Pope Benedict on the Orthodox and Papal Primacy

[Ignatios]

It seems to me to also be a recognition of an authority the Pope has. Part of the statements, continuing, state:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with (2) **the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. **Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.”

To me it looks like a recognition of the authority of the Pope. They acted like the Pope asked. Of course, it was through a council, but so what? I don’t think Catholics would say that a Pope can do whatever he wants without a council. And also a direct statement that Peter was the “rock” of the Church seems important in light of some of the discussions here.

I don’t know. I’m hoping not to come off with a sense that I know everything. I know nothing. The impression I’m getting, however, is that the Pope did have a legitimate, higher authority than simply one of equality. Primus Inter Pares doesn’t mean one wouldn’t have authority over others. There’s a lot of figures today that are known as primus inter pares that have actual power. The office of the Italian prime minister being one of them. Otherwise, I think the proper term would more be* super partes* (“above the fray”).

Here what the Synod said:

"The Condemnation Sent by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod to Dioscorus.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)
The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.
We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (θεσμοῦ ) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come."

GOD bless you all †††

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Ignatios,

The problem with your response is that it demonstrates that you yourself do not believe the bishop of Rome is part of the Council but somehow above it.

When a Council entered records into its Acts, those records were regarded as Acts OF THE COUNCIL. So the papal legates were acting AS MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, not merely as legates of the Pope. Their statements were accepted by the Council as its own.

Your response is just as bad as that of the Absolutist Petrine advocates. Then again, BOTH Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates have the exact same twisted misunderstanding of the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

Dear Fabius,

Again this not what the Synod said it is what the Roman legates said by themselves, you must becareful my friend where you get your info from, for there is a lots of flaws on line and many takes things out of context as you have had just seen in the last few posts, here it is within context:

**“The Bishops expressed their opinions for the most part one by one, but the Roman Legates spoke together, and in their speech occurs the following **(Col. 426]
Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with286286 The translation of the English Hefele (iv. 328) “in communion with” is most extraordinary. the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of
260
the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.”
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ix.html

That was not the Synod who spoke it was the legates again . All those quotes almost got me to believe into Catholicism at one time and I went through the RCIA but the reality is much different than those flawed quotes, actually they are showing the opposite of the reality, Now keep in mind that Pope Leo I is a Saint in the Orthodox Church as well and indeed he was the most influential Pope of all along with Pope Saint Gregory the great, that is why those two Pope were the only ones who are called the Great, but many mistaken influence with Authority.

GOD bless you all†††

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Dear brother Ignatios,

The problem with your response is that it demonstrates that you yourself do not believe the bishop of Rome is part of the Council but somehow above it.

When a Council entered records into its Acts, those records were regarded as Acts OF THE COUNCIL. So the papal legates were acting AS MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, not merely as legates of the Pope. Their statements were accepted by the Council as its own.

Your response is just as bad as that of the Absolutist Petrine advocates. Then again, BOTH Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates have the exact same twisted misunderstanding of the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

I’d be delighted to hear what the Oriental understanding is.

 

[FabiusMaximus]

Here what the Synod said:

"The Condemnation Sent by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod to Dioscorus.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)
The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.
We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (θεσμοῦ ) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come."

GOD bless you all †††

Brother again, I don’t see it as a refutation of papal primacy.

That was not the Synod who spoke it was the legates again . All those quotes almost got me to believe into Catholicism at one time and I went through the RCIA but the reality is much different than those flawed quotes, actually they are showing the opposite of the reality, Now keep in mind that Pope Leo I is a Saint in the Orthodox Church as well and indeed he was the most influential Pope of all along with Pope Saint Gregory the great, that is why those two Pope were the only ones who are called the Great, but many mistaken influence with Authority.

I’m not in RCIA, but the thing that got me most into Catholicism was the beauty of the Tridentine Mass. It was love at first Mass. I felt something similar when I first attended an Orthodox DL. Certainly some divine presence is there.

But again, it seems that the council approved of what the legates said. There was no condemnation of it, there was agreement to it. At the time both sides were part of the One Church, so presumably, if Westerners believed it, so did Easterners, and therefore, it was not some invention that arose in the Middle Ages.

It is true that they were also praising Leo, but doing so in the capacity of his office as well.

 

[Ignatios]

Dear brother Ignatios,

The problem with your response is that it demonstrates that you yourself do not believe the bishop of Rome is part of the Council but somehow above it.

Dear Mardukm,
likewise, the problem with your responses is that you let fallacy come in between you and reality. actually it is Fabius Maximos who is insinuating that the Pope is above, but it is okay we are used to your unique thoughts by now.

When a Council entered records into its Acts, those records were regarded as Acts OF THE COUNCIL. So the papal legates were acting AS MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL, not merely as legates of the Pope. Their statements were accepted by the Council as its own.

hhhhmmmmmm???

1. the papal legates were acting as the Papal legates:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with286286 The translation of the English Hefele (iv. 328) “in communion with” is most extraordinary. the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of
260
the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.”

1. We read many things from the Acts such as when Bishops at one point called the legates of Pope Leo Nestorians, also the 28th Canon in which it puts your claim to rest.
2. The Synod drew up their own sentence to Dioscorus and No there is no sign that it was accepted other wise why should they draw up sentence that is different than the legate’s, AND the Synod also sentence Dioscorus on the ground that he didn’t show up when called and other crime that he was guilty of but never on the ground that the legates and Pope Leo suggested, IOW Dioscorus was not a heretic:

" The Condemnation Sent by the Holy and Ecumenical Synod to Dioscorus.
(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 459.)
The holy and great and ecumenical Synod, which by the grace of God according to the constitution of our most pious and beloved of God emperors assembled together at Chalcedon the city of Bithynia, in the martyry of the most holy and victorious Martyr Euphemia to Dioscorus.
We do you to wit that on the thirteenth day of the month of October you were deposed from the episcopate and made a stranger to all ecclesiastical order (θεσμοῦ ) by the holy and ecumenical synod, on account of your disregard of the divine canons, and of your disobedience to this holy and ecumenical synod and on account of the other crimes of which you have been found guilty, for even when called to answer your accusers three times by this holy and great synod according to the divine canons you did not come."

Your response is just as bad as that of the Absolutist Petrine advocates. Then again, BOTH Absolutist and Low Petrine advocates have the exact same twisted misunderstanding of the papacy.

Blessings,
Marduk

OOO get off of this rubbish, Absolutist, Low, Medium or high… looool how about some Medium high looool lets mix and match.
Mardukm if they put taxes on empty words you would go bankrupt in a couple posts looool

God Bleass you all †††

 

[Ignatios]

Brother again, I don’t see it as a refutation of papal primacy.

I’m not in RCIA, but the thing that got me most into Catholicism was the beauty of the Tridentine Mass. It was love at first Mass. I felt something similar when I first attended an Orthodox DL. Certainly some divine presence is there.

But again, it seems that the council approved of what the legates said. There was no condemnation of it, there was agreement to it. At the time both sides were part of the One Church, so presumably, if Westerners believed it, so did Easterners, and therefore, it was not some invention that arose in the Middle Ages.

It is true that they were also praising Leo, but doing so in the capacity of his office as well.

Dear Fabius,
It is GOD’s will that each of us has the liberty to believe and see things as he wishes, but that doesn’t change that the reality and the truth is always the same and one, So my prayer is with you whichever way you go, Sincerely, May GOD bless you with HIS Love, Mercy and Grace.

GOD bless you all †††

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

The papal registers contain not just official promulgations, but also drafts that were never promulgated.

Regardless of whether the document was promulgated, its influence on the thoughts and actions of the medieval popes cannot be denied.

Yes, please do. I am seriously unaware of this.

Just this year :

catholicnewsagency.com/news/congo-bishop-reportedly-removed-by-pope-for-serious-mismanagement/

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/bishop-of-toowoomba-william-morris-claims-unfair-dismissal-by-pope/story-e6frg6nf-1226048036161

You didn’t respond to the part where other head bishops also do this. Why is it if Eastern bishops do it, it is not worth a hoot, but when a Pope of Rome does it, the very foundations of the earth are suddenly demolished.

Who said its not “worth a hoot”. Anytime a bishop (either latin or eastern) acts unilaterally to depose another is an offense against tradition.

Once you depose the EO Patriarch of Antioch for demoting all bishops under the Metropolian in the U.S to mere auxiliary status (not certain what went on there, but I think that’s what happened) – then, let’s talk about whose log in the eye is bigger.

And I would like nothing more than to see Metropolitan Philip deposed, but that is not my decision nor is it within my power. His actions have not been justified, however, simply because he remains enthroned. Unlike the church of Rome, this is not normative nor was it ever accepted as the appropriate function of a bishopric.

Until then, I don’t see what business you or I have in the historic affairs of the Latin Catholic Church. That the Pope’s authority went beyond patristic bounds in the Medieval Ages in the LATIN Catholic Church IN RESPONSE TO ITS UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES is beyond question. Whether this is the reality enshrined by Vatican 1’s Decree on the Primacy, or in the Code of Canons (either of 1917 or 1983) is another thing altogether.

I am glad you acknowledge that, but I must ask : what unique "circumstances’ warrant acting as an absolute monarch over which the entire church must obey?

I’m not aware that the Latin Catholic Church makes up the whole of the Catholic Church. Whatever canonical powers their head bishop has/had to address their LOCAL needs is the business of their LOCAL Church. Canons do change, btw.

What business does the bishop of Rome have in controlling the affairs of the church in Britain or the church in America? I would hardly call those “local” churches.

As stated, show us evidence from Vatican 1, Vatican 2, or our Canons that the Pope has this “single-handed, at will” deposing power, then we’ll talk. Until that time, your argument is one big straw man, and a log in the eye, as well .

Blessings,
Marduk

What straw man argument have I made? I have listed modern examples of the pope deposing bishops at will. Make of it what you wish.

 

[copperblade]

Just this year :

catholicnewsagency.com/news/congo-bishop-reportedly-removed-by-pope-for-serious-mismanagement/

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/bishop-of-toowoomba-william-morris-claims-unfair-dismissal-by-pope/story-e6frg6nf-1226048036161

So what happens when a bishop in an eastern church is seriously out of line with the bishop in charge of that jurisdiction? How is a break of communion determined? For example how would the Russian Orthodox Church handle a situation in the U.S. before the American Orthodox Church existed? You might have to explain it as you would to someone who doesn’t understand even the basic rules for me, since I’m not familiar with the structure.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

So what happens when a bishop in an eastern church is seriously out of line with the bishop in charge of that jurisdiction? How is a break of communion determined? For example how would the Russian Orthodox Church handle a situation in the U.S. before the American Orthodox Church existed? You might have to explain it as you would to someone who doesn’t understand even the basic rules for me, since I’m not familiar with the structure.

A council or synod of bishops convene to discuss the situation and make a ruling. If the individual feels this is an unfair decision, he can appeal other bishops to hear his case. This is the Orthodox way and the patristic way.

A break in communion comes about when commemoration (of bishops in the liturgy), concelebration, and intercommunion of the laity cease between two groups. For a true schism to exist, however, both sides must have no common communicants. The situation with ROCOR (Russian Orthodox Outside Of Russia) is often cited [falsely] as a schism. ROCOR ceased to commune with and commemorate Moscow, but because commune still existed between ROCOR and other Orthodox churches (who were also in communion with Russia) it was not a true schism (but very undesirable).

What situation in the US are you referring to?

 

[copperblade]

What situation in the US are you referring to?

None specifically, but I got the impression that most Orthodox in the U.S. were Russian Orthodox before establishment of the American Orthodox Church, and was assuming there was some implied jurisdiction there. But I really have no idea what that really means.

Thanks for your answer.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Mark of Ephesus;8196720]That is the exact logic used to justify innovation. I do experience living apostolic Tradition within the Orthodox Church. History and written records only confirm Orthodoxy. I have asked you to provide evidence of your claims, yet you justify the lack of evidence on some presumptuous notion that it was an understood truth. I could use your exact logic to justify any claim I want :

Maybe your not reading through the other posters, but plenty of evidence has been given. Besides I was put on notice not to use scripture, when Sacred Tradition only applied as your implying. Sorry but my Orthodox Roman Catholic faith is founded upon both Written and Sacred Tradition defended and practiced by the Popes and Magisterium united by both Eastern and Western Catholic Church as one.

I must ask for your forgiveness, I thought I was responding to one who knew their Orthodox foundation from history, as I commented.

So to which do you need historical proof?

1. That the Eastern Patriarch of Constantinople usurped the apostolic sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, and was founded by the Secular Emperor and not from Apostolic succession.
2. That Jesus founded His Church upon Peter?
3. That Jesus gave the keys of heaven to Peter alone and gave “supremed jurisdiction” on earth and commanded Peter to feed, Rule and tend His flock on earth before he ascended into heaven?
4. To prove that the ECF’s believed in Jesus and followed these teachings as Peter being the Shepherd to lead the flock of Christ.
5. That the authority of the Pope was recognized by both Secular powers and religious?
6. That all bishops united to Peter is what the True Catholic faith was and still is pre-schism or not.
7. That when the Eastern Emperor placed his patriarch in Constantinople is when the Patriarchs of Constantinople at the behest of the Emperors begin to invent a new Orthodox strain of authority against or in competition to the Popes authority, to which you are a product of this new Orthodoxy never heard of for the first 1000 years of Catholicism after the resurrection.

I have introduced all of the above in this thread, to which subject you need historical proof, if the Oral Tradition nor the scriptures are not proof enough for you?

Please advise:shrug:

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

Maybe your not reading through the other posters, but plenty of evidence has been given.

And me and my brothers in the Faith have refuted false interpretations time after time. I am still waiting for you to provide patristic evidence for your claims.

Besides I was put on notice not to use scripture, when Sacred Tradition only applied as your implying.

There is nothing wrong with using scripture, but just ensure that you have sources to back up your interpretation. Such things should not be innovative.

I must ask for your forgiveness, I thought I was responding to one who knew their Orthodox foundation from history, as I commented.

So to which do you need historical proof?

1. That the Eastern Patriarch of Constantinople usurped the apostolic sees of Jerusalem, Antioch and Alexandria, and was founded by the Secular Emperor and not from Apostolic succession.
2. That Jesus founded His Church upon Peter?
3. That Jesus gave the keys of heaven to Peter alone and gave “supremed jurisdiction” on earth and commanded Peter to feed, Rule and tend His flock on earth before he ascended into heaven?
4. To prove that the ECF’s believed in Jesus and followed these teachings as Peter being the Shepherd to lead the flock of Christ.
5. That the authority of the Pope was recognized by both Secular powers and religious?
6. That all bishops united to Peter is what the True Catholic faith was and still is pre-schism or not.
7. That when the Eastern Emperor placed his patriarch in Constantinople is when the Patriarchs of Constantinople at the behest of the Emperors begin to invent a new Orthodox strain of authority against or in competition to the Popes authority, to which you are a product of this new Orthodoxy never heard of for the first 1000 years of Catholicism after the resurrection.

I have introduced all of the above in this thread, to which subject you need historical proof, if the Oral Tradition nor the scriptures are not proof enough for you?

Please advise:shrug:

Go ahead and provide “evidence” for all of them. I would greatly appreciate your account of Church history as well as patristic support for your beliefs.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

And me and my brothers in the Faith have refuted false interpretations time after time. I am still waiting for you to provide patristic evidence for your claims.

There is nothing wrong with using scripture, but just ensure that you have sources to back up your interpretation. Such things should not be innovative.

Go ahead and provide “evidence” for all of them. I would greatly appreciate your account of Church history as well as patristic support for your beliefs.

Sure:blush: You are wrong to assume “my belief’s”, much of how you relate things here never touches the Orthodox Catholic faith, but only semantics protesting the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith with a new Orthodox protestant approach, which never reveals a True Orthodox Catholic Faith. As the time arises, I hope to expose this exchange with you God willing

But first, There is something that troubles me from Orthodox posters here. It appears something new is being introduced in Orthodoxy, tha I have never heard of being used before. Context from ECF’s commentaries is taken out of place to believe that every body or every bishop is Peter? Or all bishops have some sort of apostolic succession to Peter and His faith? Does’nt this new Orthodox teaching go against all Orthodoxy who claim to their Apostolic successors in St.Andrew, St.Mark, St.James, St.Thomas, etc…

It sounds like you Orthodox are playing with words and introducing something foreign to Orthodoxy. Is there any Church council stating that every bishop is Peter or has Peter’s faith? Because I sure would not have wanted Peter’s faith who denied Jesus 3 times. And Peter was not the only one to profess Jesus as the Son of God. God chose Simon to reveal who Jesus was as a sign for Jesus to build His Church upon Peter, Not Nathaneal, not the Samaritan woman, not the Centurion etc…

So to make an assumption that all bishops are succeeded from Peter, goes against Apostolic succession teaching especially Orthodox who make the claim to an apostle. So which is it? Do Orthodox make a direct apostolic succession to an original Apostle? Or are we to accept your new Orthodox teaching that every bishop now succeeds from Peter and or Peter’s faith? If this is the Orthodox new protestant argument against the Pope, then I have lost all respect to this new change in Orthodoxy which originally begins her Catholic faith to an original apostle like the Bishop of Rome who succeeds with unbroken apostolic succession to our present day Pope. Are all ECF’s revealing such a claim as an apostolic successor to Peter? Or is this wishful thinking from the Orthodox camp?

I can understand one claiming to Peter’s faith as Rock, but Jesus did not build His Church upon Peter’s faith, He built upon Peter = Rock= Cephas.

So I have problems with the Orthodox posters making this claim, using one paragraph from an ECF out of context who makes mention of this, but is never revealed as an apostolic Orthodox teaching for the first 1000 years of Church history.

Can you give me when your Orthodoxy began teaching this from scripture and when did all the ECF’s agree to being “Peter” or of Peters faith? Because when is Peter’s faith ever Rock? It was Simon bar jona who was renamed “Rock” not his faith, his faith proved a sign from heaven because Peter lacked faith to the extent of being called “satan” immediately after recieving the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Thank God, Jesus never left Peter and His Church.

Peace be with you

 

[mardukm]

Dear Mark of Ephesus,

Regardless of whether the document was promulgated, its influence on the thoughts and actions of the medieval popes cannot be denied.

You have yet to cite a single instance when these axioms were exercised by the Pope during the Middle Ages. When did the Pope depose a bishop by his mere will and without a Synod. When did a Pope transfer a bishop without good reason? Until you offer us proof, merely citing an unofficial document does no good to validate a claim that this document “influenced the thoughts and actions of medieval Popes.” That would be a rhetorical error called “begging the question.” The Medieval Latin Church certainly underwent a great amount of centralization, but I have yet to see that the Pope of Rome even during that time acted against the Canons in his relations to his brother bishops, nor have I seen proof that this centralization was not instigated by a genuine need for such centralization in the Latin Catholic Church.

Just this year :

catholicnewsagency.com/news/congo-bishop-reportedly-removed-by-pope-for-serious-mismanagement/

It was about concerns regarding "grave mismanagement "(and other complaints from the diocese) according to the article, which are canonical grounds for deposition. Just because the letter of deposition did not cite the canon does not mean there was none that justified the action. Further, the article states that “all available options were exhausted.” So there was no “deposition by mere will” going on here. This would be an example of a straw man.

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/bishop-of-toowoomba-william-morris-claims-unfair-dismissal-by-pope/story-e6frg6nf-1226048036161

According to the article, there had been ongoing talks between the bishop and the Vatican for five years. So there is no evidence of “deposition by mere will” here either. The man was obviously a disobedient bishop promoting unorthodox teaching. This would be another straw man.

In any case, these are actions of a Patriarch for his Latin Patriarchate, at best. Unless you show us a case of (1) the Pope deposing by mere will, with absolutely no regard for canon law, and (2) the Pope deposing a bishop not within his own Latin Patriarchate, your whole rhetoric is a straw man, I’m afraid.

Who said its not “worth a hoot”. Anytime a bishop (either latin or eastern) acts unilaterally to depose another is an offense against tradition.

This specific portion of our conversation related to the transfer of bishops. You are saying that transferring bishops is against Tradition? The very foundation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was due to the transfer of a bishop. Are you saying the Church cannot transfer bishops according to the needs of the Church?

And I would like nothing more than to see Metropolitan Philip deposed, but that is not my decision nor is it within my power. His actions have not been justified, however, simply because he remains enthroned. Unlike the church of Rome, this is not normative nor was it ever accepted as the appropriate function of a bishopric.

Funny you should make a remark about “not normative,” especially as the source you cited above plainly says that the deposition of the African bishop was “a rare step.” Thus, it was not normative. So you’ve proven nothing.

I am glad you acknowledge that, but I must ask : what unique "circumstances’ warrant acting as an absolute monarch over which the entire church must obey?

Heretical groups, secular rulers wanting to control the Church, local bishops siding with secular rulers, making secular national interests more important than the unity of Faith. The heresy(?) of phyletism has been such a constant and historic feature of Eastern Orthodoxy that it is probably strange to you that the Western Church would and could react so strongly against secular, nationalist interests.

What business does the bishop of Rome have in controlling the affairs of the church in Britain or the church in America? I would hardly call those “local” churches.

For one, Britain is historically part of the Latin Patriarchate. Second, America was missionized almost exclusively by missionaries of the Latin Patriarchate. Your question reflects that problem of phyletism within EO’xy I mentioned earlier. Besides, “control” would not be the right word to describe the relationship between Rome and her daughter Churches. There is a good measure of autonomy in the Latin Churches. As I understand it, “control” would more properly reflect the relations between the MP and the daughter churches of the ROC?

What straw man argument have I made? I have listed modern examples of the pope deposing bishops at will. Make of it what you wish.

Your examples were straw men.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Gabriel of 12,

Sure:blush: You are wrong to assume “my belief’s”, much of how you relate things here never touches the Orthodox Catholic faith, but only semantics protesting the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith with a new Orthodox protestant approach, which never reveals a True Orthodox Catholic Faith. As the time arises, I hope to expose this exchange with you God willing

But first, There is something that troubles me from Orthodox posters here. It appears something new is being introduced in Orthodoxy, tha I have never heard of being used before. Context from ECF’s commentaries is taken out of place to believe that every body or every bishop is Peter? Or all bishops have some sort of apostolic succession to Peter and His faith? Does’nt this new Orthodox teaching go against all Orthodoxy who claim to their Apostolic successors in St.Andrew, St.Mark, St.James, St.Thomas, etc…

It sounds like you Orthodox are playing with words and introducing something foreign to Orthodoxy. Is there any Church council stating that every bishop is Peter or has Peter’s faith? Because I sure would not have wanted Peter’s faith who denied Jesus 3 times. And Peter was not the only one to profess Jesus as the Son of God. God chose Simon to reveal who Jesus was as a sign for Jesus to build His Church upon Peter, Not Nathaneal, not the Samaritan woman, not the Centurion etc…

The fact is, the Orthodox have no patristic proof for this novel idea that all bishops are successors of St. Peter. Trust me. I’ve been on the other side of the fence. The pretended “proof” comes from St. Cyprian, but if you ask them for a direct quote that states, “all bishops are successors of St. Peter” they will not be able to give you one.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

But first, There is something that troubles me from Orthodox posters here. It appears something new is being introduced in Orthodoxy, tha I have never heard of being used before. Context from ECF’s commentaries is taken out of place to believe that every body or every bishop is Peter? Or all bishops have some sort of apostolic succession to Peter and His faith? Does’nt this new Orthodox teaching go against all Orthodoxy who claim to their Apostolic successors in St.Andrew, St.Mark, St.James, St.Thomas, etc…

Actually both are correct and completely compatible (and patristic for that matter). There is certainly a concept of succession on the basis of the foundation of a see. For example, the patriarch of Alexandria is the successor to St. Mark, Jerusalem is of St. James, and Antioch is the descendant of St. Peter. Rome was founded by both St. Peter and St. Paul (who the fathers teach, were equal in authority). In another sense, because St. Peter held primacy, he serves as an archetype for all holder of any sort of primacy, thus all bishops can claim to be his successors. I already posted this passage, but I shall post it again. St. Cyprian says :

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that* the Church is founded upon the bishops**, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith*”

Both approaches are correct, and neither contradict the other.

It sounds like you Orthodox are playing with words and introducing something foreign to Orthodoxy. Is there any Church council stating that every bishop is Peter or has Peter’s faith? Because I sure would not have wanted Peter’s faith who denied Jesus 3 times. And Peter was not the only one to profess Jesus as the Son of God. God chose Simon to reveal who Jesus was as a sign for Jesus to build His Church upon Peter, Not Nathaneal, not the Samaritan woman, not the Centurion etc…

Church council? Not that I have read. Do you know of any council that states Rome is the sole successor to St. Peter?

So to make an assumption that all bishops are succeeded from Peter, goes against Apostolic succession teaching especially Orthodox who make the claim to an apostle. So which is it? Do Orthodox make a direct apostolic succession to an original Apostle? Or are we to accept your new Orthodox teaching that every bishop now succeeds from Peter and or Peter’s faith? If this is the Orthodox new protestant argument against the Pope, then I have lost all respect to this new change in Orthodoxy which originally begins her Catholic faith to an original apostle like the Bishop of Rome who succeeds with unbroken apostolic succession to our present day Pope. Are all ECF’s revealing such a claim as an apostolic successor to Peter? Or is this wishful thinking from the Orthodox camp?

Actually both concepts are correct in different ways (in the same sense that the Church has two priesthoods - a sacramental priesthood and a priesthood of believers). The fathers speak of both. Pope St. Leo states :

“Whatsoever you shall bind on earth, it shall have been bound in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose, shall have been loosed in heaven”: "This power is confided to him in a special manner, because the type of Peter is proposed to all the pastors of the Church. Therefore the privilege of Peter dwells wherever judgement is given with his equity"

I can understand one claiming to Peter’s faith as Rock, but Jesus did not build His Church upon Peter’s faith, He built upon Peter = Rock= Cephas.

Again, you contradict paristics. St. Augustine :

“In Peter, which means Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the Rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ. So this disciple is called Rocky from the Rock, like a Christian is from Christ. Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be understood. Christ, you see, built His Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer”.

So I have problems with the Orthodox posters making this claim, using one paragraph from an ECF out of context who makes mention of this, but is never revealed as an apostolic Orthodox teaching for the first 1000 years of Church history.

If the quotes I have provided are out-of-context, and thus I have failed to convey the author’s meaning, then by all means correct me. You cannot simply claim they are taken out of context, then refuse to offer an alternative interpretation.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Sure:blush: You are wrong to assume “my belief’s”, much of how you relate things here never touches the Orthodox Catholic faith, but only semantics protesting the One Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith with a new Orthodox protestant approach, which never reveals a True Orthodox Catholic Faith. As the time arises, I hope to expose this exchange with you God willing

But first, There is something that troubles me from Orthodox posters here. It appears something new is being introduced in Orthodoxy, tha I have never heard of being used before. Context from ECF’s commentaries is taken out of place to believe that every body or every bishop is Peter? Or all bishops have some sort of apostolic succession to Peter and His faith? Does’nt this new Orthodox teaching go against all Orthodoxy who claim to their Apostolic successors in St.Andrew, St.Mark, St.James, St.Thomas, etc…

It sounds like you Orthodox are playing with words and introducing something foreign to Orthodoxy. Is there any Church council stating that every bishop is Peter or has Peter’s faith? Because I sure would not have wanted Peter’s faith who denied Jesus 3 times. And Peter was not the only one to profess Jesus as the Son of God. God chose Simon to reveal who Jesus was as a sign for Jesus to build His Church upon Peter, Not Nathaneal, not the Samaritan woman, not the Centurion etc…

So to make an assumption that all bishops are succeeded from Peter, goes against Apostolic succession teaching especially Orthodox who make the claim to an apostle. So which is it? Do Orthodox make a direct apostolic succession to an original Apostle? Or are we to accept your new Orthodox teaching that every bishop now succeeds from Peter and or Peter’s faith? If this is the Orthodox new protestant argument against the Pope, then I have lost all respect to this new change in Orthodoxy which originally begins her Catholic faith to an original apostle like the Bishop of Rome who succeeds with unbroken apostolic succession to our present day Pope. Are all ECF’s revealing such a claim as an apostolic successor to Peter? Or is this wishful thinking from the Orthodox camp?

I can understand one claiming to Peter’s faith as Rock, but Jesus did not build His Church upon Peter’s faith, He built upon Peter = Rock= Cephas.

So I have problems with the Orthodox posters making this claim, using one paragraph from an ECF out of context who makes mention of this, but is never revealed as an apostolic Orthodox teaching for the first 1000 years of Church history.

Can you give me when your Orthodoxy began teaching this from scripture and when did all the ECF’s agree to being “Peter” or of Peters faith? Because when is Peter’s faith ever Rock? It was Simon bar jona who was renamed “Rock” not his faith, his faith proved a sign from heaven because Peter lacked faith to the extent of being called “satan” immediately after recieving the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. Thank God, Jesus never left Peter and His Church.

Peace be with you

Strange, what I witness is typically the opposite of what you describe. The Roman Catholic apologists are the ones who love to take quotations from the Church Fathers out of the context of their lives. There is a reason why Orthodox Christians who are looking to study the Church Fathers in depth are encouraged first to read about their lives, then their works. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[Mark_of_Ephesus]

You have yet to cite a single instance when these axioms were exercised by the Pope during the Middle Ages.

Cases of bishops being deposed - from New Advent :

Bishop Gebhard had been deposed by the papal authority of Pope Lucius II :

newadvent.org/cathen/09412a.htm

**The Metropolitans of York and Mainz are deposed by Pope Eugene III **

newadvent.org/cathen/05599a.htm

Pope Clement VI deposed Henry of Virneburg, Archbishop of Mainz

newadvent.org/cathen/04023a.htm

A few cases of popes deposing emperors :

saints.sqpn.com/ncd02654.htm

Shall I go on?

It was about concerns regarding "grave mismanagement "(and other complaints from the diocese) according to the article, which are canonical grounds for deposition. Just because the letter of deposition did not cite the canon does not mean there was none that justified the action. Further, the article states that “all available options were exhausted.” So there was no “deposition by mere will” going on here. This would be an example of a straw man.

No straw man here. I am not contesting the grounds of deposition. Both bishops I have listed were certainly worthy candidates for removal, but deposition through papal means is an abuse. A synod of bishops should have been convened to deal with the situation.

According to the article, there had been ongoing talks between the bishop and the Vatican for five years. So there is no evidence of “deposition by mere will” here either. The man was obviously a disobedient bishop promoting unorthodox teaching. This would be another straw man.

Again, the guilt of the bishops does not justify papal action. Show me a canon from the early church that authorizes the pope to remove bishops at will.

Regardless of the amount of time passed and the number of options tried, the ability of the pope to remove bishops without approval from others is an instance of him acting “at will”.

In any case, these are actions of a Patriarch for his Latin Patriarchate, at best. Unless you show us a case of (1) the Pope deposing by mere will, with absolutely no regard for canon law, and (2) the Pope deposing a bishop not within his own Latin Patriarchate, your whole rhetoric is a straw man, I’m afraid.

I fail to see what number 2 has to do with the conversation entirely. A patriarch does not possess the ability to depose a bishop within his church (he must act through a synod).

This specific portion of our conversation related to the transfer of bishops. You are saying that transferring bishops is against Tradition? The very foundation of the Patriarchate of Constantinople was due to the transfer of a bishop. Are you saying the Church cannot transfer bishops according to the needs of the Church?

No, you have misunderstood my words. I have no problems with either deposition or transfer. What I take issue with, is the notion that the pope should be granted such powers. There is no patristic authority to support such a thing.

Funny you should make a remark about “not normative,” especially as the source you cited above plainly says that the deposition of the African bishop was “a rare step.” Thus, it was not normative. So you’ve proven nothing.

No, these are two completely different situations. The abuses of +PHILIP are not normative in the sense that they have no precedent in tradition or the canons. The abuses of the pope, however, are accepted as a normative power (even if rarely invoked).

Heretical groups, secular rulers wanting to control the Church, local bishops siding with secular rulers, making secular national interests more important than the unity of Faith. The heresy(?) of phyletism has been such a constant and historic feature of Eastern Orthodoxy that it is probably strange to you that the Western Church would and could react so strongly against secular, nationalist interests.

And the Church encountered all of these in the early centuries of the Church, yet the bishops never felt the need to grant such powers to one particular bishop.

For one, Britain is historically part of the Latin Patriarchate. Second, America was missionized almost exclusively by missionaries of the Latin Patriarchate. Your question reflects that problem of phyletism within EO’xy I mentioned earlier. Besides, “control” would not be the right word to describe the relationship between Rome and her daughter Churches. There is a good measure of autonomy in the Latin Churches. As I understand it, “control” would more properly reflect the relations between the MP and the daughter churches of the ROC?

No, the MP does not “control” ROCOR. Unlike the Latin church, the Moscow Patriarch does not possess the ability to depose ROCOR bishops, nor does the Patriarch of Antioch possess the ability to despose Philip, etc.

 

[jam070406]

I’m not sure the point of this thread. Mark, we get it, you reject the Papacy. Your view differs and you are not open to differing viewpoints. What is your goal here? Have you read the forum rule on proselytizing?

 

[Hesychios]

Regardless of whether the document was promulgated, its influence on the thoughts and actions of the medieval popes cannot be denied.

Just this year :

catholicnewsagency.com/news/congo-bishop-reportedly-removed-by-pope-for-serious-mismanagement/

theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/bishop-of-toowoomba-william-morris-claims-unfair-dismissal-by-pope/story-e6frg6nf-1226048036161

Who said its not “worth a hoot”. Anytime a bishop (either latin or eastern) acts unilaterally to depose another is an offense against tradition.

And I would like nothing more than to see Metropolitan Philip deposed, but that is not my decision nor is it within my power. His actions have not been justified, however, simply because he remains enthroned. Unlike the church of Rome, this is not normative nor was it ever accepted as the appropriate function of a bishopric.

I am glad you acknowledge that, but I must ask : what unique "circumstances’ warrant acting as an absolute monarch over which the entire church must obey?

What business does the bishop of Rome have in controlling the affairs of the church in Britain or the church in America? I would hardly call those “local” churches.

What straw man argument have I made? I have listed modern examples of the pope deposing bishops at will. Make of it what you wish.

I recall bishop Hunthausen of Seattle in the USA removed as well.

Now the argument can be made that these people are incompetent, or too liberal or whatever. That brings into question the entire selection process, which is also unnaturally flawed by this centralization. The system is ‘worked’ by candidates who are able to make friends in the Vatican, usually through getting a chance to study there.

So a young man who can wrangle a chance to study in Rome has a good shot at becoming a Monsignor at a fairly young age (and a head start in moving up), one who studies locally has a good shot at becoming a pastor in a backwater little parish in about ten years and not much better in a lifetime.

This is not a system that has a habit of routinely pulling ordinary monks out of a monastery (where they should expect to spend the rest of their lives) because of their reputation for holiness. This is a system that advances scholars and administrators who develop political savvy and network their way into higher appointments. The focus is entirely different. Centralization kills the character of the local church and it loses the ability to take care of itself.