Arguments against the Supremacy of the Papacy/Petrine Primacy?

[Alonso_Castillo]

The irony of Pope Gregory's protest always strikes me as almost humorous given how things have turned out...

Yes, Pope Gregory rejected an Ecumenical Title on the patriarch of Constantinople, and you use it as proof agains the jurisdiction of Rome over the chuch, but Have the patriarch of Constantinople rejected to use such tittle? then who is right,Saint Gregory Pope or the "Ecumenical" Patriarchs? Your proof is at less contradictory to your own stand.

 

[Thekla]

No please, no !!!

Not the decontextualized quote mines again

 

[Ignatius21]

No please, no !!!

Not the decontextualized quote mines again

Is there any other kind?

 

[tapi]

Why is Alonso_Castillo allowed to derail every debate thread on this forum ?

 

[Ignatius21]

Why is Alonso_Castillo allowed to derail every debate thread on this forum ?

Because he has irrefutable one-liners from St. John Chrysostom that completely render all other discussion moot

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Why is Alonso_Castillo allowed to derail every debate thread on this forum ?

derail?

I am giving arguments on the thread, this a debate area, isn't it?

 

[choirfiend]

Catholics in my area regularly use white wine in communion. What's up with THAT??!

 

[Ignatius21]

derail?

I am giving arguments on the thread, this a debate area, isn't it?

Alonso,

I apologize for my snarky comment earlier...it was meant in jest but probably didn't come across that way.

With due respect, I would suggest that the past few posts you've contributed haven't so much been "arguments" as smatterings of isolated quotations from church fathers (separated from each other by hundreds of years) put forward as the last word on a complex issue. I think your posts are coming across (in some cases) more as attempts to stifle argument than contribute to it.

Very few who've converted to Orthodoxy (as many of us in this forum have) did so without running across the arguments for and agains the Papacy, among other issues. So we've seen these same quotations from Irenaeus, Chrysostom, etc. almost ad nauseum. And it isn't difficult to find refutations of the use of these quotes by Catholic apologists, showing that these fathers read quite differently when their broader contexts are considered.

The problem with debate forums is that it takes only seconds for someone (of any background) to cut-and-paste a dozen church father quotes as evidence...and could take days of analysis to actually respond to. And at that point, it's more efficient to recommend books on that topic because our responses aren't likely to cover any new ground.

So if someone on this forum responds with an eye-roll when you post these quotes, it may come across as rude or dismissive, and we probably all should try to be more respectful. But please realize we've seen these SAME QUOTES before, MANY times, and have read rebuttals and concluded that these quotes are far from sufficient to establish the modern doctrines by whch Rome defines itself.

I've met Catholic scholars who can't stand the materials published by "pop" Apologists (described by one history professor as "rabid ex-evangelical convert seekers") precisely because they believe these apologists (with good intentions) misuse and oversimplify the church fathers, and misunderstand the complexities of history. These scholars are of course still Catholic (I work at a Catholic university) but think there are far better reasons to be such, and wish the apologists would quit publishing materials that can be easily refuted.

OK...I've met two such scholars...but these guys knew their stuff

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Catholics in my area regularly use white wine in communion. What's up with THAT??!

don't know

 

[Macarius]

Considering to go EO on the base of Petrine supremacy on the church fathers, is quite distubing to me, is as if you were saying that the Catholic Church to which the church father belong is out of their teachings.

Circular. You assume the fathers were Roman Catholic and / or that the Orthodox Church is not Catholic. Obviously, the issue at stake is that we disagree on this very point. I could say, for example, that I find it disturbing when Roman Catholics quote church fathers as if they were saying that the Orthodox Church to which the church fathers belong is now outside of their teachings...

In other words, we can each assert what you say here, and it doesn't move the discussion forward.

Well I will give you the proof that EO understanding of petrine role in our days is far from the understanding of the petrine role that the first Patriarch of Constantinople had, to you, Saint John Chrysostom.

He wasn't the first - the second ec. council (which created the patriarchate of Constantinople) occurred while one of the Cappadocians (a Gregory, but I always forget which one) was bishop of Constantinople.

Also, St. John Chrysostom is a bad, bad person to use as an example of pro-papal argument since he was ordained by, served under, and remained in communion with a patriarch of Antioch who was out of communion with Rome. For MUCH of his life, St. Chrysostom lived out of communion with Rome, and saw no (zero, nada) problem with this in terms of his Orthodoxy or Catholicity.

The fact that Rome excommunicated his patriarch in Antioch (because Rome preferred a different candidate for the patriarchal see) not only didn't bother Chrysostom (implying that Chrysostom did NOT believe the pope to have the authority to select or depose bishops), it doesn't even show up in his writings. In other words, he didn't see it as controversial enough to write about or attempt to defend.

He took it as NORMAL that Rome would be unable / not-allowed-to select and depose a bishop outside of its canonical authority.

His very life, no matter how many quotes you pull from him, stands as direct evidence AGAINST the assertion of a papal tradition. Then, oddly enough, you choose to pull quotes that, to be blunt, prove my prior point (that the arguments for a papal tradition are largely anachronistic) to a tee:

Saint John Chrysostom
Homily 88 on the Gospel of John

CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 88 on the Gospel of John (Chrysostom)
John 21:19

Read the quote. It just says He gave the authority to St. Peter. It says nothing of passing that on to Rome. It says nothing of that authority passing exclusively to Rome (and not, say, to the other Petrine sees of Antioch or Alexandria or Jerusalem). It says nothing of that authority allowing St. Peter (or any successor of St. Peter) to have absolute authority over the Church, nor of St. Peter (or any successor) having infallibility of any kind, nor of the appointment or deposition of bishops, nor of the authority OVER the collegial authority of the bishops...

In short, this quote says nothing. Well, nothing that the Orthodox don't already agree with. Christ gave St. Peter a rank of first among the apostles. We all, already, agree with that.

Your assumption that this IMPLIES the entirety of the (much later developing) Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy is very, very anachronistic. You are reading it back into the text, when the words you hope to find there just don't exist.

Saint John Chrysostom

Homily 54 on the Gospel of Mathew
CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 54 on Matthew (Chrysostom)
...

Same response as above. This quote is 100% right, and yet says absolutely nothing that you hope to imply it says. Your read is anachronistic, and provides further evidence to the point I made in my first post. Namely: the forgeries helped create the papacy by giving the illusion of a strong and irrefutable papal tradition in the Church; by the time they were exposed the papacy was established and self-authenticating; now, to argue for it, the Roman Catholic must assert that a seed of the papacy existed and anachronistically read the papacy back into quotes that don't really support it (as it, in the modern sense, really didn't exist at the time).

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Alonso,

I apologize for my snarky comment earlier...it was meant in jest but probably didn't come across that way.

With due respect, I would suggest that the past few posts you've contributed haven't so much been "arguments" as smatterings of isolated quotations from church fathers (separated from each other by hundreds of years) put forward as the last word on a complex issue. I think your posts are coming across (in some cases) more as attempts to stifle argument than contribute to it.

Very few who've converted to Orthodoxy (as many of us in this forum have) did so without running across the arguments for and agains the Papacy, among other issues. So we've seen these same quotations from Irenaeus, Chrysostom, etc. almost ad nauseum. And it isn't difficult to find refutations of the use of these quotes by Catholic apologists, showing that these fathers read quite differently when their broader contexts are considered.

The problem with debate forums is that it takes only seconds for someone (of any background) to cut-and-paste a dozen church father quotes as evidence...and could take days of analysis to actually respond to. And at that point, it's more efficient to recommend books on that topic because our responses aren't likely to cover any new ground.

So if someone on this forum responds with an eye-roll when you post these quotes, it may come across as rude or dismissive, and we probably all should try to be more respectful. But please realize we've seen these SAME QUOTES before, MANY times, and have read rebuttals and concluded that these quotes are far from sufficient to establish the modern doctrines by whch Rome defines itself.

I've met Catholic scholars who can't stand the materials published by "pop" Apologists (described by one history professor as "rabid ex-evangelical convert seekers") precisely because they believe these apologists (with good intentions) misuse and oversimplify the church fathers, and misunderstand the complexities of history. These scholars are of course still Catholic (I work at a Catholic university) but think there are far better reasons to be such, and wish the apologists would quit publishing materials that can be easily refuted.

OK...I've met two such scholars...but these guys knew their stuff

You know, I find your argument quite similar to those of Protestants when confronted with Bible Alone proof. I have seen that when making apologetics with protestants, we catholics have to go to Bible alone, to speak in their terms, and show them that they are wrong in the terms they can stand, because they are more open to Bible than to Tradition. And yet, when we use Bible alone arguments they appeal to "Interpretation" then one falls into the account that 34000 denominations are a matter of "intepretation of the Bible"

While in the case of EOs We have to go not to bible alone, because that is not the way we can aproach you, but to, lets say, "Tradition alone", including Church History, Church Fathers, Councils. And yet, as it happens with Protestants, You too appeal to "Interpretation of the Tradition", and that renders a wide variety of positions among Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, with those who want a reunification with Rome, and those who Anatemize the first ones only for thinking it, calling them Papist, isn´t that true?

So yes, perhaps for you the repeating of this arguments makes you sick, get you a headache, or sore your eyes, but that is only because you have accepted another interpretation of these passages, which is more elaborated than the simpliest way, they meant what they say.

 

[Antony in Tx]

Alonso,

I will say again, what I have said before. You repeating the same tired arguments is not winning friends or influencing people. You come across as very condescending and hostile much of the time. We are not in here to have you "set us straight". If it bothers you that people get tired of your comments and become snarky in return, I would respectfully suggest you just go away, as you have made absolutely zero headway in terms of any real discussion as far as I can see. Yes, this is a debate forum, but it seems that people here have little problem with debating anyone but you. I would suggest some strong introspection...

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

Alonso,

I will say again, what I have said before. You repeating the same tired arguments is not winning friends or influencing people. You come across as very condescending and hostile much of the time. We are not in here to have you "set us straight". If it bothers you that people get tired of your comments and become snarky in return, I would respectfully suggest you just go away, as you have made absolutely zero headway in terms of any real discussion as far as I can see. Yes, this is a debate forum, but it seems that people here have little problem with debating anyone but you. I would suggest some strong introspection...

off topic. Sorry.

 

[Ignatius21]

You know, I find your argument quite similar to those of Protestants when confronted with Bible Alone proof. I have seen that when making apologetics with protestants, we catholics have to go to Bible alone, to speak in their terms, and show them that they are wrong in the terms they can stand, because they are more open to Bible than to Tradition. And yet, when we use Bible alone arguments they appeal to "Interpretation" then one falls into the account that 34000 denominations are a matter of "intepretation of the Bible"

I spent a good number of years as a Protestant. I listened to many hours of debates between Protestants and Catholics. It was these debates that convinced me that Catholic apologists, by necessity of proving to themselves that which they already accept, are driven to anachronistically read their later dogmas backward into both the Church Fathers and the Scriptures. Frankly, in listening to those arguments and debates, it wasn't the arguments from Scripture that compelled me to reject the Roman Catholic view of itself...it was their handling of history and the very Church Fathers you're quoting. So quite ironically, it seemed to me that while Protestants failed to establish their own doctrines in the stream of church history, they at least demonstrated the implausibility of Rome's arguments from history. That left me as a Protestant because, until Orthodoxy, it appeared to be the best I had.

And there are not 34,000 denominations. That figure has been disproven and discredited more times than I'd care to cite, including by Catholics who appeal to their fellow apologists to quit using that figure. It's part of the Hahn-Matatics-Armstrong-Akins apologetics gattling gun, and that chamber is empty.

While in the case of EOs We have to go not to bible alone, because that is not the way we can aproach you, but to, lets say, "Tradition alone", including Church History, Church Fathers, Councils. And yet, as it happens with Protestants, You too appeal to "Interpretation of the Tradition", and that renders a wide variety of positions among Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, with those who want a reunification with Rome, and those who Anatemize the first ones only for thinking it, calling them Papist, isn´t that true?

Thank you for condescending to our level. It's very kind of you.

So yes, perhaps for you the repeating of this arguments makes you sick, get you a headache, or sore your eyes, but that is only because you have accepted another interpretation of these passages, which are more elaborated than the simpliest way, they meant what they say.

And we sound like Protestants? How many times have you heard Protestants say "You Catholics get headaches only because you've accepted another interpretation of these passages [in Scripture], which are simple, they mean what they say!" What is self-evident to you, is not so to the rest of us.

Macarius provided quite a good example of why zippy one-liners from church fathers can't stand alone to prove, or disprove, a specific point so easily as you seem to think they can. Read in context, they often prove to be utterly irrelevant to the dogmas they claim to support. But if you presuppose Rome to be right and infallible, then Chrysostom's quotes must mean what you say they mean, no matter how implausible they seem.

 

[Thekla]

derail?

I am giving arguments on the thread, this a debate area, isn't it?

Hi again, Alonso !

Decontextualized quotes are not arguments, nor are they 'meaningful'. An author's entire corpus, the historical context, actions over the course of the life, rhetorical conceit (style), intended audience, etc. are all crucial for an accurate "read" of any statement by an author.

IE, the lifted quotes are not counter arguments.

There is no dogma of Ecclesiology found in the ECouncils.

 

[RobNJ]

off topic. Sorry.

If you mean most of YOUR posts in this thread are off topic, I agree.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I spent a good number of years as a Protestant. I listened to many hours of debates between Protestants and Catholics. It was these debates that convinced me that Catholic apologists, by necessity of proving to themselves that which they already accept, are driven to anachronistically read their later dogmas backward into both the Church Fathers and the Scriptures. Frankly, in listening to those arguments and debates, it wasn't the arguments from Scripture that compelled me to reject the Roman Catholic view of itself...it was their handling of history and the very Church Fathers you're quoting. So quite ironically, it seemed to me that while Protestants failed to establish their own doctrines in the stream of church history, they at least demonstrated the implausibility of Rome's arguments from history. That left me as a Protestant because, until Orthodoxy, it appeared to be the best I had.

And there are not 34,000 denominations. That figure has been disproven and discredited more times than I'd care to cite, including by Catholics who appeal to their fellow apologists to quit using that figure. It's part of the Hahn-Matatics-Armstrong-Akins apologetics gattling gun, and that chamber is empty.



Thank you for condescending to our level. It's very kind of you.



And we sound like Protestants? How many times have you heard Protestants say "You Catholics get headaches only because you've accepted another interpretation of these passages [in Scripture], which are simple, they mean what they say!" What is self-evident to you, is not so to the rest of us.

Macarius provided quite a good example of why zippy one-liners from church fathers can't stand alone to prove, or disprove, a specific point so easily as you seem to think they can. Read in context, they often prove to be utterly irrelevant to the dogmas they claim to support. But if you presuppose Rome to be right and infallible, then Chrysostom's quotes must mean what you say they mean, no matter how implausible they seem.

I will answer to you more widely but just to give you a reference of what I said, on the 34000 denominations, go to this link:

World Christian Database now online - International Student Ministry - InterVarsity.org

 

[Ignatius21]

I will answer to you more widely but just to give you a reference of what I said, on the 34000 denominations, go to this link:

World Christian Database now online - International Student Ministry - InterVarsity.org

The problem is that "denomination" can be variously interpreted and defined. I believe that same source includes multiple Catholic groups as "denominations."

One reference, from here (Pugio Fidei), a Catholic apologetics site under "Arguments Catholics Shouldn't Use":

1. Alleging that there are 33,000 Protestant denominations. This tally comes from the 2001 World Christian Encyclopedia, and it includes all denominations and paradenominations which self-identify as Christian, including Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants, Old Catholics, Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Gnostics, Bogomils, etc. And even so, the number is too high. The World Christian Encyclopedia artificially inflates the number of Catholic "denominations" by counting Eastern Churches in communion with Rome as separate denominations. It likewise inflates the number of Eastern Orthodox "denominations" by counting Churches in communion with each other as distinct.

This reference lists 8,973 denominations under the heading "Protestant," and 22,146 more under the heading "Independent." Some, but not all, of the "independent" denominations may justly be described as Protestant. Still, these numbers may be inflated similarly to the numbers for Catholics and Orthodox. Suffice it to say that there are thousands of Protestant denominations.

Moreover, even if we could arrive at an accurate tally for Protestant denominations (20,000?), we still could not blame the whole of that number on Sola Scriptura. Some of these churches share substantial unity in faith, even if they are juridically independent (perhaps due to geography). And much of the disunity of faith within Protestantism, at least in the developed world, stems from efforts to subordinate the authority of Scripture (e.g., to various sexual perversions). In reality, if every Protestant denomination were serious and consistent in affirming and applying the rule of Sola Scriptura, the spectrum of Protestant belief would be significantly narrower. It bears emphasizing: the only thing for which we can directly blame Sola Scriptura is the extent to which it fails to provide unity in true faith and morals to those who sincerely adhere to it, e.g., "orthodox" Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Anglicans, Methodists

Granted there are many, many Protestant denominations that are not in communion with each other, that much is true, but I find often that the number "33,000" (or 34,000...now it's growing!) is used primarily for shock value.

 

[Alonso_Castillo]

I spent a good number of years as a Protestant. I listened to many hours of debates between Protestants and Catholics. It was these debates that convinced me that Catholic apologists, by necessity of proving to themselves that which they already accept, are driven to anachronistically read their later dogmas backward into both the Church Fathers and the Scriptures. Frankly, in listening to those arguments and debates, it wasn't the arguments from Scripture that compelled me to reject the Roman Catholic view of itself...it was their handling of history and the very Church Fathers you're quoting. So quite ironically, it seemed to me that while Protestants failed to establish their own doctrines in the stream of church history, they at least demonstrated the implausibility of Rome's arguments from history. That left me as a Protestant because, until Orthodoxy, it appeared to be the best I had. .

Yes, I imagined that, in fact that is a real problem among orthodox, they are been infiltrated by protestants, converts that don’t kneel before sacred things or that refuse to kiss icons, they only carry their anti-Catholicism into Orthodoxy, and as a matter of fact Protestant arguments are also used by converts to Orthodoxy against Catholicism, particularly against Rome’s primacy of jurisdiction. And yes, I also see many Protestants that argue against Rome using EO arguments, in that way we see that extremes meet. This meeting point is pure anti-Catholicism, because it limits the scope of the whole Catholic Church in the see of Rome, while there are more than 3000 dioceses in communion with Rome and many of them have never broke with it.

And there are not 34,000 denominations. That figure has been disproven and discredited more times than I'd care to cite, including by Catholics who appeal to their fellow apologists to quit using that figure. It's part of the Hahn-Matatics-Armstrong-Akins apologetics gattling gun, and that chamber is empty.

I will review thw source you gave and tell you my coments. But My sourc is not a catholic source.

Thank you for condescending to our level. It's very kind of you.

Sorry I don’t mean to be rude.

And we sound like Protestants? How many times have you heard Protestants say "You Catholics get headaches only because you've accepted another interpretation of these passages [in Scripture], which are simple, they mean what they say!" What is self-evident to you, is not so to the rest of us.

Yes the fact is that we can answer to them not with elaborated theories, but bible in hand, Do you want to try?

Macarius provided quite a good example of why zippy one-liners from church fathers can't stand alone to prove, or disprove, a specific point so easily as you seem to think they can. Read in context, they often prove to be utterly irrelevant to the dogmas they claim to support. But if you presuppose Rome to be right and infallible, then Chrysostom's quotes must mean what you say they mean, no matter how implausible they seem.

We must have into account that the older the reference the better, and as I told you, Saint John Chrysostom was the first Patriarch of Constantinople, and his homilies on the verses of the Gospels of Mathew and John that explains openly the role of Peter in the church are fully in agreement of the Catholic teaching. If subsequent patriarchs or eastern teachers taught different, then they were not being quite orthodox.

 

[tapi]

We must have into account that the older the reference the better, and as I told you, Saint John Chrysostom was the first Patriarch of Constantinople, and his homilies on the verses of the Gospels of Mathew and John that explains openly the role of Peter in the church are fully in agreement of the Catholic teaching. If subsequent patriarchs or eastern teachers taught different, then they were not being quite orthodox.

Either you are not able to comprehend the arguments other people are making in this discussion or you are intentionally employing a tactic of "answering" well thought-out points made by other posters by spewing out unrelated stuff.

In either case I'd respectfully ask you to refrain from "debating" as you aren't going to convince anybody of the RCC's superiority with this random argumentation, and too many threads on TAW are already quite hard to read through due you to insistently filling them with pointless yanking.