P
- Status
P
prodromos
Guest
They very often refer to the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St Peter and St Paul. However, St Paul became a problem for the development of the Petrine supremacy doctrine so he was dropped from the equation.
John
J
josie_L
Guest
No, actually yours is the strawman argument since the reason I put in that quote from Meyendorff was to show Single Mom Monica that the Pope was at the center of ecumenical agreement, therefore nullifying the ridiculous claims she made about the non-involvement of the bishop of Rome in conciliar decisions.
p.s. In fact the Council of Chalcedon is a perfect example of the Pope’s involvement in deciding or rather approving (he had the final say) the decisions made during councils.
Josie
J
josie_L
Guest
I was never arguing for primacy or supremacy when I quoted Meyendorff SingleMomMonica
but letting you understand how utterly ridiculous it was for you to say that the Pope’s silence during conciliar matters was “deafening”, This is false even by Orthodox standards and furthermore anyone who states otherwise (according to Meyendorff) is simply exhibiting anti-Catholic sentiments. Do you wish to fall into that category?
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
First Josie, I am very disappointed in you for misquoting me I have placed in blue above the portion of your quote where you directly misquote me into saying something I did not say. What I did say, I have copied & have pasted here highlighted in Blue (the original post in on page 7 of this thread):
**The Silence of the 7 Ecumenical Councils **re: the claim that the Bishop of Rome is Supreme over all Bishops of the world, the sole holder of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the like is completely Deafening!
If what I actually stated is false - please provide which of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and which of it’s Canons specifically stated that the Bishop of Rome is “Supreme” over all other Bishops of the world, that the Bishop of Rome is the sole holder of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. This request is rhetorical because, as you either already know or after investigation will certainly find out, the 7 Ecumencial Councils, as I stated, said nothing to that affect.
Second Josie, I gave 3 separate posts with multiple quotes from 6 well known early Church Fathers who directly contradict you and your Catholic Church’s current teaching on the role of the bishop of Rome. After reading all of those 3 posts and all the quotes on page 8 of this thread post #s 114, 116 & 117, you really have no response?
**For some people, apparently you, Josie, are one of them, no amount of “proof” will ever be sufficient. **
Third Josie, since you have misquoted me it should be no suprise to me that you above have misquoted Meyendorff - which I have bolded above. On page 7 of this thread, you’d provided the following, I have bolded the quote from your earlier quote below:
**According to John Meyendorff, an Orthodox scholar:
(3) There is no doubt that an objective study of the evidence yields the conclusion that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy, had an Ecumenical center of unity and agreement in Rome, and the unanimous testimony of the Fathers and Councils demonstrates this – and to deny this is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice”**
Meyendorff said that to deny that the Catholic Church believed in Universal Primacy is based purely on “anti-Roman prejudice”. (provided he actually said this, you can see why I have reason to doubt considering the documented history of your misquoting people) This statement in no way conflicts with anything I’ve stated here. Where any Orthodox Christians would have a problem is when you (and most Catholics) swap out the word “Primacy” with “Supremacy” as to do so would conflict with the testimony of the early Church Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. 2nd problem that Orthodox Christians would have is when you (& most Catholics) would claim that that universal Primacy was based on anything besides what the 7 Ecumenical Councils said it was based on…namely, the fact that elder Rome had been the Imperial City - that primacy was based purely on political reasons.
You may not have noticed, but in order for you to try to get your view point across, you have had to completely ignore the testimony of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the early Church Fathers, ignore the Roman Catholic Historian Davis & have had to misquote the Orthodox Scholar Meyendorff…Doesn’t raise any red flags for you? It is clear that your view point in this matter is clearly different that of Christ’s Church and it is wrong. It would actually seem like you are Anti-Orthodox; however, I will not make that accusation. Despite the evidence, I choose to think positive and that there is some other explanation for your behavior of ignoring the 7 Ecumencial Councils, the 6 early Church Fathers I quoted, Roman Catholic Historian Davis and for misquoting Orthodox Scholar Meyendorff.
There is no sense in anyone here to provide you with any additional responses in this matter since you are quite clearly blinded to anything other than your pre-conceived notions. God can remove the scales from your eyes, but you have to want Him to. You have to want to know the Truth and be willing to accept it even if it is different that your pre-conceived notions.
Peace & God’s Blessings to you. Just because I will no longer respond to you does not mean I don’t love ya and I’m not praying for you! I really wish you all the very best!
J
josie_L
Guest
First, my apologies for misquoting or rather misunderstanding you (I am dealing with quite a few posts so things can get hectic because I try to answer the posts as quickly as I can), however, I have not provided spurious information pertaining to what I believe (in other words I back up what I say with evidence). In your description of Chalcedon, for example, you depicted the Roman delegates (who represented the Pope) in less than flattering terms with respect to their involvement yet you failed to mention that it was Pope’s Leo
famous tome which helped to settle the matter at Chalcedon but this you conveniently left out. Then you claimed that the Pope/Roman legates accepted canon 28 and realized you were in error only after ralphinal pointed it out. We all make mistakes including myself.
re: the claim that the Bishop of Rome is Supreme over all Bishops of the world, the sole holder of the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and the like is completely Deafening!
Although this is a church father speaking (St. Maximus the confessor references the fact that the apostolic see of Rome has universal and supreme authority as mentioned in the canons, holy synods . . . ), this is a letter to the governor of Syria an Palestine pertaining to the patriarch of Constantinople:
“The authorities in Constantinople have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see. And what is laughable – or rather lamentable, because it proves their ignorance – is that they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself (this is bishop of Rome he is refering to) . . . Moreover, they have claimed the great (deceased Pope) Honorius to be on their side . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments and pleas, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman See recognizes (the former patriarch of Constantinople) Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, **it is certainly plain that everyone who rejects those who have rejected Pyrrhus, rejects the See of Rome itself – that is, he rejects the Catholic Church. /B] I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself as well, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Church of God. . . .”
“It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic See of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honor, until he is received by her, having returned to her – no, to Our Lord – by a pious confession and orthodox faith. Only by this can he receive holiness and the title of holy . . . .”
"Let him hasten first of all to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied everyone will agree to call him pious and orthodox. For it is futile for anyone to try to persuade or entrap someone like me without trying to instead to satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans. For it is the Apostolic See, which has received, from the incarnate Son of God Himself, universal and supreme dominion, authority, and the power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God. This is confirmed by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, which are in the whole world. For with it the Word, who is above the celestial powers, binds and looses in heaven as well.
“If Pyrrhus thinks he must satisfy others, but fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, wastes his time proving his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him, rather than to the judge appointed by law.”
**(This was taken from the expanded edition “The Fathers of the Church” by Mike Aquilina, pg 242) **
Then there is this (which highlights the arian controversy surrounding poor St. Athanasius who was condemned by a council not as yet approved by the Pope):
“Thus St. Julius (a.d. 342) remonstrated by letter with the Eusebian party for “proceeding on their own authority as they pleased,” and then, as he says, " desiring to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned [Athanasius]. **Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed: this is another form of procedure, novel practice . . . **For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things are manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.”
“Julius wrote back, " he says, " that they acted against the Canons, because they had not called him to the Council, the Ecclesiastical Canon commanding that the Churches ought not to make Canons beside the will of the Bishop of Rome.” And Sozomen: “It was sacerdotal law, to declare invalid whatever was transacted beside the will of the Bishop of the Romans.” On the other hand, the heretics themselves, whom St. Julius withstands, are obliged to acknowledged that Rome was “the School of the Apostles and the Metropolis of orthodoxy from the beginning.”
**(Taken from “An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine” by John Henry Newman, page 88) **
According to these two excerpts I have provided there is indeed canon law which relays that the bishop of Rome does have an authority which is supreme in the Catholic Church.
to be continued. . . .**
J
josie_L
Guest
It does not surprise me that you think I misquoted Meyendorff but I did give you the website from which I copied and pasted this information. Feel free to verify its claims.
J
josie_L
Guest
Firstly, I did not misquote Meyendorff as I was working under the assumption that you were denying the Pope’s involvement in the councils (if you study Church history you will notice that the Pope has the last say, in other words he dis/approves council decisions). Secondly, I intend to refute your previous posts quoting the early church fathers with regard to the keys (because you are wrong in your interpretations of them) and other key factors pertaining to St. Peter and his successors. Thirdly, the bishop of Rome did not have primacy because of political reasons to believe this would be to deny SCRIPTURE which states very clearly that St. Peter possesses primacy (even supremacy) over the Church as was delineated by Christ and the authors of the NT. Jesus bestowed on St. Peter the keys (anyone who is linked to the Church which his successors can be found are promised that the “gates of hell shall not prevail”). Tertullian is correct in his understanding for it is to Peter the keys were given and through Peter to the Church that the keys are manifested. This does not mean however that all the apostles have this authority otherwise Jesus himself would have specified giving the keys to all the apostles but he doesn’t (in fact you would think that in Matthew 18 when he confers to the other apostles the power to loose and bind he would mention the keys but he doesn’t). In Isaiah 22:22
"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim (the prime minster to the King) son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten a sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.
This is honour was only given to the prime minister and the fact that Jesus, the son of David, gives Peter whose name was changed to the rock (all name changes in the Bible relay a significant change/role in the person through God) the keys means he is also giving the same prerogatives that the prime minister has, i.e., “what he opens no one can shut and what he shuts no one can open”.
p.s. I won’t bother with responding to the rest of your post as it’s purely subjective.
J
josie_L
Guest
I did it again I’m sorry this part is incorrect.
P
prodromos
Guest
Interesting how you interpret this.
The Pope didn’t have a say until after because he was not present at the council and was only informed of its decisions after the fact. You interpret this as the Pope having the final say, as though he had some power of veto over the councils decisions.
The fact that he did not in fact have power of veto is demonstrated by the rest of the Church accepting the decisions of the council despite the Pope refusing to accept one or two of the decisions. It clearly demonstrates that the Pope only had local jurisdiction. His decisions only affected the Churches in the West and had no impact on the Churches under the other four Patriachates.
John
H
Harpazo
Guest
THANK YOU! I find the Orthodox position to be so logical and non-political. If you throw in the fact that an Ecumenical Council granted Cyprus autocephaly, that certain complicates things for the Latins. But, I’m sure this won’t end it.
In Christ,
Andrew
E
East_Anglican
Guest
If you’ve got an hour spare
bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nxmmn/A_History_of_Christianity_Orthodoxy_From_Empire_to_Empire/
bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00nxmmn/A_History_of_Christianity_Orthodoxy_From_Empire_to_Empire/
J
John_Larocque
Guest
I’m not sure if I’m misreading history, but I thought the context was that the autocephaly of Cyprus was pre-existent to the Council, and that the council affirmed it to prevent people from encroaching against it.THANK YOU! I find the Orthodox position to be so logical and non-political. If you throw in the fact that an Ecumenical Council granted Cyprus autocephaly, that certain complicates things for the Latins. But, I’m sure this won’t end it.
N
Nine_Two
Guest
It was an unofficial autocephaly that had been traditionally excersized. It was only made official when the Patriarch of Antioch started to excersize his Patriarchal perogatives over the island, based on the fact that his secular counterpart (The governor of Antioch) had secular control of the island.
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
Some here have used quotes that are supposed to be attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor where he supposedly claimed that the canons (more than one) & holy synods (more than one) have attested to the fact that Rome has universal and supreme authority.
I must say that Roman Catholic Historian Lord Acton in the 1800’s in his Lectures on Modern History reveals that the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers was a collection of forged quotations attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Alexandria and that Thomas Aquinas in his book Against the Error of the Greeks relied on the forged material of both Thesaurus of Greek Fathers and False Decretals. It is well known, in and out of the Catholic Church, that these are forgeries. And it’s been well known for centuries. If anyone is using quotes from any of these 3 sources or from Thomas Aquinas since he relied on those Forgeries…or are quoting from someone else who is quoting from any of these sources, it is pointless. They’ve been forged!
Meanwhile, let’s take a closer look at what St. Maximus the Confessor supposedly said…now ask yourself…What Canons stated that Rome had Supreme authority? There’s not a single Canon that did! What Holy Synonds stated that Rome had Supreme authority? There were none that claimed that!
Just by looking at this quote and comparing it to the Canons and the Holy Synods we can clearly see that 1 of 2 things is true:
I must say that Roman Catholic Historian Lord Acton in the 1800’s in his Lectures on Modern History reveals that the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers was a collection of forged quotations attributed to St. Maximus the Confessor, St. John Chrysostom and St. Cyril of Alexandria and that Thomas Aquinas in his book Against the Error of the Greeks relied on the forged material of both Thesaurus of Greek Fathers and False Decretals. It is well known, in and out of the Catholic Church, that these are forgeries. And it’s been well known for centuries. If anyone is using quotes from any of these 3 sources or from Thomas Aquinas since he relied on those Forgeries…or are quoting from someone else who is quoting from any of these sources, it is pointless. They’ve been forged!
Meanwhile, let’s take a closer look at what St. Maximus the Confessor supposedly said…now ask yourself…What Canons stated that Rome had Supreme authority? There’s not a single Canon that did! What Holy Synonds stated that Rome had Supreme authority? There were none that claimed that!
Just by looking at this quote and comparing it to the Canons and the Holy Synods we can clearly see that 1 of 2 things is true:
- St. Maximus the Confessor was a lier, lier, pants-on-fire
or - This quote attributed to him was a forgery.
J
John_Larocque
Guest
St. Maximus did hold an exalted view of the See of Rome and together with Pope St. Martin the Confessor were martyred for opposing monotheletism.
I don’t know what these quotes are that were mentioned by Aquinas. I have an apparently authentic) quote which doesn’t affirm universal primary of jurisdiction but yet affirm his exalted opinion of the orthodoxy of the See.
greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000uad
fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
The part of the disputed quote is this bit: “and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme domination, authority, and power of binding an loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” So the question begs to be asked: which holy canons have granted the Pope universal jurisdiction? (Answer: we know of none). If the quotation is authentic, was Maximos exposed to Latin forgeries? Who knows?
I don’t know what these quotes are that were mentioned by Aquinas. I have an apparently authentic) quote which doesn’t affirm universal primary of jurisdiction but yet affirm his exalted opinion of the orthodoxy of the See.
greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000uad
Ah… did a bit of searching. I’m pretty sure that the problematic and disputed passage is something called “Letter to Peter” (Mansi X, 692), which is different and can be found here:
fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
The part of the disputed quote is this bit: “and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme domination, authority, and power of binding an loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” So the question begs to be asked: which holy canons have granted the Pope universal jurisdiction? (Answer: we know of none). If the quotation is authentic, was Maximos exposed to Latin forgeries? Who knows?
J
josie_L
Guest
How did he not have a say when it was Pope Leo who initiated the council wherein his famous tome would be read and accepted with the words:
“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
Hence establishing from the get go the decision to be made and rendered by the Church (please take note of my post which relates the events at Chalcedon two pages ago).
If one looks further into the events leading up to Chalcedon we see Patriarch Flavian beseeching the Pope in a manner that conveys the latter’s authority (note the words “obedient” and “authoritative”):
When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod,** which is obedient to Your Holiness**, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. – Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449
Both Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum were stripped of their sees (in the infamous council of Ephesus) because they refused to embrace monophysitism, this is what they had to say:
We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles. – Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113
The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion. – Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo
The above entreaties relay that the pope had prerogatives that fell outside of his local jurisdiction, and that those who felt they needed recourse (from unjust conciliar decisions and such) sought his authority because it was final and therefore binding.
Furthermore, in order that conciliar decisions be upheld one needed the approval of the apostolic see of Rome (his consent was necessary):
We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek. For we, in our zeal for peace and faith, cannot decide questions of faith apart from consent of the Bishop of Rome. – Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25
One such example of this is: the refusal of Pope St. Stephen to accept the conciliar decision of the African bishops led by St. Cyprian to re-baptize heretics (who were already validly baptized albeit outside of the Church). Needless to say Pope St. Stephen’s view prevailed.
Moreover, in the case of St. Anthanasius/arianism Pope St. Julius decries those that dared to render decisions without finalizing them with him first, here is what he said:
“Thus St. Julius (a.d. 342) remonstrated by letter with the Eusebian party for “proceeding on their own authority as they pleased,” and then, as he says, " desiring to obtain our concurrence in their decisions, though we never condemned [Athanasius]. Not so have the constitutions of Paul, not so have the traditions of the Fathers directed: this is another form of procedure, novel practice . . . For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things are manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us.”
“Julius wrote back, " he says, " that they acted against the Canons, because they had not called him to the Council, the Ecclesiastical Canon commanding that the Churches ought not to make Canons beside the will of the Bishop of Rome.”
Please would you be kind enough to read this as well: newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
God bless.
J
josie_L
Guest
Whether this is true (I believe it to be as it confirms what was said by St. Julius) I found the passage I quoted from the book I mentioned here as well (it seems to be legit), newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm:
they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or
rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy… Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. **For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — **for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.
they have not conformed to the sense of the Apostolic see, and what is laughable, or
rather lamentable, as proving their ignorance, they have not hesitated to lie against the Apostolic see itself . . . but have claimed the great Honorius on their side. . . . What did the divine Honorius do, and after him the aged Severinus, and John who followed him? Yet further, what supplication has the blessed pope, who now sits, not made? Have not the whole East and West brought their tears, laments, obsecrations, deprecations, both before God in prayer and before men in their letters? If the Roman see recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus, anathematizes the see of Rome that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he be in communion with the Roman see and the Church of God… It is not right that one who has been condemned and cast out by the Apostolic see of the city of Rome for his wrong opinions should be named with any kind of honour, until he be received by her, having returned to her — nay, to our Lord — by a pious confession and orthodox faith, by which he can receive holiness and the title of holy… Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman see, for if it is satisfied all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. **For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world — **for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him.
J
John_Larocque
Guest
A pair of letters today in honour of the feast of St. Andrew.
Pope Benedict VI…
zenit.org/article-27700?l=english
Patriarch Bartholomew:
Pope Benedict VI…
zenit.org/article-27700?l=english
ec-patr.org/docdisplay.php?lang=en&id=1135&tla=en
Patriarch Bartholomew:
S
SingleMomMonica
Guest
Both links you provided give the same supposed quote of St. Maximus the Confessor. It is a forgery.
Meanwhile, the only reference to a “Letter to Peter” I could locate was written by Thomas Jefferson to his nephew: stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_carr.html unless Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem means Letter to Peter - don’t know cause I don’t know Latin, but if so, then refer below as it was this document that Pope Leo who wrote Satis Cognitum - mistranslated this quote so badly that Roman Catholic Historians (noted below) actually declared the real translation as “inconsistent with Roman Catholic doctrine”.
It has been said that the numerous forgeries were an attempt at revisionist history and that their very existence is damning evidence that the authority claimed by the papacy was not recognized by the early Church or by the Eastern Fathers of any era.
Even Roman Catholic Historians of multiple centuries have admitted to the numerous forgeries and that even the Roman Code of Canon Law which was commonly know as the Decretum had 313 of it’s cited 324 quotations regarding the papacy were forged since the Benedictine monk: Gratian who complied it in the 10th century taken from the well known Forged Documents: The Donation of Constantine, The Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore and Liber Pontificalis.
The real question is: If the claims of the papacy were so clear & recongized in the early Church, then why did the Church of Rome find it necessary to forge?
Even the Pope Leo who wrote Satis Cognitum had to forge quotes including one from Augustine - the Pope wrote that Augustine said “the primacy of the Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church”, but what Augustine actually said was “the primacy of an Apostolic chair always existed in the Roman Church.” In Augustine’s works, he customarily used the expression “Apostolic Sees” not “Apostolic See”. Plus from the same epistle Pope Leo quoted in Satis Cognitum, Augustine actually said: “those bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church…so that…their decisions might be reversed.” Clearly Augustine had respect the all of the Apostolic Sees within the Church, not just the Apostolic See in Rome and he shows that the Councils had more authority than Rome.
In Satis Cognitum, Pope Leo also provided horrendously faulty translations a quote of St. Maximus the Confessor - so faulty was the translation that Roman Catholic Historian Aloysius Vincenzi declared St. Maximus’ actual quote “inconsistent with Roman Catholic doctrine” in his De Hebraeorum et Christianorum Sacra Monarchia in 1875.
Again, if the early Church believed what the modern-day Catholic Church believes about the role of the Pope of Rome as “Supreme” and “Infallible” when why the need not only to forge, but to twist translations so dramatically as to change the meaning to the exact opposite of what was actually stated?
Then you have Pope Honorius who was condemned & excommunicated by the 6th Ecumencial Council for practicing and teaching Heresy! But wait, I though Popes were supposed to be “Infallibile” on matters of Faith. Well, I guess the “Infallibility” somehow missed Pope Honorius. The Heresy Pope Honorius taught was Monothelitism.
- Status