Do Catholics and Orthodox rely on private interpretation?

[patricius79]

The Bishop of Rome was simply doing his work as a Bishop of a particular church, The Suburbicarian Church of Rome!!! Cyprian was pointing out Catholic practice from the fount of Orthodoxy the Bishops in Council.

Do you have any Church fathers or Scriptures which say that?

And if that is the case, then why does Cyprian call Rome "the chair of Peter and to the principal Church", and say "the Church is built on Peter"

 

[laternonjuror]

Do you have any Church fathers or Scriptures which say that?
And if that is the case, then why does Cyprian call Rome "the chair of Peter and to the principal Church", and say "the Church is built on Peter"

Why? I've repeatedly mentioned the source of Roman Authority and prestige!
She was the product of two Apostles! (Only one could be proved, but, it is recognised that Peter was in Rome, for how long is disputed!) Rome was the Capitol of the Roman Empire. The Bishop of Rome was parish priest to the Emperor, It was like London is to England now. But, the greatest gift of all was the fact that it was the only really big Christian Centre in the West. Rome was , by wish of the Ecumenical Council, the only Apostolic See in the West! Primus inter pares.
The African Bishops, of which Augustine was one, were Roman citizens and looked to Rome as the motherland!
As to the ,'Chair of Peter,' it was claimed that Peter had been Bishop of Rome. which doesn't appear to be true, Peter was an Apostle! Any roadup,S.Gregory said very definitely, that there were three, Sees of Peter, Alexandria, Antioch and Rome.
Peter's place amongst the Apostles was assured, no body doubts it, why should they? What you have to remember was that S.Cyprian ,'wrote the book, ' as they do say on Bishops and he never mentions the papacy and in a more positive move applied his erudition to block the Bishop of Rome's attempt better to introduce the idea.

The best attempt to explain the situation in readable fashion is "The Early Church and the See of Rome!"
Father Pullan.

 

[laternonjuror]

When Pope Clement I wrote outside of his bishopric to the church at Corinth, how was that simply doing his work as the Bishop of the diocese of Rome?

One has to look at the relationship between the Romans and the Corinthians. Corinth was a satellite of Rome. They do not appear at this time to have a bishop, or if they had, he wasn't doing his job! The fact is that Rome was undoubtedly
an enormous size in those days and the fact that the Bishop was in theory the Emperors parish priest did help".

How-and-ever madam, doing some research last even, I came acroos some work that will interest you!
I'll post it later, if the dog han't eaten it!

 

[tz620q]

The best attempt to explain the situation in readable fashion is "The Early Church and the See of Rome!"
Father Pullan.

Luckily, that book seems to be out of print. These sort of anti-Catholic polemical histories that were fashionable in the 1800's really do not deserve another printing.

 

[laternonjuror]

Luckily, that book seems to be out of print. These sort of anti-Catholic polemical histories that were fashionable in the 1800's really do not deserve another printing.

I bought mine at a secondhand bookshop quite a few years ago, butI have seen copies there since!
What a broad minded chap you are, when I grow older, I don't want to be like you!
How-and-ever, Father Pullan is a traditional Catholic, an Anglican Catholic in fact. He is a scholar and a teacher. Reading his other books, or them I can lay hands on they are scholarly and well written, the one we are talking about ran to eight ediions.

 

[tz620q]

What a broad minded chap you are, when I grow older, I don't want to be like you!
.

Thank you for the info on this book, which seems to have been popular in the early 1900's in England. I would hope that a broad-minded chap would find time to read outside Anglican authors to see what Catholic authors would say about these subjects.

 

[prodromos]

The best attempt to explain the situation in readable fashion is "The Early Church and the See of Rome!"
Father Pullan.

Are you sure that is the title, and not "The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome"

 

[prodromos]

Luckily, that book seems to be out of print. These sort of anti-Catholic polemical histories that were fashionable in the 1800's really do not deserve another printing.

You've read the book,have you?
From your comment I would have to assume you have, else how could you describe it as anti-Catholic polemic unless you were familiar with its contents.

I've read a number of books which are pro-Orthodox. Funnily enough they too are often described as anti-Catholic by those under the Papacy, though they are nothing of the sort.

 

[tz620q]

You've read the book,have you?
From your comment I would have to assume you have, else how could you describe it as anti-Catholic polemic unless you were familiar with its contents.

I've read a number of books which are pro-Orthodox. Funnily enough they too are often described as anti-Catholic by those under the Papacy, though they are nothing of the sort.

No, I should apologize for making assumptions. I took the easy approach and tried to find it online. I found what you found. You cannot find any bookstores that carry it or e-books that have it. So my opinion was based on similar histories that I have looked at from non-Catholic writers from the 1800's. Are far as this book is concerned, I can only guess that laternonjuror's opinions were formed by it and that they reflect the contents of the book. So statements like, "The Bishop of Rome was the parish priest for the Emperor" trip my incredulity threshold. Constantine spent very little time in Rome during his whole life. Before that the Emperors of the Roman Empire were not Christian and so the Christian Bishop of Rome would be seen more as a rival, than a parish priest.
After Constantine, the Bishop of Constantinople would have fit the model of parish priest better than the Bishop of Rome.

 

[laternonjuror]

Are you sure that is the title, and not "The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome"

You are right, I had the Book repaired, rather I repaired it, it being second hand and this was a label quickly done!I'll change it and thank you! It ran to 8 Editions and I have the 3rd and the eigth. have you read it?
many thanks!

it

 

[patricius79]

Why? I've repeatedly mentioned the source of Roman Authority and prestige!
She was the product of two Apostles! (Only one could be proved, but, it is recognised that Peter was in Rome, for how long is disputed!) Rome was the Capitol of the Roman Empire. The Bishop of Rome was parish priest to the Emperor, It was like London is to England now. But, the greatest gift of all was the fact that it was the only really big Christian Centre in the West. Rome was , by wish of the Ecumenical Council, the only Apostolic See in the West! Primus inter pares.
.

The fact that Rome was the Capitol of the Roman Empire. How does this mean that she wasn't, spiritually, "the Chair of Peter, and the principle church, from which priestly unity takes its source", as Cyprian says?

One of the issues I have with private judgment, is that often those who hold it can't seem to find a single person in early Church history who interprets the N.T. roughly like they do on even a few issues.

 

[laternonjuror]

The fact that Rome was the Capitol of the Roman Empire. How does this mean that she wasn't, spiritually, "the Chair of Peter, and the principle church, from which priestly unity takes its source", as Cyprian says?

One of the issues I have with private judgment, is that often those who hold it can't seem to find a single person in early Church history who interprets the N.T. roughly like they do on even a few issues.

Lady,
I think your getting mixed up, I don.t personally believe that Orthodoxy or orthodox believe in private interpretation. They hold to Christ's Revelation,& scripture which is interpreted by the Bishops in Council. my own Communion the A.C.C. hold to this way of thinking and it is historically correct for all Catholics.
However, when I wrote down the lines of thought which came down from your Council of Trent, which agreed with Tradition, you wouldn't accept it?
But there is another way in which Rome agrees with private interpretation, Where did transubstantiation arrive from? It was the idea of a 1st Millenium Pope, so I understand, as distinct from the Real Presence. What was the origin of the Immaculate Conception?
I've told you repeatedly , that I believe the Lady Mary was Immaculate, but not because she had a sinless birth.I follow the Councils, where as your ideas stem from an individual, or series of individuals, whereas the ideas taught by the Orthodox and my own Communion follow the Rule of faith, with the Bishops interpreting faith and belief in the Catholic Church!
As for Rome,

It is not shown in the Gospels/Revelation, Scripture or Tradition that the See of Rome is one whit different than any other by Divine will, or promise. She was different in some ways, as I said in the earlier post, but her primacy came not from S.Peter, but from the Councils and her position as Capitol of the Roman Empire! S.Cyprian was simply following the way put forward by the Ecumenical Councils, of the First 800yrs, which traditional Catholics believe was a result of the guidance given by the Holy Ghost. Acts 15. "It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", as I remember! Traditional Catholics who hold to the ancient ways accept this as the Catholic Magisterium!

 

[patricius79]

Lady,
I think your getting mixed up,

I'm a man.

I don.t personally believe that Orthodoxy or orthodox believe in private interpretation. They hold to Christ's Revelation,& scripture which is interpreted by the Bishops in Council. my own Communion the A.C.C. hold to this way of thinking and it is historically correct for all Catholics.

I don't understand.

However, when I wrote down the lines of thought which came down from your Council of Trent, which agreed with Tradition, you wouldn't accept it?

what are you talking about?

But there is another way in which Rome agrees with private interpretation, Where did transubstantiation arrive from? It was the idea of a 1st Millenium Pope, so I understand, as distinct from the Real Presence.

Transubstantiation is fully explicit in Cyril of Jerusalem in the 300s. Even Justin and Irenaeus in the 100s say that the bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood.

What was the origin of the Immaculate Conception?



I've told you repeatedly , that I believe the Lady Mary was Immaculate, but not because she had a sinless birth.I follow the Councils, where as your ideas stem from an individual, or series of individuals, whereas the ideas taught by the Orthodox and my own Communion follow the Rule of faith, with the Bishops interpreting faith and belief in the Catholic Church!
As for Rome,

It is not shown in the Gospels/Revelation, Scripture or Tradition that the See of Rome is one whit different than any other by Divine will, or promise. She was different in some ways, as I said in the earlier post, but her primacy came not from S.Peter, but from the Councils and her position as Capitol of the Roman Empire! S.Cyprian was simply following the way put forward by the Ecumenical Councils, of the First 800yrs, which traditional Catholics believe was a result of the guidance given by the Holy Ghost. Acts 15. "It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us", as I remember! Traditional Catholics who hold to the ancient ways accept this as the Catholic Magisterium!

How do you determine which councils are "Ecumenical" without accepting what Cyprian said before there were any ecumenical councils, when Cyprian called Rome "the principle Church, from which priestly unity takes its source"?

In other words, there have been many Council in Church history. How do you determine which ones are Ecumenical without accepting Papal Supremacy?

 

[prodromos]

You are right, I had the Book repaired, rather I repaired it, it being second hand and this was a label quickly done!I'll change it and thank you! It ran to 8 Editions and I have the 3rd and the eigth. have you read it?
many thanks!

I'm having a look at it now. It looks well written with good references. Not at all polemical thus far.

 

[prodromos]

Transubstantiation is fully explicit in Cyril of Jerusalem in the 300s. Even Justin and Irenaeus in the 100s say that the bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood.

They never describe it in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics, thus are not tainted by the underlying principles of the same.

How do you determine which councils are "Ecumenical" without accepting what Cyprian said before there were any ecumenical councils, when Cyprian called Rome "the principle Church, from which priestly unity takes its source"?

In other words, there have been many Council in Church history. How do you determine which ones are Ecumenical without accepting Papal Supremacy?

You clearly misinterpret what St Cyprian means. If you read his life and the body of his works you will not come to an understanding of Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction.

 

[patricius79]

They never describe it in terms of Aristotelian metaphysics, thus are not tainted by the underlying principles of the same.

You clearly misinterpret what St Cyprian means. If you read his life and the body of his works you will not come to an understanding of Papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction.

Well I certainly haven't read his life and body of works.

What do think Cyprian means when he calls Rome "the Chair of Peter and the principal Church, from which priestly unity takes its source"?

As I understand it, the Eastern Orthodox scholar Afanassieff--in the famous book, "The Primacy of Peter" (Meyendorff) acknowledged that the Eastern Orthodox do not have a systematic doctrine of Church government, and cannot refute the Catholic doctrine of primacy.

In the same book, the Eastern Orthodox scholar Schmemann, says that the Fathers and Councils "unanimously" acknowledge Rome as the "center of Ecumenical agreement".

Maybe I can ask you what I asked Later. How do we determine which councils are Ecumenical? I know, for example, that there were councils in Constantinople which approved straight Arianism.

There were also a number of Eastern Orthodox councils which affirmed Transubstantiation in the way the Catholic Church teaches it.

Ecclesiastically speaking, why are these not considered Ecumenical? Is it simply because the Pope did not approve them?

 

[Biblicist]

When I saw the title of this thread a few weeks back, it confused me a bit as I've always presumed that to interpret something that this required that a belief or practice was based on a Scripture. But as many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have openly admitted that their views are not based on the Scriptures, but with tradition, then shouldn't the thread have been titled "...rely on private supplement" or similar?

If something didn't exist in the first place this makes "interpretation" impossible as there was nothing in place to interpret.

 

[Albion]

When I saw the title of this thread a few weeks back, it confused me a bit as I've always presumed that to interpret something that this required that a belief or practice was based on a Scripture. But as many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have openly admitted that their views are not based on the Scriptures, but with tradition, then shouldn't the thread have been titled "...rely on private supplement" or similar?

If something didn't exist in the first place this makes "interpretation" impossible as there was nothing in place to interpret.

They interpret something else, but it's still a matter of interpreting.

 

[patricius79]

But as many Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox have openly admitted that their views are not based on the Scriptures, but with tradition,.

Please show that even one person has said exactly that.

It is the Bible that says "hold fast to the traditions, whether given orally or by letter" (2 Thes 2:15, 2 Tim 2:2, 1 Pt 1:25, Acts 8:14)

What we reject are the Protestant oral traditions, which say that such words of God are no longer living and active..

 

[Albion]

Transubstantiation is fully explicit in Cyril of Jerusalem in the 300s. Even Justin and Irenaeus in the 100s say that the bread and wine become Christ's Body and Blood.

That's not Transubstantiation. It's Real Presence, and lots of us non-RCs believe in the Real Presence.

How do you determine which councils are "Ecumenical" without accepting what Cyprian said before there were any ecumenical councils, when Cyprian called Rome "the principle Church, from which priestly unity takes its source"?

In other words, there have been many Council in Church history. How do you determine which ones are Ecumenical without accepting Papal Supremacy?

.,
By definition, any council cannot be "ecumenical" if it doesn't represent the whole of the church. The great majority of councils considered to be Ecumenical Councils by the Roman Catholic Church were for Vatican Catholics only. So...not "Ecumenical."