C
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
A
Another_Sinner_1
Guest
Says you. We however say differently.Toward Rome.
Quote mining is not a very effective tool when the said quotes are taken out of context. Flowery, complentary language directed at the See of Rome is not an indicator of subordination. The current Ecumenical Patriarch, HAH Bartholomew uses such language but you certainly won’t see me communing in a Roman Catholic Church tomorrow because of it.
The question of Rome’s Primacy was never questioned, As has been pointed out before, Antioch precedes Rome as a “Petrine See.” Rome is special for two main reasons:
1.) It was the capital of the Empire (much less important than # 2)
2.) The blood of both St. Paul and St. Peter consecrated that ground…it is special EQUALLY on the count of Paul AND Peter…an exclusivist Petrine claim is head scratching, to say the least.
Being an arbiter of disputes and a court of appeals for Church matters is not the same as having the power to depose any bishop at will, or to redraw Diocesan lines at will, or pretty much anything that the Modern Pope can do…
One might protest that the Pope “doesn’t work like that” well…actually, in the past he has worked like that. Just because the Papal Tiara was disposed of and the Modern Popes are “nice” doesn’t mean that all of that power the office has accumulated is legitimate, just because he “doesn’t operate like that anymore”
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Lutheran historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes:
The churches of the Greek East, too, owed a special allegiance to Rome . . . One see after another had capitulated in this or that controversy with heresy. Constantinople had given rise to several heretics during the fourth and fifth centuries, notably Nestorius and Macedonius, and the other sees has also been known to stray from the true faith occasionally. but Rome had a special position. The bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod. In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, Gregory asserted the principle that “without the authority and the consent of the apostolic see, none of the matters transacted [by a council] have any binding force.”
(The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 354; cites Gregory’s Epistle 9.156)
The churches of the Greek East, too, owed a special allegiance to Rome . . . One see after another had capitulated in this or that controversy with heresy. Constantinople had given rise to several heretics during the fourth and fifth centuries, notably Nestorius and Macedonius, and the other sees has also been known to stray from the true faith occasionally. but Rome had a special position. The bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod. In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, Gregory asserted the principle that “without the authority and the consent of the apostolic see, none of the matters transacted [by a council] have any binding force.”
(The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 354; cites Gregory’s Epistle 9.156)
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I’ll respond to the quote part since I assume those were directed at my posts.Says you. We however say differently.
Quote mining is not a very effective tool when the said quotes are taken out of context. Flowery, complentary language directed at the See of Rome is not an indicator of subordination. The current Ecumenical Patriarch, HAH Bartholomew uses such language but you certainly won’t see me communing in a Roman Catholic Church tomorrow because of it.
The question of Rome’s Primacy was never questioned, As has been pointed out before, Antioch precedes Rome as a “Petrine See.” Rome is special for two main reasons:
1.) It was the capital of the Empire (much less important than # 2)
2.) The blood of both St. Paul and St. Peter consecrated that ground…it is special EQUALLY on the count of Paul AND Peter…an exclusivist Petrine claim is head scratching, to say the least.
Being an arbiter of disputes and a court of appeals for Church matters is not the same as having the power to depose any bishop at will, or to redraw Diocesan lines at will, or pretty much anything that the Modern Pope can do…
One might protest that the Pope “doesn’t work like that” well…actually, in the past he has worked like that. Just because the Papal Tiara was disposed of and the Modern Popes are “nice” doesn’t mean that all of that power the office has accumulated is legitimate, just because he “doesn’t operate like that anymore”
First, I have always found the objection that such language coming from the Byzantines was merely deferential language, unconvincing. While I don’t deny the existence of that custom, the quotes by St. Theodore and St. Maximos go beyond that I would argue and delve into specific Scriptures related to Roman Primacy betraying a belief that it was by Divine Right. What is more, the quotes by Pope St. Damasus and Theodore Abu Qurrah were not speaking to Popes, so your particular objection here does not apply. I could also produce more quotes by Easterners that are compelling which are not spoken to the Pope, but about him to others.
As for your assertion that these quotes being taken context (as if you are trying to say they don’t really mean what they look like they mean), that is just your assertion and you have not backed that up except for the usual objection of flowery language which doesn’t even apply to 2 very compelling citations. You said such language is still in effect amongst the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch. May I ask, can you produce a citation where he refers (or someone says about or to him) that he is the head over all the churches and that this is because of Jesus set it up that way and cites the classic Petrine texts?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
You do realize that Pelikan converted to Orthodoxy, right?Lutheran historian Jaroslav Pelikan writes:
The churches of the Greek East, too, owed a special allegiance to Rome . . . One see after another had capitulated in this or that controversy with heresy. Constantinople had given rise to several heretics during the fourth and fifth centuries, notably Nestorius and Macedonius, and the other sees has also been known to stray from the true faith occasionally. but Rome had a special position. The bishop of Rome had the right by his own authority to annul the acts of a synod. In fact, when there was talk of a council to settle controversies, Gregory asserted the principle that “without the authority and the consent of the apostolic see, none of the matters transacted [by a council] have any binding force.”
(The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600), Univ. of Chicago Press, 1971, 354; cites Gregory’s Epistle 9.156)
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Just a note, rather than post it again, I posted some citations of Early Church Fathers and St. Theodore the Studite (not sure if he makes the chronological cutoff(s) which are common), which I believe betray an understanding of Papal Infallibility, though I would suspect that the Dogma had undergone legitimate development throughout the centuries.
The thread is Randy’s other on infallibility found here. My posts were #'s 6 & 7 if memory serves.
The thread is Randy’s other on infallibility found here. My posts were #'s 6 & 7 if memory serves.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
I will add this citation over here as it is relevant I believe and it is one Eastern Patriarch writing to other Easterners.
From John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:
“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”
Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)
Note: S. Herbert Scott, who was an Anglican if I’m not mistaken, cites for this quote Pere Salaville in an article in Echos d’Orient, 1910, pg. 171. He also says it was discovered & published in an Armenian version in Etchmiadzin (1896), although Scott says the original was probably published first in Greek.
From John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:
“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”
Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)
Note: S. Herbert Scott, who was an Anglican if I’m not mistaken, cites for this quote Pere Salaville in an article in Echos d’Orient, 1910, pg. 171. He also says it was discovered & published in an Armenian version in Etchmiadzin (1896), although Scott says the original was probably published first in Greek.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
St. Basil in his epistle 66 refers to Antioch as the most vital of churches to the whole world, and he also calls it by way of metaphor the head church. In the same letter, he writes to St. Athanasius, “But plainly the discipline of the Church of Antioch depends upon your reverence’s being able to control some, to reduce others to silence, and to restore strength to the Church by concord.” Similarly, in his epistle 69, he writes to St. Athanasius, “I have thought that I could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your excellency, as to the head and chief of all, and treating you as alike adviser and commander in the enterprise.”As for your assertion that these quotes being taken context (as if you are trying to say they don’t really mean what they look like they mean), that is just your assertion and you have not backed that up except for the usual objection of flowery language which doesn’t even apply to 2 very compelling citations. You said such language is still in effect amongst the Eastern Orthodox Patriarch. May I ask, can you produce a citation where he refers (or someone says about or to him) that he is the head over all the churches and that this is because of Jesus set it up that way and cites the classic Petrine texts?
Also, Justinian in the Codex Justinianus refers to Constantinople as the head of Churches, just as he does with Rome.
The language you cite from St. Theodore the Studite looks great on paper, until you realize that this truly was a common manner of making appeals to other bishops. Yet nobody in his right mind would argue from St. Basil’s epistle to St. Athanasius that the bishop of Alexandria had extraordinary immediate jurisdiction over the Church of Antioch, because rationally we can discern that the bishop of Alexandria was never given such a privilege by the canons, and furthermore, from the fact that the authority of the See of Alexandria (which sided with Paulinus, not Meletius) was not enough to end the schism, nor even to legitimize its preferred claimant to the See of Antioch, Paulinus.
In the case of Rome, you need to demonstrate not that the bishops of Rome claimed to have some authority over the churches (for they could have merely been claiming to have mediate authority), nor that people would send appeals to Rome (for this was commonplace with all bishops, and not unique to the Roman bishop), nor that people would appeal to others that such a belief was orthodox because it was believed at Rome, but that it was universally recognized that the Roman bishop had immediate extraordinary jurisdiction throughout the world, that all legitimate episcopal jurisdiction stemmed from the bishop of Rome (and as a consequence of this, that it was universally held that the bishop of Rome had the power to depose and install bishops at his good pleasure in an immediate and not in a mediate fashion), and that the bishop of Rome was universally believed to be infallible when speaking ex-cathedra. If any of these three cannot be demonstrated, then the claim falls apart, because all three are taught as dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church, according to the First and Second Vatican Councils.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Compare that to the fifth ecumenical council’s excommunication of pope Vigilius, on the grounds that he was not teaching the Orthodox faith.I will add this citation over here as it is relevant I believe and it is one Eastern Patriarch writing to other Easterners.
From John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his see:
“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”
Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (emphasis mine)
Note: S. Herbert Scott, who was an Anglican if I’m not mistaken, cites for this quote Pere Salaville in an article in Echos d’Orient, 1910, pg. 171. He also says it was discovered & published in an Armenian version in Etchmiadzin (1896), although Scott says the original was probably published first in Greek.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
Caradossi,
Where does St. Basil cite the classic Petrine texts cited in “Pastor Aeternus” when speaking of another Bishop, thereby showing this headship over the other churches to be by Divine Right. Perhaps you could cite it so we could take a look and compare it.
Regarding, Justinian’s codex, S. Herbert Scott in the work I am citing says he probably has in mind the churches of the East. Also, Justinian is clear about Rome’s position in other writings.
Regarding the last paragraph, you want all the qualifiers, something I never set out to do here. What we do see in the very little that I have cited that it was recognized both East & West that the Roman church is placed above the other churches, and that this comes by Divine Right. According to the promises of Christ, the Bishop of Rome has “the keys of a right confession and faith in Him” (St. Maximos), and has been put in a unique position to “feed” and “strengthen” the flock of God.
Of what other See has it ever been written that the Bishop there has “the keys of a right confession and faith in Him”, or to quote St. Theodore the Studite, “the keys of the Faith against which have never prevailed and never will prevail the gates of Hell, that is to say the tongues of heretics, according to the promise of him who lies not.” ?? *
*Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 307.
Where does St. Basil cite the classic Petrine texts cited in “Pastor Aeternus” when speaking of another Bishop, thereby showing this headship over the other churches to be by Divine Right. Perhaps you could cite it so we could take a look and compare it.
Regarding, Justinian’s codex, S. Herbert Scott in the work I am citing says he probably has in mind the churches of the East. Also, Justinian is clear about Rome’s position in other writings.
Regarding the last paragraph, you want all the qualifiers, something I never set out to do here. What we do see in the very little that I have cited that it was recognized both East & West that the Roman church is placed above the other churches, and that this comes by Divine Right. According to the promises of Christ, the Bishop of Rome has “the keys of a right confession and faith in Him” (St. Maximos), and has been put in a unique position to “feed” and “strengthen” the flock of God.
Of what other See has it ever been written that the Bishop there has “the keys of a right confession and faith in Him”, or to quote St. Theodore the Studite, “the keys of the Faith against which have never prevailed and never will prevail the gates of Hell, that is to say the tongues of heretics, according to the promise of him who lies not.” ?? *
*Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 307.
L
LionHeart777
Guest
If I understand correctly, you are saying you are disagreeing with the Patriarch John of Jerusalem?Compare that to the fifth ecumenical council’s excommunication of pope Vigilius, on the grounds that he was not teaching the Orthodox faith.
Also, I gather that we are getting your gloss here on what the 5th Ecumenical Council had to say.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Justinian in his decree to the council (read during the seventh session), declared that Vigilius, “made himself alien to the Catholic Church by defending the impiety of the aforesaid chapters,” and proclaimed that, “his name is alien to Christians and is not to be read out in the sacred diptychs, lest we be found in this way sharing in the impiety of Nestorius and Theodore.” The council approved Justinian’s decree, striking Pope Vigilius from the diptychs, for the reason that he defended the Three Chapters, thereby implicating himself in the heresy of Nestorius and Theodore (of Mopsuestia).If I understand correctly, you are saying you are disagreeing with the Patriarch John of Jerusalem?
Also, I gather that we are getting your gloss here on what the 5th Ecumenical Council had to say.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Yes. One cannot just demonstrate that some believed in one or two of the three papal claims (immediate extraordinary jurisdiction, being the source of all legitimate episcopal jurisdiction, and infallibility when speaking ex-cathedra), but rather it is necessary that it be demonstrated that all three were commonly held in practice. And I might add that the evidence, in order to be good evidence for the three above, needs to be focused in order to exclude other possibilities. For example, if one finds a situation where the bishop of Rome attempted to intervene in the affairs of a local synod and was rebuffed without sanctions being applied to such a local synod for doing so (this happened, for example with the Church in North Africa in the fifth century), this cannot be counted as evidence for immediate extraordinary jurisdiction, no matter what authority the pope himself may have claimed, but rather it serves as evidence for the opposite, that the pope was not recognized as possessing such jurisdiction, instead only having, at best, a form of mediate jurisdiction.If I understand correctly, you are saying you are disagreeing with the Patriarch John of Jerusalem?
Yep.You do realize that Pelikan converted to Orthodoxy, right?
Jon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
One step closer.You do realize that Pelikan converted to Orthodoxy, right?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Orthodoxy is not some halfway house to Roman Catholicism.One step closer.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Not at all.Orthodoxy is not some halfway house to Roman Catholicism.
You’re just a half-step or two away.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
I have read the passage in question, and I disagree, because nowhere does Justinian limit that phrase to just the East, and even if he did, then it is no evidence for the modern claim of Roman primacy, because we know that the headship of Constantinople did not involve extraordinary immediate jurisdiction, and he would not have used such a term unless the headship of Constantinople were in some sense analogous to the headship of Rome.Regarding, Justinian’s codex, S. Herbert Scott in the work I am citing says he probably has in mind the churches of the East.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Worlds apart, frankly. Concerning many theological matters (like justification, grace-nature, etc.) Roman Catholicism and Protestantism share a mutual framework (within which they disagree), that the Orthodox do not have.Not at all.
You’re just a half-step or two away.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
However, in Canon 3 of First Council of Constantinople (381):St. Basil in his epistle 66 refers to Antioch as the most vital of churches to the whole world, and he also calls it by way of metaphor the head church. In the same letter, he writes to St. Athanasius, “But plainly the discipline of the Church of Antioch depends upon your reverence’s being able to control some, to reduce others to silence, and to restore strength to the Church by concord.” Similarly, in his epistle 69, he writes to St. Athanasius, “I have thought that I could not make a more fitting beginning than by having recourse to your excellency, as to the head and chief of all, and treating you as alike adviser and commander in the enterprise.”
Because it is new Rome, the bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy the privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.