J
josephdaniel29
Guest
That doesn’t seem like an appropriate question for that part of the forum to me. Especially coming from an Orthodox poster.
- Status
I
inkaneer
Guest
That may be but not because you are Orthodox. In reviewing the questions asked there they tend to be the type that only require a minimal answer. Anything that involves research to any decree doesn’t appear to make it to the “Ask the Apologist” forum. I, myself have sent in a couple questions which have apparently disappearred into a black hole and have never seen the light of day. To be fair, I’m sure the people there are inundated with all kinds of questions so it becomes a quantity vs quality type of thing.
My answer to your question remains the same. The mere fact that the pope is acting as a judge on a tribunal deciding a case tells me he is not acting on that tribunal as the universal bishop [Pope]. If he were then the other bishops are totally unnecessary. The Pope, as Pope, has the authority and could decide the case on his own. So the fact that there is this tribunal leads me to believe that here he is not acting in his capacity of pope or universal bishop but rather as any other bishop. And this despite the fact that his bishopric is the Rome. So this may be the reason why Augustine says the decision was appealable to a plenary council as it would be if the tribunal were just bishops acting as bishops. I will note also that such tribunal decisions are also appealable to the Pope. However, since the person who is occupies the position of Pope is also acting as a judge on the tribunal [but not in the capacity of Pope] that this recourse may seem futile and thus the appeal to a plenary council maybe the only practical recourse. Here I am thinking of other cases where appeals of decisions from local tribunals could be appealed to Rome. For example, from the canons of the Council of Sardica:
“*f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
“*f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment” (canon 4).
Augustine also writes:
“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!” (Sermons 131:10 [A.D. 411]).
This latter writing of Augustine is what leads me to believe that Augustine was aware of the appeal to the Pope but considered it to be an exercise in futility due to the person who was Pope involvement in the tribunal as a bishop. Now that may seem like splitting hairs to you but it does recognize the fact that the pope functions in different capacities at different times. That is the best I can do and as I stated I think your question requires the services of a canon lawyer to do it justice. Good question though!**
T
TinaG
Guest
I
inkaneer
Guest
Eusebius, *Church History *
S
steve_b
Guest
Maybe to clarify what I think inkaneer is saying,Hi!
Please document this.
Thanks!
-Tina "Into Documentation" G
Peter can ordain many bishops. That doesn’t make each bishop that Peter ordains, another Peter, head of the entire Church. But as bishop, they will be head of their respective Church they are bishop of in the line of an apostle, in this case Peter.
JPII ordained many bishops when he was pope. Those bishops then, are ordained in the line of apostolic succession as any validly ordained bishop is. They are not however popes just because JPII ordained them… But they are validly ordained bishops.
To put this another way
Look at the ranking of sees in the 1st century.
*]Rome
*]Alexandria
*]Antioch
*]Jerusalem
3rd century ranking. It’s the same today
*]Rome
*]Constantinople/Istanbul
*]Alexandria
*]Antioch
*]Jerusalem
Rome is always 1st in rank because it’s the chair of Peter. Even when Constantine moved the capital of the empire to Byzantium which was renamed to Constantinople, moving the other sees behind it, Rome was still 1st.
I
inkaneer
Guest
The only exception to that list is Constantinople. They do not trace their Apostoloic Succession to Peter but rather to Andrew * Constnatiople was made a patriarchy at the Council of Constantinople in the fourth century because it was the then the capital of the empire.
Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople states:
“The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome” (canon 3 [A.D. 381]).
Still that did not prevent the bishop of Constantinople from teaching heresy [Nestorius, bishop from 428-431] thus showing that the binding and loosening power given individually to Peter remained in the bishop of Rome.*
S
steve_b
Guest
True. And the part non Catholics miss in this discussion, This ranking is ecclesiastical ranking not secular ranking. However, look how easy and fast the other sees got pushed behind Constantinople in ranking of sees, but NOT Rome.
What message did THAT action send?
- the Church knows, and the emperor knows, WHERE the see of Peter is and it’s NOT Constantinople, NOR with any of the other sees it put behind Constantinople.
- Constantinople doesn’t consider the OTHER sees equal to Rome even though Peter was in those sees also. Therefore, Constantinople places itself in honor over THEM but NOT over Rome.
- Rome
- Constantinople
- Alexandria
- Antioch
- Jerusalem
i:
When we look back on it- Constantinople is called new Rome. It’s the new capital of the empire. Why then if this is an emperor and capital of the empire issue, was it’s bishop behind Rome? Constantinople didn’t have problems pushing the other sees back behind itself, why not push Rome behind itself also? It’s no longer the capital.
- As you know, the pope didn’t agree with canon 3.
i:
the entire Church always knew, Rome was the chair of Peter, regardless of all the intrigues.
T
TinaG
Guest
Please be more specific.
Note that Book 7 point 19 has that
ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.xii.xx.html
It is clear that Eusebius did not think Peter had anything to do with James’ becoming bishop of Jerusalem, which is in total contradiction to your post. I have looked through Eusebius and I have not found anything to back your post up. Please supply book and chapter references for each of your statements. This is important because either Peter was the source of all bishops, hence universal, as you state, or he was not. It is clear to me he was not, based on this passage at least, and I would like to see your evidence for the other statements you made. You said E. was the source. Please prove it.
Thank you,
-Tina “Still Waiting” G
I
inkaneer
Guest
Who gave the sermon in Jerusalem on Pentecost, Peter or James? Who called for the replacement of Judas, Peter or James? Peter was obviously in charge in the beginning in Jerusalem. Peter left Jerusalem for Antioch then onto Rome. After He left James took over as bishop. The information I posted came from several sources and I obtained it some time ago from doing my own research. I did not write it down. So you are on your own. Here is a start. In 303 AD Eusebius of Caesarea wrote the following:
“[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [A.D. 42]: The apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years” (The Chronicle [A.D. 303]).
By the way, being the universal bishop does not mean that Peter was the source of all bishops. Timothy and Titus were bishops consecrated by Paul. Bishops are the successors of the Apostles and every bishop in the world can trace their line of succession to one of the Apostles not necessarily Peter. This goes for not only Catholic bishops but Orthodox and Coptic also. Peter is the universal bisop because he is the bishop of the entire church and his successors, whom we call the Popes, are also the universal bishops.
- Status