P
prodromos
Guest
There were consequences when any of the 10 commandments were disobeyed and there are consequences when state laws are broken. You must live in a country with no courts or jails.
John
- Status
John
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
This is begging the question. The Fathers were quite clear what happens to someone who tampered with the Creed. And they made no exception for a pope in Rome, let alone a local council way out in Spain.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Spain did not have the authority to change the Nicene Creed. Does the Council of Ephesus explicitly say, that the Bishop of Rome could not change the Creed. Besides there is no actual change other than wording. The Filioque was a popular belief at the time.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Yet they did.
Does the Council of Ephesus explicitly say, that the Bishop of Rome could not change the Creed.
When these things had been read, the holy Synod decreed that it is unlawful for **any man **to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa.
But those who shall dare to compose a different faith, or to introduce or offer it to persons desiring to turn to the acknowledgment of the truth, whether from Heathenism or from Judaism, or from any heresy whatsoever, shall be deposed, if they be bishops or clergymen; bishops from the episcopate and clergymen from the clergy; and if they be laymen, they shall be anathematized.
The pope of Rome is any man, and he be a bishop. So yes.
A publiser in England was fined for leaving out the word “not” in “Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
No actual change other than wording.
What did the Lord say about the wide gate?
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
There’s nothing wrong with drawing good from that which came from something evil. St. Gregory of Nyssa said, “truth passes in the mean between these two conceptions, destroying each heresy, and yet accepting what is useful to it from each” (Chatechetical Orations, 3). If what Constantinople produced was good and true, to reject it would be an offense against goodness and truth, regardless of its origins. I’m not quite sure why you’re arguing from Constantinople however, as it contradicts some of your other arguments, which will be demonstrated below.
I’m sorry for the confusion. Some Arians obeyed him, others did not.
From The Popes: A Concise Biographical History, ed. Eric Young, 1964:
"Though a general council was impossible, he paved the way for such councils by ordering local bishops everywhere to call synods to consider, and, he hoped, condemn the quartodeciman Easter. The bishops obediently called their synods."
One of the pieces of evidence from which we know this from the letter to Victor written by Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus, regarding this situation, in which he said, "I might also have made mention of the bishops associated with me, whom it was your own desire to have called together by me, and I called them together" (Fragment in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical Histories, 5, 23, recorded in NPNF2 1:241-42).
Coxe (an Anglican) wrote in the footnotes, "According to this, the Asiatic Council was summoned at the request of Victor of Rome, and in all probability this was the case with all the councils…"
Socrates asserts that the canon existed. Sozomen says that the bishop of Rome claimed it did, but he does not dispute this. Again I add that we only know of the first Council of Constantinople through these men, and so if their authority is sufficient for the Council, then it is sufficient for the canon.
Please provide an example.
Again, the issue is obedience. Nobody disputes that its against the law to speed, yet many - without punishment, to respond to Prodromos - go unpunished. No Jew disputed the authority of the law to stone adulterers, but can anyone suggest that none were ever let go free? We can’t judge authority on obedience alone. Just because lots of folks do what I say or don’t do what I say, it does not mean I have any authority over them. If I tried to prove the authority of the pope merely by citing examples of obedience to him, I would have a forceless argument. So too are those arguments which cite only disobedience to him forceless. We must bring other information into the fold, and this other information is that the scribes of the time - both East and West - recorded only 27 canons. Those who were neither obeying nor disobeying but merely recording chose not to record canon 28, and so we can conclude that these men, at least, believed that Leo had the authority to strike the canon.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Flavian wrote his appeal to Leo before he was deposed. He was deposed at the Second Council of Ephesus, he wrote his letter a year earlier when Eutyches was condemned in a synod held in Constantinople.
Furthermore, this deposition doesn’t detract from the authority of the papacy, it rather confirms it. Flavian was deposed by a false council, one that would later be rejected by Chalcedon. He appealed to the bishop of Rome then, as did other men. Now it is argued that this is simply the desperate plea of someone seeking help. However, why would someone seek help from a person who could be of no aid? If Leo had no authority, why ask him for help at all? In fact, Theodoret of Cyprus completely contradicts this argument.
Theodoret of Cyprus is an extremely powerful example, for he not only appealed to Leo, but he wrote in his appeal: “I await your sentence, and if you command me to abide by my condemnation, I will abide by it.” Were it that he merely appealed for help, one might try to argue that this was simply a desperate plea, but Theodoret submitted himself to whatever the decision made by Leo was - a far, far cry from a desperate plea. Rather, this is an act of humble obedience. He was willing to do whatever Leo said, not merely trying to use Leo to help him out.
Ray Ryland, in his article on the council, puts it very well:
I asked who overrulled the statements of Anatolius and Flavian that the pope had authority over and in place of councils. None of these councils did so. They may have passed canons regarding the place of Constantinople in the Church, but they didn’t say anything about the authority of the bishop of Rome. As it stands, there remains to uncontradicted assertions by Patriarchs of Constantinople that the bishop of Rome had such authority, and one by the Patriarch of Jerusalem that he was infallible.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
Tanner states, “But the council of Constantinople was criticised and censured by Gregory of Nazianzus.”
This probably refers to the Council’s refusal to acknowledge the Holy Spirit as consubstantial with the Father. Gregory labored after the Council to ensure that, in spite of the Council’s wording, this was the interpretation that has passed down to us even to this day.
Earlier, I said I would demonstrate later that appealing to the Council of Constantinople defeats some of your own arguments. What I was referring to is that the Council of Constantinople put forth a Nicene Creed which was different from that of Nicaea.
Ephiphanius produces a creed that matches the Chalcedonian version, but includes additional text. The argument has been made that Ephiphanius is proof that the original Nicene Creed in fact matches the Chalcedonian version, but many sources, including Eusebius and Athanasius, produce what is widely regarded as the original Nicene Creed. There are sufficient explanations for how Epiphanius’ version would have been consistent with the Constantinopilan version which also explain the presence of the anathema, which is lacking in Constantinople and Chalcedon, and so the earliest witnesses ought to be trusted. Furthermore, Chalcedon itself attributed the Creed to Constantinople, not Nicaea, and distinguishes the Constantinopilan version from the Nicene version.
The point to all of this is not dependant on all of these facts regarding the creed, as it is admittedly a thorny issue with no clear evidence to prove any one viewpoint. The point is simply that Chalcedon identified the creed as having come from Constantinople, and authorized its use. Before that time, there was no universal recognition that Constantinople had been an ecumenical council, either in councils or in the writings of the fathers, and the creed itself seems to have been approved only at this time.
If I have erred on this point, I concede it. I have not seen any information indicating that this was the case. On the contrary, I have seen information rejecting it. If you are able to document this, I have no problem accepting it as truth.
The Council Fathers declared that Peter had spoken through Leo, and that this teaching was consistent with that of Cyril. There’s nothing in this that is injurious to the Catholic claims regarding the bishop of Rome.
Pending confirmation that this is true, I disagree. Councils have examined authoritative things before without rejecting their authority.
Peace and God bless
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
It must be remembered that the decree establishing Sunday as the day of Pascha was made, jointly, by the various synods of bishops that were convened at the request (not command) of Rome. Judging from this majority response, Pope St. Victor moved to excommunicate those who didn’t follow the mind of the Church on this matter. Notice that he didn’t move to do this because the Asian dioceses opposed his personal desire, but because it didn’t approximate the decision of the majority of the Churches. This is very important for it shows that the very desire of Pope Victor to excommunicate the Asian dioceses was more an application of a collegial decision rather than any attempt at universal jurisdiction by a single bishop (thus explaining why there is no condemnation of Pope Victor - his attempt at excommunication was based on the result of a collegial decision, thus giving it the appearance of enforcing collegial tradition instead of exercising universal jurisdiction). Given this information, I think it is more likely that Pope Victor thought that his excommunication attempt was the logical conclusion of the bishops and he was simply being the servant of the consensus of the Church. However, as Eusebius states, Victor was wrong and this was not the desire of the bishops. And, per Orthodox ecclesiology, the bishops won out over the decision of the Pope. We have no record of Pope Victor responding to his “stern rebuke” by appeals to authority, thus lending much credence to our position that the entire episode was about the first of the bishops incorrectly discerning the mind of the Church and not about the first exercise of universal jurisdiction (although one does cringe at this example of hastiness on the part of the Bishop of Rome).
God bless,
Adam
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
I think you are mis-interpreting certain quotes. As you know, in the hymnology of our Church as also in the ancient world, many lofty titles and acclamations are/were used of individuals and even Churches. These quotes certainly have significance, but only within the community of faith that is the Church or the cultural context, as the case may be. What’s more important than quotes (and we can provide non-papal quotes similar to those given to the Popes), are actions. And the actions of the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils reveals the Roman See to be very important, but only insofar as she was a servant of Holy Tradition and her chief way to defend doctrine was to take her place of honor at an ecumenical council not act independently of such an organ of infallibility.
Certainly, the good Patriarch didn’t mean an automatic infallibility that makes the Pope the final arbiter of orthodoxy, as Roman Pontiffs even long after the Great Schism were saying that Popes could err. To have this patriarch contradicting this ancient and unopposed tradition while Rome never raised the Pope to this status, bears the mark of a misunderstanding of the historical record. Besides, the emphasis of the Fathers in their debates with the Arians was the latter’s failure to accept Holy Tradition. Rome, like any apostolic church, could be pointed to as witness to this Tradition, but the final judge of orthodoxy is always referenced as Tradition (and the portions of this Tradition that were dogmatized at ecumenical councils). Rome hardly rises above an apostolic Church that has preserved her apostolic faith in a praiseworthy fashion (a fact that we don’t begrudge first-millennium Rome and we will never impinge the spotless faith of any apostolic Church, even while admitting that through the sin of heresy, it remains unoccupied).
God bless,
Adam
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
It is unusual (by Latin standards) that St. Cyprian was never accused of being schismatic or heretical because he didn’t agree with the Bishop of Rome (any such accusations were due to a supposed incompatibility with Tradition). In fact, any bishop following Cyprian’s position vis-à-vis the Pope of Rome in the modern Roman Catholic Church would not only not be free from schismatic and heretical charges, but would lack the episcopal support that St. Cyprian possessed.Carthage was a suffrage of Rome, but the point is that Augustine said that Innocent was speaking entirely lawfully to assert that the Councils of even distant provinces were not authoritative apart from the bishop of Rome’s approval. As regards Cyprian, he was disobedient. It is not an unusual concept.
At the 5th session of the Council there was a dispute among the bishops, with some even suspecting Pope Leo’s Tome as having Nestorian leanings. Some bishops even said that those who are Nestorians should have gone to Rome. Now, while this confusion was later put to rest and we recognize in Pope Leo’s Tome a glorious confession of the Faith, this dispute does reveal that the tome was discussed and not accepted as infallible of itself.
I’m not sure how this supports the dogma of papal infallibility. Papal infallibility pertains to the Pope defining dogmas for the Church. If Pope Leo’s Tome was anything more than a great confession of faith by an Orthodox bishop that, joined with the confession of Cyril, provided a good rebuke to heresy and supported Chalcedon’s dogmatic definition, the ecumenical council of Chalcedon was superfluous. If there was any concept of Popes declaring dogmas in the ancient Church, Pope Leo’s tome, which he wrote as a response to heresy and in fact in order to crush heresy, would have fit the bill. However, like I stated on another thread, the only dogmas we know from this time period have to do with those coming from Chalcedon. Whatever weight Pope Leo’s confession had it apparently didn’t carry dogmatic value, for only Chalcedon went on record for providing that. And it cannot be argued that since Pope Leo’s tome had a decisive influence on the dogmatic definition of Chalcedon that this proves the presence of papal infallibility, as no dogmatic definition comes from heaven, prepackaged, but rather carries the decisive influence of the bishops who participate in the ecumenical council (and even one bishop who may stand out as an exceptional defender of Orthodoxy during such proceedings).
The authority of the Pope as an Orthodox bishop, entrusted with teaching and defending the Faith along with all other bishops, yes. However, these councils didn’t simply create “their own definitions” - they formed the only dogmatic definitions we know of. And since the papal authority your Church advocates includes defining dogmas, it remains to be answered as to why, in the ancient Church, the declarations of the Roman Pontiff were not dogmas, while only the ecumenical councils formed dogmas. If Pope Leo and other ancient Bishops of Rome had any concept that they possessed the charism of infallibility, they would have used it when they were asked to provide a definitive answer to heresy. And if they did intend to use this infallibility, they wouldn’t allowed only ecumenical councils to be seen as dogmatic. At the very least, they would have supported their own definitions to be seen as dogmatic also. In addition, the ecclesial consciousness of the first millennium would have responded promptly to this ignoring of the dogmatic definitions of the Pope. They didn’t even mention the issue or lack thereof. These are difficult facts that any acceptance of the teaching of “papal infallibility” faces.
God bless,
Adam
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
It is part of the ancient Faith (and even professed by various post-Schism Latin sources) that whatever infallibility the Roman See was seen as possessing (which, in reality, was only the spotless faith that results from any apostolic foundation of a Church) that Popes, themselves, were always capable of error. And since Popes gave the command to adapt the Creed and they can error, you cannot invoke the “infallible Roman Church” as defense of the filioque unless you want to play theological Russian roulette and put a fallible man in charge of your belief.
God bless,
Adam
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
I don’t have the time right now to go point by point, God willing I’ll return to it. In the meantime:
Returning to Leo s Tome it is important to point out that at Chalcedon it was accepted only as a document against the heresy of Eutyches, in spite of the fact that both Leo and his legates believed it to be a good statement against Nestorius also. It is even more important to keep in mind that during its reading at Session II the three now famous Nestorian sounding passages were each one challenged as the document was being read. During each interruption it was attacked and defended by the use of parallel passages from Cyril. 11 ] After what must have been a somewhat stormy and long debate, bishop Atticos of Nikopolis in Old Epirus, Greece, made the motion that time out be taken to give the assembly the opportunity to carefully compare Leo s Tome with the Twelve Chapters of Cyril in order to make sure of what they were approving. 12 ] The imperial representatives chairing the meeting gave the bishops five days in which to do this and suggested the formation of a committee under the presidency of Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople. 13 ] The committee reported back at the fourth session, at the beginning of which the imperial and senatorial representatives declared the unswerving faith of the emperor in the expositions of Nicaea, Constantinople, and Ephesus with its approval of the two canonical letters of Cyril, i.e., the Second and Third to Nestorius. 14 ] This profession of the imperial faith had been made also at the end of Session I, 15 ] and now in anticipation of the committee’s report on the question of Leo s agreement with Cyril’s Twelve Chapters it was repeated. The committee report 16 ] was included in the minutes in the form of a listing of the individual opinions of its members, all of whom expressed their belief that Leo’s Tome agreed with Nicaea, Ephesus, and the letter of Cyril. Most of the bishops mentioned the (one) letter of Cyril, 17 ] which cannot be any other than the Twelve Chapters since this was the one the Illyrians and Palestinians were concerned about as is clear from the motion of the Illyrian Atticos which initiated the careful comparison of Leo’s Tome with the letter of Cyril. Some of the members mentioned their belief that the Tome agreed with the two letters of Cyril, dearly referring to the ones of Ephesus mentioned as part of the imperial faith. It is extremely interesting to note that among the similar individual opinions given by the rest of the Assembly and recorded in the minutes is that of none other than Theodoret of Cyrus, 18 ] who claims that he finds the Tome of Leo in agreement with the letters of Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, certainly a tremendous leap from his position just before the Council. In the light of his strong hesitation at Session VIII to anathematize Nestorius, a hesitation which infuriated the assembly, one wonders about his sincerity, especially since he tried to defend his former acts by an exposition of how he never taught two Sons. He was interrupted by shouts of “Nestorian. 19 ]”
orthodoxunity.org/article06.html
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
It’s really not clear that these synods were made per a request versus an order. There’s no conclusive evidence either way. The point is that at Pope St. Victor’s request, bishops all over the world called synods to deal with this question. This really isn’t a small thing. For one bishop to call one synod was a rather significant venture, but to have countless do so all at once is remarkable, and speaks very powerfully to at a bare minimum the influence that the bishop of Rome had over all of the bishops.
The suggestion that St. Victor’s excommunication was based on the decision of all of the synods doesn’t dimish this, and perhaps even strengthens it. Even if he did see himself as serving the consensus of the Church, the fact is that he took it upon himself to excommunicate bishops who were not under his Patriarchate, and not a soul denied his ability to do so. Some admonished him for taking so severe an action, and some begged him to reconsider, but nobody denied that he could do so. Victor certainly thought that he, as bishop of Rome, could excommunicate those not inside his Patriarchate, and nobody rejected this - that’s the bottom line.
It happens today in the Church that the universal Church makes a decision only to have it enacted by the pope. Of course Catholics would argue that all of the ecumenical councils are a case of this, but it’s inarguably the case that what we consider the last 15 ecumenical councils were put together by the Church universal and then enacted/ratified by the bishop of Rome. It’s in no way contrary to Catholic ecclesiology to suggest that this is what happened with Victor.
It’s fair to argue that I may be misinterpreting quotes, but the quotes of Flavian and Anatolius have nothing whatsoever to do with titles. They refer to objective authority. Anatolius says that the confirmation of Chalcedon rests entirely in Leo’s authority. Flavian says that a letter from Pope St. Leo will make calling a council “superfluous.” Those are explicit references to things the pope can do, and to the level of his authority, not flowery titles.
No Catholic has ever claimed, nor does today, that the Pope is de facto infallible. The point is that infallible means infallible. No matter how anyone tries to spin it, that’s what it means, and Patriarch John meant that the pope was infallible in at least some way. This is consistent with Agatho, writing about the same time, who clearly believed that the pope was infallible at particular times. What’s more, this is consistent with the current Catholic teaching on the infallibility of the pope.
As far as the claim that Rome was merely a witness to the tradition that was the true arbiter of truth, Tradition, is exactly like Protestant claims that the ecumenical councils were merely witnesses to the true arbiter of the faith, the Scriptures. The problem is the same in each case - there’s no objective judge of just what the Scriptures of the Tradition says. There must be some court of final appeal, and according to the fathers, this is the bishop of Rome. Time They say in several places that in order to know whether one remains faithful to the tradition, one must remain in communion with the bishop of Rome. For example,
This passage is of tremendous importance, coming from Ireanaues, a disciple of St. John through Polycarp. He’s writing at the very beginning of the Church. Afanassieff writes concerning this passage, “our interpretations are just hypotheses, some plausible and others not.” (Meyendorff, Primacy of Peter, 131)
There are of course other examples of this. In the doctrine of the fathers, to hold to tradition is to maintain communion with Rome.
This occured when there was still disagreement over the particulars of baptism. It was through the work of Pope Stephen that the doctrine of baptism developed. It didn’t change, of course, but it developed in that it became clear that heretics were capable of baptizing validly. Until Stephen brought about a decision on this matter, there would have, strictly speaking, been freedom regarding it. That being said, this is really at it’s core simply another case of the issue of obedience. Many clearly heretical bishops had ecclesial support throughout history. The issue is not whether support existed, but whether that support was consistent with proper authority. Now according to the principles you put forth of holding to tradition, the final arbiter of just what tradition is would be essentially what everyone in the Church believed, but there were times - such as prior to the Council of Nicaea - where virtually the entire Church recognized Arianism to be faithful to tradition. Something else is needed to be obedient to, such as a Council. The pope can also be that something else, and I believe history shows has been at times.
L
Lazerlike42
Guest
In the quotation you responded to, I was not citing Leo’s Tome as an example of infallibility. I was defending against the claim that the Council didn’t consider the Tome of any authority because they penned their own definition. My point was simply that there have been other times, in post-schism history, where a Council penned something supplementary to the statement of a Pope without believing that he lacked authority.
As I said above, I was referring even to post-schism times when the authority of the Pope was not debated by those making their own definitions in supplement to his. Now your questions are essentially of the nature of why the pope didn’t use his infallible authority, not whether he had it. In modern Catholic history, wherein the pope clearly believes that he has the charism of infallibility, he rarely uses it, or even considers using it. It’s much better to let things be dealt with in other ways, such as a Council.
St. Chrysostom actually tackles this very point in his commentary on Acts. He says that Peter had the same authority to settle the issue at the Jerusalme Council as all the rest combined, but he chooses not to for the sake of humility and brotherly love. In fact, it’s just plain pastoral sense that every school teacher and parent is familiar with. It works much better for a student or a child to realize something himself, or to make a decision himself, then to try to explain it to or force it on him. The pope could have simply asserted the teachings of Trent, but didn’t it make more sense in the midst of that great time of heresy to let the bishops decide themselves? If he just asserted it, he could have had dissidents falling into heresy left and right. But by letting them get together, vote on things, etc., they were able to come to the right conclusions - by virtue of the universality of the Council - and to have a greater investment in them, having played a role.
I think that this thought is actually incredibly important. There is this perception amongst many of the Orthodox of a pope that is waving his crozier in everyone’s face and asserting his authority left and right. He really doesn’t do anything even close. From a practical standpoint, Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI and most popes don’t behave much different from Pope Shenouda, for example. Ask an Eastern Catholic how often the Pope exercises any authority over them… it doesn’t happen that often. It’s really not that big a deal. There have been two infallible definitions offered in the past two hundred years, John XXIII called a Council, and John Paul II promulgated two new codes of canon law - one for the west, and one for the east - the eastern code for all intents and purposes bearing little more than his own stamp on it and coming from the canonical traditions of the east. That’s really about the extent of it.
Papal infallibility is blown way. way, way out of proportion. So far as I know, it’s viewed by most Catholics today as an act of last resort, not something to go willy nilly over and use every five minutes. It’s the sort of thing envisioned for settling disputes when there is no other way out. I imagine an end times scenario, when the antiChrist has deceived many, and Christ’s faithful need to know where to stand. There is neither the opportunity nor the time to call a council - what do they do? They can rely on the bishop of Rome. Now infallibility hasn’t been used this way in the two cases when it’s clearly been used, but that’s not too material insofar as the real nature of it. Perhaps my opinion if this is wrong, but there’s no question that infallibility is intended to be this thing to wield over people. It’s a charism of protection of the Holy Spirit intended for the service of the Church - not for the iron rule over it.
Adam, in all respect, I see a very dishonest - though perhaps unintendedly so - pattern of argument coming from you and from all the Eastern Orthodox. Catholics acknoweldge that the pope can err. The dogma of papal infallibility has nothing to do with some inerrant pope… its got to do with the Holy Spirit protecting very specific acts of the successor of Peter for the sake of the protection and service of the Church. Almost every argument I see against the papacy coming from Eastern folks is filled with references to the pope being able to err… we acknowledge that. It’s a clear caricature of the Catholic position to argue in the way that this post is an example of. I, and I believe that most other Catholics make a very strong effort to critique the actual positions of the Orthodox. Sometimes we err, and this is understandable because there is no one clear source of Orthodox belief, but when we err we are sorry, and it invalidates our arguments to the degree that they are based on the erroneous thought. But there’s simply no excuse for erring regarding the Catholic Church’s position on papal infallibility… it’s right there in Pastor Aeturnus, in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and in all sorts of other places. Please don’t use this caricature when discussing the Catholic Church… it does nobody any good. If we want to achieve that true unity that Christ called for, we need to be seeking to understand one another in a very real and true way and to progress forward from there.
Peace and God bless
M
Mickey
Guest
Poppycock!
M
Mickey
Guest
There is 2000 years of clear Orthodox belief and it does not include an infallible Pope with supreme authority.
M
Mickey
Guest
St John Chrysostom also says this:
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now
The merciful God is wont to give this honor to his servants, that by their grace others may acquire salvation; as was agreed by the blessed Paul, that teacher of the world who emitted the rays of his teaching everywhere
This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last…There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part.
He speaks from this time lowly things, on his way to His passion, that He might show His humanity. For He that hath built His church upon Peter’s confession, and has so fortified it, that ten thousand dangers and deaths are not to prevail over it…
Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as chief and leader of the choir of the saints, and shall enjoy his generous love…I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it…Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder, at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ!..what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, nor for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church (1 Cor. 15:38)
M
Mickey
Guest
"I am Tradition!"
(Pope Pius IX)
M
Mickey
Guest
Then Rome should rescind this strange dogma and return to the orthodoxy of the early Church.
G
Genesis315
Guest
How is this different from the claim that the Greeks have gotten right, while the Latins have gotten it wrong? That’s just as hard to swallow–yet one is correct and one is not.
Anyway, besides the piling up of quotes by either side, this article looks a the the logical consistency of the claims made by both sides and shows how the Orthodox claims fail the test of internal logic.
rtforum.org/lt/lt133.html#Harrison
There’s a lot of personal backstory, but when you get to the bolded propositions the main meat of the argument is taken up.
- Status