Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So, you would argue that as long as John the Faster was claiming the position for himself, Gregory considered it to be a "proud and foolish" title of which not even one of the apostles dared to claim for themselves, but if someone from the church of Rome wished to claim the title for that bishophric, Gregory saw no problem with that?I think that we can look at the same letter here and interpret them the way you want or the way I want. Both can find backing. I think that when it comes to the schism with the Eastern church that this will be true at times.
For me I see that Pope Gregory I was seeing this title given to John to be above his position and he feared that John was thinking himself bigger then he is.
The reference to Universal seems to be used two different ways here also. Once we see Universal used with the Universal church. Both East and West agree on this. But when we see a title given to John, the Bishop of this region, as Universal we then see Pope Gregory I defend the meaning of Universal in regards to the Church and advise no one but Jesus can be Universal. Pope Gregory I see himself as the Apostolic See and the holder of the Keys but knows that this position is not on the same level as Jesus. That the Apostolic See is but the steward of Jesus' kingdom. Pope Gregory I warning John very harshly but Gregory I does not refute the Seat of Peter either.
HOWEVER, with that said, I can also see how you are reading as well.
If we are going to debate what Gregory I meant I am sure I can continue to support the Primacy of the Bishop of Rome. But I also know there will be little knots like this to support the Eastern church.
Interpretation...
This confirms what all non-RCs/EOs assert when they say that the Church does possess "TEACHING authority," but not ruling or defining authority.Yes. The teachings of Christ are to be in our hearts and not only in what we do.
If we only act out the part and our hearts are not participating then we are hypocrites.
This is something for every one living in flesh to be aware of.
But I am not sure how this pertains to a primacy of the Bishop of Rome???
We (or Gregory was) are talking about the Church in Constantinople. But, even if I were to concede that this church was subject to the Church are Rome in the sense you are asserting, how does prove that the Apostolic See in Rome was anything more than the "headquarters" of the Church at that time.The Apostolic See is Gregory I in these writings for he is the Bishop of Rome and thus in the Seat of Peter.
Where did he say that? Let's see where exactly:My point is that Gregory I is stating that all must be 'subject' to the Apostolic See.
It can be used this way. It can also mean they are under jurisdictional rule. Most churches of have a main headquarters, then regions/areas/districts, etc . . . .The use of this word 'subject' is similiarly used in regards to those that must obey a superior.
Well, that's not actually what Gregory says. He does say, "the" Apostolic See, from which we can infer he speaks of Rome--according to what New Advent now teaches regarding "the" Apostolic See. However, he doesn't mention any keys.The Apostolic See in this case is but one Bishop of them all that sits in the seat of Peter and holds the Keys.
That's what I figured . . . .That is my point and how I am reading it.
Are you going to argue with the words of not only one of the earliest fathers of the church, but a doctor of the church?Clearly???
Jesus was told by Simon that he is the Messiah. Then Jesus tells Simon. who he is. He does this because God the Father gave that knowledge to Simon. Jesus says he is going to build his Church on a 'Rock' but before this he tells Simon he is "Kepa" for Jesus would have been speaking Aramaic and the word for rock is "Kepa".
MATTHEW 16
16 Simon Peter said in reply, "You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." 17 Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18 And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." 20 Then he strictly ordered his disciples to tell no one that he was the Messiah.
Were they excommunicated?And at the expense of excommunication for some and the threat of excommunication for others...
So, you would argue that as long as John the Faster was claiming the position for himself, Gregory considered it to be a "proud and foolish" title of which not even one of the apostles dared to claim for themselves, but if someone from the church of Rome wished to claim the title for that bishophric, Gregory saw no problem with that?
This confirms what all non-RCs/EOs assert when they say that the Church does possess "TEACHING authority," but not ruling or defining authority.
We (or Gregory was) are talking about the Church in Constantinople. But, even if I were to concede that this church was subject to the Church are Rome in the sense you are asserting, how does prove that the Apostolic See in Rome was anything more than the "headquarters" of the Church at that time.
Hmmm . . . a "supreme" pope who objects not to adopting practices of other "inferiors" if they are not unlawful. I would think anything contrary to what the infallible "ruling" Apostolic See would be considered "unlawful." I think you read way to much into the term "subject to." But, I'm missing where he says that all churches are subject to Rome?
As I have pointed out the AoG churches are subject to and inferior to the Headquarters which is in Springfield, MO.
It can be used this way. It can also mean they are under jurisdictional rule. Most churches of have a main headquarters, then regions/areas/districts, etc . . . .
Well, that's not actually what Gregory says. He does say, "the" Apostolic See, from which we can infer he speaks of Rome--according to what New Advent now teaches regarding "the" Apostolic See. However, he doesn't mention any keys.
That's what I figured . . . .
Were they excommunicated?
Are you going to argue with the words of not only one of the earliest fathers of the church, but a doctor of the church?
Yes, clearly, do you deny what they quotes provided here say? Or are you going to argue that non-RCs/EOs are not only incapable of properly discerning Scripture, but we can't even properly comprehend what the ECFs taught?
One has to ask what is the point of this thread,
Protestant Reformism occured by the will of God alone, or it would not have happened at all.
Nothing happens outside of Gods will....
Argueing about who is the alledged one true Church is..Iniquity in the sight of God.
Come away from it.
So, you think the Pope, Gregory, would speak of such an office as a "foolish title?" How about this letter from Gregory to John, Bishop of Prima Justiniana in Illyricum:What I think is that all knew Gregory I as the Pope in this time. That they referred to him as the Apostolic See which is the authority on earth until Jesus comes again.
What I think Gregory I was telling John was that he better not place himself at the level of Jesus.
Certainly the apostlePaul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ , regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord's body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul .)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves,
what will you say to
Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal?
Certainly Peter, the first of the
And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the
Now let your Holiness acknowledge to what extent you swell within yourself in desiring to be called by that name by which no one presumed to be called who was
. . . What then, dearest brother, will you say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if thou
covetest to be called in the world not only father, but even general father?
Uh huh. He clearly did not agree with what the title bishop of Rome has "developed" into.That even the Pontif does not dare to do that. I think Gregory I saw this tital of Universal for a man as being tantamount to claiming to be at Christ's authority.
I think you need to read the whole letter again.Even the holder of the Keys to the Kingdom dare not claim to be at Christ's level but only a steward.
So, you think the Pope, Gregory, would speak of such an office as a "foolish title?" How about this letter from Gregory to John, Bishop of Prima Justiniana in Illyricum:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npn...op,of,prima,justiniana,in,illyricum#highlightGregory to John, Bishop of Prima Justiniana in Illyricum.
It is clearly a manifest evidence of goodness that the consent of all should concur in the election of one person. Since, then, the account which we have received from our brethren and fellow-bishops declared that you are summoned to the position of priesthood by the unanimous consent of the whole council and the will of the most serene Prince, we have rendered thanks with great exultation to Almighty God our Creator, who has made your life and actions so commendable in the past as to bring about (what is exceedingly to your credit) your approving yourself to the judgment of all. With them we also fully agree with regard to the person of your Fraternity. And we implore Almighty God that, as His Grace has chosen your Charity, so He would keep you in all respects under His protection. We have sent you the pallium according to custom, and, renewing our commission, we appoint you to act as vicar of the Apostolic See, admonishing you that you so shew yourself gentle to your subjects that they may be provoked to love you rather than to fear you.Was Gregory making John the Bishop the Pope?
Why would Gregory refer to a title that you are arguing that he already held as "proud and foolish?"
Notice he said, "as if BESIDE Christ," not AS Christ? He is specifically quoting Paul condemning people who would place certain apostles above others.
Does not the RCC teach that the Pope is the head of the universal Church?
Here Gregory is arguing that Peter along with the other apostles were all "members" under "one head." We know that head is Christ.
Here he says not even one saint of the Church, Peter included, wished to be called Universal.
Here he's implying that no one who was "truly holy" would desire such a title. Yet, you argue that Gregory considered himself to hold this title?
Right here is where your argument falls flat. He's aghast that John the Faster wasn't satisfied with being called father (a priest), he wanted to be the "general father." What would that be if not what is now referred to as the Pope?
Arius was excommunicated for teaching heresy, not for chiding (putting in his place) the Pope.Look at Arius at the time of Constaninople. Yes.
Oh . . . yeah . . . there's that "development of doctrine" argument again. There is nothing left to define--Jesus defined it in the Gospels, and then we have the rest of the NT where the apostles clarified and expounded upon what Jesus taught.The Pope does not "rule". He is the steward that has a charismatic gift that allows him to teach from the chair of Peter on matters of Faith and morals without fear of error. Because of this the Pope oversees the teachings of the Church and decides in matters of revelation or further defining.
Think tank, huh? Why would the Pope need a "think tank" if he's receiving further divine revelation from the Holy Spirit.But there is also the Magesterium. The is like the think tank and is made up of bishops that work on the teachings of the Church and are in communion with the Pope.
You call it deeper, I call it convoluted/circular--round and round she goes, where she stops nobuddy knows.It goes even deeper than that
Okay, then what churches "at that time" doe you suppose were actually aware of this fact and when do you suppose it became apparent to "that/those" churches. Clearly, Peter wasn't aware of it.I might think that some churches in these times of poor communications between churches may very well have had bishops that thought Rome was nothing more than a "headquarters" in their time. But this would be the fault of a still growing Church that had very poor ways of communicating with one anther because of large distances between them and Rome.
Really? So, you just ignore all evidence contrary to what I give you?But these churches almost always seemed to bend to the decision of Rome.
Well, in the few letters of his I read the other night, I didn't see him mention the keys. But, I certainly haven't read everything.Has he never before mentioned the Keys or just in this example?
If the RCC doesn't "rule" the laity as your argue, but if it does rule the laity as I believe it is a "hierarchy."Also, when we see the RCC today it is simliar to 600 AD as well. It has a hierarchy if you will. It has a "headquarters" if you prefer.
The Pope is the "Vicar of Christ." What exactly does that mean?But the head of this Church is the Pope until Jesus returns because he is the Steward of the Kingdom. He is the Prime Minister if you will and all the Bishops are like Ministers. Jesus spoke of kingdom and kings. He spoke of judges too. So we can view the Catholic Church similiarly but in a spiritual way.
Oh . . . yeah . . . there's that "development of doctrine" argument again. There is nothing left to define--Jesus defined it in the Gospels, and then we have the rest of the NT where the apostles clarified and expounded upon what Jesus taught.
Think tank, huh? Why would the Pope need a "think tank" if he's receiving further divine revelation from the Pope.
You call it deeper, I call it convoluted/circular--round and round she goes, where she stops nobuddy knows.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?