S
steve_b
Guest
The bishops approved the language in quote #2. Therefore, it is what the undivided Church knew.
The undivided Church always knew they should agree with Rome.
- Status
The undivided Church always knew they should agree with Rome.
M
Mickey
Guest
Was #1 not approved?
You mean Rome knew this–She who had separated Herself from the other four.
Correction. The early Councils decided the matter. Not Rome. Not the Pope alone.
S
steve_b
Guest
What do you think of paragraph 17 for example?
papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quartu.htm
It was the Ottomans who took Constantinople in 1453.
The saying was before the sacking by the Muslims in 1453. I don’t know the exact date of the quote. I’ll look around :coffeeread:
S
steve_b
Guest
Did it have the imprimatur?
Oh quit!You mean Rome knew this–She who had separated Herself from the other four.
Local councils deal with local decisions.Correction. The early Councils decided the matter. Not Rome. Not the Pope alone.
Without the pope’s approval, no general council was binding on the entire Church.
M
Mickey
Guest
I don’t know. Did it?
Without the general council consensus, the pope’s approval was meaningless.
M
Milliardo
Guest
This would be strange as the early Church Councils were convened and its canons passed, yet the bishop of Rome wasn’t the only one who was asked to approve the canons. It was a consensus of the whole Council, not merely resting on one man.
S
steve_b
Guest
The verson I referenced, did
Wrong. That means the council approves its own council without the pope. That didn’t happen in the undivided ChurchWithout the general council consensus, the pope’s approval was meaningless.
S
steve_b
Guest
I distinguished “general council” from “local council”. And I said no general council (ecumenical council if you prefer it said that way) is binding on the entire Church without the approval of the pope.
M
Milliardo
Guest
Yes, and I am talking of an ecumenical council. Reading the canons of the first seven Councils and how they were handled, there is no instance wherein such a thinking ever occurred to the bishops then. The bishop of Rome’s approval would have no bearing on a Council since it should take the agreement of the whole Church to make the canons binding. None can be found wherein only the bishop of Rome was needed to make any of the canons binding; reading history, in fact, would show otherwise: many bishops at that time were very much influential and carried great weight in the Councils. The bishop of Rome’s influence was hardly evident, aside from the Councils giving tribute to him since he resides in the central part of the Empire. Other than that, no real influence was exerted by him, and the Councils passed the canons collegially. It certainly then did not rest on one man’s approval alone, but the Council as a whole agreed and passed them.
J
John214
Guest
Hey Steve,
Steve B:
Finally, based upon this paragraph, I am assuming you take the position that had the Orthodox Church have stayed with the RCC, then they would have been saved by God from the Muslims? (We still haven’t dealt with the Catholics who were nearly decimated in North Africa).
Steve B:
Steve B:
It seems here that the Pope is referring to those Churches which had accepted the Council of Florence and joined the RCC under the Eastern Right. In the highlighted blue, is the Pope referring to the EO Church, or the Eastern Rite Catholics in the Eastern Empire? Also, it appears here that the Pope attributed the fall of the Eastern Empire to the punishment of God for not rejoining the Catholic Church, but the Orthodox see it possibly as punishment for the Council of Florence (or as a means to prevent wrongful reunification).
Finally, based upon this paragraph, I am assuming you take the position that had the Orthodox Church have stayed with the RCC, then they would have been saved by God from the Muslims? (We still haven’t dealt with the Catholics who were nearly decimated in North Africa).
Steve B:
You misunderstood me, I was referring to the sacking of Constantinople by the Crusaders.
T
tdgesq
Guest
I would hope that by now one thing has become quite clear. The Orthodox have no history to support the notion that there are truths that are binding on the consciences of Christians without the approval of the successor of Saint Peter. The Bishop of Rome. The Holy Roman Pontiff.
They have no history, something of which the Orthodox accuse the Catholic Church at every turn. There is no pentarchy in the early Church. Only the Bishops at Rome exercising authority on its behalf.
Prove me wrong.
They have no history, something of which the Orthodox accuse the Catholic Church at every turn. There is no pentarchy in the early Church. Only the Bishops at Rome exercising authority on its behalf.
Prove me wrong.
M
Mickey
Guest
S
steve_b
Guest
I would say they returned to the Catholic Church.
BTW, Here’s the nuances of Catholic Church and RCC used by some. I’m not saying you’re using the Roman qualifier in the wrong way by any means, so don’t worry. I’m not criticizing. I just thought I would show you this.
newadvent.org/cathen/13121a.htm
I was under the impression it was for the East dividing in the first place, AND choosing to remain divided.
I think the attitude of division expressed by the sentiment at that time, [better the turban than the tiara], says to me, the East, given the choice, would rather remain divided preferring to side with the turban, not the successor to Peter.
So I think one has to ask based on that, not that there are consequences to choices, which we all know theree are, but how bad are the consequences to the choices we mak…Right?
It reminds me of the OT passage
“today, I put before you life and death, blessings and curses, choose life” [Deut 30:19]
Some choices bring blessings, others bring curses.
I showed you today’s numbers. Do you have access to population numbers from the time you’re referring to?
A terrible thing that’s for sure. BTW, given this is a public forum, just in case someone reading this but not participating, has the question in their mind who approved this, no, the sacking of Constantinople wasn’t approved by the pope. The pope in fact excommunicated all those crusaders who participated. This is not meant to be an excuse, because there is none, but do you know why the crusaders sacked Constantinople?
To your point, are you thinking this was the defining moment that created all the bad feelings towards Rome by Constantinople?
J
John214
Guest
Steve B:
, I actually thought about what I should say there, and decided “join” is a neutral term that wouldn’t bias either Orthodox or Catholic.
Steve B:
Steve B:
Steve B:
Steve B:
In this overwhelming disaster of the Arab invasion the Churches of Africa were blotted out. Not that all was destroyed, but that remnant of Christian life was so small as to be matter for erudition rather than for history.
Steve B:
Steve B:
I know you would
, I actually thought about what I should say there, and decided “join” is a neutral term that wouldn’t bias either Orthodox or Catholic.Steve B:
I know, and I do not mean to confuse things. I think someone has already brought this up to me. It is just easier to use RCC and EO than it is to say Catholic and Orthodox. I realize that the Catholic Church is much bigger than just the “Roman” Church, just like I realize the Orthodox Church is not just in the East. I apologize for any offense I may cause people.
Steve B:
Yeah, but was the Pope referring to the Eastern Rite Catholics, or the Eastern Orthodox when he said about them suffering at first? Perhaps he was talking about those which had been Eastern Rite Catholics after the invasion of the Ottoman empire, but then later joined the EO? It seems like this may affect the context within which we are to understand what the Pope is saying.
Steve B:
Agreed, however in all fairness to the EO position, they would say that it was better that they were conquered than that they lost the “true” faith. They may be wrong, but it is not so easy as to say, “They were invaded, they must be wrong”. (Not that I think you are trying to say this)
Steve B:
To be honest, I thought it was common knowledge. I don’t know what kind of statistics are out there, but you can check out the new advent at this site. newadvent.org/cathen/01191a.htm Look at the end of the first part:
In this overwhelming disaster of the Arab invasion the Churches of Africa were blotted out. Not that all was destroyed, but that remnant of Christian life was so small as to be matter for erudition rather than for history.
Steve B:
For the most part yes, granted I am no scholar in this field. And I do know that the Pope was against it (sorry for not making that clear). Of course the Crusaders were mostly looking for money, and had made a deal with some Emperorer, but nonetheless, the Easterners saw it as the West trying to exert their authority, and it did cause a greater rift between the two.
Steve B:
Yes and no. I think there were gradually bad feelings building up to this point (maybe beginning with, but probably even before, the Papal Bull excomunicating the Constantinople Patriarch some centuries before, which I realize was not done with direct Papal approval). At the same time it was a devastating development.
P
prodromos
Guest
Can you direct me to where the Pope apologised for the actions of the crusaders and particularly for the Catholic priests who gave the crusaders absolution before they attacked?
Can you direct me to where the Pope condemned the setting up of a Latin on the Patriarchal throne or at the very least his refusal to recognise him?
Can you direct me to where the Pope condemned and refused the steady stream of wealth and relics stripped from Constantinople into the Churches of Florence and other Churches in the West?
The Pope may not have approved of the means, but he took full advantage of the ends.
John
I
Ignatios
Guest
“The Crusaders decided that Byzantium was such a strategic city, standing guard between the Muslim world and Europe, that it would be imprudent to leave it and go on to Egypt, now that they were in control of it. They wrote to the Pope and asked for permission to cancel the Crusade, saying that God had delivered the prize of the East to them. The Pope was delighted - the Eastern Christian religion had always been a thorn in his side.”
bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A13970586
" Pope Innocent was very distressed when he heard about the outrages in Constantinople. He denounced the perpetrators harshly, and excommunicated most of them. The pope was unaware that, before the attack, his legate had absolved the Crusaders from their original vows. Later, when confronted with the possibility that he might have a unified church on his hands, Innocent acquiesced and went along with the reality that what was done was done. He did nothing to stop the flow of desecrated wealth into Latin cathedrals and churches"
aggreen.net/church_history/1204_sack.html
The Pope gave the approval for the Sack of Constantinople, all one has to do is read the history of the “sack of Constantinople”
V. THE SACK OF CONSTANTINOPLE
- The sermons before the final attack on Constantinople."… Then the bishops preached to the army, the bishop of Soissons, the bishop of Troyes, the bishop of Havestaist [Halberstadt] master Jean Faicette [De Noyon, chancellor of Baldwin of Flanders], and the abbot of Loos…"fordham.edu/halsall/source/4cde.html#sack
http://www.opednews.com/boyne_070304_pope.htm
But only later after they captured the City and he learned about all the atrocity that they did (Not even the Heathens Nor the Muslims would had done a such things to their worst enemies, raping Nuns,fordham.edu/halsall/source/choniates1.html feeding the Holy Eucharist to the animals and throwing it also on the ground, that is just to mention a few)…
Why always try to change the history, why? instead of being humble and admit the wrongs, as your Pope JPII did…
TO ALL WHO WANTS TO KNOW THE TRUTH about this all you have to do is search online …plenty of evidence …
P
prodromos
Guest
Are you of the opinion that the Pope issued his legates with blank Papal Bulls for Cardinal Humbert to fill in with whatever he wished? It had the seal and signature of the Pope, otherwise it would not have been a Papal Bull, agreed? Remember too that one of those bishops accompanying Humbert later became Pope. He certainly did not disapprove of the Bull or dispute its validity.
John
T
tdgesq
Guest
Let us take a moment and look at what has happened on this thread. From Tertullian to Pope Leo. There is zero pre-Nicene or even post-Nicene historical evidence presented by the Orthodox of what could constitute a binding teaching of the Church. ZERO. Nothing.
But wait, every single utterance regarding the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter must have some explanation other than what is actually stated, according to the Orthodox.
How embarrassing to them that even the Patriarch of Constantinople admitted to Pope Leo that he must have his consent to approve canon 28 of Chalcedon.
Here’s what it comes down to. The Orthodox have no historical basis for their position that there is some identifiable body in the early church that can bind the consciences of Christians. They have nothing. What they do is borrow from our Catholic world view to identify ecumenical councils. They see that the Bishop of Rome is present and accept the decrees of those councils just as we do.
That is why the (majority of) Orthodox have had no ecumenical councils since the great schism. That’s right. No ecumenical councils since Nicaea II (787). That is why they are confused amongst themselves of how many ecumenical councils exist. Some say 7, some say 8, some say 9. They can’t even agree on what councils are binding on the faithful.
Despite protestations to the contrary, the Orthodox do not make a genuine historical investigation of what constitutes the authoritative teaching body of the Church. There is not a single pre-Nicene quote on this entire thread that supports their view of teaching authority. Yet they attack those statements that vest that authority in the Holy Roman Pontiff with glee, while unwittingly relying upon that same authority for their own belief in the teachings of the Church.
It is no wonder that the number of Catholics dwarf the Orthodox. It is no wonder that non-Catholic posters here see the Orthodox as illogical. It is no wonder that the Eastern Catholic Church continues to grow and recognize the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome.
This thread serves to show the abject failure of the Orthodox to give a defense of their position on church teaching authority.
But wait, every single utterance regarding the authority of the Bishop of Rome as the successor of St. Peter must have some explanation other than what is actually stated, according to the Orthodox.
How embarrassing to them that even the Patriarch of Constantinople admitted to Pope Leo that he must have his consent to approve canon 28 of Chalcedon. Here’s what it comes down to. The Orthodox have no historical basis for their position that there is some identifiable body in the early church that can bind the consciences of Christians. They have nothing. What they do is borrow from our Catholic world view to identify ecumenical councils. They see that the Bishop of Rome is present and accept the decrees of those councils just as we do.
That is why the (majority of) Orthodox have had no ecumenical councils since the great schism. That’s right. No ecumenical councils since Nicaea II (787). That is why they are confused amongst themselves of how many ecumenical councils exist. Some say 7, some say 8, some say 9. They can’t even agree on what councils are binding on the faithful.
Despite protestations to the contrary, the Orthodox do not make a genuine historical investigation of what constitutes the authoritative teaching body of the Church. There is not a single pre-Nicene quote on this entire thread that supports their view of teaching authority. Yet they attack those statements that vest that authority in the Holy Roman Pontiff with glee, while unwittingly relying upon that same authority for their own belief in the teachings of the Church.
It is no wonder that the number of Catholics dwarf the Orthodox. It is no wonder that non-Catholic posters here see the Orthodox as illogical. It is no wonder that the Eastern Catholic Church continues to grow and recognize the Petrine ministry of the Bishop of Rome.
This thread serves to show the abject failure of the Orthodox to give a defense of their position on church teaching authority.
P
prodromos
Guest
All councils accepted by the Church are binding on the faithful, whether they be ecumenical councils or local councils.
J
John214
Guest
Prodromos,
Prodromos:
tdgesq,
tdgesq:
Also, the purpose of this thread is not exactly to show if the EO is right, it is more to see how they would be wrong. Thus, part of the reason why few people might be giving direct evidence, is because the EO posters on this site are trying to take a defensive position.
Let us put it this way, if it becomes obvious that the Pope is the universal head of the Church, and that other RCC claims are true, or that there is some fatal flaw in the EO, then the RCC side will have “won” the “debate”. (using those words loosely, because this is not about winning, and I prefer to think of it as discussions, or even heated discussions at times) However, if the RCC cannot prove its claims, then it will not mean that the EO is right (unless they can provide some positive evidence for their case).
tdgesq:
tdgesq:
tdgesq:
tdgesq:
Blue: This is basically propoganda, the EO could say the exact same thing about the RCC posters, and Protestants could say the same about both. Personally, I have seen lots of logically valid statements on both sides (and plenty of logically invalid statements as well). As to whether they were true, well that is what we are trying to discern (despite some rants).
Red: There is a lot that could be said about this statement. Let’s just say that this is not a very trustworthy indication of whether the RCC is correct or not (though it could be, it is simply not trustworthy, a Protestant could say just as easily, “Oh look! So many Catholics are becoming Protestants, that must mean they realize tradition is wrong!”, clearly this is meaningless)
Granted, however it is still not direct approval, which is somewhat important. Many did not even realize what had happened in both the Eastern and Western Churches, and relations between the two largely continued on as they had for some time afterward, am I right?
tdgesq,
… what do you mean by this? Do you mean that there is no ECF who ever presented a model that would have shown how the Church can be bound without the Pope? That there is no instance where the Early Church thought it could survive without the approval of the Pope? If we are realisitic, it will be obvious that there is some evidence for both sides (now we only need to find out which is true).
Also, the purpose of this thread is not exactly to show if the EO is right, it is more to see how they would be wrong. Thus, part of the reason why few people might be giving direct evidence, is because the EO posters on this site are trying to take a defensive position.
Let us put it this way, if it becomes obvious that the Pope is the universal head of the Church, and that other RCC claims are true, or that there is some fatal flaw in the EO, then the RCC side will have “won” the “debate”. (using those words loosely, because this is not about winning, and I prefer to think of it as discussions, or even heated discussions at times) However, if the RCC cannot prove its claims, then it will not mean that the EO is right (unless they can provide some positive evidence for their case).
Are you referring to the instance where the council approved it, but then the Pope said that he disagreed and was tricked, to which the reply came as you stated? I believe this has been dealt with at length already.
Again, let’s be realistic, there are people out there today who claim much weirder things than what the EO claims and they can find some evidence for their position.
Well things were really not that clear back then (thus the need for councils), but can you give a single quote which undeniably proves the Catholic teachings of Papal Infallibility, Supremacy, and Purgatory, from before Nicea? As for early quotes and evidence that might go against the RCC teaching, what about Pope Gregory the Great, who said that no one should be called universal head of the Church, which was mentioned shortly ago?
Green: Come on, you cannot play the numbers game. For one, I believe the size of the Eastern Church was larger than the West at the time of the schism. And secondly, if someday the Protestants outnumber the Catholics, are you going to believe they are the True Church?
Blue: This is basically propoganda, the EO could say the exact same thing about the RCC posters, and Protestants could say the same about both. Personally, I have seen lots of logically valid statements on both sides (and plenty of logically invalid statements as well). As to whether they were true, well that is what we are trying to discern (despite some rants).
Red: There is a lot that could be said about this statement. Let’s just say that this is not a very trustworthy indication of whether the RCC is correct or not (though it could be, it is simply not trustworthy, a Protestant could say just as easily, “Oh look! So many Catholics are becoming Protestants, that must mean they realize tradition is wrong!”, clearly this is meaningless)
- Status