St. John Chrysostom and communion with Rome

[Trebor135]

Hey Trebor135,

Hey LionHeart777–peace be with you.

First off, I want to apologize to you and the other Orthodox-inclined posters for being cantankerous and uncharitable.

Ahh, no worries. I didn’t find you to be “cantankerous” or “uncharitable” at all.

As far as books/essays I’ve read, for me it was a process coming from Protestantism and was looking at both Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism. Some of what I was reading came from the internet (OCA website for example and other EAstern Orthodox pages.) I spent time on this site and forum, Catholic radio, etc. Reading Jurgen’s 3 volume set on the Fathers, Steve Rays “Upon this Rock.” A little bit here and there, as well as listening to various debates. From my point of view, I can relate a lot to what Jimmy Akin wrote in his article "“Why I Am Not Eastern Orthodox”. (Which doesn’t appear to be on this site anymore.)

Just a couple quick comments here. I haven’t read Jurgens’ or Ray’s works, but if their apologetics for the modern Catholic papacy resemble what I’ve seen online, further reading might be warranted. Most of the quotes commonly cited on this topic can be understood in other very plausible ways. Also, I’ve read Jimmy Akin’s article, and was actually disappointed because this generally good apologist wasn’t able to make very good arguments. (We can discuss this issue in another thread if you’d like.)

About the Catholic Encyclopedia, I don’t see the entry on St. Chrysostom saying that he wasn’t in communion with Rome for a time. I’ll go back and look at the posts but I am guessing that you (and others) are perhaps inferring this from the entry on St. Meletius of Antioch?

I can give a set of more concise quotes demonstrating that St. John Chrysostom, while under Bishops Meletius and Flavian, was not in (full) communion with the pope of Rome:

From the “Meletius of Antioch” article:

“Evagrius, the chief promoter of the attempted reconciliation, once more joined the party of Paulinus. This important conversion won over to the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East. Great was the consternation of Meletius and his community, which in the absence of the natural leader was still governed by Flavius and Diodorus, encouraged by the presence of the monk Aphrates and the support of St. Basil.”

“In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria, the presidency rightfully fell to the Bishop of Antioch, whom the Emperor Theodosius received with marked deference, nor was the imperial favour unprofitable to Meletius in his quality of president of the assembly. … The [Second Ecumenical] Council immediately proceeded to confirm the Nicene faith, but during this important session Meletius died almost suddenly. Feeling his end was near, he spent his remaining days re-emphasizing his eagerness for unity and peace.”

And from the “St. John Chrysostom” article:

“The successor of Meletius was Flavian (concerning whose succession see F. Cavallera, “Le Schime d’Antioche”, Paris, 1905). Ties of sympathy and friendship connected Chrysostom with his new bishop. … In the year 386 Chrysostom was ordained priest by Flavian…”

“In the ordinary course of things Chrysostom might have become the successor of Flavian at Antioch. But on 27 September 397, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, died. … Chrysostom was hurried to the capital, and ordained Bishop of Constantinople on 26 February, 398… The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome.”

Does this help?

Continued in next post (later today or tomorrow).

 

[Jehannette]

Here’s an interesting article:

rtforum.org/lt/lt29.html

 

[LionHeart777]

Hello all,

I’ll try to respond sooner then later here, I kind of want to pull back and take a little break-- I find myself obsessing on this and the split thread a bit. (Maybe I’ll post later tomorrow or Monday.)

In the meantime, I did come across a Catholic source that seems to tackle the issue of Sts. Meletius and Chrysostom and Rome (the topic of this thread.)

Here is the link:

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BasilChrysostomShort.pdf

I’ve yet to read it myself but a quick glance show it to be extremely relevant.

Take care!!!

–Nick

 

[Trebor135]

As far as St. Chrysostom’s words about St. John the Apostle (in the first citation), I don’t see the taking away from what Catholics believe about St. Peter. Pope Benedict XVI wrote in an address while in Turkey that: “Simon, notwithstanding his human weakness, was called ‘Peter’, the ‘rock’ on which the Church was to be built; to him in a particular way were entrusted the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Mt 16:18).” (source: vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/november/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061130_divine-liturgy_en.html) (accessed 6/22/2012) (emphasis mine.)

So, is it possible to speak of other Apostles as having received the keys in some sort of secondary way, by way of allusion, regarding St. Matthew 16:18-19? Perhaps, I’m not sure. I’ll let the Church and Her Theologians answer that question. But if so, then this would not take away from the fact that St. Peter, and him alone, was given the keys “in a particular way”, to borrow the Holy Father’s words

I can agree with you and Pope Benedict XVI that St. Peter could certainly have been a recipient of the keys to the kingdom “in a special way”.

Nonetheless, patristic testimony is an element essential to the Catholic faith, which eschews sola scriptura. It’s helpful to find out what the Early Church Fathers believed, on the whole, about an issue. To this effect we can take into account this informative post here which I stumbled upon yesterday:

"Church Fathers and the Rock

"Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings. He published his speech in Naples the following year.

"It is important because he lists the five different patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

"Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

"1…‘That St. Peter is the Rock’ is taught by seventeen (17) Fathers

"2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock, represented by Peter as its chief, is taught by eight (8.) Church Fathers

"3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock, is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

"4…That Christ is the Rock, is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

"5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful. Archbp. Kendrick gives no figure.

"Archbishop Kendrick summarises

"‘If we are bound to follow the greater number of Fathers in this matter, then we must hold for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.’

"This is an important point by Kendrick since one of the RC Councils (I need to check which one) laid down the principle that a preponderance of patristic consensus is needed for the promulgation of any dogma.

"You can look this up and check that I have it accurately in Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

"As to who Archbishop Kenrick was. Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia [article here.]"

(cf. Isaiah 22:22)

This is definitely an interesting parallel passage to Matthew 16:19. However, the linkage is rarely made in patristic writings: I have seen only one such example (quoted here by Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore), found in a work by St. John Cassian. (This state of affairs is certainly lamentable, for we might otherwise have at our disposal a number of clear and concise patristic citations regarding the role of the bishop of Rome throughout the first several centuries of the Church.)

Continued in next post.

 

[Trebor135]

I think that his own statements about the keys and St. Peter show that he saw that the keys were given to St. Peter “in a particular way” as well (see Phil Vaz’s article again and scroll down to St. Matthew 16:18)

You may be right, but it remains difficult to draw that conclusion for certain. St. John Chrysostom proclaimed that Jesus “[made St. Peter] Shepherd” and “cause[d] a fisherman to be stronger than any rock”, “set him as a column of brass and as a wall… to the whole world” and “to a mortal man… entrusted the power over all that is in heaven, in giving the keys to him who extended the Church throughout the world, and showed it stronger than the world”. Considering all of the flowery language St. John Chrysostom heaped upon his namesake apostle, is it not unlikely that the renowned preacher would be eager, indeed honoured, to dish out the same praises for St. Paul?

St. John’s words make me think of Origen’s commentary on St. Matthew 18 about “binding and loosing”:

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/101613.htm (emphasis mine)

Here, if I am not mistaken, Origen allows the possibility of others having keys but, as he states, “Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more”, showing that although he implies that others have keys to bind and loose “in one heaven”, nevertheless this doesn’t not discount that St. Peter received the keys in a unique way.

I would agree with you here.

As far as the second citation you gave,

I made an error here, intending to point to the material cited in post #41.

I assume you are paying close attention to the words "But since it is not he , but God by him, that speaks to mankind…", I see no problem here either. First of all this is his commentary on the Gospel of John and yes indeed “God by him…speaks to mankind…” through his Gospel (and his Epistles) But also the fact that God may (at least in a sense) speak to mankind using other men (or women) than St. Peter (or his successors) no way detracts from the Papacy. If that were the case, would the Church have approved the various apparitions of Our Lady?

This is all true, as far as it goes. But if we apply the same principles here–interpreting what St. John Chrysostom said about certain apostles, then deriving conclusions about how their successors governed in his time and should do likewise in our day–we are faced with a theological product that looks nothing like either classical Catholic or Orthodox ecclesiology.

Also, for the record, I don’t agree with everything that St. John Chrysostom wrote and neither does the Church require me to do so.

Likewise. What we have to do is conduct a survey of what each Father said as an individual and draw conclusions based on their testimony as a group in order to discern what was believed “always, everywhere, and by all” during the early centuries of the Christian faith.

For example, I disagree with his exegesis of 1 Corinthians 3:15.

I hold to an interpretation of that passage according to which St. Paul is speaking of a process of purification undergone by the soul after death. As a Latin Catholic, would you also subscribe to this view?

Regards,

–Nick

Cheers,
Trebor135

 

[Trebor135]

I was asking a question.
Thus the "?

Ahh, I understood your question as a rhetorical one. As of yet, at least, I cannot answer it.

 

[Trebor135]

Hi Trebor !

Nice to meet you.

Bonjour Pneuma07–ravissant de vous connaître aussi. (I take it your first language is French…? (Because you put a space before the exclamation point.))

I see for sure the point of quotations like the beautiful above one from his homilies on the incipit of John’s Gospel, , if we want to put St. John Chrysostom’s view on Peter the Apostle in the right perspective.

Magnificent.

If we, nevertheless, want, as it seems, to specifically deal with ( what we can get about ) Chrysostom’s view about “ranking” the Apostles, and particularly Peter and John, IMHO the following passage extolling St. John the Apostle appears right on target:

Yes, that’s a very good quote–it clarifies what St. John Chrysostom thought of these two apostles in relation to one another.

You then move to considerations about successors, Peter’s and John’s that is.

Yes.

Then I propose to focus on this: did St. John Chrysostom ever propose to elevate some local churches with johannine roots, or one of them, over the rank attributed to the great petrine seats ?

That’s a good question to be asking.

Is that according to you a meaningful approach to understand what he would perceive about successors ?

Correct.

If so, then let’s move to the ancient Church at large: was ever any proposition debated to elevate johannine churches over petrine seats ?

No, but some Petrine sees lost their privileged place in the Early Church. For a while the three respected patriarchates were Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, but later on the five esteemed patriarchates came to be Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Two of the Petrine sees lost their canonical status to the bishopric of the new imperial capital city; the three Petrine sees and the bishopric of the new imperial capital were decreed to outrank the see of the Church’s birthplace at Pentecost.

I hope this can help.

Well, it supports the modern Catholic position only to an extent. In what homilies did St. John Chrysostom preach about the bishop of Rome of his day (1) constituting the centre of ecclesiastical unity and (2) possessing universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility?

In Christ
P7

God bless,
T.

 

[Jehannette]

"Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings. He published his speech in Naples the following year.

The First Vatican Council was much more than just defining the dogma of Papal Infallibility. For instance, do you disagree with the following:

Pope Pius IX, Vatican Council I, Session 3, Chapter 1, On God the creator of all things, ex cathedra: “Everything that God has brought into being he protects and governs by his providence, which reaches from one end of the earth to the other and orders all things well. All things are open and laid bare before His eyes, even those which will be brought about by the free activity of creatures.”

You’re asking us to believe than an ecumenical Council erred or at least that Vatican I was not an ecumenical Council. Why would the Holy Spirit allow such an error to infect the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ? Or, is it more likely that Archbishop Kenrick was the one who was in error?

 

[Trebor135]

The First Vatican Council was much more than just defining the dogma of Papal Infallibility.

True.

For instance, do you disagree with the following:

No, I can assent to that statement.

You’re asking us to believe than an ecumenical Council erred or at least that Vatican I was not an ecumenical Council. Why would the Holy Spirit allow such an error to infect the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ? Or, is it more likely that Archbishop Kenrick was the one who was in error?

But you have assumed that the Catholic Church is the visible body of Christ, without demonstrating the proposition to be correct. On this sandy foundation, then, you conclude that Vatican I was a true Ecumenical Council; I suggest that it may, in fact, have been a tidier repeat of the Robber Council of Ephesus in A.D. 449.

 

[Jehannette]

But you have assumed that the Catholic Church is the visible body of Christ, without demonstrating the proposition to be correct. On this sandy foundation, then, you conclude that Vatican I was a true Ecumenical Council; I suggest that it may, in fact, have been a tidier repeat of the Robber Council of Ephesus in A.D. 449.

Not just Vatican I, but the Councils of Lateran IV, Florence, Lateran V, Trent, and Vatican II, and not only that, but 1500 years of some “impostor” claiming that he “holds the Keys to the Kingdom.” I admit that St. John Chrysostom’s testimonies could go the “other way” (with the more probable interpretation being, IMO, that he supported Papal Primacy), however, you are asking for the ultimate “leap of faith” in that the Successors to Saint Peter could be deceiving people for so long and that the Triune God is just “another bystander” to this whole charade.

 

[Trebor135]

Not just Vatican I, but the Councils of Lateran IV, Florence, Lateran V, Trent, and Vatican II, and not only that, but 1500 years of some “impostor” claiming that he “holds the Keys to the Kingdom.” I admit that St. John Chrysostom’s testimonies could go the “other way” (with the more probable interpretation being, IMO, that he supported Papal Primacy), however, you are asking for the ultimate “leap of faith” in that the Successors to Saint Peter could be deceiving people for so long and that the Triune God is just “another bystander” to this whole charade.

Why isn’t it at least theoretically possible that the pope has been teaching error for the past one thousand years?

After all, wouldn’t you say that, by refusing to enter into communion with the bishop of Rome, the successors of St. Peter in Alexandria from 451 to 2012 (i.e., the patriarchs of the Coptic Orthodox Church (until the passing of Pope Shenouda III, at which point the position became vacant)) and in Antioch from 1054 to 1729 (i.e., the patriarchs of the Antiochian Orthodox Church (until the formation of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church)) cannot overse lawful councils on matters of doctrine (e.g., condemning papal infallibility) by virtue of their ecclesiastical authority as shepherds in what they deem to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

 

[Jehannette]

Why isn’t it at least theoretically possible that the pope has been teaching error for the past one thousand years?

After all, wouldn’t you say that, by refusing to enter into communion with the bishop of Rome, the successors of St. Peter in Alexandria from 451 to 2012 (i.e., the patriarchs of the Coptic Orthodox Church (until the passing of Pope Shenouda III, at which point the position became vacant)) and in Antioch from 1054 to 1729 (i.e., the patriarchs of the Antiochian Orthodox Church (until the formation of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church)) cannot overse lawful councils on matters of doctrine (e.g., condemning papal infallibility) by virtue of their ecclesiastical authority as shepherds in what they deem to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

So, with whom should I seek communion with, the patriarchs of Alexandria or the patriarchs of Antioch? And, what happens when there is a disagreement between them?

 

[pneuma07]

Bonjour Pneuma07–ravissant de vous connaître aussi. (I take it your first language is French…? (Because you put a space before the exclamation point.))

T.

Dear Trebor,
la langue française n’est pas ma première langue. Je ne sais pas si c’est ta deuxième, ou bien troisième, après l’arabe … BTW Thanks for your free English lesson.

Thanks for considering appropriate my limited remarks, too.

Yes, that’s a very good quote–it clarifies what St. John Chrysostom thought of these two apostles in relation to one another

If it were proposed that other figures were greater than John and greater than Peter, we could read St. John’s Chrysostom last homily on John’s Gospel, 88, beginning eg with.

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, «If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.»

As you know, James brother of the Lord would be greater than Peter, according to some readings of Chrysostom’s commentary on Acts 15.

This we can IMHO put into perspective through this Homily 88.

«*This spoke He, signifying by what death he should glorify God.»
He said not, «Should die,» but, «Should glorify God,» that you may learn, that to suffer for Christ, is glory and honor to the sufferer.

«And when He had spoken this, He says, Follow Me.»

*Here again He alludes to his tender carefulness, and to his being very closely attached to Himself. And if any should say, «How then did James receive the chair at Jerusalem?» I would make this reply, that He appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair, but of the world.

No, but some Petrine sees lost their privileged place in the Early Church. For a while the three respected patriarchates were Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, but later on the five esteemed patriarchates came to be Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Two of the Petrine sees lost their canonical status to the bishopric of the new imperial capital city; the three Petrine sees and the bishopric of the new imperial capital were decreed to outrank the see of the Church’s birthplace at Pentecost.

I somehow tried to adress this in your thread about the Chair of Peter.

tbc

 

[pneuma07]

Well, it supports the modern Catholic position only to an extent. In what homilies did St. John Chrysostom preach about the bishop of Rome of his day (1) constituting the centre of ecclesiastical unity and (2) possessing universal jurisdiction and doctrinal infallibility?

God bless,
T.

Granted, the scope of my response was limited to the relation between John and Peter, and between the former’s and the latter’s successors.
For wider tasks, I guess I have no silver bullet. and tremendously little time.

Since you kindly ask, this is a first little homework.

For He did not at that time wish to show how much Peter loved Him, but how much He Himself loved His own Church, and he desired to teach Peter and all of us that we also should bestow much zeal upon the same. For why did God not spare His only-begotten Son, but delivered Him up, although the only one He had? It was that He might reconcile to Himself those who were disposed towards Him as enemies, and make them His peculiar people. For what purpose did He shed His blood? It was that He might win these sheep which He entrusted to Peter and his successors. On Priesthood , Book 2, ch. 1

Now, I guess we agree Chrysostom is speaking about all of Jesus’ sheep here. He also makes clear Peter had successors, a particular petrine succession within the general Apostolic Succession. Good.
But an Eastern Orthodox brother could propose to you : “The successors, are not , or certainly not just, the bishops of Rome, as a modern RC could imagine, reading his own mindset into Chrysostom. They are all the bishops” . Of course we go by adding the individual bishops’ local floks, to get the universal one in this reasonable proposal, considering the bishops as Peter’s successors, in Chrysostom’s view.

Which raises nevertheless more questions. Why were all the sheep entrusted by Our Lord to one, and then, in the following generations, we have to understand they are entrusted to many, seeing the universal flock as a set of local flocks ? Not a small step from the initial mandate, indeed.
A second question could be: are all the bishops to be regarded as Peter’s successors in the very same way, and if so, why were there specific petrine sees ?
A third question is IMHO even more troubling: if all sheep were entrusted to Peter ( not excluding the other Apostles ) , and then his successors, to whom are now ( or were in St. John Chrysostom’s time ) entrusted the bishops ?
Do they never need to be confirmed ?

Let’s pass now to Homily 32 on Romans.

*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, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, and shudder (φρίξατε) at the thought of what a sight Rome will see, when Paul arises suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord….

Fain would I see the tomb, where the armor of righteousness is laid up, the armor of light, the limbs which now live, but which in life were made dead; and in all whereof Christ lived, which were crucified to the world, which were Christ’s members, which were clad in Christ, were a temple of the Spirit, an holy building, bound in the Spirit, Acts 20:22 riveted to the fear of God, which had the marks of Christ. This body is a wall to that City, which is safer than all towers, and than thousands of battlements. And with it is that of Peter. For he honored him while alive. For he went up to see Peter, Galatians 1:18 and therefore even when departed grace deigned to give him the same abode with him. * Homily on Romans.

I wonder: what would the bodies of Peter and Paul protect Rome from, in Chrysostom’s view ? Wasn’t he aware that the city could fall to human armies, as it did fall just after his death ?

I hope this can help.

In Christ
P7

 

[LionHeart777]

St Chrysostom was not in communion with Rome for some time and venerated st Meletius as a saint while St Meletius died out of communion with Rome. That’s a fact, not a conjecture.

“…there is no evidence that St. Chrysostom himself was ever out of communion with Rome. The bishops of the patriarchate of Antioch for the most part recognized St. Meletius and his successor St. Flavian as rightful patriarchs, while Rome and Alexandria (that is, St. Athanasius and his successors) thought that their rival Paulinus had the better title. But the rest of the East sides with Meletius, though remaining in full communion with Alexandria, Rome and the West. It is certain that neither St. Meletius nor St. Flavian was ever formally excommunicated by the Apostolic See. It is still more certain that their adherents – whether the bishops within the patriarchate, or the priests (including St. Chrysostom) and people within the city – were never excommunicated.”

There is no evidence when one refuses to see them. The confusion between formal excomunication and the break of communion is hilarious.

Peter syndrome. But anyway, the fact st st Chrysostom was out of communion with Rome for some time and that he venerated st Meletius prove that the reading of vatican I in Chrysostom comments about Peter is wrong.

"Since we’re using Wikipedia, how about this:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primacy…ohn_Chrysostom

Quote:
John Chrysostom

John Chrysostom was born at Antioch around 347 and would fight for the reform of the church until his exile in 404. His homilies emphasize his belief in the primacy. St. Chrysostom called Peter “the leader of the choir, the mouth of all the apostles, the head of that tribe, the ruler of the whole world, the foundation of the Church, the ardent lover of Christ…”[19] His writings also emphasize the mortality of Peter, linking him more closely to the people of the Church. "

So when he says John is the greatest, does it mean st John ruled the whole universe when Peter only the world?

"Also, incidentally and if I’m not mistaken, Melitius of Antioch is considered a Saint in the Catholic Church. "

Yes, but st Meletius died out of communion with Rome.

If i find it i’ll post it and answer this article

Saint Jerome: “Elsewhere the same is attributed to all the apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the church depends on them all alike” - Epistle 146.1

I suppose we will agree to disagree that it is fact Dollinger. I see a repudiation by the Rev. S. Herbert Scott of the claim that St. Meletius was not in communion with Rome (see pg. 120 at the following link):

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BasilChrysostomShort.pdf

He also repudiates the idea the St. Meletius died not in communion with Rome:

(see pg. 124 here):

catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BasilChrysostomShort.pdf

(This is the link that deals more w/ St. John Chrysostom)

You said,

So when he says John is the greatest, does it mean st John ruled the whole universe when Peter only the world?

No, I don 't believe so. Whatever he says about St. John should be taken into account with the totality of what he has written about St. Peter.

Re: the rebuttal to Jimmy Akin’s article, I had seen that when looking for the original, and had read a good part of it. For my part I shall remain Catholic.

 

[LionHeart777]

Also Dolinger,

Re: your citation of St. I should thank you for that in that I believe it strengthens the point I was making (the one which you used it to rebut.) I say this because St. Jerome was adamant about equating communion with the successor of St. Peter to being in the Church (in his epistles to Pope St. Damasus.)

‘I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails’ (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

‘The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria’ (ibid., 16:2).

Source: catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii (accessed 6/24/2012)

Also, looking at that second citation in fuller context:

The untiring foe follows me closely, and the assaults that I suffer in the desert are severer than ever. For the Arian frenzy raves, and the powers of the world support it. The church is rent into three factions, and each of these is eager to seize me for its own. The influence of the monks is of long standing, and it is directed against me. I meantime keep crying: He who clings to the chair of Peter is accepted by me. Meletius, Vitalis, and Paulinus all profess to cleave to you, and I could believe the assertion if it were made by one of them only. As it is, either two of them or else all three are guilty of falsehood. Therefore I implore your blessedness, by our Lord’s cross and passion, those necessary glories of our faith, as you hold an apostolic office, to give an apostolic decision. Only tell me by letter with whom I am to communicate in Syria, and I will pray for you that you may sit in judgment enthroned with the twelve; Matthew 19:28 that when you grow old, like Peter, you may be girded not by yourself but by another, John 21:18 and that, like Paul, you may be made a citizen of the heavenly kingdom. Do not despise a soul for which Christ died.

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/3001016.htm

This is very interesting in that he (if I am not mistaken here) is referring the schism relevent to this thread-- which came to be known as the “Meletian schism” (not that it was St. Meletius’ fault as I believe Rev. S. Herbert Scott pointed if memory serves) (see: catholic-convert.com/wp-content/uploads/Documents/BasilChrysostomShort.pdf)

So, incidentally, Trebor135, if you want evidence of the mind of the Church in the mid 4th century as to the question of communion with Rome as being tantamount to being in communion with the Catholic Church, I would argue that St. Jerome gives explicit evidence vis a vis the argument you and others are putting forth.

(I’ll try to give a response to you here soon.)

 

[Dollinger]

So, with whom should I seek communion with, the patriarchs of Alexandria or the patriarchs of Antioch? And, what happens when there is a disagreement between them?

And to wich Pope would you have asked it during the western schism? Wich Pope should i have been in communion with during the western schism?

A third question is IMHO even more troubling: if all sheep were entrusted to Peter ( not excluding the other Apostles ) , and then his successors, to whom are now ( or were in St. John Chrysostom’s time ) entrusted the bishops ?Do they never need to be confirmed ?

Orthodoxy does not deny a hierarchy in the church with Rome being the head as long as Rome has the Faith of Peter.

So this is a strawman.

I suppose we will agree to disagree that it is fact Dollinger. I see a repudiation by the Rev. S. Herbert Scott of the claim that St. Meletius was not in communion with Rome (see pg. 120 at the following link):

catholic-convert.com/wp-c…ostomShort.pdf

He also repudiates the idea the St. Meletius died not in communion with Rome:

(see pg. 124 here):

catholic-convert.com/wp-c…ostomShort.pdf

(This is the link that deals more w/ St. John Chrysostom)

What are his proofs? To repudiate is not enough.

No, I don 't believe so. Whatever he says about St. John should be taken into account with the totality of what he has written about St. Peter.

So all those proof texts are simply irelevant, for none of them proves Vatican I ecclesiology.

I say this because St. Jerome was adamant about equating communion with the successor of St. Peter to being in the Church (in his epistles to Pope St. Damasus.)

Or you simply interpret it as such. St Jerome didnt know who was the legitimate bishop of Antioch, so needed the opinion of Rome, since all the bishops of Antioch claimed to be in communion with St Damasus.

So, incidentally, Trebor135, if you want evidence of the mind of the Church in the mid 4th century as to the question of communion with Rome as being tantamount to being in communion with the Catholic Church, I would argue that St. Jerome gives explicit evidence vis a vis the argument you and others are putting forth.

And your interpretation is simply disproved by oecumenical council:

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): “But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate.”

The position as head is conditional.

 

[Jehannette]

And to wich Pope would you have asked it during the western schism? Wich Pope should i have been in communion with during the western schism?

I honestly do not know. Does it matter? When was the last ecumenical Council which any Orthodox church of today recognizes as being valid? For me, that’s a problem, that is, to say that the Church of Christ has had no definitive teachings (or teacher) for the past 1,000 years. Point is that we have a definitive Pope of today, and that’s all that matters. I suppose that individual Catholics could “err in good faith” during the Western schism but not after the Council of Constance.

 

[LionHeart777]

And to wich Pope would you have asked it during the western schism? Wich Pope should i have been in communion with during the western schism?

Orthodoxy does not deny a hierarchy in the church with Rome being the head as long as Rome has the Faith of Peter.

So this is a strawman.

What are his proofs? To repudiate is not enough.

So all those proof texts are simply irelevant, for none of them proves Vatican I ecclesiology.

Or you simply interpret it as such. St Jerome didnt know who was the legitimate bishop of Antioch, so needed the opinion of Rome, since all the bishops of Antioch claimed to be in communion with St Damasus.

And your interpretation is simply disproved by oecumenical council:

Fifth Ecumenical Council of Constantinople II, Session VII (553): “But we bishops answered him (Pope Vigilius): "If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a father and primate.”

The position as head is conditional.

Dollinger, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree. I will respond to your citation of Constantinople II with a couple of responses already out there. The first is from “The Byzantine Forum”, and I believe the poster is responding to your citation:

Justinian forced the Council to be held in the East and maneuvered to get rid of opposition. Vigilius boycotted the Council. The dialogue that OrthodoxyorDeath quoted is incorrect. He has conflated what the Bishops told Vigilius with what the Emperor instructed be told to Vigilius. The Acts of the Council report the exchange between Vigilius and the Bishops (as the Bishops reported it to Justinian):

---

Vigilius states: “We have called you for this reason, that you may know what things have been done in the past days. To this end I have written a document about the disputed Three Chapters, addressed to the most pious Emperor, pray be good enough to read it, and to carry it to his Serenity.”

But when we had heard this and had seen the document written to your serenity, we said to him that we could not by any means receive any document written to the most pious Emperor without his bidding. “But you have deacons for running with messages, by whom you can send it.”

He, however, said to us: “You now know that I have made the document.”

But we, bishops, answered him: “If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, as a [father] and primate. But if your holiness has drawn up a document for the Emperor, you have errand-runners, as we have said; send it by them.”​

At Justinian’s bidding the Bishops tried to entice Vigilius to come to the Council. He preferred to make his statement in writing, however. Despite Vigilius’ earlier support the Council proves itself compliant to Justinian. One factor completely turned what support Vigilius had completely against him. Vigilius was exposed as deceptive. He had previously secretly promised Justinian that he would do everything possible to secure the condemnation of the Three Chapters and Justinian produced the written evidence from Vigilius’ own hand.

Source: byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122064/5

note: I think the first paragraph is in response to that citation but I could be wrong.

Also, from this forum by mardukm:

I’ll quote just one of the many statements from the Fathers that indicate that this headship was handed down to the bishop of Rome. This one is from the Fathers of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, while they were strongly urging Rome to consent to its decrees: If your blessedness is willing to meet together with us and the most holy Patriarchs, and the most religious bishops, and to treat of the Three Chapters and to give, in unison with us all, a suitable form of the orthodox faith, as the Holy Apostles and the holy Fathers and the four Councils have done, we will hold thee as our head, father and primate. Since Pope Vigilius’ consent was given… Note also that the Council appealed to the model of the Apostles and the Church before them. Remeber - we’re talking about an ECUMENICAL Council here, which represents the WHOLE Church

source: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=5603065

After another user rebuts, some of his replies are:

The very fact that the Council recognized the principle of a temporal head for the Church runs counter to the “Truth” that you expressed.

…I should point out that the Pope in fact did fulfill the condition, so he was indeed the head of the Church, as asserted by the Council Fathers. And I would remind again the fact that the Council was appealing to the model of the Apostles and the Church before them, This headship of the Church was not restricted to the time of Pope Vigilius alone, but was the belief of the Church from the beginning up to that time. It is ALSO the belief of the Catholic Church today, but, according to you, it is not the belief of the EOC.

Source: Ibid.

I think that this text may prove to much for the Eastern Orthodox who use it to deny the Papacy.

 

[LionHeart777]

Hey LionHeart777–peace be with you.

Ahh, no worries. I didn’t find you to be “cantankerous” or “uncharitable” at all.

Just a couple quick comments here. I haven’t read Jurgens’ or Ray’s works, but if their apologetics for the modern Catholic papacy resemble what I’ve seen online, further reading might be warranted. Most of the quotes commonly cited on this topic can be understood in other very plausible ways. Also, I’ve read Jimmy Akin’s article, and was actually disappointed because this generally good apologist wasn’t able to make very good arguments. (We can discuss this issue in another thread if you’d like.)

I can give a set of more concise quotes demonstrating that St. John Chrysostom, while under Bishops Meletius and Flavian, was not in (full) communion with the pope of Rome:

From the “Meletius of Antioch” article:

“Evagrius, the chief promoter of the attempted reconciliation, once more joined the party of Paulinus. This important conversion won over to the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East. Great was the consternation of Meletius and his community, which in the absence of the natural leader was still governed by Flavius and Diodorus, encouraged by the presence of the monk Aphrates and the support of St. Basil.”

“In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria, the presidency rightfully fell to the Bishop of Antioch, whom the Emperor Theodosius received with marked deference, nor was the imperial favour unprofitable to Meletius in his quality of president of the assembly. … The [Second Ecumenical] Council immediately proceeded to confirm the Nicene faith, but during this important session Meletius died almost suddenly. Feeling his end was near, he spent his remaining days re-emphasizing his eagerness for unity and peace.”

And from the “St. John Chrysostom” article:

“The successor of Meletius was Flavian (concerning whose succession see F. Cavallera, “Le Schime d’Antioche”, Paris, 1905). Ties of sympathy and friendship connected Chrysostom with his new bishop. … In the year 386 Chrysostom was ordained priest by Flavian…”

“In the ordinary course of things Chrysostom might have become the successor of Flavian at Antioch. But on 27 September 397, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, died. … Chrysostom was hurried to the capital, and ordained Bishop of Constantinople on 26 February, 398… The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome.”

Does this help?

Continued in next post (later today or tomorrow).

Trebor135, Peace be with you and thank you for the kind words.

I am going to respond to some of your comments (I think three posts) and then sum up my thoughts, after that I’ll give you (and Dolinger) the last word here.

Jurgens’ series on the Fathers’ is more or less various citations organized chronologically and by the authors’ work. It does have a Doctrinal Index in the back.

Thanks for the citations there… I still don’t see anything about Sts. Meletius and John Chrysostom being out of communion with Rome; I think you and Dolinger are inferring that and I don’t agree with that inference. Regarding Flavian, he may have been (if I’m reading the citation correctly) but that doesn’t say anything about St. John in my opinion.

I have given citations from other sources that disagree (Dolinger commented that one didn’t show evidence, but if I’m not mistaken, it gives the same amount of evidence that the citations you all have given do.)