The Eastern Sees, prior to the east - west schism: were they wrong?

[JohnVIII]

…Continued

…I would not admit it. Though the High and Absolutist Petrine views both affirm the necessity of the Pope for a Council to be truly “ecumenical,” there is a big difference in our respective understandings of that principle. The Absolutist Petrine view claims that the Pope’s approval is the ONLY thing necessary for a Council to be considered “ecumenical.” The High Petrine view, in distinction, believes that the approval of the Pope AND his brother bishops are equally necessary for a Council to be considered “ecumenical.” You can see this tension between the two positions in the debate I am having with brother SteveB in the other thread.

Only if every autocephalous church actually is represented can it be truly an Ecumenical Council. If some local church decides not to have representation there it is much the same as the canon rule that says that bishops of a local church must meet twice per year (unless they have an excuse such as sickness), but if a bishop does not he must be content with his own communion. It makes no difference if the bishop is the Pope or if it be any other bishop. If the Pope decides not to have representation there (as he did for the 2nd EC) then then Rome must be content with its own communion. Any church that wishes to continue to have all that goes along with so-called “full communion” must have representation at the counsel.

That depends on how one conceives of the term “ruler.” If one assumes that St. John Chrysostom was using the term in the secular sense of “lording it over,” I would agree with you. But if he understood that being a “ruler” in the Church must be defined according to Christ’s prescription (as he who serves the most), then I have no problem with accepting the Truth of St. Chrysostom’s statement about St. Peter.

Within an Ecumenical Council if all bishop agreed that the presiding bishop for the council would be the bishop of Cyprus, then the bishop of Cyprus would rule at the council. Of course that would never happen. The council would certainly have the Pope preside and he would rule over the proceedings of the council, but not because of anything that is magical about the Pope, but only because he is recognized as the 1st hierarch by the council.

It’s not a matter of the Apostles being headless, but of the Church being headless. According to Tradition, St. Peter chose his successor, and his successor would have become the head of the Church. Now, would the Apostles have considered St. Peter’s successor as their head? If the Apostles understood that any office of leadership in the Church is about service and not about “lording it over others,” then I do not and cannot doubt that they would have accepted St. Peter’s successor as the new head of the Church.

IMO, no. I believe they would at best be equal. the Church in Corinth could indeed have appealed to St. John instead of Pope St. Clement to settle their troubles. They chose to appeal to Pope St. Clement. But that demonstrates nothing more than that they chose to appeal to Pope St. Clement instead of St. John - nothing more, nothing less. It would seem that those who somehow divine that Pope St. Clement was greater than St. John because of this episode have an agenda — an agenda that I cannot fathom and thus cannot accept.

Blessings,
Marduk

The canons say that it is “sacrilege” to demote a bishop to a priest. Surely it must also be true that an apostle cannot be made into a bishop! Hence, St. Peter was never made a bishop of either Antioch nor of Rome. And unless St Clement is an Apostle, St John had to out rank him! I’m not sure that the church of Corinth asked St Clement for help, they may have, but it is also possible that St. Clement wrote his epistle to them on his own initiative. The issue there in Corinth was that their 1st hierarch was unjustly deposed by the elders in Corinth (in the opinion of St Clement). He didn’t rule over them, he just offered his opinion because he thought he could help.

I keep on comparing things to my Russian Orthodox experience, so I will do likewise again: Met. Philaret once offered 2 epistles to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Met Philaret tried to “correct” the Patriarch. But he didn’t claim to have authority over the Patriarch of another jurisdiction, it was only a “this is not right” letter. The same is so for St Clements letter to the Corinthians. He didn’t claim to have the authority to make them do anything, he was just saying that something wasn’t right that happened there in Corinth.

 

[joe370]

Hey Joedaniel, let’s assume that all of that is true. Were the Eastern Bishops in post #1 and 2, who lived prior to the east - west schism - wrong?

josephdaniel29;7734412]Well this should stimulate some discussion one way or another. These are some examples of what I’m talking about. This is just what I could come up with off the top of my head. I imagine if you sat down and looked you could come up with quite a few more.

1. None of the Seven Ecumenical Councils were called or attended by the pope

• First Council of Nicea was called without even consulting the pope.

• The Second Council was called without the knowledge of the pope and was chaired by a bishop (St Meletius) who was not in communion with Rome.

Pope Damasus I was not contacted in regard to this council attended by about 186 Bishops.

• The Third Council convened to hear the case of Nestorius. The pope had already excommunicated him, but the council seated him as a bishop anyway. They went on to try his case and then issued the formal excommunication.

This council condemned Nestorianism, which denied the unity of the divine and human in Christ. It was presided over by Cyril of Alexandria who represented Pope Celestine l. It was called by the Eastern Emperor, Theodosius II, and ratified by Pope Celestine I. The council was compelled to excommunicate Nestorius by both the sacred canons and the letter from the Pope.

• The Fourth Council was held against the expressed wishes of Pope Leo, who wanted a council held in the West. The Council went on to declare that the Bishop of Rome was “granted” his “privileges” by the fathers “because it was the Royal City”, an idea that is sheer heresy according to modern Catholic teaching. The Council then went on to grant “equal privileges” to Constantinople because it is “the New Rome.” Also there is the issue of the famous Tome of Leo, which was not accepted because it was from the hand of the pope, but rather it was thoroughly scrutinized by the council fathers to determine its orthodoxy. Only after they had examined the document was it received.

In the most obvious testimony of the Eastern Council to the primacy of the Pope, the Bishops cried out: “Behold the faith of the fathers, the faith of the Apostles; thus through Leo has Peter spoken!” Eutyches was excommunicated.

• The Sixth Ecumenical Council anathematized Pope Honorius for the heresy of Monothelitism. That anathematization was upheld by popes up to the 11th century.

Pope Honorius did not embrace the heresy of Monothelitism. Pope Leo II condemned Pope Honorius I for negligence of duty in the face of heresy. Honorius had not spoken ex cathedra, nor did he speak in any other authoritative capacity regarding Monothelitism, which would have been binding on the CC.

• The Seventh Ecumenical Council was called by the Empress Irene to condemn the iconoclast heresy

.

It was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian and was ratified by Pope Hadrian I. It was there that we see the first glimpse of the rejection of papal authority, and the rejection of what their predecessors in post #1 and 2 believed.

1. There is no mention of universal jurisdiction or Papal Infallibility in the acts of any of the Ecumenical Councils.

So. Universal jurisdiction and Papal Infallibility were not the issues of those councils.

continued…

 

[joe370]

1. There is not a single instance of the pope declaring a dogma ex cathedra ala the Immaculate Conception or the Assumption.

List of ex cathedra documents:

“Tome to Flavian”, Pope Leo I, 449, on the two natures in Christ, received by the Council of Chalcedon…

Letter of Pope Agatho, 680, on the two wills of Christ, received by the Third Council of Constantinople…

Benedictus Deus, Pope Benedict XII, 1336, on the beatific vision of the just prior to final judgment…

Cum occasione, Pope Innocent X, 1653, condemning five propositions of Jansen as heretical…

Auctorem fidei, Pope Pius VI, 1794, condemning seven Jansenist propositions of the Synod of Pistoia as heretical…

Ineffabilis Deus, Pope Pius IX, 1854, defining the Immaculate Conception;
Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII, 1950, defining the Assumption of Mary…

1. One of the most famous Eastern saints St John Chrysostom was ordained by a bishop not in communion with Rome and spent the vast majority of his career out of communion with Rome. It was not until he ascended to the Throne of Constantinople that he came into communion with Rome.

Okay…

1. St John Chrysostom’s famous “appeal” from exile, a document Catholic apologist bring out to prove papal supremacy, was also addressed to the Bishop of Milan and the Bishop of Aquileia. If the Bishop of Rome really was the supreme authority of the Church why would he have the temerity to address the same letter to two other bishops?

So he addressed the letter to Venerius, Bishop of Milan, and to Chromatius, Bishop of Aquileia as well? When they read it it they would have seen that he was indeed appealing to the Pope for help:

“With the whole of the facts before you, (Pope) - my most learned and reverent lords, show, we pray you, the courage and zeal which we expect of you, so as to check this flood of lawlessness which has burst upon the Churches…”

1. Pope Dioscorus of Alexandria convened a synod to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome. Dioscorus was then seated at the Council of Chalcedon against the wishes of the papal legates.

According to the Orthodox wiki - “Pope Dioscorus is generally considered a heretic by the Eastern Orthodox, though some commentators like Anatolius and John S. Romanides think that Dioscorus was deposed at Chalcedon (451) not because of the faith, but for his grave administrative errors at the Robber Council of Ephesus (449), which included restoring Eutyches the heretic and the attack on Flavian, and because he (Dioscorus) had excommunicated Pope Leo I of Rome, and also because at Chalcedon he refused to appear in front of the Council although he was summoned to it three times.”

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Adrian,

Thank you for your explanations:

I went to Luke 22 and read it right after you said this. I understand what you’re saying and I find it interesting. But I didn’t mean to make a point of the Pope’s actual presents at a council, rather His authority there as opposed to just having Rome simply represented there without the Pope’s authority, which would be the case if the Pope had died and yet Rome sent some representative from Rome to such a council.

This happened with the See of Alexandria during the Council of Chalcedon. When Pope St. Dioscorus was deposed, the Council waited until a new Patriarch was installed before ratifying its decrees. How much more do you think the Church should wait if its recognized head bishop (or at least a legation representing his authority) should not be present?

So what if the Pope were invited but didn’t come (or refused to send a representative)? Different rules for the Bishop of Rome than any other bishop! Now there is a part of this that I have no problem with and another part of it that I do.

We’re on the same page here.

These “different rules” are actually fine and proper for the one who it is that is the first hierarch at such a council. What I have a problem with is that the first hierarch ALWAYS has to be the bishop of Rome, as if it is a divine right exclusive to the bishops of Rome; even to the extent that if there were no Pope (using whatever scenario this could happen that you wish) the universal Church would hopelessly be left headless without any recourse! - This is why I say that there is an element of the Absolutest view within the High Church view.

Apostolic Canon #34 does by no means specify that the Pope is the only bishop that under any circumstances could serve as the one who is recognized as first. The ONLY way that I can see that anyone could have an exclusive right to this office is if he were the successor to St Peter in the since that he is more than a bishop, but rather an apostle, even the ONLY apostle! If this is not the case then the only thing left to try and make this claim is that Rome was a See of St Peter. Unfortunately for Rome, this claim is equally valid for the See’s of Antioch and Alexandria. If all 3 of these Sees somehow served co-equally as one I could go for that, but that has never happened, so what’s the point of contemplating theories?

Remember that the Patriarchal See of Jerusalem had lost its succession completely during the Muslim invasions. Why do you suppose we still have the Patriarchal See of Jerusalem today? If your principle was followed, shouldn’t we just have forgotten about it and replaced it with another See who would be the “Fifth Patriarchal See?” Can you see why that didn’t happen? If you can guess the reason for that, how much more for the See that Sacred Tradition recognizes to be the “First See” in Christendom? Even if the succession of Rome at some point in time would be wiped off the map for a certain number of years, the Church would still recognize the See of Rome as the First See of Christendom, and its bishop, the protos.

What has happened however in the history of the Church is that New Rome (Constantinople) as well as the 3rd Rome (Moscow) has assumed the role of 1st hierarch in an Ecumenical context and the only one in the whole world that has objected to this is the Church in Rome.

I think Constantinople objected to Moscow’s arrogating to itself the title of “Third Rome” for a long time, didn’t it? The bishop of New Rome was never “first hierarch” and never claimed to be such when it first came into existence. It stands to reason that no matter who claims to be the newest “Rome,” that “new Rome” will never obtain the status of “First See.” That honor will always belong to “Old Rome” according to Sacred Tradition.

To say that it is not true until Rome confirms it is to give an element of absolutism to Rome based on nothing of any substance!

Sacred Tradition is “nothing of any substance?”

The theory that a local church founded by St Peter is somehow better than any other local church is an ancient theory, but that doesn’t mean it is correct.

I wouldn’t say it is “better,” but it is nevertheless the First See according to Sacred Tradition.

Rome was established by St Paul.

St. Paul admitted in his letter to the Romans that someone else had already planted the seed in Rome before him (Romans 15:19-22 - “I [make] it my ambition to preach the gospel, not where Christ has already been named, lest I build on another man’s foundation…This is the reason why I have so often been hindered from coming to you. But now , since I no longer have any room for work in these regions…”). Tradition says it was St. Peter.

If Rome got something from St Peter it had to have started with Rome’s 3ed bishop, St. Clement, as I see that it can be shown that St Peter himself was still alive until about the time St Clement was bishop of Rome.

St. Peter died in the 70’s, according to reliable sources. It’s certainly possible that St. Clement was still alive when St. Peter was in Rome, but not as a bishop. St. Clement was bishop in the 90’s.

The local church with the most solid claim to be founded by St Peter would be Antioch.

I believe BOTH Rome and Antioch have a valid claim to being founded by St. Peter. But only Rome holds the succession of the Petrine headship. IIRC, it was St. John Chrysostom who wrote that “we gave him up to Rome,” and affirmed that Jesus’ prediction in Matthew 24 applied to St. Peter and his successors in Rome.

CONTINUED

 

[mardukm]

CONTINUED

Only if every autocephalous church actually is represented can it be truly an Ecumenical Council. If some local church decides not to have representation there it is much the same as the canon rule that says that bishops of a local church must meet twice per year (unless they have an excuse such as sickness), but if a bishop does not he must be content with his own communion. It makes no difference if the bishop is the Pope or if it be any other bishop.

That is generally the case. So if Alexandria or another See refuses to attend an Ecumenical Council, that would, according to your own example, not invalidate the Ecumenical status of the Council. But the case of the bishop of Rome is a different thing, as will be demonstrated below.

If the Pope decides not to have representation there (as he did for the 2nd EC) then then Rome must be content with its own communion. Any church that wishes to continue to have all that goes along with so-called “full communion” must have representation at the counsel.

That’s not true. The Pope did not have representation at the Second Ecum Council, not because he decided not to have representation, but because he was not invited. Every Church historian understands that the Second Ecumenical Council was originally intended to only be a local council of the East. It was not until 382 (the Second Ecum was held in 381) that the Council Fathers asked for confirmation from the bishop of Rome. It could only have obtained Ecumenical status with that confirmation. But history records that Pope St. Damasus did not grant his confirmation. Thus, history also records that the Third Ecumenical Council did not in fact recognize the Constantinopolitan Synod of 381 as an Ecumenical Council. It was not until the 4th Ecum, with the acceptance of Pope St. Leo, that the Church finally accepted the status of the 381 Council of Constantinople as “Ecumenical” (though at that time, the Pope did not yet confirm the canon on the rank of Constantinople).

We also have the example of the 5th Ecum. Pope Vigilius did not at first accept this Council. But EVERYONE knew that without his confirmation, the Council would never have Ecumenical authority. So you know what the Emperor did? He imprisoned Pope Vigilius until the Pope gave his confirmation. It is important to point out that all the bishops at the Council understood that they did not have the right nor authority to simply depose the bishop of Rome as protos, and just elect someone else to take his place. They had to to wait. Period.

This is not being “absolutist.” This is simply the adhering to Sacred Tradition.

Within an Ecumenical Council if all bishop agreed that the presiding bishop for the council would be the bishop of Cyprus, then the bishop of Cyprus would rule at the council. Of course that would never happen. The council would certainly have the Pope preside and he would rule over the proceedings of the council, but not because of anything that is magical about the Pope, but only because he is recognized as the 1st hierarch by the council.

Agreed. As noted earlier, the only dogmatic necessity as far as the Pope is concerned is his confirmation. All else are canonical prescriptions subject to change.

The canons say that it is “sacrilege” to demote a bishop to a priest. Surely it must also be true that an apostle cannot be made into a bishop! Hence, St. Peter was never made a bishop of either Antioch nor of Rome. And unless St Clement is an Apostle, St John had to out rank him!

I’m not sure this is relevant. Why is someone’s “rank” such a point of issue? IMO, the Apostles wouldn’t have cared about such things. All they would have cared about is what was best for the Church. All they knew is that Christ established a protos among thems as the best form of governance through service. They would have known better than to disturb this form of governance for the Church.

I’m not sure that the church of Corinth asked St Clement for help, they may have, but it is also possible that St. Clement wrote his epistle to them on his own initiative.

They asked for it. “Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…” So they chose to appeal to the authority of the bishop of Rome instead of the authority of St. John.

The issue there in Corinth was that their 1st hierarch was unjustly deposed by the elders in Corinth…He didn’t rule over them, he just offered his opinion because he thought he could help. Met. Philaret once offered 2 epistles to the Patriarch of Constantinople, Met Philaret tried to “correct” the Patriarch. But he didn’t claim to have authority over the Patriarch of another jurisdiction, it was only a “this is not right” letter. The same is so for St Clements letter to the Corinthians. He didn’t claim to have the authority to make them do anything, he was just saying that something wasn’t right that happened there in Corinth.

His closing statements sure sound authoritative, not mere “opinion”: “Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you shouldoccupay a humble but honorable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, ye should be cast out from the hope of His people.” Note that there is even a thread of excommunication.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[JohnVIII]

Brother Marduk, I will concede to the majority of what you have said. I am bias to the form of Church government found in the EO Churches today. I simply think they work better than the Pope centered High Church model. But like it or not this is the model that came into place by the time of the 4th EC, if not much sooner.

Perhaps I should take St Clement’s “advice” as my own. “Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honorable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, ye should be cast out from the hope of His people.”

Happy Lazarus Saturday! (eating fish eggs allowed today!)

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Beautifully-put, Joe. I notice when Catholics put up a grip of quotes from saints that the Orthodox revere that make the pope sound exactly like what Catholics claim he is, you get replies like “talk is cheap.” You’re right. Why are we hear if not to talk and what is wrong with putting up some quotes? If I want to find out if Abraham Lincoln was really for blacks and freeing the slaves, I’ll look at what he SAID about them and of course what he did. Looking at what people said gives us their opinions and a window into how people thought at the time. Why is it considered silly by guys like Joseph Daniel when you quote Orthodox saints to prove papal claims but when people like me try to argue against the Orthodox views on the Atonement, you see a ton of “go read St. ____________'s quotes about it!” and then they post quotes?

Well, I was willing to amiably challenge you on that, as well as being willing to read what you have in your arsenal of quotes regarding your picture of ecclesiology and the role of the papacy, but if talk is cheap to you then I won’t take up any more of your time Joe. If talk is cheap then what’s the point of being here at CAF, talking with others?

 

[josephdaniel29]

Beautifully-put, Joe. I notice when Catholics put up a grip of quotes from saints that the Orthodox revere that make the pope sound exactly like what Catholics claim he is, you get replies like “talk is cheap.” You’re right. Why are we hear if not to talk and what is wrong with putting up some quotes? If I want to find out if Abraham Lincoln was really for blacks and freeing the slaves, I’ll look at what he SAID about them and of course what he did. Looking at what people said gives us their opinions and a window into how people thought at the time. Why is it considered silly by guys like Joseph Daniel when you quote Orthodox saints to prove papal claims but when people like me try to argue against the Orthodox views on the Atonement, you see a ton of “go read St. ____________'s quotes about it!” and then they post quotes?

If I tell my wife how much I love her and then turn around and divorce her how much stock would you put in what I said?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

So you’re saying every time someone SAYS something they have to DO it? So if I say I’m against abortion and I don’t go out in front of a clinic and try to stop women who go in there, I’m not really against abortion? If I say that I support a new law to ban smoking and don’t go out and picket and try to get signatures on a petition, then I’m not sincere?

Saints had opinions and they readily stated them. You have cited some yourself, as have I, Joseph. If Saint Maximus the Confessor said something about the papacy, for example, that was positive and supports a papal claim, what could he be expected to DO? What would the “action” be to back up an opinion? Lots of theological speculation and statements can’t always have a votable action, right? Like St. Thomas Aquinas for example. We know he didn’t accept the Immaculate Conception idea. How? From his writings. Did he ever get to go to some council and vote on it to PROVE as you would like him to do, his convictions? Nope.

Not every moment of theology has some veritable “walk the walk” moment?

If I tell my wife how much I love her and then turn around and divorce her how much stock would you put in what I said?

 

[joe370]

If I tell my wife how much I love her and then turn around and divorce her how much stock would you put in what I said?

In that case talk would be cheap. I’m not seeing the relevancy to post #1 and 2 regarding what those eastern bishops (prior to the east - west schism) - believed regarding the papacy?

 

[joe370]

Beautifully-put, Joe. I notice when Catholics put up a grip of quotes from saints that the Orthodox revere that make the pope sound exactly like what Catholics claim he is, you get replies like “talk is cheap.” You’re right. Why are we hear if not to talk and what is wrong with putting up some quotes? If I want to find out if Abraham Lincoln was really for blacks and freeing the slaves, I’ll look at what he SAID about them and of course what he did. Looking at what people said gives us their opinions and a window into how people thought at the time. Why is it considered silly by guys like Joseph Daniel when you quote Orthodox saints to prove papal claims but when people like me try to argue against the Orthodox views on the Atonement, you see a ton of “go read St. ____________'s quotes about it!” and then they post quotes?

Talk is never cheap when done with honesty and integrity and a good heart. Friendly and honest dialogue can do wonders for breaking down the barriers that divide. It was friendly and honest dialogue that led me away from protestantism. I simply wanted the truth as to which church in the world today, is the church of Matthew 16, John 16:13, John 14:16, Matthew 28:20 and Acts 2, and I didn’t care where truth led me, just as long as I found it. I think the key to unlocking the truth regarding the whereabouts of the church founded by Jesus (“I will build my church…”) - is achieved simply by removing ones preconceived notions, predilections, biases and most importantly one’s myopic glasses, armed with a willingness to accept whatever truth reveals, no matter how unacceptable the outcome. Alex Jones is a perfect example of someone doing just that, and he did it at the risk of losing everything he worked so hard for as a Pentecostal Pastor. The guy is awesome and very charismatic; check out the link below if you get the time:

youtube.com/watch?v=8MvfAJ7ap8s

 

[josephdaniel29]

In that case talk would be cheap. I’m not seeing the relevancy to post #1 and 2 regarding what those eastern bishops (prior to the east - west schism) - believed regarding the papacy?

It makes a difference because what you are doing is taking statement A - usually about St Peter, but sometimes about the Bishop of Rome, and making the connection that said saint, based solely on that quote, completely and 100% supports the 19th century dogma of Papal Infallibility and supremacy. I’m making the case that the saint in question could not possibly have meant what you are reading back into the quote. As proof I’m offering actual events and actions that individuals in the early Church took that clearly contradict the idea that anyone believed the pope was infallible or had universal jurisdiction over the entire Church. Because of the nature of what you’re attempting to prove actions are certainly louder than words because the actions in question contradict modern Roman Catholic teaching.

 

[joe370]

josephdaniel29;7770084]It makes a difference because what you are doing is taking statement A - usually about St Peter, but sometimes about the Bishop of Rome, and making the connection that said saint, based solely on that quote, completely and 100% supports the 19th century dogma of Papal Infallibility and supremacy.

I am merely illustrating what each of these eastern bishops (that lived prior to the east - west schism) - believed, regarding the Bishop of Rome. Each one of those bishops in the east completely and 100% supported the primacy and supremacy of the Bishop of Rome as head of all of the holy churches, and the infallibility of the Petrine office which is why Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria said that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches, and why saint Maximus the Confessor said about the pope: “…received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.”

I’m making the case that the saint in question could not possibly have meant what you are reading back into the quote.

Well, I wish I could have heard your case…

As proof I’m offering actual events and actions that individuals in the early Church took that clearly contradict the idea that anyone believed the pope was infallible or had universal jurisdiction over the entire Church.

If you are going to reject the beliefs of the very saints revered in the holy Eastern Orthodox church then I see no point in continuing.

Because of the nature of what you’re attempting to prove actions are certainly louder than words because the actions in question contradict modern Roman Catholic teaching.

I am not attempting to prove anything. I was merely asking you: were those holy bishops wrong?

It’s not a novel notion or an exclusively modern Roman Catholic teaching, if those bishops in the 4th, 5th, 6th century believed it to be true. Oh well; I suppose it’s immaterial now…

 

[Radical]

They asked for it. “Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us…” So they chose to appeal to the authority of the bishop of Rome instead of the authority of St. John.

hello Mardukum…could you tell me why a scholars such as Lightfoot do not translate it “respecting which you consulted us”…but rather translate it as “in dispute among you”?..tis kinda critical to your claim.

His closing statements sure sound authoritative, not mere “opinion”: “Ye, therefore, who laid the foundation of the sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you shouldoccupay a humble but honorable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, ye should be cast out from the hope of His people.” Note that there is even a thread of excommunication.

Blessings,
Marduk

consider the chapter immediately before this one where it reads: “…so that they may submit, not to us but to the will of God.” It seems that Rome sends “witnesses” (63.3) not judges.

 

[mardukm]

Dear Radical,

hello Mardukum…could you tell me why a scholars such as Lightfoot do not translate it “respecting which you consulted us”…but rather translate it as “in dispute among you”?..tis kinda critical to your claim.

That’s interesting. I used the Protestant NPNF series as my source. The footnote in the NPNF series makes sure to highlight the “fact” that the Epistle indicates that Rome’s judgment was requested, not that Rome made a unilateral move.

If indeed it was not requested, that would support the Absolutist Petrine advocates. If it was requested, that would support the High Petrine view. In either case, it does no damage to the Catholic teaching on the papacy. Further, regardless of translation, we know that this Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was regarded as Apostolic in authority by many in the early Church. In fact, several early Church sources include the Epistle of Clement as part of the Canon of Scripture.

consider the chapter immediately before this one where it reads: “…so that they may submit, not to us but to the will of God.” It seems that Rome sends “witnesses” (63.3) not judges.

Yes. Throughout the letter, the author points out that all, including the author himself, are under the same divine law as the Corinthians, and that they are all bound to keep it. Both Catholic and Orthodox exegetes understand that to submit to the Church is to submit to God first and foremost. The Apostles used a similar method of pedagogy - they never claimed that what they were teaching or commanding with authority came from themselves, but from God. Do we therefore deny that the Apostles had any authority in the Church?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Radical]

Dear Radical,

That’s interesting. I used the Protestant NPNF series as my source. The footnote in the NPNF series makes sure to highlight the “fact” that the Epistle indicates that Rome’s judgment was requested, not that Rome made a unilateral move.

I wonder if new manuscripts were found…Sullivan (a Catholic) in From Apostles to Bishops states:

In the past, Catholic writers have interpreted this intervention as an early exercise of Roman primacy, but now it is generally recognized as the kind of exhortation one church could address to another without any claim to authority over it.

If indeed it was not requested, that would support the Absolutist Petrine advocates.

that is quite a jump…unsolicited directions/advice are only given by absolute rulers? …it couldn’t possibly be that Clement and the other presbyters at Rome didn’t want congreagtions to be tossing out presbyters b/c then they might be tossed next?..or maybe, they just thought the old leadership at Corinth was righteous and shouldn’t have been tossed. A number of legitimate possibilities exist outside of one that envisions an absolutist scenario.

If it was requested, that would support the High Petrine view.

it would be quite tenuous support…the request (if there was any) could have come from the old ousted leadership and they might have been looking for support wherever it could be found

In either case, it does no damage to the Catholic teaching on the papacy. Further, regardless of translation, we know that this Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians was regarded as Apostolic in authority by many in the early Church. In fact, several early Church sources include the Epistle of Clement as part of the Canon of Scripture.

I believe that your claims WRT 1st Clement supporting Petrine primacy are no longer generally accepted.

Yes. Throughout the letter, the author points out that all, including the author himself, are under the same divine law as the Corinthians, and that they are all bound to keep it. Both Catholic and Orthodox exegetes understand that to submit to the Church is to submit to God first and foremost.

The error that 1st Clement describes is the dismissal of just and righteous leadership…it does in no way oppose the dismissal of unrighteous leadership (and in fact scholars such as Sullivan see the congregation’s authority to dismiss the corrupt as implied)…therefore, it would be to submit to the leadership when they are righteously fulfilling their duties and not to submit always.

The Apostles used a similar method of pedagogy - they never claimed that what they were teaching or commanding with authority came from themselves, but from God.

I thought Paul did a bit of that, but yes, one sees that from those in authority…

Do we therefore deny that the Apostles had any authority in the Church?

and those w/o any authority will also appeal to God’s rule to exhort proper behavior by those above them (in authority)…so the style of 1st Clement spans the entire spectrum

Blessings