mere “honory” is a novelty in the early church. I am shocked you ignored countless of words from many ECF’s clearly mentioning Rome’s primacy. That is what truly shocks me the most about you.
Having more than one person in the ancient church reflect the same position is not coincidence,but evidently a strong belief in something.
And I am shocked it shook your foundations. Because nothing I have studied in the NT about Peter gives hints of only “honor” and first among equals. One does not receive the keys to bind and loose and just be an equal.
And the East NEVER has? Was it not Constantinople trying to be second of all the ancient Sees? Is that in accord?
Rome recognizes this and that is the idea behind doctrinal development. Lets take your username for a second. You obviously have profound respect for the First Nicene Council, so why does Rome violate :
Violate? How do you figure it has violated it? Do you know what it is referring to? A Metropolitan is a bishop that is over a city and surrounding towns that have multiple congregations.Cyprian had said this 75 years earlier so this is not new. Okay…and?
In De Corona (ch. 3) Tertullian, around A.D. 200, says that the practice of praying while standing on Sunday and between Passover and Pentecost was a long-standing tradition. So this tradition predates Nicea by around two centuries, at least. The reason for this is that the first day of the week and Passover were days to celebrate the resurrection. Since they were days of celebration, kneeling and fasting were forbidden. Tertullian seems to think those traditions were observed everywhere.Obviously, they weren’t, but the council is asking that those practices become universal.
.
He does? Really? He is now saying the primacy was all big huge scam and every single word written about the primacy was fabricated? Sorry,but I’ll it take more than a commentary by pope to agree to claim he agrees 100% with you.
.
Sorry,your position is more held by modern day Orthodoxs,thus it is not in-tune with the ancient tradition. Many Orthodoxs in communion in Rome express the same sentiments.So basically everything said by any ECF supporting the Bishop of Rome having a special pre-eminence in the early church is also made up? Fabricated history? Again,did Jesus established a system based merely on ‘honor’ among the 12? Sorry,but NT again is clear as to who was the HEAD,no matter how much you wish to turn the blind eye.
X
xixxvmcm85
Guest
Hello Marduk,Even in this thread, there appears to be confusion about just what catholicism claims the papacy to be!
Nobody (except maybe Jack Chick, tongue-in-cheek) claims that the pope is impeccable, nor that every thing he says is true, every opinion he writes infallible. B16 is a theologian. What they DO is put ideas in writing, then refine them. This quote is not taken from a council document, nor an encyclical, even. It is private opinion.
What catholic theologians have been looking to do is examine our use of language for ways in which the true meaning of catholic teaching on the papacy can be communicated in a manner that does NOT generate false alarms and bad assumptions on the part of other christians. There’s nothing about such an approach that suggests lack of conviction in dogma. On the contrary, the insecure are usually the ones that make the most belligerent defense of their ideas.
I find it refreshing and confidence inspiring that Benedict is willing to look at other ways of expressing the truth of the mission of the papacy to reduce, to the extent possible, the stumbling block that it has been to many earnest christians in the world.
Others often note how the papacy today functions differently than it seems to have pre-1000 schism. I don’t believe that is quite accurate. I’d suggest that it is more like me when I purchase a new cell phone. From the very first day, that phone has all the capabilities in it that it ever will. But it generally takes me about 1,600 years to learn about them and to learn to use them. Well, it seems that long anyways…(What, it takes PICUTURES? Nifty! But in hindsight, the lens was there for me to see all along)
I’ve notice on many threads that you’ve made distinctions between the “High”, “Absolutist”, and “Low Petrine Views” but can’t find any explanation or comparison of the three. A preliminary Google search yields nothing but posts by you on this forum and others. Are these terms of your own making or are they used by other company? If so, can you recommend any reading (preferably online) explaining these constructs?
Thanks!
C
CopticChristian
Guest
As an observor to this dialogue I believe it is a starting point for dialogue and development of union. When Constantinople became the “new rome” Rome was considered to have primacy. I have seen it stated as follows. “As for the Bishop of Constantinople, let him have the prerogatives of honor after the bishop of Rome, seeing that this city is the new Rome.” If Rome had primacy and unity led to a situation where there was primacy the ironing out would be the extent of that primacy as far as actions and leadership. This is a starting point for development of unity as I see it.
M
Mark_of_Ephesus
Guest
Don’t trust your own interpretations of scripture. Believe what the fathers teach.
to bind and loose? Well I do not know what you read and who made the commentaries.St. Augustine says :
"Wherefore it was not one man, but rather the One Universal Church, that received these “keys” and the right “to bind and loosen.”
Where did Peter express his jurisdiction over the other apostles?
Yes, and this was decided at the Council of Chalcedon. Canon 28 says :
“FOLLOWING in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges ( isa presbeia ) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and** rank next after her**; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him.”
Because the pope has seized the power to appoint bishops. Latin rite bishops are selected by the pope and cannot be raised to the episcopacy without his approval.
Why does Rome persist in kneeling on Sundays when the Council of Nicaea prohibits it?
The pope is saying that the papacy of today was not present in the early Church. We disagree on a good many things, but on the issue of the historical nature of the papacy, we are in agreement. The pope clearly understands the historical primacy to be a primacy of honor. Go read the OP again.
[/QUOTE]
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
I agree with the Pope, if Orthodoxy can return to the true Orthodoxy which is always united to the head which is Peter. It was secular powers in the Early Catholic Church which viewed Peter and his apostolic successors as having Primacy over the Church. It was Jesus and the apostles originally who placed Peter as having “Supremacy” over the flock of Jesus Christ on earth, to tend, feed and teach, united with his brethren.
The Pope is speaking of such unity which began in the early Church when all apostolic successors were united to Peter and his apostolic successors in the Popes.
What changed this apostolic “supremacy” of authority in the Popes, came when the secular “Caesars” came to power and began appointing bishops and patriarchs in the East which complicated the unity of all East and West Apostolic successors united to the Popes. Thus you have Church councils with a non apostolic authority member appointed or approved by a secular power in the new Patriarch of Constantinople who usurped other apostolic sees powers to himself with the influence of the Emperor, placing a false pretense of authority equal to or greater than the Popes.
The Popes had to walk a very thin line here, with the secular powers granting authority to a new appointed Patriarch of Constantinople. From here the rest is history, including many Eastern ECF’s refusing the secular Ceasars intervening with Church matters that many left their sees into monstacism.
This change from the original Orthodoxy to which the Pope Benedict XVI is “commenting on,” not teaching, to which the Orthodoxy today have left the True Orthodox unity to the Popes united with all apostolic successors.
What complicates this “unity” today even further when you have the Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople (Bartholomew) stating this; “Orthodox Church has never confined theological dialogue and ecumenical relations to academic discussions by experts in the history of religious thought. This would reduce the concept of reconciliation to an intellectualistic enterprise. Alongside the theological dialogue of truth, there is the essential communication and communion through prayer”…(Encountering the Mystery pg.71 par.2)
How can unity be addressed when Orthodoxy refuses Prayer “Holy Communion” with its head in the Popes united with all apostolic successors. An act unheard of from True historical Orthodoxy in the Catholic Church.
If Orthodoxy can return to the Orthodoxy united to Peter since apostolic times before secular powers introduced and granted powers to the patriarchs over other sees creating a competition and conflict with the already existing “Supremacy” authority of the Popes united with all his brethren. This I believe Pope Benedict is addressing in Orthodoxy in the purest and Truest form of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith.
J
jam070406
Guest
Canon 28 was rejected.
As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness. – Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).
J
jam070406
Guest
Your statement is meaningless because you have zero authority to declare that Rome has taught error in anything. Zero, zilch, nada.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Rejected by the Pope, and went into full force and effect throughout the eastern church anyway.
Eventually, the Papacy admitted defeat and accepted it, acknowledging the longstanding eastern position in Canon 5 of the Fourth Lateran Council.
G
Gabriel_of_12
Guest
This defiance of authority by Eastern Church may explain why disunity remains among the Eastern Church’s between themselves? To reject the divine authority placed by Jesus Christ in Peter, is to be left without unity among the defiant members.
J
jam070406
Guest
Where did the Papacy admit defeat? Defeat of what?? Divine institution? So you admit that the East was in competition against the Holy See? Even the Patriarch of Constantinople at the time admitted the East was wrong.
D
dzheremi
Guest
I do not need authority to be able to read the ECFs and the canons of the councils and compare them to Rome’s modern stances and see that they differ, sometimes quite sharply, from what Rome herself embraced and espoused in earlier eras.
J
jam070406
Guest
That is FAR different then you claiming Rome is in error. Which is what you did.
D
dzheremi
Guest
Not to me. They’re the same to me. Rome is in error in having strayed from the apostolic faith which it upheld during its previous orthodox period.
- Status