A
- Status
A
anthony022071
Guest
St. Maximos:
“How much more in the case of the clergy and church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter [Peter & Paul], and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her Pontificate …even as all these things all are equally subject to her according to sacerdotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the Popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic church of Rome.” (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
St. Nicephorus:
“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]).
St. Theodore,writing to Pope Leo III:
“Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred.” (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)
St. Theodore:
“Let him [Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople] assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See.” (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)
T
tdgesq
Guest
I mean what I wrote. They are straightforward declarative sentences. Please link me to a single post on this thread from a pre-Nicene source that supports the Orthodox notion of counciliar authority. There aren’t any
Then link me to a post that shows a post-Nicene source pre-schism. I’m waiting to see one of those as well.
That isn’t what I stated. But the answer is in the affirmative.
Then link me to the post. It is obvious to me that there is no such evidence, especially pre-Nicene.
.
The Catholics put their evidence in one side of the scale. The Orthodox or others can and have sought to diminish it. But if you have nothing to put in the other side of the scale, well, you have a problem. And the fact is that several have made the attempt. So let us not misrepresent what attempts have been made to that extent. We have seen the pentarchy and other such theories put forth, yet no pre-Nicene evidence of the same. I’m waiting.
That burden was met long ago. Let me demonstrate below.
Yes it has been dealt with. I was the one who brought it up here:
Because of canon 28, which the Roman legates had opposed, the emperor Marcian and Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, sought approval for the council from the pope. This is clear from a letter of Anatolius which tries to defend the canon, and especially from a letter of Marcian which explicitly requests confirmation. Because heretics were misinterpreting his withholding approval, the pope ratified the doctrinal decrees on 21 March 453, but rejected canon 28 since it ran counter to the canons of Nicaea and to the privileges of particular churches. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3612607&postcount=231
And here:
Later on, Pope Leo received a letter from Anatolius, bishop of Constantinople, who had played a part in the engineering of canon 28. Anatolius admitted to Pope Leo that the “entire force and confirmation” of the acts was reserved for the authority of “Your Beatitude,” meaning Pope Leo. Anatolius wrote that certain of the clergy at Constantinople wanted the canon. forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3605641&postcount=206
And several times earlier. In fact, I believe I was the one who initiated the discussion of Canon 28 of Chalcedon on this thread. Now you tell me, how is that we can interpret such things the way the Orthodox suggest? Mere flowery language it is not.
Yes, let us be realistic. Many different faiths bring up many different preposterous notions, some facially more preposterous than others. No pre-Nicene evidence. None. Present such evidence if you disagree, or link to some provided on this thread.
This thread is not about Papal infallibility or Purgatory. Once the locus of the teaching authority of the Church is identified as the successor of St. Peter, then the rest is not a problem. If Tertullian, Cyprian, Irenaeus and several other ECF’s along with the post-Nicene recognition of what they claimed (Canon 28 of Chalcedon for instance) isn’t “undeniable,” then the definition of “undeniably” is up for grabs too.
Link to it and I will address it.
All my responses will be in black. Fair enough. The ad populum argument in itself is a fallacy. But when numbers are coupled with the argument of how teaching authority is identified and a causal connection between the two can be established, then it is legitimate. Whether or not I can demonstrate that is another question.
Not if indeed the Orthodox haven’t provided a rational argument for their position, which I maintain they haven’t. Then the comments are quite understandable.
Your examples are inapposite. The Orthodox and the Catholics are both apostolic churches, with the primary point of division being the relative authority of the Bishop of Rome. Catholics don’t believe that their (Orthodox) tradition is wrong. They are not heretics. They are schismatics, and many formerly EO Churches have come to recognize that fact. This is really a response to those who attempt to claim that the authority of the Bishop of Rome is a purely Latin concept. It isn’t, as attested to by the 22 sui iuris Eastern Catholic Churches.
J
John214
Guest
tdgesq,
Thanks for the responses! Hopefully we can clear this up and reach a greater understanding.
tdgesq:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3461684&postcount=49
tdgesq:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3685867&postcount=376
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3685875&postcount=377
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3685974&postcount=378
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3686001&postcount=379
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3686023&postcount=380
Red: The RCC does believe they are wrong, I have explained this enough times on this thread, unless the RCC believes that a body of believers who rejects Papal authority can be correct, then they believe they are wrong, this is the simplest kind of logic, two contradictory statements cannot be true. Here is a question, can you be outside of communion with Rome and still consider yourself the one true church? If yes, then okay, you are right, if no, then you have disproved yourself.
Green: Okay. I don’t think anyone can say that Papal Supremacy was “only” a Latin concept (the same way I don’t believe a person can say that there is no evidence for the EO position). The question is if it is practical to do so, or actually so.
Thanks for the responses! Hopefully we can clear this up and reach a greater understanding.
No need to get testy, I was only making sure (I didn’t want to accuse you of something you did not really mean).
Well, I am not going to go back through every post on here and find every single quote related to this, here is one, which suffices to disprove your point:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3461684&postcount=49
… can you provide a quote that undeniably shows that the Bishop of Rome is the Supreme head of the Church before Nicea?
Was it also not clearly stated before that Rome indirectly approved of Canon 28? I think that was pretty well established. Also, directly related to the topic, in the Orthodox conception it makes little difference if one Patriarch said something such as that, as one Patriarch does not get to define Church Doctrine. Also, I believe Evlogitos posted that the same person later said that even if the Roman Church was in heresy then this person would not be in comunion with it. (Could be a different person, I can’t find the quote for some reason).
…again, I am trying to be impartial (while pressing harder on the RCC side, due to the nature of the topic of this thread), and I do not want to give the impression that I “disagree” with the RCC position. Nonetheless here is some evidence that the Bishop of Rome is not the sole head of the faith (which means necessarily that the Orthodox model is correct).
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3685867&postcount=376
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3685875&postcount=377
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3685974&postcount=378
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3686001&postcount=379
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3686023&postcount=380
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3690409&postcount=430
No, it is still irrelevant. If there were only three Catholics on the face of the earth, and the RCC was true, then it would be just as true, as it would be if there were 1.7 billion Catholics. (But I will give to you that it is impressive).
But you didn’t say “rational” the first time, you said logical. I understand now what you mean.
You are right, this thread is not about those things, but you asked for proof from before Nicea that the Church Body was a certain way, I said this wasn’t fair due to the fact that we have limited documents from this time and things were not so clear. Also, how can you say that being the locus automatically means the rest is not a problem? That is way to easy, you need to prove more than just “locus” you need to be able to show that Rome is the Supreme Head of the Church, with complete Jurisdictional authority. Can you do that with evidence from pre-Nicea?
Blue: They are not inapposite! Your point was only that the fact that many were joining from the EO to the RCC (much could be said about this still) is based entirely upon the EO members seeing the “logic” in the RCC position.
Red: The RCC does believe they are wrong, I have explained this enough times on this thread, unless the RCC believes that a body of believers who rejects Papal authority can be correct, then they believe they are wrong, this is the simplest kind of logic, two contradictory statements cannot be true. Here is a question, can you be outside of communion with Rome and still consider yourself the one true church? If yes, then okay, you are right, if no, then you have disproved yourself.
Green: Okay. I don’t think anyone can say that Papal Supremacy was “only” a Latin concept (the same way I don’t believe a person can say that there is no evidence for the EO position). The question is if it is practical to do so, or actually so.
T
tdgesq
Guest
St. Jerome is post-Nicene
St. Augustine is post-Nicene
St. John Chrysostom is post-Nicene
St. Hilary of Poitiers is post-Nicene
Every reference in that post is post-Nicene. They all reference (or claim to reference - some actually do not) the keys to be held by all the apostles. They do not give any criteria for when the Church authoritatively speaks.
Yes. I provided you a link to those quotes in the last post. As I stated before, the only way to interpret them otherwise is to hold to another theory that does not exist historically. If you want to say “undeniably” in that someone could irrationally and ahistorically interpret them to mean something else, then I suppose in that instance nothing is “undeniable.”
I’m sure it probably was. Whether it be the ancient customs and the enumerated Churches in Nicaea I or First Constantinople. That is not the authority that Rome saw was attempting to be exercised in Chalcedon - obviously. And the Patriarch of Constantinople states that approval was reserved for all the acts, not just canon 28. The Pope did in fact approve the acts, except for canon 28.
And that is the only argument left: that Patriarch Anatolius was wrong. Is that a good argument, particularly in light of the pre-Nicene references supporting it and the complete lack of any other criteria from the same period? It is a terrible argument.
It wasn’t me.
There is poor evidence that is greatly outweighed by the evidence in its favor. And it does not logically mean that the Orthodox position is correct. I had a long go around on that very topic early on in the thread. There is no “default” position without the locus of authority resting with the successor of St. Peter, just utter confusion as to “how many” and “what type” of bishops have to get together to define Church teaching.
As for the several posts to which you linked, that particular poster (whom I have encountered numerous times) gives partial quotes, none of which deny the necessity of the successor of St. Peter’s approval of an ecumenical council.
I disagree. If it had nothing to do with the recognition that the Pope has the authority to teach, then you would be correct. I don’t have the time to prove it though, so that much I have to concede.
Because once it is established where teaching authority rests, then I can rely on it for the other doctrines which you brought up. Otherwise we are left in the same boat as the Protestants. Every man is an interpreter unto himself on every theological and ecclesial issue.
I’m well aware of what my own point was. The reason why you don’t see what I’m doing here is because you don’t recognize the EO claim that the authority of the Bishop of Rome is supposedly a western (Latin) invention. The Reformation found that the entire Church had been corrupted, and apostolic authority was jettisoned. At the bottom of it this is a debate about relative apostolic authority. And there is a particular argument made by the EO that the authority of the Bishop of Rome is a western “invention.”
You misunderstand. The Catholic Church does not see the Orthodox as heretics. Their traditions for us are not wrong. They are schismatic in that they do not recognize the authority of the Pope as their early fathers did. On that point they are wrong. I hope that clears it up.
Well, the vast majority of EO I have encountered claim exactly that. I have to deal with the audience I’ve got.
I
Ignatios
Guest
quote=Ignatios;3711880]
Quote:
I bring up Quotes from those Church fathers who said that Peter was the Rock of Faith, so we can restore the distortion that you have been trying to apply to them in order to justify the claim of the Papacy, And to show the true meaning for their words, thoughts.
You Replied…
Quote:
I bring up Quotes from those Church fathers who said that Peter was the Rock of Faith, so we can restore the distortion that you have been trying to apply to them in order to justify the claim of the Papacy, And to show the true meaning for their words, thoughts.
You Replied…
Yes IT is when you ONNNly say part of what they had said, by doing so you are aplying diffrent context to what they had said and thus you are giving a misleading account of what they intended to bring across, and that was not at any time to point out to the claims that it is being asserted by Rome today.anthony said:
Jesus Christ said “…NO ONE COME TO THE FATHER…” if HE had said that Only…then we are all dead…but HE didnt He continue saying “…EXCEPT THROUGH ME…” well now this has totally diffrent meaning, and thats exactly what you are trying to pull here, it is evident.
Also, you must know, that:
Read the following may it will help you out to understand:
- there is the language barrier
- Time barrier( some words and meaning changes with time ).
- The Eastern mind in particular the Greek mind, many words were/are used where they dont literaly means what they say ( not in the 21st century western American sence)
- there is words that there is no translation for it in English.
- You must remember at all time that the ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS VERY PROBLEMATIC when it comes to translating/interpreting langauges such as the Semetics and the Greek, because the ENGLISH LANGUAGE IS NOT AN EXPRESSIVE LANGUAGE at all.
- you have the Oriental way of addressing someone we tend to use more a feelings rather then facts.
Greek Meaning
What something means in Greek has to do with what the writer of the Greek is trying to convey. What is the Greek writer/speaker saying? In trying to decipher what the Greek sentence means, obviously you are required in some sense to translate it into the language you speak/think in. However, you should not be overly concerned about trying to create a ‘polished’ translation before you have a complete understanding of what the Greek sentence (writing) itself is trying to convey…ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/meaning_vs_translation.htm
Also : The Greek language has in this respect a great advantage over the Hebrew, the Latin and the English; it has a word which is a general word and is properly used of the affectionate regard and veneration shown to any person or thing, whether to the divine Creator or to any of his creatures, … we have neither in Hebrew, Latin, nor English any word with this restricted meaning, and therefore when it became necessary to translate the Greek acts and the decree, great difficulty was experienced… ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.ii.html.
I truly hope that you anthony and all the readers would look those things up …for by doing so you avoid falling into many and great errors.
anthony:
…And then later you said:
anthony:
Now here in your second post you said that the RCC accept both interpretations…but in the one above you are implying that they see as the Church is founded upon Peter himself…
…let me get this clear, Does the RCC accept the notion that the “Church is found upon peter’s confession (his faith) ?”.
The orthodox Church EXPLAINS, interpret, that the Church is founded upon the confession of Peter, upon that particular confession because **IT WAS NOT FLESH AND BLOOD **BUT OF THE FATHER Matt :16-18.
For if you interpret it upon Peter himself, then you are build upon satan also since Christ told Peter in Matt.16-23 "…23But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art a stumbling-block unto me: for thou mindest not the things of God, but the things of men.
And again in Matt. 14:31 …31And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and took hold of him, and saith unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?
So as we see …that the Fathers could not have been that ignorant of the Bible …for in numerious places in history we see them reffering for the Bible as the source of truth.
Now go back and search those posts (planty of them on this thread) and look up their interpretations WITHIN CONTEXT.
continue…
I
Ignatios
Guest
… Around and around she goes where would she stop no body knows.Ok …One Question… IS THIS THE BELEIF OF YOUR CHURCH, (the Shotwell view that is) ???
anthony earlier post:
then My reply:
And off to your last reply:
…St. Cyril of Alexandra said “All the Apostles had the full teaching of truth. " …for then Peter and John, who were of equal honour with each other, being both Apostles and holy disciples [would have been one, and], yet the two are not one."
“Third Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius “ quoted in Whelton, p55 and atmonachos.net/patristics/c…torius_3.shtml.
OOOPPPs…the fathers are either contridicting themselves again or someone is trying to put things out of context again.
off to the second one by anthony
Ambrose stated “Faith is the foundation of the Church, for it was not of the person but of the faith of St. Peter that it was said that the gates of hell should not prevail against it; it is the confession of faith that has vanquished hell. Jesus Christ is the Rock. He did not deny the grace of His name when He called him Peter, because he borrowed from the rock the constancy and solidity of his faith. Endeavour then, thyself to be a rock ‘thy rock is thy faith, and faith is the foundation of the Church. If thou art a rock, thou shalt be in the Church for the Church is built upon the rock.”
On the Incarnation, quoted at geocities.com/trvalentine…guettee07.html
HHHMMMM,Many might say what is going on here?
Well that would be a good question, the answer that it is not the Fathers who are confusing here but someone in the 21st century perhaps who lives in the west USA English speaking trying to interpret the mind of someone else in the 1st centuries who spoke diffrent language and lived in either europe or some eastern countrywhom they spoke either Greek Aramaic or Latin. …well this is the results.
And not to mention that there is an attempt of making a false assertions also. so there you go.
anthony said:
Again and again …around and around she goes…
I keep doing this just for the sake of those who do not know so they dont get deceived thats all…
here we go…
Turning again to Augustine: “Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, He saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ **which thou hast confessed, **upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church:’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, **not Myself upon thee. **For men who wish to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul: and I of Appollos; and I of Cephas,’ (1Cor. 1:12) who is Peter, but upon the Rock, said ‘But I am of Christ. “And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided’? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul’? (1Cor 1:13) And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.”
Sermon XXVI Matt. XIV, 25, quoted Ibid, pp31-32 also at
Sometimes??? It is most of the times and most of them80%.
A survey of early church fathers commentaries shows seventeen Fathers thought of the rock as the person Peter, forty-four thought it referred to Peter’s confession of faith, sixteen thought Christ Himself was the rock, while eight thought that the rock meant all of the Apostles. Thus 80% of these Church Fathers did not recognize ‘the rock’ as meaning the person Peter alone. Such a claim of papal commission therefore is not so clear-cut.
Jean de Launoy( a Roman Catholic scholar, I beleive he converted to the Orthodox Faith later on) Epist. Vii., Opp. Vol. V., pt 2. p.99, Geneva, 1731 quoted in Whelton, M., (1998 ), “Two Paths: Papal Monarchy : Collegial Tradition” (Regina Orthodox Press; Salisbury, MA), p27. On the issue of ‘the Rock’ and ‘the Keys’ we can look to other great thinkers… (see also Appendix A) to determine how they interpreted these words. Also at tecmalta.org/tft305.htm
I
Ignatios
Guest
What the Council sign on, Is what the Council agree and accept, what they DONT sign on, is what they dont agree to and what they dont accept.
If they didnt object,(according to your standard) then they must have agreed so it is valid the way that Rome sees it, then it must be in what they signed/agreed on…I challenge you to show me that they sign on that otherwise I am calling all this a B.S.( about the Interpretation of Matt. 16:18 )
Besides, I showed you just here in the above posts the way the Fathers saw what the Peter the Rock, as.
And the only way to show other wise is to put things out of context as you have been doing all along.
And for the rest of your Qoutes from the fathers I/we have showed the full context of them many times before either by me or someone else we will not keep repeating the same thing over and again…anyone desires to know more go back and search this post, there is lots of good info on this thread, believe me it is there…also what I have prooven in the above posts is suffecient enough to show your false assertions for THEEE PAPAL CLAIM .
J
John214
Guest
tdgesq,
Looking at Tertulian, it is not clear that he means that Bishop of Rome has Supreme Jurisdiction, it seems that in the part you referred to, he only mentioned the ability to bind and loose sins.
Cyprian,
Clearly changed his position, and if you say it proves that the idea was out there, then it is just as likely that we can say that the idea was contested.
Ephraim,
Would be a good quote (and may actually be one), but it is a bit frustrating that he seems to be quoting words that Jesus said, but which Jesus was never documented as saying. (Still, I would give to you that it is at least one quote which is pretty clear).
Also, I noticed that you did not respond to the quote of Pope Gregory the Great…
Thanks for the replies, and God Bless!
…I don’t know what to say…
Well, as far as I have seen, the RCC position rests upon Christ’s giving the Keys to Peter, in a way that is unique from every other apostle. It also seems that this is a gigantic portion of the argument for why the Pope is the Supreme Head of the Church. If you are going to say that the keys are not directly related to Church Authority, then I don’t see how you are going to sustain Papal prerogatives.
I thought it was established that a later Pope did approve of Canon 28 via Trullo(?). In any case, the RCC did eventually recognize Constantinople as holding the second place of honor.
Okay, I take it you mean Tertulian, Cyprian, and Ephraim.
Looking at Tertulian, it is not clear that he means that Bishop of Rome has Supreme Jurisdiction, it seems that in the part you referred to, he only mentioned the ability to bind and loose sins.
Cyprian,
Clearly changed his position, and if you say it proves that the idea was out there, then it is just as likely that we can say that the idea was contested.
Ephraim,
Would be a good quote (and may actually be one), but it is a bit frustrating that he seems to be quoting words that Jesus said, but which Jesus was never documented as saying. (Still, I would give to you that it is at least one quote which is pretty clear).
This is making an assumption, that God cannot maintain authority except through a single person. There were difficult times in the RCC as well (anti-Popes being a major one). I think it is just as possible that the Church could have been continued through one single head, or through a college of Bishops.
But you did not deal with any of these quotes, and you asserted that you would. Simply calling them partial quotes (whether they are deceptively so or not) does not matter.
Also, I noticed that you did not respond to the quote of Pope Gregory the Great…
- But it was not clear pre-nicea that the Bishop of Rome was the Supreme head of the Church, if it was, then when Constantine wanted to find out what the Christians believed then he would have simply been directed to the Bishop of Rome. Or when the council was called, everyone would have simply said, “let’s just follow what the Pope says”. 2) It does not have to be that every man is his own interpreter, rather it could be Church consensus and tradition, led by the Bishop of Rome (though not dependent upon him). It might not be true, but it is possible.
This is all fine and good, but when a person decides that they want to change Churches, they are following what they believe is true (sometimes). You used the fact that some EO join the RCC as a support for the truthfulness of the RCC, this is not an argument, any more than an RCC joining a Protestant Church makes Protestantism true.
I understand that there are differences between being “schismatic” or “heretical”, but I also understand that the EO or the RCC (or possibly both) is wrong, wrong about the actual nature of the Church. They might get somethings right (of course, every single person on earth gets somethings right sometimes), but all in all one or the other is wrong.
Thanks for the replies, and God Bless!
A
anthony022071
Guest
T
tdgesq
Guest
I do, you ignored my very first request to provide a pre-Nicene link that supports the EO conciliar notion of Church authority.
The reason you didn’t provide any is because there isn’t one. I gave a response to the post-Nicene links, as you are well aware since you comment on it in the very next paragraph below:Post-Nicene quotes that support the EO notion of conciliar authority, not quotes that supposedly implicate the lack of special authority of the Bishop of Rome. How many bishops does it take - 5, 50, 1000?
It is correct that Rome recognized Constantinople as second. Not via approval of Canon 28 though. But it is all beside the point. What matters is when it became an authoritative teaching of the Church. Not until the Pope approved it, as with all of the other acts of Chalcedon as attested to by the Patriarch of Constantinople.
Okay, I take it you mean Tertulian, Cyprian, and Ephraim.
No, he states that the Bishop of Rome unilaterally agreed to remit the sins of adultery and fornication if the requirements of repentance were met, basing it on his position as “bishop of bishops” and the successor of St. Peter. He didn’t require a council to make the call.
Wow, now that is interesting. Can you show me specifically where in the second recension he changed his mind? He uses nearly the same language. And what a strange thing to first teach that the successor of St. Peter had unique authority and then turn around and deny it in another version. What would account for such a change?
No further comment.
Great, then provide some evidence if you think it’s just as possible that it could be continued through a group of bishops. Aren’t you the one making the assumption by making such a claim without early evidence?
Is there one in particular that you would like me to address? As I recall, none of them provided support for the EO conception of when the Church teaches authoritatively.
Arghhhhh … That’s because you haven’t given me the link!
Was it one of those that was grouped with a bunch of other later Fathers?.
As a father I have control over my family to set down the rules. Now I suppose I could decided not to seek the counsel of my spouse, my priest, my friends that I respect, or anybody else, but I do. And I might even ask them for approval of the same. Nevertheless, I make the final call. In other words, there are all kinds of reasons for a council other than that their votes are a sufficient condition in themselves to define Church doctrine.
Logically possible? There are all kinds of things that are logically possible. It’s logically possible that there is another world where pink elephants rule. I think we are trying to figure out what is true, not what is possible.
You still aren’t getting it. I used that argument to demonstrate that the papacy is not just a western conception. I can’t explain it any better than that, and I’m done trying.
One is right and one is wrong. There isn’t any doubt about that.
J
John214
Guest
tdgesq,
**2) **It is not a matter of numbers of Bishops, the EO position is relatively clear that it is a matter of Church consensus on a general level, acceptance by the Church as a body, and consistency with Holy Tradition.
John214:
In the RCC, the Pope is actually Infallible, when speaking ex cathedra. If the early Christians wanted to know the exact nature of Christ, and how Christ relates to the Father and the Spirit, then the only thing they need to do, was ask the Pope to make a proclamation ex Cathedra. This is extremely efficient, and extremely useful. A council is not infallible (unless the Pope ratifies it) and could very well come to the wrong decision, even if there is a council of 500 Bishops and 495 agree on a position, if the Pope denies it then it is wrong. But if 495 out of 500 votes are literally worthless, then why even hold the council at all? What if there are 251 on the side against the Pope, and 249 on the side of the Pope, the side that lost the majority still wins, WHY VOTE!? I can’t understand why, if the early Church knew that the Bishop of Rome is the source and center of all right doctrine, why they would have ever done anything other than ask the Pope. Imagine, you and your friends are gathered together, and you are trying to make a decision about the future that involves all of you, and then God appeared to you and said that He could give you the best answer, would you ever even for a split second think, “Well, I’d rather take a vote with my friends”
I came up with these reasons why an ecumenical council might exist in the RCC mindset.
**1) **Make other Bishops feel like they are important or have a part in decision making (they do not in any way though)
**2) **To maintain unity by bringing Bishops together. (But honestly I don’t see how this is so, Bishops following exactly what the Pope says would be much more unifying in my opinion)
**
3) **To allow the Pope to see the opinions of other Bishops (But it will not have any effect on his decision, it is trivial at best)
God Bless,
John
**1) **If the Pope were to lack authority (as these quotes supposedly stated) then what would it mean? Would it mean that all of Church tradition was useless, that apostolic succession was not true, that Sola Scriptura is the only viable position? Of course not, thus it is very rational to believe that if the Catholic Position is wrong, then perhaps the Orthodox Church could be right.
**2) **It is not a matter of numbers of Bishops, the EO position is relatively clear that it is a matter of Church consensus on a general level, acceptance by the Church as a body, and consistency with Holy Tradition.
You were the one who said that “even if Cyprian changed his mind that it would still mean that the idea (of Papal Supremacy) was out there”. I merely based my response on that, I suppose I can dig up the exact words of both you and Cyprian. As for what might account for such a change? The same thing that might account for the first position that the Pope is the single head, political motivations, a desire to gain the favor of Rome, or a simple mistake. You cannot simply say, “Oh when he was for the Pope he was certainly not influenced by anything outside and was definitely right, and when he was against the Pope, he was certainly being influenced by something, and was definitely wrong.” These statements don’t add up.
No, I am not making any assumption. I am not Orthodox, I am not even pro-Orthodox (I could even be agreeing with you and simply trying to push the argument to see if it will hold under more scrutiny), all I care about here is getting a strong case for why the Eastern Orthodox Church is wrong, in the Catholic perspective. If members of the Orthodox Church would like to answer this question, then I believe it would benefit this conversation.
Okay, this is a topic that I am very interested in. The purpose of an ecumenical council in the Roman Catholic perspective. Your example of being a father is not exactly comparable, for one, you do not have the capability to make a decision infallibly, if you did, then the only reason you might ask your wife is simply to see if she makes the same decision as you, or just to make her feel like she has a part in the decision making process. In reality, we (I too am a husband) are limited in our decision-making abilities, thus it is very important for us to look to the opinions of our spouses and spiritual fathers.
In the RCC, the Pope is actually Infallible, when speaking ex cathedra. If the early Christians wanted to know the exact nature of Christ, and how Christ relates to the Father and the Spirit, then the only thing they need to do, was ask the Pope to make a proclamation ex Cathedra. This is extremely efficient, and extremely useful. A council is not infallible (unless the Pope ratifies it) and could very well come to the wrong decision, even if there is a council of 500 Bishops and 495 agree on a position, if the Pope denies it then it is wrong. But if 495 out of 500 votes are literally worthless, then why even hold the council at all? What if there are 251 on the side against the Pope, and 249 on the side of the Pope, the side that lost the majority still wins, WHY VOTE!? I can’t understand why, if the early Church knew that the Bishop of Rome is the source and center of all right doctrine, why they would have ever done anything other than ask the Pope. Imagine, you and your friends are gathered together, and you are trying to make a decision about the future that involves all of you, and then God appeared to you and said that He could give you the best answer, would you ever even for a split second think, “Well, I’d rather take a vote with my friends”
I came up with these reasons why an ecumenical council might exist in the RCC mindset.
**1) **Make other Bishops feel like they are important or have a part in decision making (they do not in any way though)
**2) **To maintain unity by bringing Bishops together. (But honestly I don’t see how this is so, Bishops following exactly what the Pope says would be much more unifying in my opinion)
**
3) **To allow the Pope to see the opinions of other Bishops (But it will not have any effect on his decision, it is trivial at best)
Here is the problem, I never denied that the Papacy is not just a western conception. Let’s just leave this one, it seems we are talking past each other.
Excellent! Glad we agree!
God Bless,
John
I
Ignatios
Guest
Again if you take things within context, it would become evident that, when they didnt explain what the Rock is, they were talking about heresy or the Church …etc.
And when they went into explaining/interpreting the Bible, they stated very clearly what/who the Rock is, and what It meant when the LORD said that.
“Petros” was given to Simon ( he was not named Peter=Petros yet).
Agree, so far…
Here we must stop and take a look at this verse, for in English as I have mentioned before doesnt point out clearly what and/or who “the Rock” is…
Matthew 16:17-18,… 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon( he wasn’t peter yet, just for the record to show you how easily can one be derailed ) son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you( here the LORD is saying that it is not of you or it is not of Peter=Petros), but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, **you are Peter {Gk. Petros, Aram. Kephas} **( now he is Peter), and upon **THIS ROCK ** {Gk. petra, Aram. kepha} ] I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it…
1)So if you were speaking Greek and you said that, then you would be saying to saint Peter" Petros" NOT “Petra”, that is, if you want to be Biblicaly correct.
- Note, the word “kephas” is the same in both placesexcept for the (S), as you see in here, the Greek is more expressive then the Aramaic…
the word Kepha could mean a small rock or THEE Rock that the Romans try to claim. - …Here I like to ask you a question, What is your evidence that, kephas in here ( the Roman assertion ) is the Major Rock that the BODY OF CHRIST is built upon and NOT the small rock (Pebble ) .
It is a distortion when you use it for other then what the fathers intended it to be.
I
Ignatios
Guest
Ignatios said:anthony:
I was giving you an example to show, how dramaticly things can change when you dont qoute it within context.
Ignatios said:anthony:
Very good then, we agree that words are not to be taken literaly in some sentences especially in the Greek.
Concept is not precise, concept is a general view>>> " American Heritage Dictionary - dictionary.reference.com/browse/concepts A general idea derived or inferred from specific instances or occurrences".
And thats where the error occurs when you have general view in a matter where precission of meaning is needed.
Some words requires many words to explain it, true, but some you just cant bring across, If I can explain to you the things that cannot be explained I would have.
Ignatios said:anthony:
You are stamping yourself with the mark of “lack of knowledge”. But I will try this simple example for you >>> Acts 1:8 " But YOU shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon YOU…" if you ONLY take the sentence above how could you know if the LORD is speaking to PLURAL or SINGLE ??? .
You got it now?
It is abvious now that if you were knowledgable in languages your answer would ahve been diffrent.
Ignatios said:has to do with what the writer of the Greek is trying to convey. What is the Greek writer/speaker saying? In trying to decipher what the Greek sentence means, obviously you are required in some sense to translate it into the language you speak/think in. However, you should not be overly concerned about trying to create a ‘polished’ translation before you have a complete understanding of what the Greek sentence (writing) itself is trying to convey…url=“http://www.ntgreek.org/learn_nt_greek/meaning_vs_translation.htm”]
anthony:
Only a language expert can give such statement, abviously your answers and comment shows, that you are the opposite of that.
, the Latin and the English; it has a word which is a general word and is properly used of the affectionate regard and veneration shown to any person or thing, whether to the divine Creator or to any of his creatures, … we have neither in Hebrew, Latin, nor English any word with this restricted meaning, and therefore when it became necessary to translate the Greek acts and the decree, great difficulty was experienced… ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.ii.html.Igantios said:
anthony:
I am going to let this one go, for fear that I may sound too harsh and you might be offended…but as we say in the Middle East"… their words, speaks much of them…"
T
tdgesq
Guest
There is a lot to the argument that you would have to take a long hard look at the Protestant position if the Pope does not have the authority ascribed to his office by the CC. I brought up that very point with another poster here who was making the argument that if the CC position is proven false then by default the EO position on Church authority must be true. That is an invalid argument logically speaking It presents an unstated assumption that there is in fact historical support for their model of Church authority. That is the information for which I’m looking, and when there is a paucity of pre-Nicene support, it presents a serious problem imo.
If someone could define these terms of “Church consciousness,” then perhaps they would have something. General consensus will always be lacking with the Protestants and other non-apostolic churches, even amongst the apostolic churches as we see in this very thread. Consistency with Holy Tradition means rejecting some of the ECFs who accepted Peter as the Rock (I believe all of them did), rejecting pre-Nicene statements of the authority of the successor of St. Peter. It is precisely the problem of deciding which writers and which groups of learned bishops were being consistent with “Holy Tradition.” Never mind the issue of who has final binding interpretative authority.
Or perhaps he wasn’t wrong at all and merely restated in another way what he always believed. That is my position and the position of many other scholars on the issue. What doesn’t add up is a complete world view change, especially when you investigate both versions.
You did say that you found both to be just as likely. That’s taking a position. But wouldn’t that first require some historical evidence of the EO model of Church authority?
You’ve posted a lot on this issue, but I think the foregoing quote distills it nicely. It stems from a misunderstanding of how Catholics view the charism of the Pope to authoritatively define Church teaching. It is a guarantee that what is being taught is Christian truth. It is not done apart from the use of the intellect. It is not done apart from the Scriptures. It is not done apart from the traditions of the early fathers. It is not done apart from the learned theologians of the Church. It is not done apart from what the bishops of the Church believe. The CC has always maintained that they are also guided by the Holy Spirit.
Not one of the reasons.
Absent the parenthetical language, we have a winner. He values their opinions not just from an intellectual standpoint, but because they are indeed guided by the Holy Spirit, both individually and collectively. It isn’t when the bishops all agree with one another (including the Pope) where we see the problem arise though. It’s when they disagree with each other, especially when large groups disagree with one another. Take the heresies all the way from Arianism to Modernism and Relativism. Now who defines catholic truths?
Group A with such and such many bishops on their side like at Chalcedon (the Coptics) or Group B? Group C (Arius and his fellow bishops) or Group D (the Fathers at Nicaea)? Group E at the council of Florence that included the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope, or Group F, the legates who decided they needed their own local council to decide? Or maybe we just throw up our hands and become Protestant and rely upon our own private interpretation of every doctrine.
The CC does not view councils of bishops as unnecessary or undesirable. The Pope needs their guidance. The Vatican Councils of modern times were called for that reason. They were called to seek the guidance of the bishops who are led by the Holy Spirit, even if at days end some of them did not perfectly follow the call. But somebody or some group has to lay the heresy dividing the Church to rest. If that is a certain group of Bishops that we can historically define, then let’s get on with the historical evidence so the rest of us can know. I plan on showing you from Church documents that this is how the CC views things, but that will have to wait for a little while.
As for the Gregory the Great quote. It is impossible for me to respond. Here’s why:
In 1866 the Episcopal Bishop of Western New York, A. Cleveland Coxe, translated into English Abbe Guettee’s The Papacy–Its Historic Origin and Primitive Relations with the Eastern Churches. Fr Guettee had been ordained in the Roman Catholic Church in France but left it and was received into the Russian Orthodox Church.catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/guettee.html
- No source is provided. I do not know where to look in Gregory’s writings to respond.
- It was pulled from this website here: orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/ecumenical/maxwell_peter.htm
How do I know? Because it comes up verbatim on Google search, with the missing period and all on the end.- In the Orthodox apologetics website to which I just linked, it refers not to Gregory’s writings, but to this: The Papacy, by Abbe Guettee.
So know we have quote, from a quote, from quote, without any original source, triply interpreted through the lens of the Orthodox apologists. Now you see why I don’t waste my time on quotes that are not originally sourced.
A
Alethiaphile
Guest
Any link to Acts 15 would serve. Joeyou ignored my very first request to provide a pre-Nicene link that supports the EO conciliar notion of Church authority.
J
John214
Guest
tdgesq,
Glad to hear from you, thank you for the responses.
Red: Not necessarily, it could simply mean interpreting those quotes in a different way. For instance, most Orthodox will admit freely that the Church of Rome was a bulwark of orthodoxy and the “head” of the Church (understood in an Orthodox manner).
Green: I believe both RCC and EO agree that God in the Person of the Holy Spirit has Binding Authority, it is about how we are to know that (in the person of the Pope, or in a Collegiate and holistic environment).
There is no reason why we should immediately accept his prior position, unless we take a bias that the Pope must be the Supreme Authority.
Suppose there is a group of Bishops of Scholars evenly divided on an issue, will they make any difference in the Pope’s decision? What if there are a vast majority of Bishops who are pushing for a false position? Will it make any difference to the Pope, if what he says is infallible? This is the bottom line.
Regarding Pope Gregory the Great,
I will see if I can find any original source, until then we will drop it as an unsubstantiated source.
John
Glad to hear from you, thank you for the responses.
You assume that the only way we can know that the Church must be a continuous apostolic body is through the office of the Pope. In reality it is not so. I am what one might call a transitioning Protestant (where I will go, I am not sure yet), and the thing which caused me to doubt my belief in Sola Scriptura was not that the Popes have held such a strong record of consistent teaching, but rather, the fact that the early Church was clearly Apostolic in nature, and held to many beliefs that both RCC and EO share. Of course, being one who feels the Church should be a unified body, the Pope naturally appealed to me, but my decision to reject Protestantism is not based upon the office of the Bishop of Rome. If I felt that Apostolic Succession was indeed the norm of the Church since its inception, and if I were (I said if) to reject the Supremacy of the Pope, I would not be lost and unable to make an intelligent decision. I would basically be confronted with the option of EO or Coptic Orthodox (though I hear they are pulling a 180 on what separated them from the unified Early Church). The position is not invalid, it simply may not be true, but should there be a lack of evidence for the Pope, and some positive evidence for the EO Church, (which would not have to be a clear pre-Nicean endorsement of concilar Church authority), well it might not only be possible, but very probable. (Thus my mission is to weigh the arguments for the RCC and EO, and those against).
Blue: General consensus is not the main issue though, even Protestants (though divided in body) are very similar in their main beliefs (thus communion can be taken interchangeably in most denominations). The issue is really about consensus within the True Body of Christ.
Red: Not necessarily, it could simply mean interpreting those quotes in a different way. For instance, most Orthodox will admit freely that the Church of Rome was a bulwark of orthodoxy and the “head” of the Church (understood in an Orthodox manner).
Green: I believe both RCC and EO agree that God in the Person of the Holy Spirit has Binding Authority, it is about how we are to know that (in the person of the Pope, or in a Collegiate and holistic environment).
The idea is that in de uniate Cyprian was clearly pro-Papacy, but later he had no problem in opposing the Pope. Therefore 1) he did not mean what he said, 2) he meant what he said, but changed his position because he believed his prior position to be false, 3) he believed his prior position to be true but still decided to go against the Pope illogically.
There is no reason why we should immediately accept his prior position, unless we take a bias that the Pope must be the Supreme Authority.
But these others are guided by the Holy Spirit in a fundamentally different way, the only way an Catholic can know if something is actually true or not, is by seeing what the Pope has said about it (thus a Council is only true if the Pope ratifies it, Tradition is only true if the Pope approves, theologians are only right if the Pope agrees). Does the Pope need the Council to make a decision about an important Doctrine? Is the Pope’s infallibility contingent upon learned Scholars? Is it that the Pope is only infallible when the Church supports his view? Or as clearly is the case that you have presented, that the Church is only correct when the Pope agrees.
Suppose there is a group of Bishops of Scholars evenly divided on an issue, will they make any difference in the Pope’s decision? What if there are a vast majority of Bishops who are pushing for a false position? Will it make any difference to the Pope, if what he says is infallible? This is the bottom line.
But the parenthesis are the main point. As illustrated above, all the Bishops and Scholars of the world could agree on a position and still be wrong, but the Pope will always be right. The rest are not guaranteed infallibility in the RCC perspective, they are liable to error. Suppose 95% of the Bishops said that Jesus was not God, and 3% said He is, and 2% say they do not know. When the Pope looks at their answers, is he going to say, “Ah, you have been led by the Holy Spirit” No, he will say, “Sorry 95% of you are wrong, this is what is right, take it or leave it”. What good is a vote that is not infallible when you have an infallible source?
Regarding Pope Gregory the Great,
I will see if I can find any original source, until then we will drop it as an unsubstantiated source.
John
M
Mickey
Guest
Your Blessedness has also been careful to declare that you do not now make use of proud titles, which have sprung from a root of vanity … and you address me saying, As you have commanded. This word, command, I beg you to remove from my hearing … For in position you are my brethren, in character my fathers. I did not, then, command, but was desirous of indicating what seemed to be profitable. Yet I do not find that your Blessedness has been willing to remember perfectly this very thing … lo, in the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope… do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands is subtracted from yourself… I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. Nor do I regard that as an honour whereby I know that my brethren lose their honour. For my honour is the honour of the universal Church: my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally… Away with words that inflate vanity and wound charity.
¶ And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title … .
**Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VIII, **Epistle XXX. To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria
¶ And, indeed, in the synod of Chalcedon and afterwards by subsequent Fathers, your Holiness knows that this was offered to my predecessors. And yet not one of them would ever use this title … .
**Epistles of Saint Gregory the Great, Book VIII, **Epistle XXX. To Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria
J
John214
Guest
Mickey,
Thank you for the source material. Your quote is officially on the table.
I was looking around and I found this also written by Pope Gregory the Great, on a Pro-Catholic site. globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm
Perhaps someone (on either the Orthodox or Catholic side) can explain this to me.
Thank you for the source material. Your quote is officially on the table.
I was looking around and I found this also written by Pope Gregory the Great, on a Pro-Catholic site. globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/gregory.htm
Perhaps someone (on either the Orthodox or Catholic side) can explain this to me.
Is it just me, or does it seem to be that the Pope has equated the keys of Saint Peter to some actual artifact (as well as a portion of his chain) which might be worn as a guard against evil?
M
Mickey
Guest
Well, we know that there were not literal keys–this is most likely a reference to Rome’s orthodoxy and bishopric. I am guessing that the reference to St Peter’s chains may signify humility and suffering for the sake of Christ.
It is difficult to interpret because it seems that most of the quotes on that site are cherry picked out of context in an attempt to show that successors of St Peter are supreme infallible pontiffs.
- Status