D
dvdjs
Guest
Yep. Too busy with eastern revisionist history - a veritable art form - and spin doctoring.
- Status
N
Nine_Two
Guest
I told you that if you want to claim you’re not at all biased I’ll need to see academic sources saying that’s possible. Otherwise this is just a “UR BIASED!” “NO UR BIASED!” fight. I admit my biases, I simply argue that I am not unreasonably biased. Meanwhile you throw arguments at me that I never made.
I don’t think your problem is limited to bias, I’m starting to believe you may be an idealogue, and incapable of processing anything you don’t want to hear.
So three options for you, academic sources, an apology for putting words in my mouth, or this conversation ends and your hopes of converting another misled Orthodox sinner to the Papal fold dies with it.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
That case was a bit different, he wasn’t officially deposed, the Holy Synod just recommended that he step down, then refused to help him in any way (including approving sick leave) until he did.I’m reminded of what the OCA did a few years ago in deposing its Metropolitan. The people and clergy reacted and their Synod acted accordingly. It did not take an appeal to Moscow, Bucharest, or Constantinople. They just took care of it, elected a new one and they are moving forward. It seems to work.
H
Harpazo
Guest
Right. Even so, they managed to take care of their own issues without appealing to other Sees (or even being required to do so).
In Christ,
Andrew
N
Nine_Two
Guest
You’re right, it is probably far more common that things are handled inside the church than an outside authority is appealed to. The Orthodox Church truly holds that each autocephalus Church is in charge of its own affairs, but that at the same time outside Churches can interfere at the request of another. This is why Rome was able to interfere in the past, and in case of reunion Rome would be welcome to interfere under those set circumstances again.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Arianism was condemned by the Church because it introduced degrees into the Godhead.
C
Contarini
Guest
Go to Immaculate Conception parish in Durham, NC. That happened to be the closest parish church to me when I started investigating Catholicism. Admittedly, the pastor who was there then is retired now and his successor may be more moderate.
Edwin
N
Nicea325
Guest
C
Contarini
Guest
Whose contexts you routinely fail to discuss to determine whether it implies infallibility or “direct, ordinary jurisdiction” rather than the kind of fraternal appeal to a primatial See which is compatible with Orthodoxy.
Quote mining is not very impressive to people who have been round the block a time or two with these debates.
No, but like anyone who presents quotations that allegedly support a given position, you are interpreting them and need to defend your interpretation instead of taking it for granted.
How about you taking up the challenge to provide academic sources instead of catenas of quotations taken from apologetics websites?
Edwin
S
scottm
Guest
Nicea325 – I think the problem is that you’re not actually arguing against the Orthodox position, but instead arguing against your own strawman position. As the Orthodox posters have said, it’s perfectly fine for two bishops or even two patriarchs to ask a 3rd to act as mediator/arbitrator. The mediator could even be the Pope of Rome. That would not violate the Orthodox definition of “Roman primacy.” Say again: it would not violate the Orthodox definition of primacy.
So, anytime you raise patristic quotes about so-and-so appealing his case to Rome, you have to dig further. You have to actually demonstrate that it was more than two bishops asking a 3rd bishop to mediate.
Peace.
So, anytime you raise patristic quotes about so-and-so appealing his case to Rome, you have to dig further. You have to actually demonstrate that it was more than two bishops asking a 3rd bishop to mediate.
Peace.
H
Hesychios
Guest
I think perhaps, you are assuming too much, is this the only model you can conceive of?
Your stubbornness in insisting that the bishops of Rome were masters of all they surveyed is just making you look silly.
Arbitrators are supposed to be neutral and respected, which is why they are picked. That was why the bishop of Rome was sometimes picked, no See was more respected and trusted.
“Settling matters” is not an evidence of ‘authority over’, especially when looking at how the early church was organized. An awful lot of issues were settled throughout the church by people other than the bishop of Rome, and to this day that process continues.
It has already been explained how the process works. Perhaps you do not have the ability to imagine more than one functional model of organization.
For an example, when the Camp David accords were hosted and facilited by the USA , there was nothing implied, then or now, that President Jimmy Carter had ‘auctoritas’ over Egypt and Israel. But the USA in general and the President of the USA in particular did hold a great deal of respect in the eyes of the two beligerant parties, and that helped pave the way to some otherwise difficult to obtain agreements.
In some parts of Illinois, and I suppose elsewhere, there is a ‘village’ form of government. It is not very common anymore, but the President of the village board is not a mayor, and he does not control the town and has no veto. He chairs the meetings, and gets just one vote like everyone else on the board.
The US Supreme Court is very similar to this, the Chief Justice has one vote like everyone else with no veto. It has always been this way.
When the G 8 meet in their well publicized summits, there is nothing implied that the host, nor the presidency (2009 Italy) of the G 8 actually controls the other countries. The chair is there for structure, but not for control or even direction, the direction and agenda is the concern of every member. They are in all respects equals.
This is how the world works much of the time.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
No, I know I have, whether in this thread or not I can’t remember, recently though.
But that has nothing to do with why you’re attacking me.
Why have you decided to attack me, in particular?
J
JDZwiers19
Guest
It rejected Christ’s divinity. Arius taught that Christ was created by the Father and did not exist eternally along with the Father. He did not believe Christ was God.
J
JohnVIII
Guest
Using sacred-texts.com/chr/ecf/214/2140384.htm I quote the ‘Ancient Epitome’ of Canon I of ‘The Canons of the Council in Trullo’:
“No innovation upon the faith of the Apostles is to be allowed. The faith of the Nicene fathers is perfect, which overthrows through the homousion the doctrines of Arius who introduced degrees into the Godhead.”
N
Nicea325
Guest
I do not think so! I and countless of other Catholics here have discussed and presented numerous sources to you,which you continue to dodge and ignore. As one individual stated,you do not care about what has been presented from different angles. So save it!
Exactly! What makes you think I have not?
I beg your pardon? I am not interpretating anything,but merely providing what many of the ECF’s had to say about it. Problem is that you simply do not like what you read and that is a source of tension for you.
As stated,been there and done that a billion times,so stop acting as though I or other Catholics have not presented the sources.
N
Nicea325
Guest
And what makes you look more silly is your apparent DENIALS what many Eastern bishops had to say about the papacy!I think perhaps, you are assuming too much, is this the only model you can conceive of?
Your stubbornness in insisting that the bishops of Rome were masters of all they surveyed is just making you look silly.
Arbitrators are supposed to be neutral and respected, which is why they are picked. That was why the bishop of Rome was sometimes picked, no See was more respected and trusted.
“Settling matters” is not an evidence of ‘authority over’, especially when looking at how the early church was organized. An awful lot of issues were settled throughout the church by people other than the bishop of Rome, and to this day that process continues.
It has already been explained how the process works. Perhaps you do not have the ability to imagine more than one functional model of organization.
For an example, when the Camp David accords were hosted and facilited by the USA , there was nothing implied, then or now, that President Jimmy Carter had ‘auctoritas’ over Egypt and Israel. But the USA in general and the President of the USA in particular did hold a great deal of respect in the eyes of the two beligerant parties, and that helped pave the way to some otherwise difficult to obtain agreements.
In some parts of Illinois, and I suppose elsewhere, there is a ‘village’ form of government. It is not very common anymore, but the President of the village board is not a mayor, and he does not control the town and has no veto. He chairs the meetings, and gets just one vote like everyone else on the board.
The US Supreme Court is very similar to this, the Chief Justice has one vote like everyone else with no veto. It has always been this way.
When the G 8 meet in their well publicized summits, there is nothing implied that the host, nor the presidency (2009 Italy) of the G 8 actually controls the other countries. The chair is there for structure, but not for control or even direction, the direction and agenda is the concern of every member. They are in all respects equals.
This is how the world works much of the time.
BTW: To bad nothing you have said or believe will change an iota what has been recorded by many eastern bishops.
J
josie_L
Guest
The Roman primacy was not established by an ecumenical council, it was however established when Christ gave Peter the primacy (care over the whole Church), who then moved to Rome to establish himself as bishop whence his successors (upon his death) can be found.
“The universal ordering of the Church at 1st birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directings power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicaea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever seperates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship.” Boniface[regn A.D. 418-422],To the bishops of Thessaly,in GILES,230
Edit: There is no council which can undo what Christ established through Peter and as such his successors in Rome.
D
dcointin
Guest
Isn’t that an argument from silence though, i.e. that Nicea didn’t mention Roman primacy because it was established by Christ?
C
Contarini
Guest
I ignore quote-mining, yes. I have dealt with specific sources that seemed significant to me. If you want to list one or two that you find particularly important, I’ll discuss them.
That there are many cases of Eastern bishops appeal to Rome and making strong statements about Rome’s authority, we know. To discuss these issues seriously, we need to look at the context of each instance.
I got out of the earlier discussion because I was getting too heated. Perhaps I will again if you keep up these tactics (not a threat–I presume you wouldn’t care if I left–just a notice that if I drop out suddenly that’s why).
Of course you’re tacitly interpreting by the mere act of selecting them and stringing them together as alleged evidence for your position. Certainly you have not bothered to explain and defend your interpretation, and that’s my objection to your methods!
If Protestants or Orthodox did this you’d be all over them for “out of context quotation.” But you assume that the proper context of any quote is always the context that makes it support Catholicism.
Sure. You and other Catholics have engaged a billion times in silliness like measuring the distance between Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus, and using St. Clement’s intervention as an argument for your view of Papal primacy.
Edwin
J
josie_L
Guest
It isn’t just a question of appealing but rather that with the bishop of Rome any and all appeals ended, i.e., he was the FINAL court of appeals:
Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgement, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter…For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat…Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time…and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; **though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision." Zosimus[regn A.D. 417-418],To the Council of Carthage,in SPP,175
“For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see.” Boniface[regn A.D. 418-422],To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica,in GILES,230
Note: The bishop of Rome was also given universal jurisdiction in matters of faith and morals because through the primacy he was given care over all the Churches.**
- Status