Universal Jursidiction

[AveChriste11]

You make an interesting observation.

Orthodox, Protestants, and non-believers of all varieties have been all over me in this and other threads. Yet for all their opposition to the pope, why is it that they have not managed to find unity among themselves?

How many flavors of Lutheranism are there, for example?

And if the Orthodox are so “unified” among themselves, why have they not managed to hold an ecumenical council EVER?

There have been councils which were “ecumenical” in nature. However it must be noted that Councils were originally called into place by the Emperor. Since there has not been an Emperor in eons, then it takes a long time before all of the Bishops can agree to come together. Also what makes a council “ecumenical” is the passage of time, and if it’s accepted by the majority of Orthodox Christians or not. There’s no Bishop or Patriarch to tell them what is or isn’t ecumenical…

Funny, I keep wanting to say “we” and “us” as Orthodox… Freudian slip? Hmmm…

 

[Peter_J]

The argument that the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope is a stumbling block to Christian unity is both false and a red herring.

Forget the Catholic Church, remove it from the equation for a moment.

Let’s see the balance of Christendom - all of the Protestant denominations and Eastern Orthodox not in communion with Rome - unite. Has that happened? Are they “united” now? If not, then why not?* The Papacy and Universal Jurisdiction is not a factor in that.

Bring a united Protestant/Orthodox Church. That way the Catholic Church will have only one outfit to deal with rather than dozens or hundreds.

Rather than seeing the Papacy and “Universal Jurisdiction” as a stumbling block to unity one should look at it as the only way to unity.

The problem isn’t just Universal Jurisdiction. Instead, I think it is the very idea of Universal Truth.

---

*The only unity among all of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy not in communion with Rome is that they are not in communion with Rome…anti-Papal.

Thank you SPH! This is what I’ve been trying to tell people for years … well more-or-less. I’ve been trying to explain to everyone that the only thing that non-Canadians all have in common is that they’re not Canadian.

Somehow I just can’t seem to get through.

 

[Peter_J]

(That last post was a joke. )

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Thank you SPH! This is what I’ve been trying to tell people for years … well more-or-less. I’ve been trying to explain to everyone that the only thing that **non-Canadians all have in common is that they’re not Canadian. **

Somehow I just can’t seem to get through.

Sources please.

 

[JonNC]

=SPH1;11156453]The argument that the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope is a stumbling block to Christian unity is both false and a red herring.

So, one of the main causes of the Schism is false and a red herring, and has been so for a thousand years?

Forget the Catholic Church, remove it from the equation for a moment.

Now, why the invitation to those types of protestants?

Let’s see the balance of Christendom - all of the Protestant denominations and Eastern Orthodox not in communion with Rome - unite. Has that happened? Are they “united” now? If not, then why not?* The Papacy and Universal Jurisdiction is not a factor in that.

Simply because it isn’t the only issue doesn’t make it a not-issue.

Bring a united Protestant/Orthodox Church. That way the Catholic Church will have only one outfit to deal with rather than dozens or hundreds.

See above.

Rather than seeing the Papacy and “Universal Jurisdiction” as a stumbling block to unity one should look at it as the only way to unity.

The only problem is universal jurisdiction is not in keeping with scripture or the early councils. Perhaps a truly ecumenical council to discuss the level of primacy that Catholics and Orthodox can agree on. It would be nice to invite us too, but…

The problem isn’t just Universal Jurisdiction. Instead, I think it is the very idea of Universal Truth.

Well, certainly I think we all agree that there is a universal truth.

Jon

---

*The only unity among all of Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy not in communion with Rome is that they are not in communion with Rome…anti-Papal.

 

[LionHeart777]

Cavaradossi,

I’ll still wait for your response to my last post but in the mean time I want to respond to some of what you wrote in your last post in my coming posts.

I don’t think I ever pointed to the source of this alternate Byzantine theory (the innovation), but was asserting that the theory is found in that Canon. After looking more into it, I think I may be in error about that, and I would like to amend my position. It seems to be that this 28th Canon isn’t talking about Rome’s primacy in the sense of jurisdiction, but instead the Patriarchical rights of Rome (Rivington, Scott ) (I’ll get to that later.) But the authors of that Canon (and we’ll see that it was a minority of Bishops) did get some things wrong. Luke Rivington writes: “It was not true, as they asserted, that the Fathers (if the Nicene Fathers were meant) ‘gave’ her (patriarchal [16]) privileges to the See of Rome; they only recognised what was already ancient. It was not true that what the Nicene Fathers recognised as ancient custom was due to the secular position of the See of Rome. Her privileges were settled by herself as See o[f] St. Peter. It was not true that the Fathers of Constantinople had bestowed anything in the way of jurisdiction, but merely the second rank in the way of honorary precedence. It was not true that Constantinople had any right over Pontus, Thrace, and Asia Minor.” This must have been what St. Methodius was getting at in retrospect.

About those who drafted up Canon 28, your words seem to paint a picture that doesn’t accurately portray the historical situation surrounding the situations under which that Canon was put forward and the controversy it caused, some of which I will fill in.

To start, “When the archdeacon Aetius brought forward the question of the privileges of the [c]hurch of Constantinople, the [Papal] legates said that that question was not one which came in the terms of their commission, and withdrew, and the ‘Senate’ did the same ; and most of the [Council] Fathers had already left for home.” (Scott, pg. 193.) Scott says that only 84 of the 630 members signed Canon 28, but another source says: “only about 150 bishops out of the original 600 could be induced to sign [Note: Rivington made an error here. The correct number is 192 signatories.], and that St. Leo could fearlessly call it an ‘extorted subscription,’ even after some few at the session had denied that they were compelled to subscribe. St. Leo knew that his legates were right in their estimate of the kind of influence that had been brought to bear upon these subservient bishops.” (Rivington)

–Just a side note Patriarch Anatolius may have had more to do with Canon 28 than I had thought and commented on earlier, but the citation I gave I feel shows that if this was so, he later tried to distance himself from it in his communication with Pope St. Leo.—

As you probably know, Pope St. Leo, who the Council sent the Acts to for his ratification, rejected Canon 28. Scott also notes that, regarding Canon 28, “There are ancient manuscripts which bear the signatures of the legates after the first twenty-seven canons.” Also, as Mark Bonocore points out, “…for the next 6 centuries, all Eastern churches speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon – the 28th Canon being rendered null and void by Rome’s ‘line item veto.’ This is supported by all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector (writing in 551 AD), John Skolastikas (writing in 550 AD), Dionysius Exegius (also around 550 AD); and by Roman Popes like Pope St. Gelasius (c. 495) and Pope Symmachus (c. 500) – all of whom speak of only 27 Canons of Chalcedon.” (Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm)

The Anglican S. Herbert Scott makes some good points in that Canon 28 is only addressing Rome’s Patriarchical rights.

Sources:

“The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928

Luke Rivington, “The Primitive Church and the See of Peter”, from: mwt.net/~lnpalm/byzantin.htm

Mark Bonocore, “The Council of Chalcedon and the Papacy”, from: philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

Explaining and defending the view that Canon XVIII had in mind the Patriarchical privileges of Rome, I will cite the Anglican S. Herbert Scott to some length:

“To emphasize a point which has already been raised, impartial examination of this celebrated XXVIIIth Canon of Chalcedon and its circumstances (and it is impossible to avoid the field of controversy) shows that instead of depreciating papal claims it supports them. “’The Fathers rightly rendered the primacy to Elder Rome because it was the imperial city.’” …But if this means that the Fathers gave the primacy to Rome-and that without this granting Rome would not have had a primacy-and that they gave it simply because it was the imperial city-that is to say that its position was based simply upon ecclesiastical consent-if this was really the belief of these Bishops at Chalcedon [remember, even then we are talking about a minority who pushed this thing through despite the protests of the Papal Legates], how could they possibly have asked Leo to confirm their Canon, I mean, while at the very same time telling him that he was ‘the Guardian of the Vine,’ the Head of the members,’ ‘the Constituted Interpreter to all of Blessed Peter’?  It is inconceivable.  It would put the Easterns in a most unpleasant light.  It would be the most unheard-of-duplicity, and worse.

No doubt there was a certain part in the East growing more and more jealous of Rome, more and more ambitious for the new *. They might be willing to use subterfuge, but they would be in a minority.
But the Headship of Rome is shown and confessed in the very act of the bishops of this fragment of a council trying to obtain Leo’s confirmation of their canon. …And if their words mean anything, they say at the very same time that his position was of Divine Right.” (Scott, pgs. 199-200.)

And Pope St. Leo obviously understood ‘that his position was of Divine right’ too (as did the Popes before him.) As one piece of evidence to this I offer his words to the Empress Pulcheria:
“’As for the resolution of the of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter.’” (Ep. , 105) (Scott, pg. 198.)

I will come back to the Council’s letter to Pope St. Leo, later, and show that they attribute his Headship over the Church to be by Divine Right also, as Scott argues. But I will cite the emperor Marcian’s words to Pope St. Leo, as I feel they are relevant:

“’Your Holiness has excellently acted as bishop of the Apostolic See when it has in no way allowed any innovation against discipline.’” (Ibid.)

This was the emperor’s response to Leo when Leo told him “that his royal presence is not enough to make a see Apostolic.” (ibid.)

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928

I will stop here and make some final points, having now given some of this pertinent info surrounding Canon 28 (there is more detail that could be gone in to.)

Continued…*

 

[LionHeart777]

You are calling them innovators, for they clearly denied this principle, and thus they fall under your condemnation as “innovators.” But frankly, I hold fast to the fathers of the Ecumenical Councils (whom you condemn), whose collected wisdom clearly reflects the catholic tradition far better than the opinions of a few individuals here and there. It is a fact that the Fourth Ecumenical Council made a canon stating that the bishop of Rome received his primacy because of the preeminence of the city of Rome in the empire, that the Fifth Ecumenical Council excommunicated the bishop of Rome with no regard for whatever primacy by divine right he supposedly had, and that the Council of Trullo reaffirmed Canon 28 of Chalcedon, and these facts are not so easily wiped away, no matter who you pull your proof texts from. For if the divine origins of the primacy of Rome are a dogma to be believed de fide, you implicate these many pious fathers in heresy, something both unthinkable and impious.

I’ve responded to some of this already, but as you can see I have amended my position and shown some of the info surrounding Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council. And actually, far from denying the Divine Right of Roman Primacy, I would argue along w/ Scott that the Council Fathers actually affirm it. For they wrote to Pope St. Leo (who definitely affirmed that the Roman Primacy was by Divine Right):

“Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98”

Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/a35.htm

Other examples can be found in that lengthy Scott citation as well as the link I just gave.

I could use for an example the Presbyter and Papal Legate Philip’s speech in the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which clearly shows a belief in Roman Primacy by Divine Right, and Eastern Bishops signed off on the Council.

Regarding the 5th Ecumenical Council, I would have to have a closer look like with Canon 28, and perhaps you could explain more why you think it is damaging to my thesis I stated here. Regarding Trullo, I will cite the “Catholic Encyclopedia”

“in the West St. Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a ‘reprobate’ synod, and Paul the Deacon (Hist. Lang., VI, p. 11) an ‘erratic’ one. Dr. Fortescue rightly says (op. cit. below, p. 96) that intolerance of all other customs with the wish to make the whole Christian world conform to its own local practices has always been and still is a characteristic note of the Byzantine Church. For the attitude of the popes, substantially identical, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons, see Hefele, ‘Conciliengesch.’ (III, 345-48).”

Source: Shahan, Thomas. “Council in Trullo.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 31 Aug. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04311b.htm.

As the article states, the West rejected Trullo. So, the 28th Canon of Chalcedon, put together by a minority of Bishops from Constantinople & surrounding areas, when most of the Fathers went home and in the midst of the protest of the Papal Legates, which was rejected by Pope Leo whom the Council sent it to, and Trullo which affirmed it, are not good examples of catholicity and the mind of the Church I would argue. Furthermore, Trullo only reaffirms the reordering of the sees as I remember, not the matter we are discussing specifically. And far from being a few writers here and there who testify to the fact that Rome’s Primacy is by Divine Right, there is the testimony of multiple sources East & West as well as Ecumenical Councils who vouch for the teaching that Roman Primacy was by Divine Right. I have only cited some.

I bring up jurisdiction because that is what you need to demonstrate, in order to justify the Vatican’s dogma on the matter, that the Church of Rome has universal and immediate jurisdiction, you need to show that this has always been believed.

And I have already given good reasons for doubting the authenticity of St. Maximus’ letter to Peter. It does not exist in Greek and does not seem to have been widely known.

Again, I am coming at this from a different angle as you may remember from a previous post. I have addressed this part about my citation of St. Maximus and I am waiting for your response.

 

[SPH1]

So, one of the main causes of the Schism is false and a red herring, and has been so for a thousand years?

Now, why the invitation to those types of protestants?

Simply because it isn’t the only issue doesn’t make it a not-issue.

See above.

The only problem is universal jurisdiction is not in keeping with scripture or the early councils. Perhaps a truly ecumenical council to discuss the level of primacy that Catholics and Orthodox can agree on. It would be nice to invite us too, but…

Well, certainly I think we all agree that there is a universal truth.

Jon

You insist in fanning the flame of this red herring over the Papacy and Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope.

Forget the Pope and the Catholic Church. Bring to us and the world a united Protestant/Eastern Orthodox Church. What has been stopping you?

Give us a united Protestant/Eastern Orthodox Church right now or admit that the Papacy and Universal Jurisdiction is not the primary stumbling block to unity. For how can the Papacy be a stumbling block to a united Protestant/Eastern Orthodox Church?

 

[Cavaradossi]

I’ve responded to some of this already, but as you can see I have amended my position and shown some of the info surrounding Canon 28 of the 4th Ecumenical Council. And actually, far from denying the Divine Right of Roman Primacy, I would argue along w/ Scott that the Council Fathers actually affirm it. For they wrote to Pope St. Leo (who definitely affirmed that the Roman Primacy was by Divine Right):

“Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98”

I am going on vacation tomorrow, so I will try to keep this as short as possible.

They do not refer to a primacy of divine right here, because all pastors are appointed with custody and guardianship of the vineyard by the Savior (or do bishops not have the authority to protect their flocks?), and Pope Leo, being the first ranking among them, had this custody in a principal manner. That they mean it in this sense is confirmed by what they write immediately after: “In addition to all this he extended his fury even against him who had been entrusted with guarding the vineyard by the Saviour, we mean your sacredness, and intended excommunication against the person who had shown eagerness to unite the body of the church.” (this translation differs, because I am pulling this from Richard Price’s excellent translation of the entire council of Chalcedon and certain conciliar documents, this letter being one of them).

In the Orthodox understanding, the first bishop guards the vineyard of the church in a unique fashion, in that he becomes a locus of communion for the other bishops and churches, and thus guards also the unity of the Church. But his guardianship of the Church, and the charism which he has been granted in order to do so (that is, the episcopate), is one with all of the other bishops, and thus he is not set above them by divine mandate (as a bishop is set above a priest), but rather he carries out the same Christ-given guardianship as they do, but manifests it in a different fashion as a consequence of being reckoned as the most senior bishop.

Pope Leo in fact affirms in his letter to Marcian after the council that the privileges of the churches were bestowed by the canons of the Holy Fathers, writing: For the privileges of the churches, having been bestowed by the canons of the holy fathers and defined by the decrees of the venerable council of Nicaea, cannot be overturned by any unscrupulousness or changed by any innovation. In the faithful performance of this task with the help of Christ I am obliged to render perseverant service, because it is a stewardship that has been entrusted to me, and it brings guilt upon me if the rules of the fathers’ enactment, which were drawn up under the direction of God’s Spirit at the council of Nicaea for the government of the whole church, are violated with my connivance (which God forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother weigh more with me than the common good of the entire house of the Lord.

It is in fact most indicative of Pope Leo’s understanding of his own primacy that he declares the 28th canon null not by the power of his disapproval, but by the authority of the canons of the holy fathers and the enactments of Nicaea.

I could use for an example the Presbyter and Papal Legate Philip’s speech in the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus which clearly shows a belief in Roman Primacy by Divine Right, and Eastern Bishops signed off on the Council.

Yes, they united with Peter because the type of Peter is most especially present in him who is reckoned to be first. But the type of Peter is proposed to all pastors of the Church, according to St. Leo (Sermon 4). The Roman See in fact cannot be said to be unique in its descent from the apostle Peter, nor can it claim an unique Petrine succession, since while Peter the Apostle chose and ordained Linus to the Episcopate, it has never been the custom for the bishop of Rome to choose and ordain his successor with a special rank of Petrine succession, but rather his successor has always been by the members Roman Church (even today, this is so, even if only nominally, since all cardinals technically are clergy of the Roman Church) and has always been ordained as a bishop not by those who received any unique Petrine succession, but rather by bishops who received succession from the entire apostolic choir in general.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Regarding the 5th Ecumenical Council, I would have to have a closer look like with Canon 28, and perhaps you could explain more why you think it is damaging to my thesis I stated here.

The Fifth Ecumenical Council is unrelated to the 28th Canon. It is damaging to your thesis because the Council excommunicated the first bishop (Vigilius of Rome) with the justification that he had officially espoused the Nestorian heresy in his dogmatic First Constitution (in which he upheld the orthodoxy of Theodoret’s anti-Cyrillian writings and the Letter of Ibas to Mari the Persian, declaring that anybody who anathematized these writings should be deprived of his clerical status), something which should have been impossible, were your thesis correct, because if the primacy were given by divine right, such a decision could never have been valid, nor would any council of right-believing bishops dare to think so, for such a decision could not then have been made without the assent of the very bishop they were excommunicating. But their decree of excommunication was followed de jure, and it appeared to be successful in changing Pope Vigilus’ mind, insofar as months after the council concluded, Pope Vigilius annulled his First Constitution, admitted that he had been in error, and affirmed the teachings of the Council.

Regarding Trullo, I will cite the “Catholic Encyclopedia”

None of these objections matter for two reasons. The first is that the Seventh Ecumenical Council, in its first canon orders that the sacred canons are to be followed in all matters, and the ancient epitome of this canon interprets this to mean the canons of the Holy Fathers, of the Six Ecumenical Synods, and of local councils, which implicitly includes Trullo (either as a local council or as the Fifth-Sixth Council). The second is that I supply Trullo not as an absolute authority, but as a notable example to demonstrate that the idea that nobody in the East thought Canon 28 of Chalcedon to be lawful is a wishful thinking, for the Council of Trullo clearly thought the canon to be of legal force, otherwise it would not have reaffirmed it.

Again, I am coming at this from a different angle as you may remember from a previous post. I have addressed this part about my citation of St. Maximus and I am waiting for your response.

That quotation indeed is from the supposed Letter to Peter (surely you are not telling me that you are quoting something attributed to St. Maximus without first having checked what work it comes from). It is suspected to be spurious, because as I remember, it exists only in fragments, and only in Latin (i.e., not in the Confessor’s native tongue), and furthermore, nowhere else in his extant works does St. Maximus ever write such things about the Roman See or it’s supreme authority. The document’s state of preservation and the absence of similar claims from St. Maximus’ writings makes it bad evidence.

In fact, the claim made in that passage attributed to St. Maximus, that, The Roman Church, “accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” is manifestly false, because no such canon or definition granting the Church of Rome such things exists in the canons of the holy fathers. It bears in that manner, much resemblance to the forgeries of Pseudo-Isidore, which make similar claims.

That other decree which you quote, attributed to Pope St. Damasus is equally unreliable, for it is not actually known to have been written by Pope St. Damasus. It was originally thought to have been a decree of Pope Gelasius, and now it is also suspected to be spurious, because it attributes to Pope Damasus a decree which anachronistically quotes St. Augustine. Furthermore, the tenor of the decree directly contradicts the behavior of his successor Pope Siricius, who declined to rule on the doctrine of a bishop Bonosus, claiming not to have the right to do so, and instead preferring to wait for the judgment of a synod (see Pope Siricius Epistle IX, Ad Anysium).

 

[Peter_J]

Sources please.

Joking (and Canadians) aside, I definitely believe that there is some merit to SPH’s argument … as long as we don’t overestimate how much it proves.

 

[LionHeart777]

…That quotation indeed is from the supposed Letter to Peter (surely you are not telling me that you are quoting something attributed to St. Maximus without first having checked what work it comes from). It is suspected to be spurious, because as I remember, it exists only in fragments, and only in Latin (i.e., not in the Confessor’s native tongue), and furthermore, nowhere else in his extant works does St. Maximus ever write such things about the Roman See or it’s supreme authority. The document’s state of preservation and the absence of similar claims from St. Maximus’ writings makes it bad evidence.

In fact, the claim made in that passage attributed to St. Maximus, that, The Roman Church, “accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” is manifestly false, because no such canon or definition granting the Church of Rome such things exists in the canons of the holy fathers. It bears in that manner, much resemblance to the forgeries of Pseudo-Isidore, which make similar claims.

That other decree which you quote, attributed to Pope St. Damasus is equally unreliable, for it is not actually known to have been written by Pope St. Damasus. It was originally thought to have been a decree of Pope Gelasius, and now it is also suspected to be spurious, because it attributes to Pope Damasus a decree which anachronistically quotes St. Augustine. Furthermore, the tenor of the decree directly contradicts the behavior of his successor Pope Siricius, who declined to rule on the doctrine of a bishop Bonosus, claiming not to have the right to do so, and instead preferring to wait for the judgment of a synod (see Pope Siricius Epistle IX, Ad Anysium).

I have only selected a part here to respond to at the moment, and I want to get this issue of St. Maximus out of the way.

So, the citation I gave originally was:

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Maximus of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 1 Sept. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm.

That you say “‘In fact, the claim made in that passage attributed to St. Maximus, that, The Roman Church, ‘accodring to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and surpreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.’’” , is frustrating because notice that that bit you quoted is nowhere found in the citation I just gave. There is only one citation that was originally in question here… the one I just gave. I want to clear this point up; are you claiming that that citation I just gave again in blue is from Maximus’ letter to Peter?

But even in the bit you quoted (which isn’t found in the blue citation I just gave), you say, “…the claim made in that passage…is manifestly false, because no such canon or definition granting the Church of Rome such things exists in the canons of the holy fathers…” Of course! The Catholic contention is that it came from Jesus Christ (i.e. it came by Divine Right) who bestowed it upon St. Peter. Which is what I have been showing from various writers (not just St. Maximus and the “Decree of Damasus”, which again the Patristics scholar Jurgens says that part comes from Damasus, but I’ve no need of pressing more because I have plenty of other evidence.) That no canons bestow such an authority on Rome is not damaging to my position because I’m arguing that they were bestowed on St. Peter by Jesus Christ. The problem for your mere canonical Primacy theory is that, there are no Canons which bestow this alleged mere Canonical Primacy on Rome; As Scott argues, The First Ecumenical Council (Nicaea I) already found it as an established fact. Also, I’d like to point out that we still only have it on your authority that Maximus’ letter to Peter is of doubtful authenticity.

There is a lot on the table here, but I wanted to clear a couple of points up, and I’ll ask these questions.

1.) Are you agreeing with the position I am taking, which I now believe, that Canon 28 of Chalcedon is only referring to Rome’s Patriarchical privileges, and not that of Roman Primacy of jurisdiction?

2.) Do you disagree with me that Pope St. Leo believed his Primacy (not going into what that Primacy entails) to be by Divine Right?

I realize you are going on vacation and so may not respond for a while. Have a safe trip.

–Nick

 

[Randy_Carson]

Thank you SPH! This is what I’ve been trying to tell people for years … well more-or-less. I’ve been trying to explain to everyone that the only thing that non-Canadians all have in common is that they’re not Canadian.

Somehow I just can’t seem to get through.

And the advantage of being Canadian is that you get the benefit of our military protection and our television. Well, okay, our military.

Similarly, non-Catholic Christians sleep under the blanket of protection provided by the Catholic Church.

But this will raise another storm of protest…

 

[Randy_Carson]

So, one of the main causes of the Schism is false and a red herring, and has been so for a thousand years?

I think there may be something to this, Jon. Universal Jurisdiction may simply be an excuse to avoid submitting to an authority other than one of one’s own choosing. And the root of that is pride.

Consider this: if the Orthodox had not split off (and let’s not get into the "Rome split off from them thing - either you’re with the Chair of Peter or you’re not), then is it possible that in the course of 1,000 years we might have had a pope elected from Russia or some other “Orthodox” stronghold? Maybe. If this had happened, the Orthodox would be rightly “proud” of “their” pope just as Poland was proud of JPII, etc. Instead, IMO, they backed themselves into a corner for primarily political reasons, and they are using stuff like the *filioque *and universal jurisdiction to cover their tracks - a red herring.

We know that part of the frustration on the part of Islam is the fact that their once-great culture has been eclipsed by the West. Are the Orthodox any different? Hasn’t history passed them by? And is there any historical evidence that they have fulfilled the Great Commission to “make disciples of all nations”? There aren’t too many Orthodox churches in my neck of the woods. Conversely, is there a nation of earth where the Catholic Church has not been, has not preached, has not made disciples? The course of history runs largely through Rome. This seems to rankle those who look to some other see.

Now, having offended all of the Orthodox members of this forum with that statement (though that was NOT my intent), let me say this about the Anglicans and the Lutherans: you’re in the same position.

Anglicans all know that Henry VIII was a scaliwag, but they are too proud to admit the mistake and reunite with Rome. And, be honest, Luther had personal issues (mixed with some valid concerns), but most of the egregious matters were dealt with during the counter-Reformation…the rest of what separates you from us is stuff Luther largely made up out of whole cloth.

I honestly don’t get the rationale for remaining in heresy or schism when the dust from most of these issues settled long ago.

You’re all wonderful people and faithful Christians. It’s time to come home. The world is in chaos, and we have much bigger matters confronting us. We need to be united against those who are coming against God and His Church.

+++

I’m anticipating getting flamed from all sides for stating what appears to me to be an obvious truth…the elephant in the room. However, I continue to read, to dialogue, to think and to pray about these things as I try to understand what God is saying and doing among His people. Who knows? Maybe I’ll learn something that changes my mind. This is simply how it appears to me for now. God bless.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

How can you remove the Roman Catholic Church from the equation? Protestant thought, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox thought and theology all developed very differently.

But they all come from Catholicism

The Eastern Orthodox idea of reunion, is that everyone becomes Orthodox. There is no compromising the Fullness of Truth when you believe it’s within your Church. Yet I have also heard time and time again, that we know where the Church is not… but we cannot say where the Church is. Replace “Church” with Holy Spirit and it works just as well.

To a degree, we still have an immense stumbling block: Discernment.

Who and how do we discern the fruit of the Holy Spirit?

What do we do when we “make” the Holy Spirit contradict Himself?

At least with Rome, most of the stumbling blocks are out of the way when it comes to Church authority, Church Fathers, intercession of saints, etc. Now the Protestants think very differently depending on who you talk to and if they are Anglican, Lutheran, Reformed, Calvinist, or what have you…

Indeed.

It would make more sense for the Non-Chalcedonian “Oriental” Orthodox, and the Eastern “Chalcedonian” Orthodox to reunite first. As a side note, the Orthodox hierarchs have had a history of ecumenical relations with the Anglicans and the Lutherans throughout the years that might interest you. Many of these discussions have led to the Creation of the “Western Rite” within Orthodoxy, for those who are still attached to a Western liturgy and wish to become Orthodox Christians.

Peter Gillquist? Do you know of any others? I would like to read more, thanks.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

I am going on vacation tomorrow, so I will try to keep this as short as possible.

Safe Trip and Good Travels!

I need one of those… haven’t had any in 5 years

 

[SPH1]

Joking (and Canadians) aside, I definitely believe that there is some merit to SPH’s argument … as long as we don’t overestimate how much it proves.

Protestantism has had 500 years to unite without the Papacy as a factor at all. Why have they not done so? Then the Eastern Orthodox can be thrown into the mix, uniting with all of Protestantism.

The Papacy and Universal Jurisdiction is not the real stumbling block to Christian unity. Perhaps we can flush out other, more substantial reasons for lack of unity?

Just some quick thoughts:

1. Many Christians/Denominations probably do not think that unity is necessary or even a desirable goal. They fear any kind of “one world church” as of the devil. With this mindset unity is to be avoided, as if Christ didn’t intend a universal church.
2. Others may claim that Christendom is already “spiritually” united somehow, even if not corporately and dogmatically. Like “I’m okay and you’re okay” and doctrinal differences do not matter. In this situation there really is no universal Christian doctrinal truth.
3. Probably the biggest stumbling block to unity is that nobody wants to give up any of their particular doctrines, admitting they are nothing but mere opinions of man. Just the differing beliefs over Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sufficient to show this. Yet it is these two sacraments where the church should stand as one above all things except perhaps the trinity doctrine itself.

Again, the Papacy isn’t even the begining for the lack of unity.

In fact, in the end I’d say that the Papacy is THE ONLY THING that can bring unity. Not throwing God out of the equation, but unity is only possible when non-Catholics realize the divine institution of the Papacy which exists for the purpose of unity and doctrinal truth vs conflicting opinions. And of all Christian clergy of whatever stripe, the Pope is the only one who really even thinks about unity; the only who especially has that burden upon his shoulders. I doubt that most non-Catholic clergy even think of unity that much.

 

[AveChriste11]

Protestantism has had 500 years to unite without the Papacy as a factor at all. Why have they not done so? Then the Eastern Orthodox can be thrown into the mix, uniting with all of Protestantism.

The Papacy and Universal Jurisdiction is not the real stumbling block to Christian unity. Perhaps we can flush out other, more substantial reasons for lack of unity?

Just some quick thoughts:

1. Many Christians/Denominations probably do not think that unity is necessary or even a desirable goal. They fear any kind of “one world church” as of the devil. With this mindset unity is to be avoided, as if Christ didn’t intend a universal church.
2. Others may claim that Christendom is already “spiritually” united somehow, even if not corporately and dogmatically. Like “I’m okay and you’re okay” and doctrinal differences do not matter. In this situation there really is no universal Christian doctrinal truth.
3. Probably the biggest stumbling block to unity is that nobody wants to give up any of their particular doctrines, admitting they are nothing but mere opinions of man. Just the differing beliefs over Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are sufficient to show this. Yet it is these two sacraments where the church should stand as one above all things except perhaps the trinity doctrine itself.

Again, the Papacy isn’t even the begining for the lack of unity.

In fact, in the end I’d say that the Papacy is THE ONLY THING that can bring unity. Not throwing God out of the equation, but unity is only possible when non-Catholics realize the divine institution of the Papacy which exists for the purpose of unity and doctrinal truth vs conflicting opinions. And of all Christian clergy of whatever stripe, the Pope is the only one who really even thinks about unity; the only who especially has that burden upon his shoulders. I doubt that most non-Catholic clergy even think of unity that much.

Do you feel that I adequately explained why Orthodox cannot unite with Protestants, unless they too become Orthodox?

The EO-OO dialogue has been going on for years too. I just didn’t know if you had any comments on my post… which I would be interested in reading. There is a serious effort to begin inter-communion between the Coptic Christians and the Greek Orthodox. My Greek priest had approval from the Bishop to commune Copts/Ethiopians when they visited our church so… I know something must be going on…

 

[LionHeart777]

Just to clarify,

I wrote in my last post:

“But even in the bit you quoted (which isn’t found in the blue citation I just gave), you [Cavaradossi] say, “…the claim made in that passage…is manifestly false, because no such canon or definition granting the Church of Rome such things exists in the canons of the holy fathers…” Of course! The Catholic contention is that it came from Jesus Christ (i.e. it came by Divine Right) who bestowed it upon St. Peter.”

I meant:

Of course ‘no such canon or definition granting the Church of Rome such things exists in the canons of the holy fathers…’ !

I did not mean, Of course ‘…the claim made in that passage…is manifestly false…’

That should go without saying but just in case