Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Novocastrian said:
If our Lord could work through Cyrus and call him His anointed, then he can work through Constantine and many others!
Click to expand...
It is not reasonable to judge the past by the attitudes of the 21 century. During most of Christian history the concept of separation of Church and state was completely foreign. Emperors and Kings were considered God’s anointed leaders of society. Sharing a common religion was considered essential for the unity of the state. In the West at least some Popes claimed authority over the state. This led to several great conflicts between ambitious kings and strong Popes such as the conflict between Boniface VIII and King Philip IV of France, or between Pope Innocent III and King John of England. At least in theory in the East, there was the concept of symphony which was based on Our Lord’s words, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:23. It did not always work out that way, because strong emperors sometimes exceeded their authority and entangled Church and State. Tsar Peter the Great made the Russian Orthodox Church a department of state, but had no authority over doctrinal issues. The Reformation was not successful because the people decided to change their religion the rulers decided which religion everyone would follow. That was one motivation for the spread of Protestantism. Town councils in city states and monarchs in monarchies were motivated to become Protestant so they could get their hands on the money being sent to Rome. Thus after the Protestant Reformation, the Lutheran state Churches and the Church of England were completely dominated by the secular state. Even today, the British Prime Minister appoints the Bishops for the Church of England. The Danish and Norwegian parliaments have the authority to change the teaching of the state Lutheran Churches as they did when they approved same sex marriages in the state Churches of Denmark and Norway.

Fr. John
 
frjohnmorris said:
It is not reasonable to judge the past by the attitudes of the 21 century. During most of Christian history the concept of separation of Church and state was completely foreign. Emperors and Kings were considered God’s anointed leaders of society. Sharing a common religion was considered essential for the unity of the state. In the West at least some Popes claimed authority over the state. This led to several great conflicts between ambitious kings and strong Popes such as the conflict between Boniface VIII and King Philip IV of France, or between Pope Innocent III and King John of England. At least in theory in the East, there was the concept of symphony which was based on Our Lord’s words, “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” Matthew 22:23. It did not always work out that way, because strong emperors sometimes exceeded their authority and entangled Church and State. Tsar Peter the Great made the Russian Orthodox Church a department of state, but had no authority over doctrinal issues. The Reformation was not successful because the people decided to change their religion the rulers decided which religion everyone would follow. That was one motivation for the spread of Protestantism. Town councils in city states and monarchs in monarchies were motivated to become Protestant so they could get their hands on the money being sent to Rome. Thus after the Protestant Reformation, the Lutheran state Churches and the Church of England were completely dominated by the secular state. Even today, the British Prime Minister appoints the Bishops for the Church of England. The Danish and Norwegian parliaments have the authority to change the teaching of the state Lutheran Churches as they did when they approved same sex marriages in the state Churches of Denmark and Norway.

Fr. John
Click to expand...
Fr. John, Was It Under Tzar Peter ThAt The Orthodox Christians Known Now As Old Believers Left Russia For China To Continue Practicing Orthodoxy As HandedDown TO Them? I’veBeen Learning A Little About TheM And Don’t Yet Know Why They Couldn’t Remain In Russia
Practicing ThE Orthodox Faith.
 
1Tim215Mommy said:
Fr. John, Was It Under Tzar Peter ThAt The Orthodox Christians Known Now As Old Believers Left Russia For China To Continue Practicing Orthodoxy As HandedDown TO Them? I’veBeen Learning A Little About TheM And Don’t Yet Know Why They Couldn’t Remain In Russia
Practicing ThE Orthodox Faith.
Click to expand...
The Old Believer Schism took place under Tsar Alexi I in the 1650s, before Peter the Great became Tsar in 1682. Patriarch Nikon who became Patriarch of Moscow in 1652 learned that some mistakes had crept into the Russian service books from visitors to from Greece and Russians who had traveled to Greece. He therefore ordered a reform to bring the Russian practices into conformity to the Greek practices and had new corrected service books printed. The Old Believer objected to the changes, which were relatively minor, nothing as major as the changes that were made in the Catholic Church after Vatican II. They began preaching that the Tsar was the anti-Christ. That brought the Tsar into the matter. In any country in Europe at that time you would get into trouble going around preaching that the ruler is the anti-Christ for obvious reasons. Therefore the Old Believers were persecuted. Some of them fled to China. There are still some Old Believers left. Some of them came back to the Russian Orthodox Church and were allowed to keep their old customs. Besides just like the rest of Europe the Russian ruler determined the state religion. This was not an age of religious toleration. The 30 years war between Catholic and Protestants devastated Germany and only ended in 1648. Just as Catholics were persecuted in England and were not able to openly practice their Faith until 1828. Even in America, the New England Puritans exiled Roger Williams in 1636 and even executed a few Quakers because they did not accept the Puritan religion. In 1685 King Louis XIV revoked the Edict of Nantes that had granted French Protestants toleration and threw them out of France. Ironically, so many French Huguenots fled to Berlin that most people in modern Berlin are of French ancestry.
Patriarch Nikon also got into trouble. He began to meddle in state affairs and to claim equal authority with the Tsar. In 1660 a Pan-Orthodox Council removed him and declared that Orthodox clergy must not become involved in the secular affairs of the state. We are still forbidden to become involved in secular politics. I cannot run for or hold public office. I cannot even serve on a jury. The rules of the Patriarchate of Antioch forbid our Bishops from becoming members of any political party.

Fr. John
 
Roman empire was climatic and under attack from a couple sides, as was the persecution and attack of Christianity during the period in question. The Church of Rome took on a re-building period after St Stephan and St Cyrian where martyred. A short period of peace follow when Gallienus become emporer and allowed Rome to rebuild its Churchs.

As to the East-West specifically St Stephan and Rome considered St Cyprians actions disciplinary. As the backdrop also has to considered as a conspiracy and inner conflict of the Church universal was in full effect. The Trinity was still a hot profession of faith being defined which can be seen in the letters between St Cyprian and Cornelius of Rome. Novatian, intelligent, became schismatic, anti-Pope, Firmilian sided with Cyprian on the Baptism issue and was critical of Rome and viewed them as blind. he too was wrong. We sadly don’t have all the work from Alexandria at this period yet they remained consistent with St Clement, St Dionysius, Origen’s student, and Origen himself prior. Pope Dionysius took on the rebuilding process of the Church. No surprise here with surrounding events papal authority wasn’t the topic of the day. Course Stephans successor St Sixtus II was well liked and sought peace so its not surprising no papal proclaimations cam from him either. Course the good always seem to perish quickly and he was martyred a year later and the Chair of Peter remained vacant for a year 258-259. Remember Stephan was martyred 257 and Cyprian 258. Augustine later covered every point of St Cyprian point by point and developed Stephans thinking. His thoughts on St Cyprian could be read also as he stated his beautiful martyrdom despite any prior disagreement purified him. St Cyprian was a deeply spiritual man. Not the level of genius of Origen or Augustine but a beautiful soul.

Yet the Keys of the Kingdom and Divine institution was in full effect. Origen spoke on this but its difficult to place his work in context/content as he became engulfed in the seven heavens idea and believed Peter held the Keys to all while others only one. Course the most well know work on this already existed also just prior to all this with Tertullian and the Treatise on Modesty.

"I now inquire into your opinion, to see whence you usurp this right of the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, “On this Rock I will build My Church, I have given you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven” or “whatever you shall have bound and loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” that the power of binding and loosing has thereby ben handed on to you, that is top every Church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally upon Peter?

On you, He says, I will build My Church; and I will give you the Keys, not to the Church, and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed"

I concede binding and loosing was given to the apostles. I disagree about the Keys and agree with Tertullian here and his elaboration on the dialogue. I do not believe the Lord made any mistakes in what He transmitted. Only man has taken the liberty with His word. I see no reason to believe at this point in history we are speaking of to believe otherwise about the Primacy and Peter. I realize its irrefutable to debate a belief in Divine Institution, but I’m still on that channel. No reason to believe otherwise. Not hard to see there was conflict, jealousy and envy in the Church, in many ways the debates of Primacy are no different than today. Still the preponderance of evidence coincides with my thinking I do believe. Tragedy we don’t have the writings from Alexandria, yet I have to believe the scholars of the day read all what we cannot, as I know Augustine read all of Origens work. It can’t be concluded counter evidence of my thinking exists. Very much the contrary.

If anyone wants to add or clarify I’m all ears.
 
Here is the thoughts of Origen I commented on above.

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . .a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

I have to believe the teaching here with Matthew was transmitted by Origen to his students. Origen was indeed one the greatest teachers and minds to come along in this early period. How many did his thinking influence and inspire here? Many I would suggest.

Also as to the following era and the primacy.

catholicbridge.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.php*
 
frjohnmorris said:
Even today, the British Prime Minister appoints the Bishops for the Church of England.
Click to expand...
English practices can be convoluted, Father; I hope you will accept this correction: it is the case that bishops are elected by the canons of their cathedral; that the canons elect the person nominated by the Queen as supreme governor; and that the Queen follows the advice of her prime minister; but it doesn’t end there. The name recommended by the prime minister to the Queen is the one submitted to the prime minister by a church commission. So, while the role of the canons, the Queen, and the prime minister are significant constitutionally, in practice the bishop is appointed not by the prime minister but by the church commission.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Just to add a clearer view of Matthew 16 as per our discussion a page or so earlier. This link will add clarity of understanding.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=2&sqi=2&ved=0CFEQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.philvaz.com%2Fapologetics%2FPeterRockKeysPrimacyRome.htm&ei=uXsQULuiMsbH6AGQ_YG4DA&usg=AFQjCNGr1wZYFMd3rJaKObspqQk51ulqaw&sig2=J7j7dnKEqKMd5SgsqQOLKg
Click to expand...
St.John Chyrsostom wrote that the rock upon which Christ built His Church is the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter. There is no ancient Biblical scholar who is more respected than St. John Chrysostom.

Fr. John
 
frjohnmorris said:
St.John Chyrsostom wrote that the rock upon which Christ built His Church is the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter. There is no ancient Biblical scholar who is more respected than St. John Chrysostom.

Fr. John
Click to expand...
Great Saint, but not infallible. Could be he was wrong, was he wrong with St Mary and his elaboration on the Wedding of Cana and sin? I believe this is precisely why the magisterium is imperative. They all are human and made mistakes. Augustine spoke clearly on this in Retractions leaving his work to be discerned by the Church. In the final analysis, its what they all believed in.

In fact to paraphrase the quote badly from Bl Cardinal Newman, that particular quote from St John on the Blessed Virgin stands out alone from antiquity.

I don’t know about the most respected. one of the most highly regarded. I would concede that.
 
frjohnmorris said:
St.John Chyrsostom wrote that the rock upon which Christ built His Church is the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter. There is no ancient Biblical scholar who is more respected than St. John Chrysostom.

Fr. John
Click to expand...
Fr. John

Can you show me where St. John Chrysostom wrote that:

“…the rock upon which Christ built His Church is the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter.” ? (Emphasis mine)

I am aware of his commentary in Homily 54:
…‘And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;’ Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession.
Click to expand...
Source: newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

Notice St. John he does not say here what you said Fr. John (see your comment above, specifically the part I underlined.)

If one were only to read one paragraph from the Catholic Catechism, one could make the incorrect assumption that the Catholic Church believes that “…the rock upon which Christ built His Church is the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter.” If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 424 it says:
424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.
Click to expand...
Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/424.htm (emphasis mine)

However, we read in par. 552:
552 Simon Peter holds the first place in the college of the Twelve; Jesus entrusted a unique mission to him. Through a revelation from the Father, Peter had confessed: ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Our Lord then declared to him: ‘You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it.’ Christ, the ‘living Stone’, thus assures his Church, built on Peter, of victory over the powers of death. Because of the faith he confessed Peter will remain the unshakable rock of the Church. His mission will be to keep this faith from every lapse and to strengthen his brothers in it.
Click to expand...
Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/552.htm (emphasis mine)

These 2 paragraphs are not contradictory but complimentary, and I an aware of nowhere where St. John Chrysostom (or any Father for that matter) has said what you said (the underlined part) above. In another writing, St. John Chrysostom does refer to St. Peter as “‘Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.’ (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])”

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/552.htm (emphasis mine)

Regards Father John,

Nick
 
Ah, you caught it Nick, I was thinking as I Ieft he could be partially right as I didn’t read specifically the mentioned verse. Its covered in the link above with the Protestant scholars also.
 
GaryTaylor said:
Ah, you caught it Nick, I was thinking as I Ieft he could be partially right as I didn’t read specifically the mentioned verse. Its covered in the link above with the Protestant scholars also.
Click to expand...
I’ll have to take a closer look at that one, thanks!
 
LionHeart777 said:
Fr. John

Can you show me where St. John Chrysostom wrote that:

“…the rock upon which Christ built His Church is the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter.” ? (Emphasis mine)

I am aware of his commentary in Homily 54:

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

Notice St. John he does not say here what you said Fr. John (see your comment above, specifically the part I underlined.)

If one were only to read one paragraph from the Catholic Catechism, one could make the incorrect assumption that the Catholic Church believes that “…the rock upon which Christ built His Church is the faith confessed by St. Peter, not on the person of St. Peter.” If you look at the Catechism of the Catholic Church par. 424 it says:

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/424.htm (emphasis mine)

However, we read in par. 552:

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/552.htm (emphasis mine)

These 2 paragraphs are not contradictory but complimentary, and I an aware of nowhere where St. John Chrysostom (or any Father for that matter) has said what you said (the underlined part) above. In another writing, St. John Chrysostom does refer to St. Peter as “‘Peter, that head of the Apostles, the first in the Church, the friend of Christ, who received the revelation not from man but from the Father…this Peter, and when I say Peter, I mean the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation, the great apostle, the first of the disciples, the first called, the first to obey.’ (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])”

Source: scborromeo.org/ccc/para/552.htm (emphasis mine)

Regards Father John,

Nick
Click to expand...
Regarding the citation in blue above from St. John, I cut & pasted the CCC link instead of
the correct source. It was from: philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm
 
GaryTaylor said:
Great Saint, but not infallible. Could be he was wrong, was he wrong with St Mary and his elaboration on the Wedding of Cana and sin? I believe this is precisely why the magisterium is imperative. They all are human and made mistakes. Augustine spoke clearly on this in Retractions leaving his work to be discerned by the Church. In the final analysis, its what they all believed in.

In fact to paraphrase the quote badly from Bl Cardinal Newman, that particular quote from St John on the Blessed Virgin stands out alone from antiquity.

I don’t know about the most respected. one of the most highly regarded. I would concede that.
Click to expand...
Of course any Father could be wrong. However, on this particular matter St. John is not alone, but his opinion is shared by most Eastern Orthodox Biblical scholars. Besides even if the Roman Catholic interpretation is correct, it does not mean that Our Lord gave all power to St. Peter. We know this from history, for neither St. Peter nor his successors in Rome exercised universal jurisdiction or were recognized as infallible by the ancient Church. Everyone recognized the primacy of Rome, but recognizing a primacy of honor does not mean that Rome has the kind of authority over the ancient Church now claimed by the Popes. The historical evidence is that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority.

Fr. John
 
frjohnmorris said:
it can be communf course any Father could be wrong. However, on this particular matter St. John is not alone, but his opinion is shared by most Eastern Orthodox Biblical scholars. Besides even if the Roman Catholic interpretation is correct, it does not mean that Our Lord gave all power to St. Peter. We know this from history, for neither St. Peter nor his successors in Rome exercised universal jurisdiction or were recognized as infallible by the ancient Church. Everyone recognized the primacy of Rome, but recognizing a primacy of honor does not mean that Rome has the kind of authority over the ancient Church now claimed by the Popes. The historical evidence is that the Bishop of Rome had no such authority.

Fr. John
Click to expand...
Not “all power”.

Primacy of Peter. Not as how it is communicated today. Those days it might take as much as three months to send a message to another parish. For the most part they were left alone and sometimes together with theology, which could develop too.
 
If it did not have the promise in infallibility it would mean according to the verse it would not have the assurance to forgive sin.

As to how the infallibility was discerned, I don’t find inconsistent with the course of history. Thus what V-I proclaimed was indeed a fact with or without realization. Its a case of the truth revealing itself.

What’s indefectible is the Church, what’s infallible is the teaching authority and the power to bind and loose.
 
Was not St. Peter not just the leader of the Apostles but also their spokesperson who spoke for the group?
 
What jurisdiction did God give His Church in this world? Here we need to separate the physical from the spiritual. And what was given in honor?

He didn’t say I will give you a position of honor or authority over Rome. He had no geographical bounds on the Church to fight satin. The Apostles in there administrative reasoning discerned the where and what. St Peter then placed himself where he felt he needed to be and through divine revelation. Thus Antioch and Rome. So too where the others sent to other geographical regions. Such as Mark to Alexandria. Peter sent Mark to Alexandria and according to my biblical understanding he was hesitant to go at first. So who was given what and by whom?
 
Reuben_J said:
Not “all power”.

Primacy of Peter. Not as how it is communicated today. Those days it might take as much as three months to send a message to another parish. For the most part they were left alone and sometimes together with theology, which could develop too.
Click to expand...
That is true, but it is a rather weak argument. Just because communication is better today than it was in 400 does not mean that the Pope had the authority then that he claims today. If the old system worked then why does it not work today? If the Church functioned for 1,000 years without universal Papal jurisdiction, why should universal Papal jurisdiction be acknowledge today? I cannot believe that it is sound theologically to give all power to one man who is unaccountable to any higher authority. Besides your argument does not really have any foundation because communication was not as good in 1054 as it is today, yet when Cardinal Humbert arrived in Constantinople demanding that Patriarch Michael I accept papal dominion, he refused and the Cardinal started the schism by excommunicating the Patriarch.
It also has no foundation because Pope Leo IX based his claims to authority over the Eastern Patriarchs on the forged Donation of Constantine, not the Bible or any decision of an Ecumenical Council. If the ancient Church had accepted anything like the modern claims of Rome, one would see that reflected in the canons of the Ecumenical Councils, which instead of recognizing a universal papal primacy organize the Church as a federation of locally self-governed Churches with an Ecumenical Council holding universal authority, not the Bishop of Rome. Rome accepted canon IX of Chalcedon which gave the Patriarch of Constantinople not Rome the authority to receive and render judgment on cases involving clergy. The canon did not restrict this authority only to the East but included the entire Church, yet although Rome protested against canon 28 of Chalcedon, it said nothing about this particular canon which took away from Rome the limited authority to hear appeals given to the Pope by the Council of Sardica.
Even 1054 it were only a matter of a quarrel between Constantinople and Rome, the Crusaders enlarged the division when they conquered Orthodox territories and replaced the Orthodox Bishops with Latin Bishops under Rome. The Crusaders had no authority to throw out the Orthodox Patriarch of Antioch and replace him with a Latin Patriarch. Rome continued to appoint Latin Patriarchs of Antioch until 1964.
You cannot prove your argument because a study of the history of the ancient Church shows beyond the shadow of a doubt that Rome did not exercise universal jurisdiction even in theory. Some Popes may have made that claim, but the rest of the Church did not accept the papal claims. There were 5 Patriarchs, 4 of them refused to recognized the claims of Rome, which was only one Patriarch. If universal papal jurisdiction had been accepted as the doctrine of the Church why would 3 of the 5 Patriarchs side with Constantinople against Rome?

Fr. John
 
Church of Rome taught that not only was this authority limited to Peter, but that also whatever authority the other Apostles had was mediated through Peter. Just as described with St Mark. And just as with the 50 AD Council.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top