Question for all protestants

[Jon_S_1]

I would disagree with your assessment of it, but no, I would not deny the Council of the canon.

The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the **prerogative of honour **after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome.

Primacy of honor I do not dispute.

Jon

Yeah I guess I understand your point.

You would need to see clear evidence during the first 800 years of the pope exercising infallibility, not just primacy, without dispute.

I’m not sure that exists.

I am certain I can find evidence of him acting with infallibility but not without dispute. Mainly because ever since the beginning there was tension between East and West and political and social issues that created an atmosphere where people wanted to challenge this authority.

Perhaps that is the proof it exists, that since at least the 3rd century it has been in dispute.

 

[jmcrae]

But not by himself. Acts is a council, run by James, BTW.

It was James’ Diocese, yes.

No one is saying, well, at least* I’m not saying, that it is or should be an anything goes Church. I am also not saying that “Well, as long as they believe in Jesus, it doesn’t matter what rules they follow. Let them follow their rules, and we’ll follow ours.” * What I am saying is this only, that while the Bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor, it is not a supremacy.

And yet, he has the final say, whenever there is confusion in the Church and an answer must be given.

I am saying that I don’t believe he can declare for himself universal jurisdiction, or infallibility ex cathedra.

He doesn’t; it is Jesus who gives it to him. *“Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs.” *

But like I’ve always said, if you can get Orthodoxy to agree with it, so will I.

At one time, they all did.

But pride is at stake, and no one wants to have been wrong for an entire millennium or longer, so I doubt we’ll see it in our lifetime.

 

[Jon_S_1]

But not by himself. Acts is a council, run by James, BTW. No one is saying, well, at least* I’m not saying, that it is or should be an anything goes Church. I am also not saying that “Well, as long as they believe in Jesus, it doesn’t matter what rules they follow. Let them follow their rules, and we’ll follow ours.” * What I am saying is this only, that while the Bishop of Rome has a primacy of honor, it is not a supremacy. I am saying that I don’t believe he can declare for himself universal jurisdiction, or infallibility ex cathedra. But like I’ve always said, if you can get Orthodoxy to agree with it, so will I.

Jon

Council of Chalcedon perhaps ??

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic **bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, **which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.

Session II (Continued)

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe.** Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. **Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

 

[rinnie]

Because the Bishop of Antioch is not considered the pope.

And it is your point upon which we disagree.

We will end up going round and round. You as a Catholic say the keys were given solely to St. Peter. I as a non-Catholic say the keys were initially received by Peter, then later the rest of the disciples, and following, the Church Catholic.

The difference is John 20 and later Matthew. The keys are then given to the rest of the disciples as well.

Now that doesn’t mean there is no significance to Peter receiving them first. There is, and we as Lutherans recognize that.

Jon

If the Bishop of Antioch was Peter he would have been Just messing with you Jon. I believe at that time Rome was considered to be the center of the world.

No offense but there can be no significance of Peter receiving them first if they are all equal. None at all.

Did you ever wonder way there were not 13 instead of 12. What if they were all equal but on certain matters could not come to an agreement? If one had no authority over the others nothing would ever get solved.

I still don’t see the scripture where Jesus gave all the Apostles the KEYS to the kingdom. Could you show me exactly where that is. You continue to say that the keys to the kingdom only mean to bind and loose. As I showed you to bind and loose as in reference to the keys means he can also bind and loose whatever the other ministers also bound and loose. There is only one Prime Minister who held the keys to the kingdom.

Could you also show me one scripture where any Apostles spoke alone and made a decision outside of Peter. I am not saying you are completely wrong Jon I just can’t seem to find it tonight.

But thanks Jon, I am heading off for tonight but will look forward to hearing from you. Have a great night.

 

[rinnie]

It was James’ Diocese, yes.

And yet, he has the final say, whenever there is confusion in the Church and an answer must be given.

He doesn’t; it is Jesus who gives it to him. *“Feed my sheep. Feed my lambs.” *

At one time, they all did.

But pride is at stake, and no one wants to have been wrong for an entire millennium or longer, so I doubt we’ll see it in our lifetime.

Another thing to think about, at one time they did. So wonder who had the authority to change it and where did the authority come from?

 

[Jon_S_1]

Council of Chalcedon perhaps ??

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic **bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, **which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave.

Session II (Continued)

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe.** Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. **Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus ? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

JohnNC, (or anyone else)

If love to hear your opinion on accepting this council as authoritative and yet reconciling these paragraphs, among others, indicating papal authority.

Any thoughts?

 

[steido01]

JohnNC, (or anyone else)

If love to hear your opinion on accepting this council as authoritative and yet reconciling these paragraphs, among others, indicating papal authority.

Any thoughts?

IMHO, it can only be -at best-* inferred* that papal supremacy was condoned by the Council (if it were, why not make it explicit?). To me, anyway, this is clear from the context. The Council was speaking about “the faith of our Fathers,” and then states quite clearly that where Apostolic Teaching is maintained, there the catholic faith exists - as it has always been taught by Cyril, Leo and, of course, Peter. In that sense, the Apostles speak through the bishops who correctly administer Word and Sacrament. It’s quite the jump, in my mind, to go from talking about “the faith of our Fathers” to claiming that said faith is dependent upon submission to a particular bishop.

I guess what I’m saying is, these paragraphs need not be “reconciled” to our view, because they already support it.

Others can probably articulate this more clearly…

 

[Jon_S_1]

IMHO, it can only be -at best-* inferred* that papal supremacy was condoned by the Council (if it were, why not make it explicit?). To me, anyway, this is clear from the context. The Council was speaking about “the faith of our Fathers,” and then states quite clearly that where Apostolic Teaching is maintained, there the catholic faith exists - as it has always been taught by Cyril, Leo and, of course, Peter. In that sense, the Apostles speak through the bishops who correctly administer Word and Sacrament. It’s quite the jump, in my mind, to go from talking about “the faith of our Fathers” to claiming that said faith is dependent upon submission to a particular bishop.

I guess what I’m saying is, these paragraphs need not be “reconciled” to our view, because they already support it.

Others can probably articulate this more clearly…

What about the fact that the Bishop of Rome “who is head of ALL the churches” spoke authoritatively saying that Dioscorus was not allowed at the council.

???

I’m sorry but it seems you are explaining away what is clearly there.

 

[pocohombre]

I suppose the question is similar to one posed a few centuries back. What made a Franciscan theologian right over say a Thomas Aquinas on the Immaculate conception debate before it was official dogma ? What did Catholics do back then, for both views were acceptable ?

 

[steido01]

What about the fact that the Bishop of Rome “who is head of ALL the churches” spoke authoritatively saying that Dioscorus was not allowed at the council.

???

I’m sorry but it seems you are explaining away what is clearly there.

Sure, he was “head of all the churches.” As others have noted, recognizing a primacy of honor is not the same as supporting supremacy. It was the Council, after all, that chose to heed the Pope’s advice to expel Dioscorus from the proceedings - not the Pope or his delegates.

 

[pocohombre]

I asked this on another site and its got me thinking!:newidea: Oh NO!

Okay here it is. What makes one Protestant Preachers version of the Truth correct or incorrect over another Protestant Preachers version.

Lets say I go to one Protestant Church and the Preacher teaches me that this is what the word of God is saying, and then the next says this, and so on and I go to 10 different Protestant Preachers and get ten meanings. Who do you feel is right?

And how do you know which one is right?

I suppose it is also like an atheist approaching
Jesus and searches out 10 different churches, some catholic, some orthodox, some protestant. How does he know which one is right ? Or if one wants to be Catholic should one be a Conservative, or Traditional, or Sedevacantist, or a Spiritist, Pentecostal, Evangelical, Christo -Pagans ?

 

[Isaiah45_9]

If the Bishop of Antioch was Peter he would have been Just messing with you Jon. I believe at that time Rome was considered to be the center of the world.

Peter was Bishop of Antioch (And probably other cities) and he was succeeded by Evodius. But like you said, Rome was in fact the center and more importantly, Peter’s last office before he was martyred.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Sure, he was “head of all the churches.” As others have noted, recognizing a primacy of honor is not the same as supporting supremacy. It was the Council, after all, that chose to heed the Pope’s advice to expel Dioscorus from the proceedings - not the Pope or his delegates.

What is the purpose of a primacy of honor?

What is that to you?

Does the Pope of Rome still have a primacy of honor to you?

 

[Heart_Foam]

JohnNC, (or anyone else)

If love to hear your opinion on accepting this council as authoritative and yet reconciling these paragraphs, among others, indicating papal authority.

Any thoughts?

The “Peter has spoken thus through Leo” is no support at all. Same quote, but I’ll emphasize different parts of it:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [referring to the 2nd Council of Ephesus, the “Robber Council” in 449 AD.]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.

The council’s words are taken by Catholics as saying Leo has the same authority as Peter. Just gloss over the part where the council compared Leo’s letter to what the apostles taught, and even to non-pope Cyril of Alexandria - as if it wasn’t enough that Leo had said it but needed verification. But returning to the claim that Leo is today’s Peter, complete with apostolic power to teach, that’s not what they meant. The impression Catholics want to give is that the council submitted to Leo’s authority without question, but even the part you quoted shows that to be untrue. In fact, read these excerpts from Leo’s letter, and see if you can tell me why “Peter has spoken through Leo”.

But when our Lord and Saviour himself was by his questions instructing the faith of the disciples, he said, “Whom do men say that I the Son of Man am?” And when they had mentioned various opinions held by others, he said, “But whom say ye that I am?” that is, “I who am Son of Man, and whom you see in the form of a servant, and in reality of flesh, whom say ye that I am?” Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name, who through revelation from the Father confessed the selfsame to be both the Son of God and the Christ; because one of these truths, accepted without the other, would not profit unto salvation, and it was equally dangerous to believe the Lord Jesus Christ to be merely God and not man, or merely man and not God.

And:
Let him listen also to the blessed Apostle Peter when he declares, that “sanctification by the Spirit” takes place through the “sprinkling of the blood of Christ,” and let him not give a mere cursory reading to the words of the same Apostle, “Knowing that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain way of life received by tradition from your fathers, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot.”

So “Peter has spoken thus through Leo”? Quite. So he did. The council’s comment makes sense without projecting presupposed pro-papal beliefs onto it. Context is everything. But you can even find it here: catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii - stamped* nihil obstat* - but with no mention that Leo’s letter quotes Peter, or that Leo’s Tome and its doctrinal teaching was only accepted by the Council when it was determined not be in conflict with the teaching of Cyril of Alexandria or the apostles. It was not that it came from Leo that made it true.

 

[Heart_Foam]

I think Meyendorff is EO, but some people may get something out of this. Chalcedon is not a clear-cut indication of papal primacy.

Upon the presentation of the text, in Greek translation, during the second session, part of the assembly greeted the reading with approval (‘Peter has spoken through Leo!’ they shouted), but the bishops from the Illyricum and Palestine fiercely objected against passages which they considered as incompatible with the teachings of St Cyril of Alexandria. It took several days of commission work, under the presidence of Anatolius of Constantinople, to convince them that Leo was not opposing Cyril. The episode clearly shows that it was Cyril, not Leo, who was considered at Chalcedon as the ultimate criterion of christological orthodoxy. Leo’s views were under suspicion of Nestorianism as late as the fifth session, when the same Illyrians, still rejecting those who departed from Cyrillian terminology, shouted: ‘The opponents are Nestorians, let them go to Rome!’ The final formula approved by the council was anything but a simple acceptance of Leo’s text. It was a compromise, which could be imposed on the Fathers when they were convinced that Leo and Cyril expressed the same truth, only using different expressions (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 155-156.).

 

[Jon_S_1]

I think Meyendorff is EO, but some people may get something out of this. Chalcedon is not a clear-cut indication of papal primacy.

Upon the presentation of the text, in Greek translation, during the second session, part of the assembly greeted the reading with approval (‘Peter has spoken through Leo!’ they shouted), but the bishops from the Illyricum and Palestine fiercely objected against passages which they considered as incompatible with the teachings of St Cyril of Alexandria. It took several days of commission work, under the presidence of Anatolius of Constantinople, to convince them that Leo was not opposing Cyril. The episode clearly shows that it was Cyril, not Leo, who was considered at Chalcedon as the ultimate criterion of christological orthodoxy. Leo’s views were under suspicion of Nestorianism as late as the fifth session, when the same Illyrians, still rejecting those who departed from Cyrillian terminology, shouted: ‘The opponents are Nestorians, let them go to Rome!’ The final formula approved by the council was anything but a simple acceptance of Leo’s text. It was a compromise, which could be imposed on the Fathers when they were convinced that Leo and Cyril expressed the same truth, only using different expressions (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood: St. Vladimir’s, 1989), p. 155-156.).

So what to make of the preceding paragraph that the Bishop of Tome is HEAD of ALL THE CHURCHES.

 

[steido01]

So what to make of the preceding paragraph that the Bishop of Tome is HEAD of ALL THE CHURCHES.

What is there to make of it?

He was the Head of All the Churches. The Primacy of Honor belonged to him, in that Rome was a special Patriarchate with a special connection to the leader of the Apostles and the epicenter of the Roman World.

In a more practical way, every human-operated organization requires some sort of structure to function. Yes, the church was founded by Christ, but He didn’t establish a complex hierarchy of priests, archpriests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, patriarchates, complete with canon and liturgical laws, etc. So it is necessary that the Church should have a leader - it’s only logical that this should be the very special bishop in Rome.

That does not mean he has universal immediate jurisdiction or supreme power over doctrine, faith or morals. He is human.

 

[Heart_Foam]

So what to make of the preceding paragraph that the Bishop of Rome is HEAD of ALL THE CHURCHES.

That quote comes from the mouth of Paschasinus, who was a legate from Leo. It’s too circular to prove papal primacy from the comments made by a representative of the papacy. The council however did not treat Leo’s letter as authoritative just because it came from Leo. Perhaps Paschasinus was disappointed.

 

[JonNC]

What is there to make of it?

He was the Head of All the Churches. The Primacy of Honor belonged to him, in that Rome was a special Patriarchate with a special connection to the leader of the Apostles and the epicenter of the Roman World.

In a more practical way, every human-operated organization requires some sort of structure to function. Yes, the church was founded by Christ, but He didn’t establish a complex hierarchy of priests, archpriests, bishops, archbishops, cardinals, patriarchates, complete with canon and liturgical laws, etc. So it is necessary that the Church should have a leader - it’s only logical that this should be the very special bishop in Rome.

That does not mean he has universal immediate jurisdiction or supreme power over doctrine, faith or morals. He is human.

Agreed, Don. On the bolded past-tense verbs, could we as Lutherans use the present tense, as well?

Jon

 

[steido01]

Agreed, Don. On the bolded past-tense verbs, could we as Lutherans use the present tense, as well?

Jon

You caught my use of the past tense. Busted!

Well, I’m of the opinion that… If he would allow the Gospel, his superiority over the bishops which he has otherwise, is conceded to him by human right also by us, for the sake of the peace and general unity of those Christians who are also under him, and may be under him hereafter.

At least, I wouldn’t have a problem saying that. I think it is also true that the good and godly men who have held the office in recent decades have, more often than not, spoken for orthodox Christianity - using their high visibility as a witness for Christ and, in effect, acting as a “head” of sorts of a sadly visibly-divided Christendom.