Why is the Eastern Orthodox Church false?

[Evlogitos]

With that in mind, what troubles me is why the Orthodox almost seemed determined not to reunite with us. Pope John Paul II bent over backwards with this goal in mind. He declared that he was ready to dialogue with other Christians to work out another way of exercising the primacy of the Bishop of Rome so that it could be a cause of unity rather than continue to be a cause of division.

We’d both be better off together. We are busy fighting this stupid civil war, and while were at it, secularism, relativism, and modernism are taking over.

Amen, amen, and amen! I could not agree with you more on the necessity of unity, and I believe there are a great many in the Orthodox clergy who would love to be One again.

However, I don’t think it’s fair to put all the burden on the Orthodox as to why that hasn’t happened yet. There have been a lot of Catholics (esp. JPII and Benedict) who have said many grand things about compromise and understanding, but in other statements it’s clear (at least to us Orthodox) that this ultimately does not mean compromise on Catholic prerogatives. Lately, it’s particularly grieving to us that Benedict dropped the title “Patriarch of the West.”

There’s much bantered about, and each side accuses the other of not being willing to give anything up. Here’s my take:

-Reunion will not happen until the Pope displays a willingness to give up infallibility and universal ordinary jurisdiction over every faithful Christian. This may sound harsh to the Catholic ear, but these to the Orthodox mind are innovations that have had myriad deleterious effects on the Faith (esp. the Eastern Catholics).

-In return, the Orthodox must be willing to accept the filioque as being a legitimate expression of true Trinitarian faith (although personally I’d like to see the West instead adopt “through the Son” as a more accurate and conciliatory phrasing), must accept the validity of Catholic sacraments (yes, even Novus Ordo), and most importantly, must accept a strong primacy of the bishop of Rome extending to some universal ministerial prerogatives (e.g., I dunno, right of appeal, right of resolving ecclesiastical and jurisdictional disputes, right to convoke ecumenical councils, maybe even right of confirming certain metropolitans or patriarchs).

-I think both sides are gonna have to throw down and do some mud wrestling over specific theological issues like original sin, the Immaculate Conception, Purgatory, grace, saints, and so on. This isn’t insurmountable, though; it’s been extremely heartening to see Catholic theologians in recent years express a willingness to reinterpret Western theological terms in a sense palatable to the Orthodox mind.

also, another reason I posted that quote is because I’ve heard some trying to spin Matt. 16:18 off as Jesus referring to Peter’s faith and things of that sort, clearly that is not what Cyprian thinks.

It’s not either/or. As with most Scripture, there is more than one sense in which it may legitimately be taken. But again, even taking it in a purely Petrine sense, we must remember that often “Peter” does not equal “papacy.”

 

[Brady_W]

yeah good post, I’ve always wondered though, what don’t you guys like about purgatory?

 

[Galdre]

Howdy folks. I’ve been pretty busy, but I have lots of thoughts and questions for both sides. I hope to get to them tonight or tomorrow.

In the meantime, I would like to address this really quickly.

It’s a very cool quote indeed, though not, I suspect, for the reasons you’d think at first blush. In broader context, Cyprian is not talking about the papacy, but rather the unity of the monarchial episcopate.

[snip]

I’m sure, Brady, as a Roman Catholic your immediate inclination is to equate all references to “Peter” or “Chair of Peter” with “the papacy.” This is an understandable reaction on your part; however, this equivalency is often simply not the case in patristic literature, and as such it’s vitally important to carefully examine the context and meaning before prooftexting with it.

Not to keep beating a dead horse, but it seems pretty obvious to me that Cyprian was, in fact, talking about Rome.

We know roughly when Cyprian wrote the first edition, because he mentions sending it to Rome in letter 47.

Maurice Bevenot (no Catholic himself) points out that Cyprian uses the “Chair of Peter” title in only two places in all of his works: the first edition of the De Unitate and his very next letter to the bishop of Rome (letter 59):

But they have gone further than that. They have had heretics set up for them a pseudo bishop, and on top of that they now have the audacity to sail off carrying letters from schismatics and outcasts from religion even to the chair of Peter, to the primordial church, the very source of episcopal unity; and they do not stop to consider that they are carrying them to those same Romans whose faith was so praised and proclaimed by the Apostle, into whose company men without faith can, therefore, find no entry.

It is important to note that Cyprian does not say they have assaulted the chair of Peter by setting up a pseudo bishop. It is only when they sail to Rome that the chair of Peter is mentioned: “and on top of that they now have the audacity to sail off from schismatics and outcasts from religion even to the chair of Peter, to the primordial church, the very source of episcopal unity.”

I can’t see how this can be anything but an allusion to the other passage he had just written: “If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”

Is my interpretation faulty? I don’t want to see other quotations by Cyprian, where he puts forward another view. I know full well that he developed a universal view of the Petrine office, and that he got into a fight with Rome. But these documents are several years before that, and I think they demonstrate rather conclusively that at that time Cyprian not only fully intended to, but actually did, apply the De Unitate passage to Rome.

~Galdre

 

[Evlogitos]

Brady:

Let’s dissect:

If in your view, in regard to a matter to be handled and decided jointly with your brothers, their decision was other than you wanted, then let the entire matter, with a record of the proceedings, be referred to us…

I have no issues with the papacy as an episcopal court of appeal.

Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank.

True. Look at the Ecumenical Patriarch versus the Bishop of Mexico.

Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were like in honor, there was a certain distinction of power.

I think perhaps the wording here is a bit iffy, but the sense is correct. Peter, James, John, and later Paul had a much broader scope of ministry than did the rest of the Apostles.

All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others.

Sure. No sane Orthodox theologian denies that Peter was foremost of the Apostles (with Paul in a very close second).

From this formaility there arose also a distinction among bishops, and by a great arrangement it was provided that no one should arrogate everything to himself, but individual provinces there should be individual bishops whose opinion among their brothers should be first; and again, certain others, established in larger cities, were to accept a greater responsibility.

All absolutely true. Note especially the concepts here expressed:

1. No one among the bishops should arrogate everything to himself.
2. There are individual bishops whose opinion among their brethren should be first.

Through them the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter,

Subject to the preceding stated terms? Sure! But this would mean no universal ordinary jurisdiction (arrogating everything to oneself), and no infallibility (primacy in opinion does not make the opinion eternally correct, nor does it bind the conscience of bishops lower down the totem pole).

and nothing should ever be at odds with this head.

Again, sure thing, just as long as the primacy stays within these delineated bounds. But if the See of Peter arrogates more to itself than granted by the Apostolic and patristic witness, then it has broken the the divine symmetry of the Church and must be returned to its pastoral–rather than monarchial–primacy.

There’s the big gap between RCC and Orthodox thinking. We Orthodox read this sort of thing and nod, agreeing that Rome has the primacy, but only so long as it responsibly and humbly exercises it.

Since Leo is speaking in microcosmic terms here, I’ll use an example from the holy canons to illustrate my point. From Canon 15 of the First-and-Second Synod (which is itself merely a clarification of Apostolic Canon 31):

In case any Presbyter or Bishop or Metropolitan dares to secede or apostatize from the communion of his own Patriarch… this person shall be held an alien to every priestly function… But as for those persons, on the other hand, who, on account of some heresy condemned by holy Synods, or Fathers, withdrawing themselves from communion with their president… such persons not only are not subject to any canonical penalty… but, on the contrary, they shall be deemed worthy to enjoy the honor which befits them among orthodox Christians. …[For] they have not sundered the union of the Church with any schism, but, on the contrary, have been sedulous to rescue the Church from schisms and divisions.

yeah good post, I’ve always wondered though, what don’t you guys like about purgatory?

The Orthodox traditionally reject the notion of temporal punishment for unsatisfied sins. This smacks of judicialism and legalism, rather than the surpassing mercies of God which exist to such extent that some of the greatest saints have even suggested that all men might in the end be saved (although this extreme is typically viewed as erroneous).

In our conception, all mankind has the same destiny: to stand in the presence of the unmediated divine energies of God. The righteous will experience this as light and joy without end; the unrighteous will experience it as torment and fire (hence, heaven and Gehenna). The souls that sleep, awaiting the resurrection, are experiencing a foretaste of this destiny.

As such, to us, the idea of purgatory in the traditional sense seems illogical and unnecessary. Our prayers for the dead are of a mysterious nature, but we know that they increase the repose of the righteous, and lessen the burden of the unrighteous. There are even stories of monastics who through visions were granted to see prayers for the dead pulling some souls from damnation into glory (although, affirming that “it is given to men once to die, and then the judgment,” the prevailing opinion is that such souls must have passed with some level of receptiveness to the love of God).

There have been some more recent attempts by RCC theologians to reinterpret Purgatory as an instantaneous, blinding fire that instantly purifies us at the moment we appear before the Lord, the prayers for the departed serving to lessen the dread and increase the joy of these who proceed into life. This is a heartening development that may well be acceptable to the Orthodox mind.

 

[Evlogitos]

Galdre:

I can’t see how this can be anything but an allusion to the other passage he had just written: “If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”

Is my interpretation faulty? …these documents are several years before that, and I think they demonstrate rather conclusively that at that time Cyprian not only fully intended to, but actually did, apply the De Unitate passage to Rome.

I’m afraid I don’t see the direct logical equivalence. The two letters were written in clearly different contexts, and Cyprian explains the “chair of Peter” in the abovementioned context as referring to the primatial unity (just as Peter was one, and had primacy) of the episcopate (each bishop ruling from a see, or cathedra, “chair”). It thus seems clear to me that in De Unitate, Cyprian can only be using “chair of Peter” as a euphemism for the fact that the bishops rule over the Church, and though many, yet are one.

To compare the same phrase in radically different contexts, and then attempting to draw a definitional equivalence, smacks a lot to me of the type of reasoning used by Seventh Day Adventists, who point to Paul’s use of kyriake (1 Cor. 11:20) to “disprove” that John’s use (Rev. 1:10) is a reference to Sunday. Not trying to belittle or anything… just saying it doesn’t strike me as a necessarily justifiable logical leap. Could Cyprian mean “Rome” when he uses “chair of Peter” in De Unitate? Sure, I guess it’s possible. But context suggests it’s unlikely.

 

[anthony022071]

Trullo isn’t even mentioned in Hadrian’s letter. In addition, not one of the Trullan Canons even gives Constantinople the title of “Ecumenical Patriarch.”

If canon 28 were carried into effect,that is what the patriarch of Constantinople would be for the East. Constantinople would have been the primate of the East,wielding the ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the other regional churches of the East. That is what canon 28 was about.

Your citation is a classic example of the red herring fallacy. Smoke and mirrors don’t help your position in the debate.

It is acknowledged that the Seventh Ecumenical Council ratified the Trullan Canons, heralding them as belonging to the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils (hence the Orthodox name “Quinsext” for the Council of Trullo). Among these canons is one confirming Constantinople’s second rank among the churches, citing Chalcedon canon 28.

Canon 28 was shot down by Pope Leo the first time,and the Catholic Church still does not recognize it as legitimate. By the time of Nicaea 2,the Muslims had long since taken over Alexandria and Antioch,the second and third sees. Rome had recognized Constantinople as the second-ranking see by the early 700’s. But that was not because of canon 28. Rome never gave Constantinople the “privileges of honor” in the East that canon 28 ascribed to it. The privileges of honor (not “primacy of honor”!) belonged only to Rome. The pope had apostolic jurisdiction over all the Church.

Even under a Catholic view of authority, if Rome signed off on the Seventh Ecumenical Council, then Rome signed off on its ratification of the Trullan Canons, unless the Pope specifically used his much-ballyhooed “line item veto” power to excise them from the binding authority of the Seventh Council. Do you have any historical documentation that the Pope did so? If not, is this not a gaping and contradictory hole in the Catholic schema of authority?

R. Percival,The Seven Ecumenical Councils:

< From the fact that the canons of the Council in Trullo are included in this volume of the Decrees and Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils it must not for an instant be supposed that it is intended thereby to affirm that these canons have any ecumenical authority, or that the council by which they were adopted can lay any claim to being ecumenical either in view of its constitution or of the subsequent treatment by the Church of its enactments… >

Hefele,History of the Councils:

< Probably Tarsius of Constantinople had also written to the pope what he persuaded the Second of Nicea to, that the same fathers who held the sixth Synod had added the appendix four or five years later… This historical and chronological assertion, Hadrian, as well as the members of the Seventh Ecumenical Council seem to have believed. That, however, the pope would not have approved of all the Trullan Canons we read in his words quoted above: He approved those ‘quae jure ac divnitas promulgatae sunt’ {‘which were rightly and divinely promulgated’}. Hadrian I seems here to have done as subsequently Martin V and Eugenius IV did in the confirmation of Constance and Basle. They selected such expressions as did not expressly embrace the confirmation of all the canons, but – properly explained – excluded a certain number of the decrees in question from the papal ratification.

…That the Seventh Ecumenical Council at Nicea ascribed the Trullan canons to the Sixth Ecumenical Council, and spoke of them entirely in the Greek spirit, cannot astonish us, as it was attended almost solely by Greeks. They specially pronounced the recognition of the canons in question in their own first canon; but their own canons have never received the ratification of the Holy See. >

 

[Evlogitos]

If canon 28 were carried into effect,that is what the patriarch of Constantinople would be for the East. Constantinople would have been the primate of the East,wielding the ultimate ecclesiastical authority over the other regional churches of the East. That is what canon 28 was about.

At the time of Nicea II, Constantinople had already had that power for 230+ years, thanks to Justinian I. The offense taken was at the title. The position was basically already there. And again, no mention is made of Trullo. You’re grasping at straws here… I suggest you drop it.

(I’m surprised, BTW, that you don’t see the inherent irony in your idea of Constantinople being “ecumenical patriarch for the east.” )

Canon 28 was shot down by Pope Leo the first time,and the Catholic Church still does not recognize it as legitimate.

That’s awesome. Trullo != Chalcedon. The pope would have had to shoot the Trullan canon down via line-item veto.

As to your citations, I see no words from the horse’s mouth. No papal veto. All I see are arguments as to why we shouldn’t accept the canons.

From the fact that the canons of the Council in Trullo are included in this volume of the Decrees and Canons of the Seven Ecumenical Councils it must not for an instant be supposed that it is intended thereby to affirm that these canons have any ecumenical authority, or that the council by which they were adopted can lay any claim to being ecumenical either in view of its constitution or of the subsequent treatment by the Church of its enactments…

Oh boy. This is great stuff! So, the Trullan canons claimed ecumenicity, but we can conclude that they did not in fact have the power the Seventh Council claimed for them, because they were totally ignored in the West.

That sounds an awful lot like the Catholic side of the oft-rejected Orthodox argument that, e.g., Leo claimed power over the ecumenical canons, but this was a power he didn’t have, because the East totally ignored him.

I love the smell of burning hypocrisy in the morning…

You’re in a logical bind, here. Either Trullo applies, and the Pope keeps his line item veto, because lack of reception doesn’t imply lack of legitimacy, OR Trullo doesn’t apply, and the Pope’s line item veto is a bunch of cockamamie, as proven by their respective lack of reception.

Either way, Canon 28 (or its spiritual successor) thumps right down on the toes of the West.

He approved those ‘quae jure ac divnitas promulgatae sunt’ {‘which were rightly and divinely promulgated’}. Hadrian I seems here to have done as subsequently Martin V and Eugenius IV did in the confirmation of Constance and Basle. They selected such expressions as did not expressly embrace the confirmation of all the canons, but – properly explained – excluded a certain number of the decrees in question from the papal ratification.

That’s great, but unfortunately for you, deliberately vague and noncommittal papal language (or language claimed thus–I think it could be read alternately) isn’t gonna help. Fine, so Hadrian accepted the Trullan canons “which were rightly and divinely promulgated.” Now demonstrate that Hadrian (or any successive pope) officially decried Canon 36 of Trullo as NOT “rightly and divinely promulgated.”

 

[Brady_W]

Evlogitos-

Thanks for your reply. I think we obviously understand the role of Peter differently, but your defiantly teaching me a lot about the Orthodox Church.

On Purgatory, I have been taught and I teach, that we don’t really know exactly what purgatory is other than it is a state of purification.
I don’t disagree with your view, in fact I think I read in one of Peter Kreeft’s books where he proposes an idea similar to that.

One thing I point out when I teach on Purgatory is this: God is infinitely merciful, but He is also infinitely just. Let’s say I embezzle a couple thousand dollars. I realize I sinned, ask God for His forgiveness and He grants it, my sin is forgiven. But there are still the effects of my sin to be dealt with. I have to pay that couple thousand dollars back, with interest, and who knows all of the harm that caused in the meantime before I paid it back. It’s the same with all sin to greater or lesser degree. Also, there was obviously a character flaw in there that is not in harmony with God’s will, and won’t be able to withstand the beatific vision.

I think David’s sin illustrates this point nicely. God forgave David, but he still had to be punished through the death of his son, and the sword to his people.

As you say this may sound legalistic, but I don’t really see why that would contradict God’s mercy. After all, He gave us the Law, and then wrote it on our hearts.

P.S. I looked at your profile and see your studying law. I’m trying to get into med-school, you seem like an upright guy, when I become a doctor, I may have to enlist your services to protect me from some of the ambulance chasers on your side

 

[anthony022071]

At the time of Nicea II, Constantinople had already had that power for 230+ years, thanks to Justinian I.

So is it justifiable that the episcopate of Constantinople,which didn’t have an apostolic founder,propped itself up upon secular authority,attempting to usurp the apostolic authority of Rome,Alexandria,and Antioch?

The offense taken was at the title. The position was basically already there. And again, no mention is made of Trullo. You’re grasping at straws here… I suggest you drop it.

(I’m surprised, BTW, that you don’t see the inherent irony in your idea of Constantinople being “ecumenical patriarch for the east.” )

Well,Tarasius was called “Universal Patriarch”. And somehow the Orthodox don’t see the inherent irony in calling a regional Greek council “ecumenical”.

That’s awesome. Trullo != Chalcedon. The pope would have had to shoot the Trullan canon down via line-item veto.

As to your citations, I see no words from the horse’s mouth. No papal veto. All I see are arguments as to why we shouldn’t accept the canons.

Trust me – the pope rejected the canons of Trullo in a letter to Justinian II.

cfpeople.org/Books/Pope/POPEp84.htm

< From the East came trouble. At Constantinople, Emperor Justinian II decided that since the last two general councils, the fifth and sixth, had issued no disciplinary decrees, he would hold one to supply the deficiency. Justinian’s council is, therefore, called the Quinisext (fifth-sixth). It is also called the Trullan Council because it was held in the same domed hall, the Trullus, in which the Sixth Ecumenical Council had been held. The Westerners called it the erratic synod, and with reason. For this gathering of Eastern bishops presumed to issue 102 canons, some of which were quite objectionable, notably the one which stated that Constantinople had the same rights in the Church as Rome. When Pope Sergius refused to confirm these decrees, Justinian acted to force him. He sent Zacharias, captain of the bodyguard, to bring back the decrees signed or the Pope a prisoner. It was to be Constans II and St. Martin over again. But times had changed. The imperial forces in Italy, now more Italian home guards than regulars from the East, refused to cooperate. Indeed, the army from Ravenna marched on Rome to attack not Sergius but Zacharias. Zacharias pleaded with Sergius to save him and when the army of Ravenna approached, the bold captain went to cover under the Pope’s bed! Sergius calmed the soldiers, who spared the captain’s life but drove him from the city. Since Justinian himself was driven into exile by a rebellion at home, there was nothing he could do about it. >

Oh boy. This is great stuff! So, the Trullan canons claimed ecumenicity, but we can conclude that they did not in fact have the power the Seventh Council claimed for them, because they were totally ignored in the West.

It was only some of the Eastern clergy that claimed the Trullian canons had ecumenical authority. How could they have ecumenical authority if they were ignored by the Western Church and weren’t ratified by the pope?

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828):

“Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they [the Popes of Rome] who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

 

[Ignatios]

anthony022071:

So is it justifiable that the episcopate of Constantinople,which didn’t have an apostolic founder,propped itself up upon secular authority,attempting to usurp the apostolic authority of Rome,Alexandria,and Antioch?

1. If your Church (RCC) recognize the See of Constantinople as an Apostolic See in which it was founded by Saint Andrew,( should I remind you that now it is the customs that your Pope would go to Constntinople to commemorate the Feast of Saint Andrew since he is recognized by your Church as the founder of that See) then your claim is outside your Church and any Apostolic Church the least to say to this matter, therfor it is NOT VALID.
2. It is clear from reading the canons ( the sixth canon of the first E.C.) and then the (third canon of the second E.C.) that Constantinople did not try to usurp the Apostolic authority of Rome, Alexandria or Antioch, in particular in the 6th canon of the 1st E.C where it defines where every See’s Authority is and then later on in other canons where it defines where the Authority of the See of Constantinople is, and then if you read the “2nd canon of the 2nd E.C.” this will put your claim about Constantinople trying to usurp Authority “out of commission” >>>…“Second canon of the second Ecumenical council: 2) Bishops must not leave their own diocese and go over to churches beyond its boundaries…” now remember that this E.C. was summened in Constantinople and was presided over by the Patraicrh of Antioch (Meletios) and then was presided over by the Patraiarch of Constantinople ( saint Gregory the theologian) when the first had passed away during this Council.
3. And last, It is abvious if one would only pay heed to what had been written in this topic it would become so abvious who is trying to usurp the apostolic authority of the Other Sees.

It was only some of the Eastern clergy that claimed the Trullian canons had ecumenical authority. How could they have ecumenical authority if they were ignored by the Western Church and weren’t ratified by the pope?

The 28th canon of the fourth E.C. also was objected by Leo yet the Council remained Ecumenical.

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828):

“Without whom [the Romans presiding in the seventh Council] a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they [the Popes of Rome] who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of Headship among the Apostles.” (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

Well all I can say is that thanks for bringing this one up, if you read the Bold enlarged text above wouldnt that proof that the core of our debate wich is Primacy of Authority for the Pope of Rome is nothing but a “naked claim” or at least that the East saw only Primacy of honor in the western Patriarch( the Pope), Note the words "Dignity of headship “AMONG” the Apostles.
You didnt see this one , did ya?

 

[Ignatios]

Galdre:

I can’t see how this can be anything but an allusion to the other passage he had just written: “If he deserts the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?”

Is my interpretation faulty? I don’t want to see other quotations by Cyprian, where he puts forward another view. I know full well that he developed a universal view of the Petrine office, and that he got into a fight with Rome. But these documents are several years before that, and I think they demonstrate rather conclusively that at that time Cyprian not only fully intended to,*** but actually did, apply the De Unitate passage to Rome.***

I just wish you people only read more, for then and only then you will have a chance to see the truth, let us examine all the mentioned here above and everywhere in this topic, for one must enlarge the circle of his research when all efforts are exorted without getting anywhere, so here is more of what had gone in that time from Cyprian and to Cyprian in whish it brings light to what Cyprian had in mind when he spoke concerning the mentioned matters above.
Firmilian:

Epistle LXXIV.29162916 Oxford ed.: Ep. lxxv. [This is one of the most important illustrations of Ante-Nicene unity and its laws. Elucidation XIX.]
Firmilian, Bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia, to Cyprian, Against the Letter of Stephen. a.d. 256.
chapter6. But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; … and later on he says also….” And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen(Pope of Rome) has now dared to make”…
and then in the 24th chapter Firmilian continues…”. For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity.(Pope Stephen I of Rome)”
From the words of this letter one can tell what they had in mind since Firmilian’s words were no more than a response to Cyprian’s letter. And in which it puts the above quote (… but actually did, apply the De Unitate passage to Rome.) behind the bars of question.does it fit ? does it contridict Cyprian’s letters ???..and so forth.

 

[Galdre]

Eulogitos,

Not trying to belittle or anything… just saying it doesn’t strike me as a necessarily justifiable logical leap.

Thank you for your response. It’s not belittling at all. I just didn’t make my case well enough.

Ignatius,

so here is more of what had gone in that time from Cyprian and to Cyprian in whish it brings light to what Cyprian had in mind when he spoke concerning the mentioned matters above. Firmilian:

I quote to you:

Is my interpretation faulty? I don’t want to see other quotations by Cyprian, where he puts forward another view. I know full well that he developed a universal view of the Petrine office, and that he got into a fight with Rome. But these documents are several years before that, and I think they demonstrate rather conclusively that at that time Cyprian not only fully intended to, but actually did, apply the De Unitate passage to Rome.

I am perfectly familiar with Firmilian’s letter. But it is irrelevant to my question. It comes several years later, in the context of a different pope and after (in my opinion) Cyprian changed his mind. It is clear that at the time of this letter of Firmilian, Cyprian’s view was as you say it was. I am asking about earlier, when he first wrote De Unitate

I just wish you people only read more, for then and only then you will have a chance to see the truth

Yeah, sometimes the truth is pretty hard for me to find.

I have read G.W. Clarke’s translation of Cyprian’s 81 letters, volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4 (this includes the letter from Firmilian).

I have read Cyprian’s De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate and De Lapsis as translated by Maurice Bévenot.

I have read Peter Hinchliff’s Cyprian of Carthage and the Unity of the Christian Church.

I have read The Primacy of Peter, edited by John Meyendorff, containing five essays by popular modern Orthodox theologians. Of these, Kesich and Afanassieff at least address Cyprian.

I have read most of C.W. Benson’s Cyprian: His Life, His Times, His Work.

I have read everything that J.B. Kidd has to say about Cyprian in his A History of the Church to A.D. 461.

Perhaps I haven’t stumbled on the right work yet. Which books would you recommend that I read?

~Galdre

 

[steve_b]

It is the same thing, only worded in a diffrent way
1st-among-equals or Priority of honor, if they were to speak (the bishops) since they cant all speak at the same time, they chose the Pope to speak (1st) and then the Bishop of Constantinople and so forth, if they were to sign their signatures since they cant put their signatures on top of eachother’s, they said let the Pope have the priority of Honor or be the" first one of among us"to sign…and since they are all equals in Authority(each over his See) as the sixth Canon of the First E.C. clearly shows, but yet one has to be" the first among them" they chose the Pope.
dont mind me asking you steve is your native language the English?

As to your last question, yes my friend, my native language is English

As to your explanation of 1st among equals, with regards to the pope, Fr Ambrose (Russian Orthodox) and I had our differences when he was posting here. But we completely agreed on the following
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=129

Ignatios:

Again if you read your Pope quote you wouldnt be saying “this does NOT …” and I marked the words which they show “1st among equals” is interchangeable with" priority of honor", so in another word whether you put down “1st…” or “Priority…” it is the same thing.

I know the words YOU highlighted. The quote describes how the East regards the term [1st among equals] and the words I highlight (blue) show how the popes have regarded that idea.

:
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) wrote
Quote:
3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

 

[steve_b]

…Continued

I will not get into this with you since your info is poor on history,(No offence, I am going by what I read from your posts) since there is so much history into this then what you have posted above I will answer to you breifly answer breifly.
The matter didnt not allowed to be drop what happened is simply each preserved what he had believed is right. so the Romans maintaned theirs and the Africans maintaned theirs.
if it is that they comformed to the Roman customs show me where and How, show documents , I amnot interested in opinion to replace a fact or claim.
Again show me where and how Pope Stephen’s position prevailed, I hope you search for this from both sides and not only from the “new advent” site, to tell you the truth I think you are mixing 2 stories together.

but just to give an idea what you are going to be up against I am giving those 2 Canons:
The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles.
newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm
46. We command that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who receives the baptism, or the sacrifice of heretics, be deprived: “For what agreement is there between Christ and Belial? or what part has a believer with an infidel?”
47. If a bishop or presbyter rebaptizes him who has had true baptism, or does not baptize him who is polluted by the ungodly, let him be deprived, as ridiculing the cross and the death of the Lord, and not distinguishing between real priests and counterfeit ones.

did you

• rebaptize all the bishops, priests, and laity who went into heresy in the east? Sometimes all patriarchates in the East were in heresy at the same time.
• Were all their baptisms valid or invalid? Did you rebaptize everyone they baptized because they were invalid?

 

[Ignatios]

Galdre:

…I know full well that he developed a universal view of the Petrine office…

Developed? As if he became to recognize more clearly that his first view was wrong? …From reading the Text of both quotation by Cyprian, we can conclude the reason behind this is either:

1. He wasnt serious about his first statement or,
2. He was lying or even maybe deceiving others (which I am certain that this was not the case) or
3. He found out that his first statement was wrong or it was taken to a diffrent level than what he intended it to be.

So he either made it clear in his later statement what he meant or he corrected it,
Or some may have had had perceived it wrong!!!
Which ever of the above, take your pick. But if you take all of his statements(Cyprian’s) and put them togther along with the firmilian letter since that letter it does relates to what was in their mind and it was directed to Cyprian concerning the problem, it cannot be separated or isolated, for by doing so we will be forming and/or shaping the history to make it look as we want it to be and not as it is.
In either case this does not help nor does it proove the claim of the RCC of Primacy of Authority or the Bishop of Rome is the Head of the whole Church.

I think they demonstrate rather conclusively that at that time Cyprian not only fully intended to, but actually did, apply the De Unitate passage to Rome.

Again, even if you can proove beyond the shadow of doubt that it was so as you stated above, then you going to find quickly that you are in trouble when you read Cyprian’s later statements, because, that would show that this “DE UNITATE Passage” is not an absolute, for if it was then Cyprian being the good Christians as he was, he wouldnt have changed or corrected his later statements, but he would have held on to it and bow down to the Pope of Rome instead of taking the chances of being separated from the communion with the “Chair of Peter” which is according to the RCC is the Papacy.
I think that the RCs has gone too far in stressing on Cyprian’s statement to back up their assertion to the headchip of the whole church forgetting that their bedrock for this assertion was an Apostolic rather than Cyprianic.

 

[Ignatios]

galdre:

Yeah, sometimes the truth is pretty hard for me to find.

I have read G.W. Clarke’s translation of Cyprian’s 81 letters, volumes 1, 2, 3, and 4 (this includes the letter from Firmilian).

I have read Cyprian’s De Ecclesiae Catholicae Unitate and De Lapsis as translated by Maurice Bévenot.

I have read Peter Hinchliff’s Cyprian of Carthage and the Unity of the Christian Church.

I have read The Primacy of Peter, edited by John Meyendorff, containing five essays by popular modern Orthodox theologians. Of these, Kesich and Afanassieff at least address Cyprian.

I have read most of C.W. Benson’s Cyprian: His Life, His Times, His Work.

I have read everything that J.B. Kidd has to say about Cyprian in his A History of the Church to A.D. 461.

Perhaps I haven’t stumbled on the right work yet. Which books would you recommend that I read?

Thats Great, but what is equaly importantly is to know how to harvest from them, all the above that you have read are awsome, but also one must take in consediration the meaning of the words back then what they had meant when they said something, because as you may know that words and meanings of things changes with time, also one must take in consideration the customs of that nation or country back then, As one of the respected men( middle easterner,Semetic like myself:wave: ) in our Church said to me once that 'It is important to read the Bible not only in Greek but GREEKLY" in another word he continue saying " translation is not allowed" it is interpretation…according to that time and that mind set of that nation, in another word it is what they inttend by certain words and not the translation of the words that it is of Great value.

 

[Evlogitos]

FYI, just to clarify, rebaptism is not the official doctrinal position of the Orthodox Church. As I mentioned earlier, there is a Trullan canon, a canon from Jerusalem, and a canon from Moscow all in agreement that any Trinitarian baptism is to be accepted as valid, and received into the Church via chrismation only. Note that Apostolic Canon 46, as cited by Ignatios, only deals with Orthodox clergy who are baptized into an heretical sect. Note that Apostolic Canon 47 rejects all who either rebaptize valid baptisms, or attempt to accept invalid baptisms into the Church, without specifically denoting what makes a baptism valid or invalid.

Historically speaking, the Christian East accepted the baptisms of all those who baptized in the name of the Trinity. In some cases this was made slightly more strict, with the additional qualifier of requiring the baptizer himself to have a Trinitarian faith, but this was not typical; e.g., with Trullo, the baptism of the Arians (Trinitarian in formula but obviously not in faith) was accepted.

The concept of rebaptizing basically everybody who comes into the Church is the echo of neo-Donatist heresy which is sadly all too prevalent in the more fundamentalist wings of Orthodoxy.

As such, your rhetorical questions are absolutely correct, Steve. We most manifestly did not rebaptize everyone who went into heresy, because by and large their baptisms were valid. As such, when they repented, they would be re-chrismated (chrismation being the sacrament of reconciliation par excellence in Orthodoxy) and go on their merry ways.

 

[Ignatios]

steve b:

As to your explanation of 1st among equals, with regards to the pope, Fr Ambrose (Russian Orthodox) and I had our differences when he was posting here. But we completely agreed on the following

Dont know who Fr. Ambrose is…but regardless, how do you know that he is an Orthodox Preist, Proof?And then since when a preist is infallible or any man, besides just to remind you that the Church Orthodox or Catholic dont go by what one preist said. besides the 1st among equals is not a dogma it is what had been beleived and followed and used by the Eastern Churches. in another word thats how the other side of the church saw the Pope as …he accepted or not, it makes sence or not …is not the subject at hand here, he was not seen as the first above the others. I hope that I dont have to explain it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatios
…Continued

I will not get into this with you since your info is poor on history,(No offence, I am going by what I read from your posts) since there is so much history into this then what you have posted above I will answer to you breifly answer breifly.
The matter didnt not allowed to be drop what happened is simply each preserved what he had believed is right. so the Romans maintaned theirs and the Africans maintaned theirs.
if it is that they comformed to the Roman customs show me where and How, show documents , I amnot interested in opinion to replace a fact or claim.
Again show me where and how Pope Stephen’s position prevailed, I hope you search for this from both sides and not only from the “new advent” site, to tell you the truth I think you are mixing 2 stories together.

but just to give an idea what you are going to be up against I am giving those 2 Canons:
The Ecclesiastical Canons of the Same Holy Apostles.
newadvent.org/fathers/07158.htm
46. We command that a bishop, or presbyter, or deacon who receives the baptism, or the sacrifice of heretics, be deprived: “For what agreement is there between Christ and Belial? or what part has a believer with an infidel?”
47. If a bishop or presbyter rebaptizes him who has had true baptism, or does not baptize him who is polluted by the ungodly, let him be deprived, as ridiculing the cross and the death of the Lord, and not distinguishing between real priests and counterfeit ones.

did you
rebaptize all the bishops, priests, and laity who went into heresy in the east? Sometimes all patriarchates in the East were in heresy at the same time.
Were all their baptisms valid or invalid? Did you rebaptize everyone they baptized because they were invalid?

Today 6:53 pm
steve b Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatios

It is the same thing, only worded in a diffrent way
1st-among-equals or Priority of honor, if they were to speak (the bishops) since they cant all speak at the same time, they chose the Pope to speak (1st) and then the Bishop of Constantinople and so forth, if they were to sign their signatures since they cant put their signatures on top of eachother’s, they said let the Pope have the priority of Honor or be the" first one of among us"to sign…and since they are all equals in Authority(each over his See) as the sixth Canon of the First E.C. clearly shows, but yet one has to be" the first among them" they chose the Pope.
dont mind me asking you steve is your native language the English?

As to your last question, yes my friend, my native language is English

As to your explanation of 1st among equals, with regards to the pope, Fr Ambrose (Russian Orthodox) and I had our differences when he was posting here. But we completely agreed on the following
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost…&postcount=129

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ignatios

Again if you read your Pope quote you wouldnt be saying “this does NOT …” and I marked the words which they show “1st among equals” is interchangeable with" priority of honor", so in another word whether you put down “1st…” or “Priority…” it is the same thing.

I know the words YOU highlighted. The quote describes how the East regards the term [1st among equals] and the words I highlight (blue) show how the popes have regarded that idea.

Quote:
:
Cardinal Ratzinger (now Benedict XVI) wrote
Quote:
3. In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too that this patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.

1. The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as mother and teacher, would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.

None of your answers is a respond to what I asked or said, (Is it that you dont have an answer or you dont know or you find out that this is not going the way you like it to go???) please go back up and read everything then Please answer to the subject/issue at hand and then if you like to move on to another subject/issue then we will, after we come to a good point to do so, untill then my freind no responds from me, I will not keep chasing you from one thing to another without getting a respond or hold a conversation/debate on an Issue/point, a respond to the subject at hand will do starting from the beginning . forgive me and I hope I didnt offend you.

 

[steve_b]

Dont know who Fr. Ambrose is…but regardless, how do you know that he is an Orthodox Preist, Proof?And then since when a preist is infallible or any man, besides just to remind you that the Church Orthodox or Catholic dont go by what one preist said. besides the 1st among equals is not a dogma it is what had been beleived and followed and used by the Eastern Churches. in another word thats how the other side of the church saw the Pope as …he accepted or not, it makes sence or not …is not the subject at hand here, he was not seen as the first above the others. I hope that I dont have to explain it again.

None of your answers is a respond to what I asked or said, (Is it that you dont have an answer or you dont know or you find out that this is not going the way you like it to go???) please go back up and read everything then Please answer to the subject/issue at hand and then if you like to move on to another subject/issue then we will, after we come to a good point to do so, untill then my freind no responds from me, I will not keep chasing you from one thing to another without getting a respond or hold a conversation/debate on an Issue/point, a respond to the subject at hand will do starting from the beginning . forgive me and I hope I didnt offend you.

I answered your points. We seem to be talking past each other.

 

[steve_b]

Hey Steve,

My beef was with the definition provided of an “ecumenical council” I didn’t mean to say that other Bishops should have the right to define doctrine, I only find it difficult to understand how the RCC view of an ecumenical council is at all practical.

Without the popes approval, a council is just local, and not binding on the entire Church.

John:

It is not important as to whether anything like that has ever happened, it is only important that it could happen. You didn’t deny what I wrote though.

I didn’t agree either.

John:

I understand full-well that the Church applies infallibility only in connection with doctrine. My problem is that the organ of infallibility named ecumenical council, does not at all appear to be purposeful.

The president of the U.S. doesn’t sign every bill the congress sends accross his desk…true? Does this make congress then without purpose?

I’ll try and get to your example later. :tiphat: