For Catholics to consider

Erose · Oct 27, 2011

Montalban said:
From what I see so far there's been denial of the fact that John Chyrsostom wasn't in communion with Rome based on
a) a novel idea of 'communion' involving ignoring a bishop in opposition to the pope
b) denial of the evidence
c) switching to discuss Sardica

I think that encapsulates it so far

I think what has happened so far is that you haven't been able to effectively support your position. For example: some historian claiming that John Chrysostom was never in communion with Rome becaused he was ordained by a Patriarch that was in a state of schism within his own Patriarchate that at the time and did not have the political support of Rome or Alexandria, is not the same as saying this same bishop was within schism with Rome. I don't see this from the historical evidence that Melitius was ever anathemized or excommunicated or accused of not being a bishop by Rome. You haven't supported that claim and the authors you use to support your claim in what I have read did not support that claim either.

Lets say even if there was a schism between Melitius and Rome that would not effect St. John's ordination since even up to this day Rome recognises the power of schismatic bishops to ordain priests validly. Thus if a Orthodox priest wants to convert to Catholicism that priest does not have to go through ordination again for he is already consider ordained.

It should also be pointed out that before the Council of Contantiople, the schism between Melitius and the see of Alexandria was repaired and Melitius' exile was lifted by the emperor. The problem with the schism continuing is due to both Melitius and Paulinus both had viable claims to the see of Antioch so a deal was struck that each would continue to precide over the churches they were already leading.

So as far as I can tell from the historical data that I have seen, Melitius was not a schismatic bishop outside the communion of the Church when he precided over the council of Constantiople. So in that sense the idea of using Melitius and St. John as examples against the primacy of Peter is moot.

The council of Sardica is viable in this discussion since as far I can can discern you are wanting to show that Rome had no authority outside its patriarchate. The council of Sardica says otherwise.

MrPolo · Oct 27, 2011

Montalban said:
You've switched arguments again

I have no idea what you're talking about, but the discussion is obviously going nowhere. I'm sorry.

Montalban · Oct 27, 2011

Erose said:
Council of Trullo; Canon II:

Firstly, you've not addressed the switch.

However we seem to be at cross-purposes...

"...the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424. But, most important of all, the Byzantine Church never submitted itself to papal scrutiny in the manner prescribed by Sardica."
M. Anastos, (2001), Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome, Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series.

The Council of Trullo ALSO ratified the Council of Carthage - see your quote.

The Council of Carthage stated that no one See had jurisdiction over another.

What you seem to think is that the Council of Trullo, by the act of ratifying previous councils is endorsing their ruling. They are not. They are simply recognising the councils as legitimately held.

The Sixth Ecumenical Council - Canon III said this...
Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add,that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.

And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.

But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.
Bishop Hosius Said: this Also it is Necessary to Add...

We have therefore an 'eastern' notion that in certain disputes between Sees they can appeal to the Pope as an ultimate arbiter. This is not SUPERVISION because the Pope has no other right to interfere in other Sees

It's like having a casting vote. Are you saying that the Pope only has a casting vote in the RCC - and only when it's a dispute over a bishopric?

See also Canon IV
Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.
Bishop Gaudentius Said: if it Seems Good to You...

Quite the opposite in the RCC where the Pope has full power over the entire church. There is nothing in these canons about the formation of dogma, nor that in stating dogma does the Pope's approval have to be acquired.

Montalban · Oct 27, 2011

Erose said:
I think what has happened so far is that you haven't been able to effectively support your position.

Imagine that, that I would use 'some historian'!

He's not the only historian used, Thekla provided one too

Montalban · Oct 27, 2011

MrPolo said:
I have no idea what you're talking about, but the discussion is obviously going nowhere. I'm sorry.

Absolutely. One could at least acknowledge the evidence presented.

It could, in principal be wrong, but people here are just saying that none is being presented which is false

Tonks · Oct 27, 2011

Montalban said:
I'd been off this forum for a while writing an article on Wiki...

Orthodox Christian arguments against papal supremacy

Any Catholics who'd care to read it and comment, your feedback would be most welcome.

I've been away for more than a year, too...good to see that things continue apace.

Montalban · Oct 27, 2011

Tonks said:
I've been away for more than a year, too...good to see that things continue apace.

Welcome back. I had to reduce my Wiki article because the argument from other editors was that it was larger than the 'main' article. This made no sense to me, but in the spirit of compromise I did so anyway.

I also note that the application of certain rules is applied highly selectively.

But enough of that. Onto this thread.

Aside from the novel idea that John Chrysostom still accepted the Pope, whilst accepting men above him who were in opposition to the pope, and the claim that no evidence has been presented that he was out of communion - and two books were presented (one by a Catholic), things haven't changed that much here.

I cited the Catholic encyclopedia too that says
"...that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope."

But still apparently he did!

Even when he wrote to three westerners in exactly the same terms, he apparently thought that the Pope was special.

Or, when he praised others as holding the keys, he thought Peter alone held them.

There's just such a wealth of material that's being ignored.

This is because people already, accepting the Papacy, are looking at the evidence with that filer already in mind

Erose · Oct 28, 2011

Montalban said:
Imagine that, that I would use 'some historian'!

He's not the only historian used, Thekla provided one too

And Mr. Polo used one that said the opposite. I have seen no where that displays that Melitius or St. John being either Anathemized or Excommunicated. You and your historians have failed in proving this assertion.

Erose · Oct 28, 2011

Montalban said:
Firstly, you've not addressed the switch.

There has been no switch. If I remember correctly you addressed this council in your opposition part of the Wiki article.

Montalban said:
However we seem to be at cross-purposes...

"...the canons were repudiated by the African Church in 418 and 424. But, most important of all, the Byzantine Church never submitted itself to papal scrutiny in the manner prescribed by Sardica."
M. Anastos, (2001), Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium (Political Theory, Theology, and Ecclesiastical Relations with the See of Rome, Ashgate Publications, Variorum Collected Studies Series.

This is a false assertion. When a council or synod is recognized by another council or synod it is agreeing to that council. That logic has been used by both East and West. You just can't pick and choose which synods or councils are accepted. That is being disengenious.

Montalban said:
The Council of Trullo ALSO ratified the Council of Carthage - see your quote.

The Council of Carthage stated that no one See had jurisdiction over another.

Which canon did this? Please quote or provide the canon that you are referring to. I have looked through this synod's canons and have not found what you are referring to.

Montalban said:
What you seem to think is that the Council of Trullo, by the act of ratifying previous councils is endorsing their ruling. They are not. They are simply recognising the councils as legitimately held.

You going to have to provide better historical background for this. Everywhere I have seen people refer to the ratification of synods it is accepting those synods and the rulings thereof.

Montalban said:
We have therefore an 'eastern' notion that in certain disputes between Sees they can appeal to the Pope as an ultimate arbiter. This is not SUPERVISION because the Pope has no other right to interfere in other Sees

It's like having a casting vote. Are you saying that the Pope only has a casting vote in the RCC - and only when it's a dispute over a bishopric?

Two points: 1) ultimate arbiter. 2) What is the authority of a patriarch in the Orthodox communion? Does he have any authority whatsoever over the eparchies in his patriarchate or is he a figurehead?

Montalban said:
See also Canon IV
Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.
Bishop Gaudentius Said: if it Seems Good to You...

Which council?

Montalban said:
Quite the opposite in the RCC where the Pope has full power over the entire church. There is nothing in these canons about the formation of dogma, nor that in stating dogma does the Pope's approval have to be acquired.

So any bishop can form his own dogma?

Erose · Oct 28, 2011

Montalban said:
Or, when he praised others as holding the keys, he thought Peter alone held them.

There's just such a wealth of material that's being ignored.

This is because people already, accepting the Papacy, are looking at the evidence with that filer already in mind

Who else the Jesus give His keys to?

Standing Up · Oct 28, 2011

Erose said:
And Mr. Polo used one that said the opposite. I have seen no where that displays that Melitius or St. John being either Anathemized or Excommunicated. You and your historians have failed in proving this assertion.

So, what's the point whether Chrysostom was in communion or not with Rome?

Standing Up · Oct 28, 2011

Erose said:
-snip-
This is a false assertion. When a council or synod is recognized by another council or synod it is agreeing to that council. That logic has been used by both East and West. You just can't pick and choose which synods or councils are accepted. That is being disengenious.
-snip-

Hey, I've argued that too without avail. Good luck.

JCFantasy23 · Oct 28, 2011

MOD HAT ON

Hey everyone, I did a mini cleanup farther back in the thread because of some reports. Please stay on topic, thanks.

Montalban · Oct 28, 2011

Erose said:
And Mr. Polo used one that said the opposite.

Firstly, that's now a different post from denying ANY evidence has been presented.

You've just moved on passed that error. The error being multiple posters here totally denying any evidence to that fact being presented at all. Rather than acknowledge that as an error, you move on to a different argument which is to say that towards the two authors saying he was out of communion Mr Polo has produced one saying that he was in communion. Anyway, to this latest position I say; no, not quite.

I addressed that already post #177. It is Dom Chapman's address to Puller's statement that John Chrysostom was not in communion.

His argument is that although he 'suggests' that Meletius was out of communion (he doesn't quite go so far to even admit that) that a person who takes holy orders from a person in schism from Rome is himself not in schism from Rome.

This is to me a novel take on Catholic canon. And I asked for further info on this and got none.

"Out of communion" does not mean to be "ex-communicated". You can formally rebel against Rome and stop going to church without ever being officially excommunicated. Or, are you suggesting that you can be in the church and believe and do whatever you want?

I'm waiting for this to be dropped and a new 'evidence' to be presented - like what happened with Sardica suddenly being raised.

Montalban · Oct 28, 2011

Erose said:
There has been no switch. If I remember correctly you addressed this council in your opposition part of the Wiki article.

We however weren't talking about the entire article.

Erose said:
This is a false assertion. When a council or synod is recognized by another council or synod it is agreeing to that council. That logic has been used by both East and West. You just can't pick and choose which synods or councils are accepted. That is being disengenious.

You mean like the Pope accepting one council, but not Canon XXVIII for centuries?

Erose said:
Which canon did this? Please quote or provide the canon that you are referring to. I have looked through this synod's canons and have not found what you are referring to.

That's in the article!
Footnotes:
"It remains, that upon this same matter each of us should bring forward what we think, judging no man, nor rejecting any one from the right of communion, if he should think differently from us. For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." The Seventh Council of Carthage; The Synod held at Carthage over which presided the Great and Holy Martyr Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage.

No bishop can be set up to judge another bishop.

It's why, if you read the article Cyprian defied the Pope in the matter of donatism and Augustine argued that he had a right to do so

Erose said:
You going to have to provide better historical background for this.

That's the article!

Erose said:
Two points: 1) ultimate arbiter. 2) What is the authority of a patriarch in the Orthodox communion?

I've already responded to this irrelevance.

Erose said:
Which council?

Look at the link! The Sixth Ecumenical Council.

Erose said:
So any bishop can form his own dogma?

Bishops have, like Arius. Whether it's accepted or not is another matter.

Montalban · Oct 28, 2011

Erose said:
Who else the Jesus give His keys to?

That's in the article too! I've already addressed the 'sola scriptura' argument Catholics suddenly wish to adhere to over this.

Montalban · Oct 28, 2011

The issue with John Chyrsostom is that Catholics want to argue Papal Supremacy based on a person who defied the Pope!

Even the Catholic Encyclopedia notes no evidence from John Chrysostom supports Papal Supremacy.

Why is this important? Because Catholics also want to use his words as evidence that he supports Papal Primacy.

Based on a person who offers no such evidence and who accepted me in schism from Rome - and therefore not in communion with Rome.

Montalban · Oct 29, 2011

Turning again to the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Schism (from the Greek schisma, rent, division) is, in the language of theology and canon law, the rupture of ecclesiastical union and unity, i.e. either the act by which one of the faithful severs as far as in him lies the ties which bind him to the social organization of the Church and make him a member of the mystical body of Christ, or the state of dissociation or separation which is the result of that act.
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Schism

For Catholics arguing here they have to suppose that someone who is in schism from Rome is still in communion with Rome AND that people acknowledging schismatics as legitimate bishops are also likewise in communion with Rome

The Catholic church calls the episode the Meletian schism

I've never been formally excommunicated, and as I was baptised and confirmed by the Catholic church I must, by their logic, still be in communion with Rome, regardless of what I believe to be true, because there is no evidence that I've been excommunicated from Rome!

Remarkably 'open' church.

ivebeenshown · Oct 29, 2011

Montalban said:
That's in the article too! I've already addressed the 'sola scriptura' argument Catholics suddenly wish to adhere to over this.

How is disagreeing with the statements of one or two early fathers, but acknowledging magisterial teaching, equivalent to practicing Sola Scriptura?

Montalban · Oct 29, 2011

ivebeenshown said:
How is disagreeing with the statements of one or two early fathers, but acknowledging magisterial teaching, equivalent to practicing Sola Scriptura?

a) Firstly it's not one or two, but re-emphasising evidence has gone on here a bit.

b) Secondly it's ignoring that tradition of interpretation*

c) Thirdly the whole 'importance' is based on looking only at the text and seeing Peter explicitly getting the keys, and ignoring a) and b) where the ECFs recognised the inference that the keys were given to all.

In short its adopting a strictly literalist application when it suits. If you think I'm wrong, then show me the ECF evidence that contradict this, because so far the only evidence presented is this singlular literalist interpretation and a use of another Protestant argument (see below)

*Not only is no evidence brought forth that Peter alone got the keys but that these keys (pl.) are some how related to the single key (sing.) in the OT - a connection made by ONLY ONE church father and many Protestants

For Catholics to consider

Newbie

Woe those who call evil good + good evil. Is 5:20

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

No longer here

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

On and on

On and on

In a Kingdom by the Sea.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Expert invisible poster and thread killer

Well-Known Member

Similar threads