Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope (5)

[Standing Up]

What was wrong with unity?

-snip-

Nothing, unless one disagrees with "papal monarchial power".

 

[Philothei]

Anglian's is Leo's Tome, so at very least you have one extra argument to reiterate over and over again.

OY....

 

[Philothei]

Nothing, unless one disagrees with "papal monarchial power".

If it is not there in the first place of course there is disagreement

 

[Rick Otto]

If I was on Wall Street, I'd advise investing Other Popes Monarchial Power.
Two Swords doctrine is progressive growth policy.

...Oh yeah!

 

[Philothei]

If I was on Wall Street, I'd advise investing Other Popes Monarchial Power.
Two Swords doctrine is progressive growth policy.

...Oh yeah!

The last time I checked there were no stocks from Mt. Athos or the Patriarch Bartholomew Have to check for the rest of the Patriarchates though...

You have to explain to me the "two swords doctrine" too ... I do not get it... I see one sword versus many...

 

[Thekla]

If I was on Wall Street, I'd advise investing Other Popes Monarchial Power.
Two Swords doctrine is progressive growth policy.

...Oh yeah!

What about making profits from broadly experienced market downturns and economic disasters (a la G. Sachs)


whoops

that should have been a

 

[Montalban]

Nothing, unless one disagrees with "papal monarchial power".

Catholics are welcome to believe what they want to believe.

I can't tell what your position is on unity. Let me know when you have one.

 

[Standing Up]

Catholics are welcome to believe what they want to believe.

I can't tell what your position is on unity. Let me know when you have one.

C-mon, you know better than that

Constantine was the guarantor of the split back in 325. Chrysostom (and Nestorius and others) later helped to depose Christians from their churchs because they practiced the death, burial, and resurrection differently than the Fri-Sun crowd.

Since then, trace it out, after you take off your denominational eyeglasses.

451, OO said, we're not going along with Leo because the faith delivered at Nicea was good enough for us. And we stand by that today.

EO/RC said, bye bye.

1054, EO said, we're not going along with that because the faith delivered over the last 1000 years is good enough for us. And we stand by that today.

1500s, P said, we're not going along with that because the faith delivered over the last 1500 years is good enough for us. And we stand by that today.

The Roman Church that spearheaded the original division in 325 said, bye bye OO, bye bye EO, bye bye P. Today we stand by that. But you're welcome to come back at any time

Trouble is each (RC, OO, EO, P) denomination has pet doctrines that weren't found 2000 years ago. But each will claim they have the unadulterated truth that hasn't changed in 2000 years, or 500 years, or 1000 years, or 1500 years.

Unity? Pre Nicea. Sheath the physical sword. Good luck with that.

 

[Philothei]

C-mon, you know better than that

Constantine was the guarantor of the split back in 325. Chrysostom (and Nestorius and others) later helped to depose Christians from their churchs because they practiced the death, burial, and resurrection differently than the Fri-Sun crowd.

Since then, trace it out, after you take off your denominational eyeglasses.

451, OO said, we're not going along with Leo because the faith delivered at Nicea was good enough for us. And we stand by that today.

EO/RC said, bye bye.

1054, EO said, we're not going along with that because the faith delivered over the last 1000 years is good enough for us. And we stand by that today.

1500s, P said, we're not going along with that because the faith delivered over the last 1500 years is good enough for us. And we stand by that today.

The Roman Church that spearheaded the original division in 325 said, bye bye OO, bye bye EO, bye bye P. Today we stand by that. But you're welcome to come back at any time

Trouble is each (RC, OO, EO, P) denomination has pet doctrines that weren't found 2000 years ago. But each will claim they have the unadulterated truth that hasn't changed in 2000 years, or 500 years, or 1000 years, or 1500 years.

Unity? Pre Nicea. Sheath the physical sword. Good luck with that.

Maybe this is off topic....But SU do you want to celebrate Pascha on Wednesday ? (someone asked me to ask you that it is not me as I am not too familiar) YOu can pm to me since this is off topic

....



About the Pre-Nicea.. clause where do you come with all this stuff? Constantine gave "religious freedom" not "national religion" that is where most make the mistake

 

[Philothei]

Trouble is each (RC, OO, EO, P) denomination has pet doctrines that weren't found 2000 years ago. But each will claim they have the unadulterated truth that hasn't changed in 2000 years, or 500 years, or 1000 years, or 1500 years.

examples?

 

[Montalban]

Unity? Pre Nicea. Sheath the physical sword. Good luck with that.

Jesus promised the church would not fail.

I happen to believe that promise.

 

[Anglian]

We're called to defend the truth


I agree; nothing Anglian has shown indicates Leo had authoirty

If you think that Leo's repeated statements mean nothing, fair enough, although perhaps the head-banging isn't helping

Well for the past month of so Anglian has been the only anti-Eastern Orthodox here posting and only posts on Leo. Given that it's the only argument we've left to deal with, it's the only argument we can address, reflexively.

Clearly not agreeing with you makes one anti-EO; an interesting definition.

I have tried to introduce other points but no one takes them up.

Perhaps they don't want to be told they are anti-EO

Jesus promised the church would not fail.

I happen to believe that promise.

I live it when we agree.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Montalban]

If you think that Leo's repeated statements mean nothing, fair enough, although perhaps the head-banging isn't helping

I don't think Leo's statements are nothing. Your evidence-lite argument of what you think Leo was thinking is another matter.

Clearly not agreeing with you makes one anti-EO; an interesting definition.

Given that you started your interjection here by condemning all Orthodox responses as polemics, I guess the hat fits!

However how you can be against something and not 'anti-' something is to me of great interest. Please explain.

 

[Anglian]

I don't think Leo's statements are nothing. Your evidence-lite argument of what you think Leo was thinking is another matter.

Evidence-lite, with about 6000 words. We shall have to find a new term to describe posts which offer a few links and no real evidence - perhaps 'evidence extremely-lite' will do?

Given that you started your interjection here by condemning all Orthodox responses as polemics, I guess the hat fits!

Ah, EO and hats, always with the hats.

However how you can be against something and not 'anti-' something is to me of great interest. Please explain.

One can be against what passes for arguments in favour of something and not against the institution; there are quite a lot of people who understand this.

peace,

Anglian

p.s. I also like it when we don't agree.

 

[Montalban]

Evidence-lite, with about 6000 words. We shall have to find a new term to describe posts which offer a few links and no real evidence - perhaps 'evidence extremely-lite' will do?

6000 words in which you can not show anything that proves Leo thought he had power that you think he did.

Any time I've asked you to show something more specific you simply point back to this mass of words and say that it's in there, somewhere.

We've already gone over where you yourself tried to explain why he didn't/couldn't exercise power - perhaps because he did not have the backing of Emperor and army. Given that he exhibited no power then I would say that is 'evidence-lite'. Making excuses for him not exhibiting it simply confirms you can't demonstrate that he had it.

The argument that he just must have doesn't sit well. I agree that you have cited some people who believe the same thing you do, but they're not showing evidence to that either. You're more than welcome to cite additional historians saying Leo had power. Perhaps enough of you saying so makes it so??? (I've already gone over reasons why people would want to argue that he had developed power).

I've no idea why you are posting - you won't answer specific questions then argue you've no evidence of him exercising any power you think he had (in his own mind) anyway.

Did you have anything to add?

You're more than welcome to re-hash about that nasty Emperor attacking Alexandria again.

 

[Philothei]

Well, he did press it. He refused to ratify Chalcedon for nearly two years and he refused to accept Canon 28 at all; what more could he have done? If you see what he wrote to Anatolius he makes his feelings plain; but as a merciful pastor, he goes not further than to criticise him severely. The only thing he could have done was to have arraigned him on a disciplinary charge - which would, in the circumstances of 452/3 to have been to have poured petrol onto a bonfire already doing well by itself. An inability to make one's authority effective does not mean that authority is illegitimate. Were there an actual protest about the source Leo claims for his authority, that would tend to suggest it wasn't acknowledged.

If you,look at the name of the Church the meeting was held in you'll see why that saint was mentioned; in our church to this day it is normal practice to invoke in the service the name of the saint after whom the Church is named; no one as far as the record shows says that Peter spoke through her. Indeed, and this is central, no one says that Peter speaks through anyone - except Leo.


On the contrary, I have provided extensive evidence that Leo did think he had the power; you confuse an inability to exercise it (or, in those circumstances, an unwillingness to use it) with its absence.


Yes, and no one has contested that. But the only person through whom Peter is decribed as speaking is Leo; this you seem unwilling to see.



You appear to see this in a unique way as 'either or'. No one else does. The point about Canon 28 is that it derives C'ple's authority, and by implication that of Rome, from the secular fact of it being the imperial capital. Leo's rejection was based on that, as his letters show. His authority and that of his See were based on Apostolic succession, no one has denied it; based on the fact that Peter and Paul were martyred there, which no one has denied; and that Peter spoke in a unique way through the bishop of Rome. I'm uncertain whether you deny this last claim, but have provided more than enough evidence to show Leo's assertion of it. It was Anatolius' attempt to found canon 28 on secular facts which Leo objected to - the letters show that clearly.




Just when you were doing so well ... . No, I wrote that historians such as Meyendorff and Chadwick have claimed that his pontificate was a pivotal moment in the developing understanding of the Petrine claims; this is not the what you say I am doing, and therefore you misunderstand me.


Indeed, but how was that view expressed back then? Indeed, was that view you now hold even held back then? It was, and remains, the absence of any evidence that any part of the 'East' objected to Leo's claims, which first drew me into this discussion. In the absence of evidence from you or anyone else that Leo's claims were seen as objectionable, the issue remains open.




Or I can show what he thought, said and wrote, and then ask why no one challenged his claims that Peter spoke in a unique way through him. Simply responding that he could not exercise that power does not mean he did not have it. A challenge to the basis he claimed (set out fully above) would show that what the OC now claims was believed back then.


Which, since we are trading opinions, I think a dud response.


And, as I've noted, this does not involve the divine origin of the authority of Leo's See. If you look at his letters, he is objecting to the claim that C'ple's authority is based on a secular rather than a sacred fact. Which, of course, takes us directly to the claims by Meyendorff and others that in systematising the Patrine claims in the way he does, Leo's period is a crucial one in the developing misunderstanding between the West and the East.

Of course, if the East didn't protest Leo's words, then we are left with three possible alternatives:

1. They were not at all objectionable or new. This leaves Meyendorff etc. misunderstanding what was going on.

2. They were objectionable but no one actually objected; which is a puzzle.

3. Some did object, but given the mess Chalcedon created in the East, it was thought better not to press the point.

peace,

Anglian

I am posting this to continue what we have left off or what you seem to think is evidence...As you admit to the fact (I am generalize here)

Leo had authority but he did not exercise it...for reasons of "unity" or for unity's sake. At least that is what I understand from your post.

Your position to that it was refuted...That how on earth can someone prove that "he had authority" while he did not exercised it ??

Your evidence is indeed little considering your argument and that comes forth from what logic dictates.

 

[Anglian]

6000 words in which you can not show anything that proves Leo thought he had power that you think he did.

Any time I've asked you to show something more specific you simply point back to this mass of words and say that it's in there, somewhere.

No, if you pay attention you'd see I pointed to specific posts; there's really not point my keep telling you, you keep ignoring me and then complaining you're expected to read a 'mass of words'. I don't mind doing the research, but it would be noce to feel you were reading it.

We've already gone over where you yourself tried to explain why he didn't/couldn't exercise power - perhaps because he did not have the backing of Emperor and army. Given that he exhibited no power then I would say that is 'evidence-lite'. Making excuses for him not exhibiting it simply confirms you can't demonstrate that he had it

.
It has been pointed out several times that an inability to exercise power is not the same as not having it. The power concerned is one you keep ignoring by dint of the red herring of Canon 28. The power Leo claimed was that of pronouncing on the orthodoxy of a particular expression of the Faith; this your Fathers concurred in. Of course, using your peculiar argument, since they were unable to enforce it, they didn't have the power in the first place, Of course, that rather leaves Orthodoxy;s reliance on the so-called ecumenical Councils in a mess since Ephesus I and Chalcedon were not accepted by large portions of the Church. Does this mean that no one has the power to pronounce on what is Orthodox since they can't enforce that? Welcome to Protestantism my friend,

The argument that he just must have doesn't sit well. I agree that you have cited some people who believe the same thing you do, but they're not showing evidence to that either. You're more than welcome to cite additional historians saying Leo had power. Perhaps enough of you saying so makes it so??? (I've already gone over reasons why people would want to argue that he had developed power).

Well, since no one seems to have the power to make everyone believe what even an Ecumenical Council says is so, on your argument no one has the power to pronounce on what is orthodox. Since someone must, there would seem to be a flw in your argument (like it is wrong?)

I've no idea why you are posting - you won't answer specific questions then argue you've no evidence of him exercising any power you think he had (in his own mind) anyway.

Sorry, didn't realise that in posting here I had to explain myself to you? You sure you're Benedict XVI?

Did you have anything to add?

A little humour never hurts - do try it sometime

You're more than welcome to re-hash about that nasty Emperor attacking Alexandria again.

Sorry if the misdeeds of Constantinople were supposed to be swept under the carpet.

peace,

Anglian

 

[Anglian]

I am posting this to continue what we have left off or what you seem to think is evidence...As you admit to the fact (I am generalize here)

Leo had authority but he did not exercise it...for reasons of "unity" or for unity's sake. At least that is what I understand from your post.

Your position to that it was refuted...That how on earth can someone prove that "he had authority" while he did not exercised it ??

Your evidence is indeed little considering your argument and that comes forth from what logic dictates.

The authority was that of pronouncing on what was and was not an orthodox expression of Christology. That Leo did in his tome, accepted by your Fathers and the Roman Fathers. Since they were unable to enforce that power does it follow that no one had that authority?

If so, you have, several centuries after the event, reinvented Protestantism.

peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The authority was that of pronouncing on what was and was not an orthodox expression of Christology. That Leo did in his tome, accepted by your Fathers and the Roman Fathers. Since they were unable to enforce that power does it follow that no one had that authority?

If so, you have, several centuries after the event, reinvented Protestantism.

peace,

Anglian

Authority......Jesus......

John 5:45 "No be ye supposing that I shall be accusing of-ye toward the Father, is the one-accusing of-ye, Moses into whom ye have hoped"
[Reve 12:10]

Reve 12:10 And I hear great voice in the Heaven saying "now became the salvation and the power and the Kingdom of the God of us, and the authority of the Christ of Him,
that was cast the Accuser of the brothers of us, the one-accusing them in sight of the God of us day and night.
[John 5:45]

 

[Philothei]

Sorry if the misdeeds of Constantinople were supposed to be swept under the carpet.

Resorting to cheep anti-orthodox polemics .... I see...