A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[racer]

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...

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?

 

[racer]

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???

This confirms what all non-RCs/EOs assert when they say that the Church does possess "TEACHING authority," but not ruling or defining authority.

 

[racer]

The Apostolic See is Gregory I in these writings for he is the Bishop of Rome and thus in the Seat of Peter.

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.

My point is that Gregory I is stating that all must be 'subject' to the Apostolic See.

Where did he say that? Let's see where exactly:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360209012.htm
Book IX, Letter 12

To John, Bishop of Syracuse.

Gregory to John, &c.

One coming from Sicily has told me that some friends of his, whether Greeks or Latins I know not, as though moved by zeal for the holy Roman Church, murmur about my arrangements [i.e. of divine service], saying, How can he be arranging so as to keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, when in all respects he follows her usage? And, when I said to him, What usages of hers do we follow? he replied; you have caused Alleluia to be said at mass out of the season of Pentecost; you have made appointment for the sub-deacons to proceed disrobed, and for Kyrie Eleison to be said, and for the Lord's Prayer to be said immediately after the canon. To him I replied, that in none of these things have we followed another Church.

For, as to our custom here of saying the Alleluia, it is said to be derived from the Church of Jerusalem by the tradition of the blessed Jerome in the time of pope Damasus of blessed memory; and accordingly in this matter we have rather curtailed the former usage which had been handed down to us here from the Greeks.

Further, as to my having caused the sub-deacons to proceed disrobed, this was the ancient usage of the Church. But it pleased one of our pontiffs, I know not which, to order them to proceed in linen tunics. For have your Churches in any respect received their tradition from the Greeks? Whence, then, have they at the present day the custom of the subdeacons proceeding in linen tunics, except that they have received it from their mother, the Roman Church?
Further, we neither have said nor now say the Kyrie Eleison, as it is said by the Greeks: for among the Greeks all say it together; but with us it is said by the clerks, and responded to by the people; and as often as it is said, Christe Eleison is said also, which is not said at all among the Greeks. Further, in daily masses we suppress some things that are usually said, and say only Kyrie Eleison, Christe Eleison, so as to devote ourselves a little longer to these words of deprecation. But the Lord's prayer (orationem Dominicam) we say immediately after the prayer (mox post precem) for this reason, that it was the custom of the apostles to consecrate the host of oblation to (ad) that same prayer only. And it seemed to me very unsuitable that we should say over the oblation a prayer which a scholastic had composed, and should not say the very prayer which our Redeemer composed over His body and blood. But also the Lord's Prayer among the Greeks is said by all the people, but with us by the priest alone. Wherein, then, have we followed the usages of the Greeks, in that we have either amended our own old ones or appointed new and profitable ones, in which, however, we are not shown to be imitating others? Wherefore, let your Charity, when an occasion presents itself, proceed to the Church of Catana; or in the Church of Syracuse teach those who you believe or understand may possibly be murmuring with respect to this matter, holding a conference there, as though for a different purpose, and so desist not from instructing them. For as to what they say about the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See, as both the most pious lord the emperor and our brother the bishop of that city continually acknowledge? Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from things unlawful. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good things he may see.

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.

The use of this word 'subject' is similiarly used in regards to those that must obey a superior.

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 Apostolic See in this case is but one Bishop of them all that sits in the seat of Peter and holds the Keys.

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 is my point and how I am reading it.

That's what I figured . . . .

 

[racer]

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.

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?

 

[racer]

And at the expense of excommunication for some and the threat of excommunication for others...

Were they excommunicated?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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?

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. 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. Even the holder of the Keys to the Kingdom dare not claim to be at Christ's level but only a steward.

That is what I think.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

This confirms what all non-RCs/EOs assert when they say that the Church does possess "TEACHING authority," but not ruling or defining authority.

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.

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.

It goes even deeper than that

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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.

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.

But these churches almost always seemed to bend to the decision of Rome.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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 . . . .

Has he never before mentioned the Keys or just in this example?

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. 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.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Were they excommunicated?

Look at Arius at the time of Constaninople. Yes.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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?

Non RCs/EOs can only go so far in their interpretation because they lack the teaching authority that has kept the teachings since the Apostles. These groups also lack some of the teachings that have been preserved of the Apostolic Tradition. With Sola Scriptura you only have a fraction of the teachings that God gave us. Because you lack 100% of the teachings you cannot have 100% of the teachings.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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.

God gave you the "One True Church" so you could know him. Why only know him a little when you can know him much more? That is not iniquity, that is LOVE.

 

[racer]

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.

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#highlight

Gregory 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?

What I think Gregory I was telling John was that he better not place himself at the level of Jesus.

Okay, let me remind you what he clearly said:

. . . Consider, I pray you, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that it is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless you yourself wilt have power to grow so far as you determine with yourself to do so. And you will become by so much the greater as you restrain yourself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title:


Why would Gregory refer to a title that you are arguing that he already held as "proud and foolish?"​

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,

Notice he said, "as if BESIDE Christ," not AS Christ? He is specifically quoting Paul condemning people who would place certain apostles above others.

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?

Does not the RCC teach that the Pope is the head of the universal Church? Once again, I think you are reading Gregory's words to say what you want.​

Certainly Peter, the first of the

apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John,—what were they but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head.

Here Gregory is arguing that Peter along with the other apostles were all "members" under "one head." We know that head is Christ.

And (to bind all together in a short girth of speech) the

saints before the law, the saints under the law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord's Body, were constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has wished himself to be called universal.

Here he says not even one saint of the Church, Peter included, wished to be called Universal.

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

​

truly holy.​

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?

. . . 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?

​

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?

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.

Uh huh. He clearly did not agree with what the title bishop of Rome has "developed" into.

Even the holder of the Keys to the Kingdom dare not claim to be at Christ's level but only a steward.

I think you need to read the whole letter again.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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#highlight

Gregory 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?

Gregory I was giving John some jurisdiction in John's region.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15401a.htm

In the early church the Pope would have a vicar of the Apostolic See.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Why would Gregory refer to a title that you are arguing that he already held as "proud and foolish?"

Gregory I does not hold the title of universal...

Notice he said, "as if BESIDE Christ," not AS Christ? He is specifically quoting Paul condemning people who would place certain apostles above others.

Christ is on a level no man can ever hope to attain. The Catholic Church does not place anyone so high.

Does not the RCC teach that the Pope is the head of the universal Church?

Yes we do. In the sense that we here on earth in the material sense have been left an advisor on the teachings of the morals and Faith.

But in the soiritual sense of our eternal souls the church has Jesus as head of the Church.

But as for a Head of the household of God here on earth? Jesus left us the Spirit of Truth to help those he left in charge. Jesus left men in charge of his church until he returns. That is why we have bishops. But Jesus also knew we would ne someone to act as the "head" until he returned so he appointed a steward and that was Peter. So started the "seat of Peter".

Here Gregory is arguing that Peter along with the other apostles were all "members" under "one head." We know that head is Christ.

Yes. As I stated above. In a very real sense Jesus is the only "head" of the church. But Jesus left a steward to guide his people on earth until he returned. But Jesus us still the King of kings and Lord of Lords and the Head.

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?

Yes "universal" as to any one man. Only the Church is Universal. After all it is the bride of Christ and so it is Christ in Spirit.

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?

And what does Gregory I mean by "general father"?

 

[racer]

Look at Arius at the time of Constaninople. Yes.

Arius was excommunicated for teaching heresy, not for chiding (putting in his place) the Pope.

 

[racer]

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.

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.

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.

Think tank, huh? Why would the Pope need a "think tank" if he's receiving further divine revelation from the Holy Spirit.

It goes even deeper than that

You call it deeper, I call it convoluted/circular--round and round she goes, where she stops nobuddy knows.

 

[racer]

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.

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.

But these churches almost always seemed to bend to the decision of Rome.

Really? So, you just ignore all evidence contrary to what I give you?

 

[racer]

Has he never before mentioned the Keys or just in this example?

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.

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.

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."

For non-Totalitarian groups, it's called a chain-of-command.

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.

The Pope is the "Vicar of Christ." What exactly does that mean?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

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.

Jesus defined things for us but Jesus did not write anything that we are aware of.

The teachings from Jesus were given orally to the Apsotles. The Apostles then taught orally and used the Old Testament as Jesus did. It was the Apostles that left of writings and oral teachings that came from Jesus. It was the Catholic Church that has preserved these Apostolic teachings both written and orally taught.

When anyone picks up their divinely inspired Bible with the New Testament they are reading in the New Testament all that the Catholic Church preserved from the Apostles and their written teachings. Of course it was determined to be inerrant and divinely inspired but again it was the Catholic Church that preserved these writings and determined which would be Biblical with the guidance of the Holy Spirit. That guidance has never left the Catholic Church and it is by the Holy Spirit that further understanding is received.

ALSO, Sola Scriptura is only a fraction of the teachings that Jesus left us. Without all the Apostolic Traditions that the Catholic Church has preserved you only have a fraction of the Truth left by God.

You may be able to make some bread with only part of the recipe for a cake but you will not make the cake.

Think tank, huh? Why would the Pope need a "think tank" if he's receiving further divine revelation from the Pope.

The Magesterium is for the eternal Church. It is how the Church has run for centuries. It has happened under the guidance and protection of God.

As to "Divine" Revelation??? You are reading into my words something that is not there.

You call it deeper, I call it convoluted/circular--round and round she goes, where she stops nobuddy knows.

What is wrong with that?