Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope(3)

TraderJack · #1 7th June 2009, 05:26 PM

Originally Posted by Montalban

Originally Posted by TraderJack
Well, they can when they are twisted and contorted by back engineering the medieval papal developments into them where they do not exist, as Rome does with all the church fathers.

Warrior Angel has not, unfortunately, addressed John Chrysostom taking holy orders from men not in communion with Rome.

Of course not, those circumstances are not dealt with in the Roman e-pologist playbook, just as I have yet to have WA or any other Roman e-pologist address the fact that Augustine exercised his supreme authority over Zosimus, bishop of Rome when correcting Zosimus for giving Pelagius a clean blill of health and demanding that Augustine drop his prosecution of Pelagius.

After all, the Roman logic, or rather illogic, applied to Clement's epistle to the Corinthians was that he was exercising his supreme authority.

Well, that same logic applies in the case of Augustine correcting Zosimus, but no doubt they will find a way to present some outlandish rationalization against it.

Warrior Angel did attempt to give half the story though regarding circumstances when John Chrysostom was banished.

Par for the course, which is why we have to make sure the proper context is presented.

WA, has not addressed the in context quotes I've given from Augustine, Chrysostom, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Tertullian and others including Origen that exposes the fact that WA's snippet of Origen is lifted out of context, one in which Origen emphatically dispels any notion that the "chair of Peter" and the "keys" are exclusively applied to anyone but to the entire church in unity of Peter's profession.

Yes, he appealed to Rome. He appealed to any support he could get. Yet, despite Rome coming in on his side, he still went into exile. He still accepted his exile. Constantinople didn't recognise that "Peter had spoken" on the issue

Deliberately presenting part of the story is distortion by ommission.

Nothing new there.

[quote]Originally Posted by TraderJack

Good to see you, by the way.

Thank you

TraderJack · #2 7th June 2009, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Montalban

Anglian has a strange point to make when he cites Emperors 'interference' in Ecumencial Councils as evidence of their power over only the eastern church. Apparently the Ecumenical Councils had no effect in the West.

Oddly enough, that is one of the reasons von Dollinger and the opponents of papal infallibility denounced that dogma as heresy, due to it raising the pope of Rome above all ecumenical councils.

Mikeb85 · #3 7th June 2009, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Anglian

From my own pov all of this is very unfortunate. My own Church argues as Montalban's does, which is why I am so familiar with his time-worn arguments with their need to avoid addressing the meaning of the fathers saying that Leo spoke for Peter. Since my own Church never received Chalcedon, I am quite free to point out that it did not do so partly because it rejected this claim; Montalban's did, but later wished to deny it meant what it plainly met; a not uncommon phenomenon, but only supportable by ignoring the context and importing post-Schism concepts back into the fifth century. Most Orthodox sites, including my own, have this somewhat transparent gambit in operation; it convinces only those who need no convincing.

Maybe there's a reason your own church (all the OO churches in fact) thinks the same of Papal claims as our Church - because there's really no need for them to agree with us EO, unless it's what they believe.

Furthermore, while your Church did not accept Chalcedon, it did not schism merely because of that Council. The schism did not happen until 100 years later...

TraderJack · #4 7th June 2009, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by Montalban

What I don't get is why 'they were silent' when Peter spoke is significant to Catholics, but not 'they were silent' when Paul spoke!

I would imagine that they were silent because it was polite not to speak over the top of someone else.

But, apparently their silence to Peter is a near act of reverence, but not to Paul. This is not borne out by the text, but only if one applies pre-conceived ideas.

And then of course it it to ignore that James said "It is MY ruling..."

And ignores Chrysostom saying James was the "chief rule" and the "high authority" at the council in Jerusalem:

This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last..There was no arrogance in the Church. After Peter, Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently; not starts up (for the next word). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part----Homily 33

Bet you won't find that citation on any of the Roman e-pologist quote mining sites.

Anglian · #5 7th June 2009, 06:16 PM

Originally Posted by Mikeb85

Maybe there's a reason your own church (all the OO churches in fact) thinks the same of Papal claims as our Church - because there's really no need for them to agree with us EO, unless it's what they believe.

Mike, no one is doubting our good faith in this - I hope. The question is whether there is anything in the idea of a developing understanding of those claims; on that I'm prepared to be open-minded. If we are just going to dismiss NewMan's ideas because they do not accord with our own, this discussion has no point; I know what you and I think. What I'm interested in exploring is the Roman claims. NewMan offers an interesting perspective, and an informed one. If I just wanted the OC view, I'd not bother being here, since I know it well.

Furthermore, while your Church did not accept Chalcedon, it did not schism merely because of that Council. The schism did not happen until 100 years later...

We're well aware that it took time before your Church went into schism. We can also understand that, having accepted Chalcedon, and with it the Roman concept that Leo spoke for Peter, you may later have decided it was better to say you hadn't accepted the latter; we can all be wise after the event. Having helped Rome defeat Alexandria you later found yourselves subject to the sort of treatment meted out to us; that was as regrettable as the treatment meted out to us.

But there, all this shows is what we know - that ourselves, the EO and the RCC all take a different view on these matters. That we know. What would be interesting is to listen to something new - and that was, from my pov, what NewMan was offering.

A question for us all: were NewMan able to prove his point, would any of us actually change our mind? I'm prepared to say that if that happened, I would. Thus far it hasn't.

But, as I said before, polemic, whilst fun, especially in Montalban's style, differs from history, and from my pov is less interesting.

peace,

Anglian

TraderJack · #6 7th June 2009, 06:34 PM

Originally Posted by Thekla

Actually, my question was "historical";

Rome demanded celibacy of its priests beginning in at least the 4th century. If the 4th century (and later) Church entire understood Rome to have supremacy, then they would have adhered in this matter. Likewise, as Rome constantly pushed at the east to adopt the Roman standard (and it seems to have been a sort of "ex cathedra" value, as it was not tmk contravened in the west), the fact that Rome did not excommunicate the recalcitrants of the east on the celibacy matter, she likely did not consider her primacy "supremacy".

Given the shift you describe above, does Rome doubt her early "supremacy" ? Or acknowledge that celibate clergy was a "local" matter ?

Now that is one whale of a question that the Roman e-pologists will not touch with a 10 foot Pole or an 11 foot Czech.

Mikeb85 · #7 7th June 2009, 06:37 PM

Originally Posted by Anglian

We're well aware that it took time before your Church went into schism. We can also understand that, having accepted Chalcedon, and with it the Roman concept that Leo spoke for Peter, you may later have decided it was better to say you hadn't accepted the latter; we can all be wise after the event. Having helped Rome defeat Alexandria you later found yourselves subject to the sort of treatment meted out to us; that was as regrettable as the treatment meted out to us.

First of all, I'm not sure you're aware, but we have absolutely no issue with the Council saying that St. Leo spoke for St. Peter - I don't think any Orthodox have denied such a thing. In fact, Leo is called St. Leo the Great in our Church - we consider him a Saint! The disagreement is in saying that because St. Leo spoke for St. Peter, that all Popes do...

As for your church and the claimed persecutions it underwent, I won't hijack this thread with that discussion, but let's just say the Copts were far from innocent in this matter, and the schism was related more to anti-Imperial sentiment than any doctrinal matters... (it's interesting to note that the Greeks of Alexandria remained part of the Chalcedonian Patriarchate of Alexandria - aka. 'Melkite' or 'Imperial' Church, while the ethnic Copts formed the non-Chalcedonian church)

Originally Posted by Anglian

A question for us all: were NewMan able to prove his point, would any of us actually change our mind? I'm prepared to say that if that happened, I would. Thus far it hasn't.

This is the thing. He can't. Because quite simply, the case put forward by Roman Catholic apologetics isn't historical. It's a later understanding, read INTO history.

TraderJack · #8 7th June 2009, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by WarriorAngel

Link to Part ll
I find it quite rich that i am told i cannot use Catholic apologetics

Now that is not what was said at all.

We ask that you not use the cherrypicked snippets taken out of context from Roman e-pologist quote mining sites.