Pope Fiction

[holdencaulfield]

Look, it’s merely a cop-out to say that Matthew 28:16 does not support the Papacy. It’s just one of the many Biblical quotes that prove our point. Billions of people have come to this realization, including some of your Orthodox brethren, that have returned to the faith. None, of the Early Church Fathers explicitly stated this, however because they all knew what was true. I’m sure without a doubt that there is not one Church Father, who said that every single Bishop of the Pentarchy was absolutely equal. Exactly like that, taken in context. Finally to prove my point.

St. Ignatius of Antioch

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force” (Letter to the Romans 3:1)

 

[ForeverAdam]

Adam, the Catholic Church has not prohibited belief that the rock of Matthew 16:18 is Peter’s confession, only the belief that the rock was only his confession. So for example, St. Chrysostom, with his multifacted interpretations, would be perfectly in line with Church teaching were he alive today.

My argument is that if the Church of the first millennium had believed that it was part of the Faith that St. Peter is the “this rock” of Matt. 16:18 that it would be highly unlikely that the same Church would have tolerated any exposition of Matt. 16:18, which leaves out this essential part of the interpretation (as do many writings of the Fathers). It is evident that the liberty of interpretation expressed by the Fathers in their exposition of Matt. 16:18 bespeaks a different ecclesial landscape than modern Catholicism. Actually, their freedom of exposition looks more like the Orthodox Church.

Secondly, as you know, any Catholic who lived before something was definitively put forth was free to hold that belief. So even if the Church had restricted the passage to one meaning, it would not affect the fathers.

Free to hold error? My friend, it is an innovation of your Church (and a fairly recent one at that) that only dogmas comprise the “Faith.” “Tradition” has always been the faith of the Church, not simply dogmas (the Holy Fathers speak of the truth and authority of Tradition and, in fact, dogmas receive their authority by being part of this same Tradition). Dogmas have always been seen as exceptional defenses of the Faith, not the only sure revelations of the Faith.

Finally, it is erroneous to suggest that what is believed today must match exactly that which was believed by the fathers.

Erroneous, seriously? If this is so how could the following Fathers speak so confidently of the rule that Holy Tradition has in our Faith:

St. Irenaeus:

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

St. Irenaeus is saying that the Church guards Holy Tradition, that she teaches those things she has received, hands them down and that it is this Tradition that is taught and handed down that has authority. In other words, the constant Faith that the Church receives from her Fathers is the authority we follow. You just denied that the Church is bound to the beliefs of the past and had the nerve to call opposition to this belief “erroneous.” I see a major contradiction between your Church’s thought and that of St. Irenaeus, who sounds more like Orthodoxy than Catholicism.

Origen:

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Origen says that those who think differently from their predecessors (in other words, those whose faith doesn’t match the faith of the fathers, perfectly) is not in the truth. Sounds like Origen also condemns your Church’s error of development of doctrine.

(cont . . .)

 

[ForeverAdam]

Doctrine does develop over time. St. Cyprian believed that heretics must be rebaptized. He was not a heretic to do so, until it had been settled.

It is correct to state that the term, “heretic” isn’t generally applied to a person until an ecumenical council (which, btw, was how St. Augustine defended the orthodoxy of St. Cyprian). However, the actual faith of the Church doesn’t become known at ecumenical Councils. Rather, it is defended at such councils. Under your paradigm, one wonders how St. Irenaeus could condemn the heretical doctrines of Marcion with such authority even though he could point to no dogmas that refuted Marcion’s positions. It looks like he viewed the Faith as being all that was passed down, not just dogmas and looked to Holy Tradition as the revelation of the Faith and not only the ecumenical Council.

The specific doctrines of Chalcedon and Nicaea were not all believed by the earliest fathers, at least not explicitly. Some of the teachings that you accept from the Councils were rejected by fathers who had lived beforehand, yet these men were not heretics.

I differ on this, but there is no reason to debate this. My concern is with your principle that the “pillar and ground of the truth” is, herself, unable to give all the truth of God to people in every age, which principle the Vincentian canon of the ancient Church clearly affirms and operates on.

The faith was delivered once and for all to the saints, but it was delivered in a box, a box which has been gradually unpacked over the centuries by the Councils.

If this is true, then no Father could affirm that Holy Tradition was passed down through teaching (rather it would be passed down in an abstract sense of “be faithful to the Faith, whatever we may discover it contains”). Compare this idea with that of St. Athanasios the Great:

“In accordance with the Apostolic faith delivered to us by tradition from the Fathers, I have delivered the tradition, without inventing anything extraneous to it. What I have learned, that I inscribed, comfortably with the Holy Scriptures”

Does this quotation from St. Athanasios sound like a man who thought that he was entrusted with Holy Tradition, but given only partial understanding of its contents? Nope, for he expressly says that he didn’t invent anything not present in it, or taught anything that he himself wasn’t taught. No “development” is alluded to here. On the contrary, it stands condemned by this testimony of St. Athanasios and would have no chance of being permitted under the principles he enunciated. I side with St. Athanasios, do you?

God bless,

Adam

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adam,

Compare this idea with that of St. Athanasios the Great:

“In accordance with the Apostolic faith delivered to us by tradition from the Fathers, I have delivered the tradition, without inventing anything extraneous to it. What I have learned, that I inscribed, comfortably with the Holy Scriptures”

Does this quotation from St. Athanasios sound like a man who thought that he was entrusted with Holy Tradition, but given only partial understanding of its contents? Nope, for he expressly says that he didn’t invent anything not present in it, or taught anything that he himself wasn’t taught. No “development” is ]alluded to here. On the contrary, it stands condemned by this testimony of St. Athanasios and would have no chance of being permitted under the principles he enunciated. I side with St. Athanasios, do you?

Naturally, the Catholic Church agrees with St. Athanasius. Though the Church is infallible in teaching, she is not omnicient nor prescient. At every stage when development of doctrine occurs, the Church resounds with the voice of St. Athanasius that
“I have delivered the tradition, without inventing anything extraneous to it.” She has a self-recognition that what she is explaining further on the basis of Tradition is consonant with that self-same Tradition.

Thus it was that homoousios became part of the theological language of the Church. It explained concisely what the Church had believed all along. Nevertheless, it was new terminology, and was initially questioned by many orthodox Fathers by virtue of the fact that it was new terminology. The same with the monothelite controversy. The same with the iconoclastic controversy. A new challenge occurs in the Church. She looks at her Tradition and makes a judgment based on that Tradition - not necessarily that it is contained ad dictum in Tradition, but that it is consonant with that Tradition.

The same occurs with regard to the new moral dilemmas that technology and science has brought to bear on the mind of the Church. These are new challenges for the Church. As always, the Church will look to Tradition to address these challenges, and the answer will NOT be to appeal ad dictum to the past, but to determine whether the present is consonant with the Tradition from the past.

BTW, St, Vincent is often misquoted by those who do not accept that doctrine develops. If you wish to pursue the matter, perhaps a new thread would be appropriate.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Lazerlike42]

It is correct to state that the term, “heretic” isn’t generally applied to a person until an ecumenical council (which, btw, was how St. Augustine defended the orthodoxy of St. Cyprian). However, the actual faith of the Church doesn’t become known at ecumenical Councils. Rather, it is defended at such councils. Under your paradigm, one wonders how St. Irenaeus could condemn the heretical doctrines of Marcion with such authority even though he could point to no dogmas that refuted Marcion’s positions. It looks like he viewed the Faith as being all that was passed down, not just dogmas and looked to Holy Tradition as the revelation of the Faith and not only the ecumenical Council.

I’ve addressed this above.

I differ on this, but there is no reason to debate this. My concern is with your principle that the “pillar and ground of the truth” is, herself, unable to give all the truth of God to people in every age, which principle the Vincentian canon of the ancient Church clearly affirms and operates on.

I’ve quoted what St. Vincet actually said above.

If this is true, then no Father could affirm that Holy Tradition was passed down through teaching (rather it would be passed down in an abstract sense of “be faithful to the Faith, whatever we may discover it contains”). Compare this idea with that of St. Athanasios the Great:

“In accordance with the Apostolic faith delivered to us by tradition from the Fathers, I have delivered the tradition, without inventing anything extraneous to it. What I have learned, that I inscribed, comfortably with the Holy Scriptures”

Does this quotation from St. Athanasios sound like a man who thought that he was entrusted with Holy Tradition, but given only partial understanding of its contents? Nope, for he expressly says that he didn’t invent anything not present in it, or taught anything that he himself wasn’t taught. No “development” is alluded to here. On the contrary, it stands condemned by this testimony of St. Athanasios and would have no chance of being permitted under the principles he enunciated. I side with St. Athanasios, do you?

God bless,

Adam

I’ll defer to mardukm’s response.

 

[Lazerlike42]

My argument is that if the Church of the first millennium had believed that it was part of the Faith that St. Peter is the “this rock” of Matt. 16:18 that it would be highly unlikely that the same Church would have tolerated any exposition of Matt. 16:18, which leaves out this essential part of the interpretation (as do many writings of the Fathers). It is evident that the liberty of interpretation expressed by the Fathers in their exposition of Matt. 16:18 bespeaks a different ecclesial landscape than modern Catholicism. Actually, their freedom of exposition looks more like the Orthodox Church.

There were some fathers who left out explicit teaching on the Eucharistic presence of Christ, while explicitly asserting its symbolism. One could find no more essential component of the faith than this. The early Church clearly permitted this, and there were fathers that clearly saw no problem with it.

Free to hold error? My friend, it is an innovation of your Church (and a fairly recent one at that) that only dogmas comprise the “Faith.” “Tradition” has always been the faith of the Church, not simply dogmas (the Holy Fathers speak of the truth and authority of Tradition and, in fact, dogmas receive their authority by being part of this same Tradition). Dogmas have always been seen as exceptional defenses of the Faith, not the only sure revelations of the Faith.

I’m sorry for the misunderstanding and my lack of clarity. I was not referring to dogmas alone. I’m referring to any definitive pronouncement on something. It didn’t take a solemn pronouncement for Cyprian’s view on rebaptism to be deemed heretical, nor did it take the creation of a dogma for the New Testament canon to be decided. These were things - particularly the latter - which remained free for discussion until such time as someone in authority declared otherwise. That’s my point. I’ll expound on it below; for the sake of conciseness, please respond there, unless your response must be directed towards this section in particular.

Erroneous, seriously? If this is so how could the following Fathers speak so confidently of the rule that Holy Tradition has in our Faith:

St. Irenaeus:

“As I said before, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although she is disseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and the same heart; and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. For, while the languages of the world are diverse, nevertheless, the authority of the tradition is one and the same” (Against Heresies 1:10:2 [A.D. 189]).

St. Irenaeus is saying that the Church guards Holy Tradition, that she teaches those things she has received, hands them down and that it is this Tradition that is taught and handed down that has authority. In other words, the constant Faith that the Church receives from her Fathers is the authority we follow. You just denied that the Church is bound to the beliefs of the past and had the nerve to call opposition to this belief “erroneous.” I see a major contradiction between your Church’s thought and that of St. Irenaeus, who sounds more like Orthodoxy than Catholicism.

St. Irenaeus doesn’t rule out the development of doctrine here, he merely asserts that the Tradition handed down is indeed kept safe and does indeed have authority. He couldn’t possibly have meant what you suggest he does. There were many beliefs held by some of the early fathers which neither the Catholic nor the Eastern Churches, nor indeed the Church of 500 or 600, held. Some beliefs were abandoned as not having belonged to the deposit of faith. Others were introduced as having belonged to it. In fact, at the time of Irenaeus, the books of Hebrews and of the Apocalypse weren’t even considered Scripture by most. That is an entire set of teachings which were amended to the deposit at some later time. Now one might argue that these beliefs were already professed anyways, but there’s simply no proof for that; it’s just a contention.

Furthermore, he says in the same work, “Constantly [the Tradition] has its youth renewed by the Spirit of God, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel; and it causes the vessel containing it also to be rejuvenated.” (3,24,1)

 

[Lazerlike42]

Origen:

“Although there are many who believe that they themselves hold to the teachings of Christ, there are yet some among them who think differently from their predecessors. The teaching of the Church has indeed been handed down through an order of succession from the apostles and remains in the churches even to the present time. That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition” (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:2 [A.D. 225]).

Origen says that those who think differently from their predecessors (in other words, those whose faith doesn’t match the faith of the fathers, perfectly) is not in the truth. Sounds like Origen also condemns your Church’s error of development of doctrine.

Origen doesn’t say that " those whose faith doesn’t match the faith of the fathers, perfectly" are in error. He says that that is believed which is not at variance with what has been handed down. In fact, he explicitly rejects your interpretation in the very next section of the work:

***“It ought to be known, however, that the holy Apostles, in preaching the faith of Christ, treated with the utmost clarity of certain matters which they believed to be of absolute necessity to all believers, even to those who seemed somewhat dull in regard to the investigation of divine knowledge. Naturally, they left the grounds of their assertions to be investigated by those who would deserve the excellent gifts of the Spirit, and to those who would receive in a pre-eminent degree through the same Holy Spirit the gifts of language, of wisdom, and of knowledge. In other matters, indeed, they stated that certain things are so; but as to the how and wherefore of their being so, they were silent. They did this, indeed, so that such of their successors as were more studious and who would be lovers of wisdom might have a subject of exercise on which to display the fruit of their talents – those persons, I mean, who should prepare themselves to be fit and worthy for the recption of wisdom.”

---

The contention that your making here is really that the deposit of faith was completely explicit by the death of the last Apostle, and that if it wasn’t explicitly professed then, it isn’t a part of the deposit. This simply cannot be sustained. It would rule out, for one, the entire practice of the interpretation of Scripture that was practiced by the fathers. It would present tremendous problems for fathers who introduced new interpretations of this or that Scripture, something that happened all the time.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Many fathers besides Origen contradicted this Eastern Orthodox hypothesis:

***For by heretics hath been vindicated the Catholic Church, and by those that think evil have been proved those that think well. For many things lay hid in the Scriptures: and when heretics had been cut off, with questions they troubled the Church of God: then those things were opened which lay hid, and the will of God was understood… For was the doctrine of the Trinity perfectly expounded upon before the Arians snarled at it? Was repentance perfectly treated before the opposition of the Novatians? Likewise, Baptism was not perfectly understood, before rebaptizers from the outside contradicted; nor even the very oneness of Christ were the doctrines clearly stated which have been stated, save after that this separation began to press upon the weak… - Augustine, Commentary on Psalm 55 ***

The things which then were hidden are now sufficiently revealed by the actual events which have followed. For who can carefully and intelligently consider these things without recognizing them accomplished in Christ? . . . even the heretics yield an advantage to those that make proficiency, according to the apostle’s saying, “There must also be heresies, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” Whence, too, it is elsewhere said, “The son that receives instruction will be wise, and he uses the foolish as his servant.” For while the hot restlessness of heretics stirs questions about many articles of the catholic faith, the necessity of defending them forces us both to investigate them more accurately, to understand them more clearly, and to proclaim them more earnestly; and the question mooted by an adversary becomes the occasion of instruction. - Augustine, City of God, Book 16 Chapter 2

But some one will say. perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to
God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged in itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning… The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide diference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant’s limbs are small, a young man’s large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress. - St. Vincent of Lerins, Commonitorium, Chapter 23, 54-55

It is correct to state that the term, “heretic” isn’t generally applied to a person until an ecumenical council (which, btw, was how St. Augustine defended the orthodoxy of St. Cyprian). However, the actual faith of the Church doesn’t become known at ecumenical Councils. Rather, it is defended at such councils. Under your paradigm, one wonders how St. Irenaeus could condemn the heretical doctrines of Marcion with such authority even though he could point to no dogmas that refuted Marcion’s positions. It looks like he viewed the Faith as being all that was passed down, not just dogmas and looked to Holy Tradition as the revelation of the Faith and not only the ecumenical Council.

I’ve addressed this above.

I differ on this, but there is no reason to debate this. My concern is with your principle that the “pillar and ground of the truth” is, herself, unable to give all the truth of God to people in every age, which principle the Vincentian canon of the ancient Church clearly affirms and operates on.

I’ve quoted what St. Vincet actually said above.

If this is true, then no Father could affirm that Holy Tradition was passed down through teaching (rather it would be passed down in an abstract sense of “be faithful to the Faith, whatever we may discover it contains”). Compare this idea with that of St. Athanasios the Great:

“In accordance with the Apostolic faith delivered to us by tradition from the Fathers, I have delivered the tradition, without inventing anything extraneous to it. What I have learned, that I inscribed, comfortably with the Holy Scriptures”

Does this quotation from St. Athanasios sound like a man who thought that he was entrusted with Holy Tradition, but given only partial understanding of its contents? Nope, for he expressly says that he didn’t invent anything not present in it, or taught anything that he himself wasn’t taught. No “development” is alluded to here. On the contrary, it stands condemned by this testimony of St. Athanasios and would have no chance of being permitted under the principles he enunciated. I side with St. Athanasios, do you?

God bless,

Adam

I’ll defer to mardukm’s response.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

You’re going to have to provide evidence for this, as a mere claim does not suffice.

We need not stop to consider the question why Leo rejected the xxviijth canon of Chalcedon. It is certain that he rejected it and those who wish to see the motive of this rejection considered at length are referred to Quesnel and to the Ballerini; the former affirming that it was because of its encroachments upon the prerogatives of his own see, the latter urging that it was only out of his zeal for the keeping in full force of the Nicene decree.

Leo can never be charged with weakness. His rejection of the canon was absolute and unequivocal. In writing to the Emperor he says that Anatolius only got the See of Constantinople by his consent, that he should behave himself modestly, and that there is no way he can make of Constantinople “an Apostolic See,” and adds that “only from love of peace and for the restoration of the unity of the faith” he has “abstained from annulling this ordination” (Ep. civ.).

To the Empress he wrote with still greater violence: “As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter” (Ep. cv.).

The papal annulling does not appear to have been of much force, for Leo himself confesses, in a letter written about a year later to the Empress Pulcheria (Ep. cxvi.), that the Illyrian bishops had since the council subscribed the xxviiith canon.

The pope had taken occasion in his letter in which he announced his acceptance of the doctrinal decrees of Chalcedon to go on further and express his rejection of the canons. This part of the letter was left unread throughout the Greek empire, and Leo complains of it to Julian of Cos (Ep. cxxvij.).

Leo never gave over his opposition, although the breach was made up between him and Anatolius by an apparently insincere letter on the part of the latter (Ep. cxxxii.). Leo’s successors followed his example in rejecting the canons, both the IIId of Constantinople and the XXVIIIth of Chalcedon, but as M. l’abbé Duchesne so admirably says: “Mais leur voix fut peu écoutée; on leur accorda sans doute des satisfactions, mais de pure cérémonie.” But Justinian acknowledged the Constantinopolitan and Chalcedonian rank of Constantinople in his CXXXIst Novel. (cap. j.), and the Synod in Trullo in canon xxxvj. renewed exactly canon xxviij. of Chalcedon. Moreover the Seventh Ecumenical with the approval of the Papal Legates gave a general sanction to all the canons accepted by the Trullan Synod. And finally in 1215 the Fourth Council of the Lateran in its Vth Canon acknowledged Constantinople’s rank as immediately after Rome, but this was while Constantinople was in the hands of the Latins! Subsequently at Florence the second rank, in accordance with the canons of I. Constantinople and of Chalcedon (which had been annulled by Leo) was given to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople, and so the opposition of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon which Leo declared to be “inspired by the Holy Ghost” and “valid to the end of time” (Ep. cvi.), was set at nought by Leo’s successor in the Apostolic See.
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xviii.xxix.html

The point is that at the time of Chalcedon, the archbishop of Constantinople - the person who would be most benefited bycanon 28 - asserted that it must be approved by Leo’s authority. In other words, in the 450s, the belief existed that an ecumenical council must be approved by the pope, and so any claims that such a belief never existed until later is contrary to the witness of history.

And the rejection of that view is more than witnessed by history.

For instance, the Patriarch of Constantinople presided over the next Ecumenical Council over Pope Vigilius’ objections, though it would seem that the patriarchs who, according to the rejection of Chalcedon 28, should have preceeded him.

If you’re referring to Victor’s stance on the date of Easter, it is really not relevant. Many protested against Victor’s assertions, but most recognized his authority to make them. In fact, when he requested that local councils meet to decide in favor of his stance on the date, not only did councils convene all over the place, but most came down on the side of Victor’s stance.

And yet they rejected his “excommunication” of Asia, and rebuked him for it.

As regards Gregory, he was making a far greater and more important claim, and yet there was no protest against it. Even if the point were to be conceded on Victor, it would merely mean that as early as the 500s there was a consensus that Gregory’s claims were true.

St. John kept the title EP, over Rome’s objections. And Gregory couldn’t even control Italy, as Acquileia showed.

 

[holdencaulfield]

I have completely lost track of what we are talking about. What are we arguing about.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I am referring to the claim that Prima Justiniana was in the Patriarchate of Rome.

Another papal vicariate was that of the bishops of Thessalonica, whose jurisdiction extended over Illyria. The special duty of this vicariate was to protect the rights of the Holy See over the district of Eastern Illyria, which belonged to the Eastern Empire. Leo bestowed the vicariate upon Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, just as Pope Siricius had formerly entrusted it to Bishop Anysius. The vicar was to consecrate the metropolitans, to assemble in a synod all bishops of the Province of Eastern Illyria, to oversee their administration of their office; but the most important matters were to be submitted to Rome (epp. v, vi, xiii). But Anastasius of Thessalonica used his authority in an arbitrary and despotic manner, so much so that he was severely reproved by Leo, who sent him fuller directions for the exercise of his office (ep. xiv).

newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm
Justiniana Prima was serving as capital of Illyria, instead of its traditional capital of Thessalonika.

John, the bishop of Larissa for one.

Larissa, a city of Thessaly, another city under Rome.

By whom? Any later claim would, apart from very convincing evidence to the contrary, constitute merely an attempt to deny a traditional belief of the Church, in the same way that the heresies of Luther and Calvin, though coming later, were not corrections on truth, but abominations of it. This was the Patriarch of Constantinople here making this assertion, against such a canon as would benefit him. If it is so that the doctrine of universal jurisdiction was foreign to the early Church why did so prominent a bishop profess it?

Already answered above.

The point is the contention was made. It is easy to dismiss a fellow like Anatolius as one lone voice that was corrected, but when we start to pile voice after voice, it becomes much harder to do this.

Fortunately, we don’t have that problem. The voices of those those acclaimed canon XXVIII, including Anatolius, have drowned out that isolated shouting from Rome.

Furthermore, I have read that even amongst the East Constantinople’s claim to being an ecumenical council dates to Chalcedon.

Yes, that is often claimed by Rome. But it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. The council of 394 followed c.3, and all the Eastern patriarchates were there.

This really doesn’t seem relevant. In what way is this an argument against the papacy?

It’s an argument about the Pope claiming that Constantinople c. 3 is invalid, 60 years after the fact, particularly as it was cited by the Pope, criticizing Ephesus II for not following it.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I will say it again, research what and what is not Papal Infallibility. Here is a quote, by a well known Church Father on this subject.

Pope St. Leo I

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom” (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445])

The patriarch of the West to his suffragans.

Can’t you do better?

btw, it doesn’t say a thing about infallibility.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I will post two quotes, one from a Western Church Father, and the other from an Eastern Church Father.

Pope St. Damasus

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

St. Cyril of Alexandria

“They (the Apostles) strove to learn through one, that preeminent one, Peter.” (Cyril, Ib. 1. ix. p. 736).

For starters, can you give a LITTLE context of St. Cyril’s quote?

In particular, what you have excerpted doesn’t say a thing about a charism passed from Peter to only his successors at Rome, important as St. Gregory writes to St. Cyril’s successor claiming that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch are one Petrine See.

 

[holdencaulfield]

“Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery. . . . [You, my brothers], must realize with us, of course, that the Apostolic See—out of reverence for it, I mean—has on countless occasions been reported to in consultation by bishops even of your own province [Vienne]. And through the appeal of various cases to this see, decisions already made have been either revoked or confirmed, as dictated by long-standing custom” (Letters 10:2–3 [A.D. 445])

The first piece of text I put in italics shows how St. Peter has a Primacy over the other Patriarchs. So far you can’t argue with that or leave it open to another form of interpretation.

Now we see that St. Peter is the head of the Church in which all the other gifts flow. Because authority flows from the head Church in Rome, all the other Churches have there authority from Rome. Rome has control over them.

Lastly we can see that Rome has long been exercising it’s authority over the other Churches.

Papal Infallibility merely means that since Rome is THE Church it can teach correctly.

 

[Isa_Almisry]

No it has not, originally you followed the Bishop of Rome, you do not anymore, you originally had the Pentarch, now you have 15 Patriarchs, and Churches like the American Orthodox Church didn’t even exist. I don’t know what “change” is however that looks like change to me. You never had your Liturgy in English, you do now.

We also never had the dogma that the Liturgy had to be in a language the people didn’t speak, but held in their language.

You used to hold that too, and then turned your back on it for over a thousand years.

Rome tried to lead us off a cliff. We refused to follow.

We had Two Patriarchates in the West, Alexandria and Antioch. Constantinople was created a patriarchate, and Jerusalem elevated. Cyprus was autocephalous, although not a patriarchate.
The process has continued, and has not changed.

At one time the Church at Rome didn’t exist, but she existed in the East. But someone said “go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” No change.

 

[holdencaulfield]

For starters, can you give a LITTLE context of St. Cyril’s quote?

In particular, what you have excerpted doesn’t say a thing about a charism passed from Peter to only his successors at Rome, important as St. Gregory writes to St. Cyril’s successor claiming that Rome, Alexandria and Antioch are one Petrine See.

Comment on my quote from St. Damasus.

 

[holdencaulfield]

We also never had the dogma that the Liturgy had to be in a language the people didn’t speak, but held in their language.

You used to hold that too, and then turned your back on it for over a thousand years.

We have tried to keep the Liturgy the same for thousands of years. Now one can go to a Liturgy in any language.

Rome tried to lead us off a cliff. We refused to follow.

I don’t understand what Rome did that tried to destroy your Church.

We had Two Patriarchates in the West, Alexandria and Antioch. Constantinople was created a patriarchate, and Jerusalem elevated. Cyprus was autocephalous, although not a patriarchate.
The process has continued, and has not changed.

Do some research Constantinople held primacy over the other three Sees.

At one time the Church at Rome didn’t exist, but she existed in the East. But someone said “go therefore and make disciples of all nations…” No change.

What?

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I have and I don’t see anything wrong with it,

So three popes/supreme pontiffs doesn’t bother you? So much for the unity of St. Peter.

historically the Eastern Churches were in Communion with the Bishop of Rome, you disliked the supreme leadership of him

no, just the arrogance of ultramontanism

and jumped ship.

No, just didn’t sink with that ship, but stayed the course.

I don’t see how you are any different than the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Neither do I. Guess that’s why EO/OO unity is talked about as an enevitability.

When things don’t go your way you jump ship.

Stay the course. That’s the Orthodox way.

By the way there are very many Eastern Churches, both Coptic and Orthodox that have reunited with Rome.

You mean united to Rome, usually in the wake of a Crusade or state persecusion of the Orthodox. I’m not impressed.

 

[ForeverAdam]

Lazerlike42:

“St. Irenaeus doesn’t rule out the development of doctrine here, he merely asserts that the Tradition handed down is indeed kept safe and does indeed have authority. He couldn’t possibly have meant what you suggest he does. There were many beliefs held by some of the early fathers which neither the Catholic nor the Eastern Churches, nor indeed the Church of 500 or 600, held. Some beliefs were abandoned as not having belonged to the deposit of faith. Others were introduced as having belonged to it. In fact, at the time of Irenaeus, the books of Hebrews and of the Apocalypse weren’t even considered Scripture by most. That is an entire set of teachings, which were amended to the deposit at some later time. Now one might argue that these beliefs were already professed anyways, but there’s simply no proof for that; it’s just a contention.”

The books of Scripture don’t exactly amount to a “belief” (except for Protestants). The Church has always affirmed that Holy Tradition exists independently of Holy Scripture, and that the latter only bears witness to the teachings found in the former. And I’m sorry, but the affirmation that you subjectively see doctrines not in the early Church, cannot be used as an argument against the Orthodox Church’s objective interpretation of St. Irenaeus’ words. We must discuss the principle before we can the applications. And I would argue that according to the ancient teaching of the Church a sign of a “new teaching” is identical to that of heresy.

Lazerlike42:

Furthermore, he says in the same work, “Constantly [the Tradition] has its youth renewed by the Spirit of God, as if it were some precious deposit in an excellent vessel; and it causes the vessel containing it also to be rejuvenated.” (3,24,1)

Certainly. We have a concept of “living Tradition” in Orthodoxy. However, the perennial youth of the Church and her Tradition is far from an affirmation that she is continually discovering new teachings. Rather, it refers to her ability to still sanctify souls and bring forth an organic development of the expression of her ancient Faith, as your further quote from St. Vincent of Lerins affirms.

Lazerlike42:

“Origen doesn’t say that " those whose faith doesn’t match the faith of the fathers, perfectly" are in error. He says that that is believed which is not at variance with what has been handed down. In fact, he explicitly rejects your interpretation in the very next section of the work:”

I think you are confusing the “faith” of the Church and the various expressions that this unchangeable faith takes in the life of the Church. You notice that Origen states that the apostles certainly stated that certain teachings are indeed true, thus ensuring that we won’t mis-interpret him to be denying the full transmission and understanding of the Faith, and ensuring that we interpret him as referring to only greater explanations of the fully known truth. This seems to contradict what you stated earlier about our present beliefs not having to approximate the beliefs of the Fathers. If Origen is saying that the apostles (who passed the faith down to us) certainly taught that certain things are so (in other words, the teachings of the Church are to be believed, as belief refers to asserting that things indeed are) and you are saying that our present beliefs don’t have to approximate these ancient beliefs, then there is a contradiction. Besides, Orthodoxy doesn’t teach that the ever-present and always-taught faith of the Church cannot be explained in greater depth. In fact, when I read this quote I thought of the great Cappodocian Fathers who greatly clarified our doctrine of the Holy Trinity. This is a prime example of greater explication of our teachings being given, while the doctrine remains perpetually affirmed.

Lazerlike42:

“The contention that your making here is really that the deposit of faith was completely explicit by the death of the last Apostle, and that if it wasn’t explicitly professed then, it isn’t a part of the deposit. This simply cannot be sustained. It would rule out, for one, the entire practice of the interpretation of Scripture that was practiced by the fathers. It would present tremendous problems for fathers who introduced new interpretations of this or that Scripture, something that happened all the time.”

I’ve never found someone who “believes” in a certain approach to scriptural interpretation. Rather, new approaches to the interpretation of scripture neither add nor subtract (if they are guided by the Church) to our beliefs. They simply aid our beliefs. And new interpretations of biblical verses don’t add or subtract either, as our Faith is based on Holy Tradition, which precedes the formation of the canon of scripture, and is thus not bound to how this scriptural canon is expounded (granted that no interpretation in contradiction to the Faith of the Church is approved).

Lazerlike42:

Many fathers besides Origen contradicted this Eastern Orthodox hypothesis:

(Cont . . .)

 

[Isa_Almisry]

I don’t believe that Pope Honorius ever made any Infallible statements. You Orthodox think that every single word uttered by the Pope is infallible. This is not true. Very little is infallible.

Nothing is infallible.
Yet Lumen Gentium requires you to give assent to his pronouncements, of any sort.