Why do you reject the pope?

[Philothei]

I don't know enough about church history to comment on this.

If you do not know then do not discuss.. IMHO if you put on quotes you will be responsible for discussing them

 

[Philothei]

Constantinople was political too. There wasn't any separation of church and state. The Schism was a power struggle.

Prove it! Rome was a state and the Pope was its leader.. .Of course there was seperation of church and state in the Byzantine state..... The phony council in Ferrara was by the Emperor... He did not succeed as the clergy and laity thought of it otherwise with Mark of Ephesus... I proved it to you that what you say does not stand... Rome was political since it changed the faith into a state... Was Peter a leader of the Roman Empire?

 

[Mikeb85]

I don't know enough about church history to comment on this. But I have read that the Rome was involved in what the other churches were doing, like for example sending the letter to the Corinthian church. (mentioned in one of those quotes)

The fact is, no matter the claims, the quotes which supposedly confirm them, Rome never actually demonstrated any supremacy over any other Patriarchal see. She was not present at several Ecumenical councils, and when Rome objected to a canon of the council of Chalcedon, it didn't matter - the rest of the church still accepted it.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

.

 

[Mikeb85]

Constantinople was political too. There wasn't any separation of church and state. The Schism was a power struggle.

Actually it was quite the opposite. The church and state in Constantinople were very separate.

But you're right, the schism was a power struggle. Rome trying to assume power it never had.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

The fact is, no matter the claims, the quotes which supposedly confirm them, Rome never actually demonstrated any supremacy over any other Patriarchal see. She was not present at several Ecumenical councils, and when Rome objected to a canon of the council of Chalcedon, it didn't matter - the rest of the church still accepted it.

what about this?

Council of Sardica

"f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province" (canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

"f some bishop be deposed by the judgment of the bishops sitting in the neighborhood, and if he declare that he will seek further redress, another should not be appointed to his see until the bishop of Rome can be acquainted with the case and render a judgment" (canon 4).

Pope Julius I

"[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. ... What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you" (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

was Julius just making things up? why would he say this custom existed if it never did?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Actually it was quite the opposite. The church and state in Constantinople were very separate.

But you're right, the schism was a power struggle. Rome trying to assume power it never had.

that's just one opinion. the other one is that Constantinople was trying to make itself equal to Rome though it was not.. they even said, the "New Rome" should be second to the "Old Rome":

"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome"

 

[Philothei]

that's just one opinion. the other one is that Constantinople was trying to make itself equal to Rome though it was not.. they even said, the "New Rome" should be second to the "Old Rome":

"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome"

Yeah it is the New Rome since Rome fell into the papal heresy of Superiority and infallabilty I do not blame them ..... If someone of your brothers said.....No I am the leader since I have political power you have to bow in front of me... then the other four brothers will try to react and do find a primacy ...among equals as it should have been from the beginning instead they were confronted with a secular leader wanted to subdued everyone under his authority ....that was never intented despite the quote mines...you presented....

 

[E.C.]

that's just one opinion. the other one is that Constantinople was trying to make itself equal to Rome though it was not.. they even said, the "New Rome" should be second to the "Old Rome":

That's because that actually... makes sense!

Rome (Old) was granted primacy because it was the capital of the Roman Empire. All that meant was that if there was a meeting of bishops and the bishop of Rome was involved, he sat at the head of the table.

"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome"

Which means that Constantinople sits at the Number Two position after the bishop of Rome has the head should the two ever be in the same meeting, which I highly doubt ever happened. Either way, that is merely honor and rank. When military officers meet, who gets the head of the table; the lieutenant who received his commission in May of '06 or the lieutenant who received his commission in April of '06? The one from April because he gets a small bit of honor among this small meeting of two lieutenants. But, because they are of the same rank, one can not order the other what to do.

The same works here. Rome (Old) gets the head of the table because he was the capital of the Empire while Constantinople (New Rome) gets the number two spot at the table because he is now the capital. But that is all more or less academic because it in no way, shape or form proves that Rome had supremacy because 1) the bishop of Rome himself hardly ever left Rome for the councils and sent at most his legates and 2) it is purely an honor thing, not an authority thing.

And of course when Old Roman Brother cut his branch off of the Church, the guy who gets the head of the table is New Rome, Constantinople.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Yeah it is the New Rome since Rome fell into the papal heresy of Superiority and infallabilty I do not blame them ..... If someone of your brothers said.....No I am the leader since I have political power you have to bow in front of me... then the other four brothers will try to react and do find a primacy ...among equals as it should have been from the beginning instead they were confronted with a secular leader wanted to subdued everyone under his authority ....that was never intented despite the quote mines...you presented....

the Pope and his supporters didn't talk about his political power, but about Christ's words to Peter - You are the rock and upon this rock I will build My Church. The argument for the Papacy was theological, not just politics.

 

[Philothei]

that's just one opinion.

what makes yours a "non-opinion" ? We have the crusades, the Papal state and pelnty of evidence that the Pope wanted secular power over the rest of Christendom... Wherever he occupied in Greece he imposed Catholicism.... That is hardly any evidence that he was not "forcing" his authority in the local churches... As the Church of Rome never had any right neither any such practice prior to 600 AD .....It is not part of the Christian ecclesiology... and you will not find any information about the infallabity in any early church fathers either ....I would not loose my time if I were you...

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Rome (Old) was granted primacy because it was the capital of the Roman Empire. All that meant was that if there was a meeting of bishops and the bishop of Rome was involved, he sat at the head of the table.

but then why was Peter mentioned in support of the primacy of Rome? It was said that Peter wa the head of the Apostles, the rock upon which the church is built, and that his successors share his office.. and this was linked to the unity in the Church.

 

[Philothei]

The argument for the Papacy was theological, not just politics.

not just politics? sure why then the Pope took upon to do the crusades? Why did he suck Constantinople? Are you going to tell us we "deserved it" ? Was that political or theological? God told the RC to suck Constantinople? Divine revelation to go against their fellow Christians?

 

[Mikeb85]

that's just one opinion. the other one is that Constantinople was trying to make itself equal to Rome though it was not.. they even said, the "New Rome" should be second to the "Old Rome":

"The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome"

But the council of Chalcedon (Ecumenical) ascribes the exact same powers and priveleges to Constantinople, even if Constantinople is considered '2nd'. They were to be considered equal, even if Old Rome is numbered first based on age...

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Oki here's the thing I don't like about back and forth debating like this... My point was simply that those who agreed with the Papacy brought up Peter's role as the first among the Apostles in support. Now we're talking about the crusades... I actually get really wearied out from back and forth arguments, unfortunately that's just how forums are

soo... I think I'm just going to go and pray instead about everything.

I noticed everyone has a really good argument for their position. When I ask here, you give me all these facts etc. When I ask at OBOB, they give me facts too. So. how do you tell who's right. The truth is, history can be twisted either way, to support ANYTHING. I'm just going to do what I've always done, and rely on prayer. Because honestly, history is rarely presented the way it actually happened. Many people want to make the Schism sound much more simple than it really was.

God bless.

 

[Mikeb85]

Monica, you also posted Optatus' writings in full, which is appreciated. In arguing against the Donatists, Optatus put forward a view of Apostolic succession which basically asserts that schismatics and heretics don't have apostolic succession. Basically saying that to have true succession, they must be a part of the church and not merely have 'mechanical' apostolic succession (his constant references to Rome are also due in great part to the location where Optatus was based - North Africa was completely dominated by Rome, and had little to no contact with the East - this is why his writings, as well as those of St. Augustine and others were never translated into Greek until well after the schism).

Anyhow, his writings can even be used against the Roman church today - no matter what Rome's authority once was, if she indeed changed the faith (as Orthodox believe), according to the principles Optatus speaks about, she wouldn't have true apostolic succession, and would be outside the church.

I truly think the whole Catholic/Orthodox argument boils down to this. Does anyone have the authority to change the faith? The RCC would say that the Pope indeed does have that authority, and the Orthodox would say that no one has that authority. Because, like it or not, the RCC believes things that weren't spoken of prior to the schism, and that were not defined in the ecumenical councils prior to the schism.

 

[Philothei]

but then why was Peter mentioned in support of the primacy of Rome? It was said that Peter wa the head of the Apostles, the rock upon which the church is built, and that his successors share his office.. and this was linked to the unity in the Church.

Leadership has nothing to do with being not equal with anyone else.. .I know the west has a hard time with this one... But you cannot have a leader when the leader is already in his seat....Chirst is the rock he is the one sitting in the seat of Peter and always will sit...

Now ... no where is said that the Pope's succesor is to lead his Church... that is pure fiction of an imaginary world... called Roman papacy theory... It is not in the Bible for one thing neirther in the tradition of the EO fahters. Please the unity was never safeguarded by the "universal Bishop" but the local Bishop .... There cannot be two Christs ... the local and the Universal... Each church has one bishop one christ... all the Churches together constitute the universal church We do not need a vicar we have Chriat and we have the Holy Spirit that leads the Church no need for substitutions here...

 

[Philothei]

.

Now we're talking about the crusades...

everything is interconnected ... They are part of the Christian history are they? You argued that the Papacy was theological... wanted to prove to you that it was not....

But that is okay... no worries. A bit more studying maybe ... The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware is a pretty objective book also try the Penguin series ... they are hardly biased... They are not Orthodox neither Catholic

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Monica, you also posted Optatus' writings in full, which is appreciated. In arguing against the Donatists, Optatus put forward a view of Apostolic succession which basically asserts that schismatics and heretics don't have apostolic succession. Basically saying that to have true succession, they must be a part of the church and not merely have 'mechanical' apostolic succession.

I don't know.. the way I understood it, he was saying that if anyone has apostolic succession ..back to the Apostles.. that shows they're in the Church, not part of the heretical group. Cause I think he was speaking to the Gnostics in particular. They didn't have apostolic succession, they just claimed to have some 'hidden knowledge' of the Bible.

Thus, his writings can even be used against the Roman church today - no matter what Rome's authority once was, if she indeed changed the faith (as Orthodox believe), according to the principles Optatus speaks about, she wouldn't have true apostolic succession, and would be outside the church.

I truly think the whole Catholic/Orthodox argument boils down to this. Does anyone have the authority to change the faith? The RCC would say that the Pope indeed does have that authority, and the Orthodox would say that no one has that authority. Because, like it or not, the RCC believes things that weren't spoken of prior to the schism, and that were not defined in the ecumenical councils prior to the schism.

but we don't think we've CHANGED the faith. Simply made things more defined that before were more in the background. Brought them more into focus, gave them new, fuller, terms, that's all. Not changed.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

.

everything is interconnected ... They are part of the Christian history are they? You argued that the Papacy was theological... wanted to prove to you that it was not....

But that is okay... no worries. A bit more studying maybe ... The Orthodox Church by Kallistos Ware is a pretty objective book also try the Penguin series ... they are hardly biased... They are not Orthodox neither Catholic

I said the supporters of the Papacy talk about Peter's role among the Apostles. That is theology, not politics.