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.
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 random argumentation, and too many threads on TAW are already quite hard to read through due you to insistently filling them with pointless yanking.
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.
Yes, I imagined that, in fact that is a real problem among orthodox, they are been infiltrated by protestants, converts that dont 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 Romes 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.
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.
Should I just copy and paste my reply?
You are wrongly applying those Chrysostom quotes, and your attempt to use Chrysostom as a pro-papacy figure makes zero sense if you know the history of his life and ministry.
Please refer to my prior post.
Should I just copy and paste my reply?
You are wrongly applying those Chrysostom quotes, and your attempt to use Chrysostom as a pro-papacy figure makes zero sense if you know the history of his life and ministry.
Please refer to my prior post.
Well if you appeal to his life, to his experience, lest us talk about his letters to Pope Saint Innocent I, there we can see that Saint John Chrysostom appeals to Pope, as his superior, to tell him the injustice perpetrated against him when he was sent into exile.
We also can read that Pope Innocent answers him, giving him consolation, and then Pope writes to the church of Constantinople to consolate it, and to refer that John was unjustly deposed. If you ask why Pope didn't put him back into the see of Constantinople, we have to remember that Emperors claimed jurisdiction on the Church and that such move will cause another dispute between Rome's Pope and Constantinople's Emperor.
CHURCH FATHERS: Correspondence with Pope Innocent I (Chrysostom)
Yes, I imagined that, in fact that is a real problem among orthodox, they are been infiltrated by protestants, converts that dont 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 Romes 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.
Yes the fact is that we can answer to them not with elaborated theories, but bible in hand, Do you want to try?
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.
So, by this reasoning, everyone should stick to their "ancestral religion," so to speak. If a Protestant should convert to Orthodoxy or Catholicism, they are only so generically or in disguise. They will never be on equal footing with cradle Orthodox and Catholic, and will always be suspected of Catholic-hating and iconoclasm.
I would fain inquire then of those who desire to lessen the dignity of the Son, which manner of gifts were greater, those which the Father gave to Peter, or those which the Son gave him? For the Father gave to Peter the revelation of the Son; but the Son gave him to sow that of the Father and that of Himself in every part of the world; and to a mortal man He entrusted the authority over all things in Heaven, giving him the keys; who extended the church to every part of the world, and declared it to be stronger than heaven. For heaven and earth shall pass away, but my word shall not pass away. Matthew 24:35 How then is He less, who has given such gifts, has effected such things?
3. What then says Christ? You are Simon, the son of Jonas; you shall be called Cephas. Thus since you have proclaimed my Father, I too name him that begot you; all but saying, As you are son of Jonas, even so am I of my Father. Else it were superfluous to say, You are Son of Jonas; but since he had said, Son of God, to point out that He is so Son of God, as the other son of Jonas, of the same substance with Him that begot Him, therefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; that is, on the faith of his confession. Hereby He signifies that many were now on the point of believing, and raises his spirit, and makes him a shepherd. And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And if not against it, much more not against me. So be not troubled because you are shortly to hear that I shall be betrayed and crucified.
OK, I know I said I wouldn't engage any further in this thread...so I'll do it in a generic way!
Earlier Chrysostom's homily 54 on Matthew was quoted as "proof" that St. John held to the Roman Catholic understanding of the papacy...implying not only that he held to a primacy of Peter among the apostles, but to a primacy of universal jurisdiction over the apostles and indeed the entire church. Such is the RCC understanding of the power and authority of the Papacy, is it not? The quote marshalled in favor of such Papal authority relates to the "keys of the kingdom" and says:
Yet only a few paragraphs above, he wrote of Matt. 16:18, the classic proof text for the Papacy proving beyond all shadow of a doubt that the church was built upon Peter and through him all the bishops of Rome, :
Emphasis, of course, is mine.
Now, does this not run counter to the interpretation that the "rock" of the Church is Peter himself? Does it not say that to St. John, the "rock" was the confession of faith given by Peter? That upon the confession of Christ as Messiah and Son of God, the church will be built and will never be shaken? Can I do my victory dance and conclude that I have slam-dunked the opposing case and it's forevermore settled that John Chrysostom was anti-Papacy?
No. Because that would be utterly absurd. In a broader view, many church fathers referred to both Peter and his confession as "the rock" in Matt. 16:18. I believe Chrysostom did this also.
Does this quote prove that he rejected Rome's claim to absolute jurisdiction? No. Does the quote about the keys prove that he accepted that claim? No. Are all the quotes essentially inconclusive and irrelevant to an argument that really heated up centuries after Chrysostom preached these homiles? Yes.
Forgive my rant, but one thing that always drove me nuts about Protestant-Catholic debates (often featuring an ex-Catholic debating an ex-Protestant) was that they incessantly tried to find 16th+ century arguments playing out in 1st-6th century writings. As though the fathers were even engaged in such matters. Each side seemingly needed to find its own case in history, or else needed to find the opposing case discredited there. Very often neither party, and (forgive me) especially the Catholic party, could simply admit that they were digging in the wrong sandbox, looking for evidence that really wasn't there.
I once debated (I use the term loosely) with a Catholic apologist who was insisting that the letters of St. Ignatius of Antioch established an early case for the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. Not just "could be interepreted in such a manner" or "isn't opposed to it," but that it did establish the case. Point of fact...his letter to the Romans was the only one of the seven (known reliably to us today) that didn't mention a bishop there at all. Nothing. Nada. Not his concern. This apologist kept responding as though I were saying that this disproved the Papacy. I wasn't. And for the life of me, I could not get him to just admit that the Ignatian letters simply did not address the issue and were therefore of no use in concluding anything either way. It seemed that, for him, those letters had to confirm his belief.
Anyway, that's all for my rant. I hope this illustrates why it drives me insane when isolated quotations are pulled out of letters from 15+ centuries ago and just peppered around as though they settled the matter. More often than not, I find these quotes simply weren't even concerned with what later became issues and divisions, and therefore don't really apply directly.
Do you see how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as a brazen pillar, and as a wall; Jeremiah 1:18 but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.
Yes, It is right that Chrysostom also understood the Rock as the faith that saint Peter uttered, But, it is also true that Chrysostom said of Saint Peter to be:
Now, What Part of "...this man in every part of the world..." is incompatible with Petrine primacy?
The Eastern Orthodox church should indeed be seen as a "headless body", since "He is before all things, and in Him all things consist. And He is the head of the body, the church" (Colossians 1:17-18)I sadly see Eastern Orthodoxy as a headless body, whose member are in continous disputes, Would you dare to say that such image is the image of the mystical Body of Christ in the World?.
Ignatius21,
Why didn't you quoted the paragraph I did, when exposing that Chrysostom taught of the Rock as of the Faith of Peter? To me is like You are trying to stablish the classical protestant argument of "Peter is not the Rock", you still use protestant arguments to validate your lack of communion with the see of Rome.
I recognize that You now accept that some Church Fathers teach that Peter and the Faith of Peter are both the Rock, But you don't finish to accept that it is pointless to have a Presiding head, a Rock of faith, A fisher of man, A Chief of the Choir, who lacks of juristdiction over the Whole Church. It is simply pointless.
Now, in practical terms, in now a day facts, Why do Eastern Orthodox patriarchs are in dispute for cannonical territories?, Do they need an Emperor to set order?, You can't argue that they need a new council, because nobody would make patriarchs to submit to the decisions of such a council. I sadly see Eastern Orthodoxy as a headless body, whose member are in continous disputes, Would you dare to say that such image is the image of the mystical Body of Christ in the World?.
I don't know...I could just as easily ask why you didn't quote the paragraph about Chrystostom teaching the Rock as the Faith of Peter, when you were trying to show that he believed Peter to have received the keys? The pot and kettle are both black. Your attitude toward me and everyone else on this thread so far has been one of superiority. We are guilty of subverting the facts, while you ride the high horse of objectivity and neutrality. We are culpable of selectively quoting church fathers, but you are not. We deliberately slip and slither our way around accepting what to you is as obvious as the sun. That we do not agree with your version of the facts is not a matter for intellectual discussion, but rather evidence of our insubordination to the obvious head of Christ's Church on Earth.
You are on the horse wielding the spear of truth, and we are trampled underfoot by the self-evident superiority of your case. How very like your avatar picture. If it makes you feel better, I consider myself slain by your superior argument. Obviously, until I have accepted the teaching of Rome as infallible, I'm not capable of honestly dealing with either Scripture or the church fathers. Shame on me.
Yay, honesty!!! You've tipped your hand and revealed your philosophical presupposition as to how the church must be organized, and therefore your real reason for interpreting the Bible and the Fathers as you do. It's because you must. You've already reached your conclusion long before seeing the evidence. The fact that it doesn't make sense to you, means it must be wrong.
Yes, how very unlike the Church of the first millenium, when all the bishops perfectly agreed, never fought over territories, and all simply submitted to the Pope of Rome, and never once ignored him, and certainly never condemned one as a heretic. Would that Orthodoxy were united under a single, visible head to arbitrate all disputes peacefully...well, until there were two such heads...who would be deposed by a council and replaced with a third, leading to three heads plus a council, that would eventually resolve itself with much politics. Now THAT is the image of the mystical Body of Christ in the World. Nothing like certainty and peaceful resolution of conflict. How I envy that.
This time I'm sticking to my guns. Further discussion is pointless for either of us. Your guy on a horse beats my guy being eaten by lions.
Over and out.
Your comment is off topic, I was arguing that John Chrysostom taught that Peter received the keys of heaven when he was interpreting the Gospel of Mathew, and that by doing so, he left a testimony that the ancient church believed in the function of Peter as primus inter pares. and everything that may happened later with a different optic, is not as authentically orthodox. And as this topic is about the primacy of Peter, I am not arguing off topic.
Actually St John Chrysostom said the same thing about John when interpreting the fourth gospel:
"For the son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom with much confidence..... Now will he appear before us, not acting a part, (for with him there is nothing counterfeit, nor fiction, nor fable,) but with unmasked head he proclaims to us the truth unmasked; not making the audience believe him other than he is by carriage, by look, by voice, needing for the delivery of his message no instruments of music, as harp, lyre, or any other the like, for he effects all with his tongue, uttering a voice which is sweeter and more profitable than that of any harper or any music. All heaven is his stage; his theater, the habitable world; his audience, all angels; and of men as many as are angels already, or desire to become so...."(John chrysostom homily 1 on the gospel of John)
Papal apologists spew quotes from the Fathers in favor of their system with hopes that no one is familiar with the writings of those Fathers. Oh and anyone who has read John Chrysostom knows that he considers Antioch to be the most blessed city not rome. because it was in Antioch where the word christian was first used.
Do you see how He, His own self, leads Peter on to high thoughts of Him, and reveals Himself, and implies that He is Son of God by these two promises? For those things which are peculiar to God alone, (both to absolve sins, and to make the church in capable of overthrow in such assailing waves, and to exhibit a man that is a fisher more solid than any rock, while all the world is at war with him), these He promises Himself to give; as the Father, speaking to Jeremiah, said, He would make him as a brazen pillar, and as a wall; Jeremiah 1:18 but him to one nation only, this man in every part of the world.
Well if you appeal to his life, to his experience, let us talk about his letters to Pope Saint Innocent I, there we can see that Saint John Chrysostom appeals to Pope, as his superior, to tell him the injustice perpetrated against him when he was sent into exile.
We also can read that Pope Innocent answers him, giving him consolation, and then Pope writes to the church of Constantinople to consolate it, and to refer that John was unjustly deposed. If you ask why Pope didn't put him back into the see of Constantinople, we have to remember that Emperors claimed jurisdiction on the Church and that such move will cause another dispute between Rome's Pope and Constantinople's Emperor. But in fact the Pope recognized him as the living Bishop of the see, in exile.
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?