patricius79
Called to Jesus Through Mary
I don't know history well. I do know that the Church is built on Peter, and I still don't understand how one determines if a council is Ecumenical without accepting Papal Supremacy.
Upvote
0
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.
It was at it one of the Councils at Constantinople, that the Ecumenical Bishops, anathematised a pope Honorius as well as a whole crowd of other Monophysites, if thats the word? Anathema to 'the Herteic Honorius, Pope of Rome.' If that wasn't enough, all the popes and bishopsfor about two hundred years did the same?
Whilst most people count from the Great Council of Jerusalem (AD170) as amongst the first, there were several Councils recorded in the O/T, as well as about six others in Acts and not a pope mentioned in either group!
But the Roman Church recognizes its own councils--those occurring after the Great Schism--as being "Ecumenical Councils." They're not the original and famous Seven, of course, but they are considered by her to be equally as infallible. Vatican I and Vatican II are among them, as are 20+ others.
One shouldn't allow Rome to dominate the state of play as it were!But the Roman Church recognizes its own councils--those occurring after the Great Schism--as being "Ecumenical Councils." They're not the original and famous Seven, of course, but they are considered by her to be equally as infallible. Vatican I and Vatican II are among them, as are 20+ others.
According to the early fathers, along with many Roman Catholics, the Church isn't built on S.Peter, but on S.Peter's faith!I don't know history well. I do know that the Church is built on Peter, and I still don't understand how one determines if a council is Ecumenical without accepting Papal Supremacy.
I thought for a minute you had been lost to the faith!!I was merely saying that the RCC considers them to be Ecumenical Councils.
Which is exactly what Jesus is saying in the verses that follow Matt 16:18 where he calls Peter "Satan" for his lapse of faith!According to the early fathers, along with many Roman Catholics, the Church isn't built on S.Peter, but on S.Peter's faith!
I'm not sure how to go about this,?Which is exactly what Jesus is saying in the verses that follow Matt 16:18 where he calls Peter "Satan" for his lapse of faith!
I suggest you widen your reading to include actual historians rather than the heavily biased rants of Bonocore. He deliberately leaves a lot of details out.I don't know anywhere near enough history to answer all your questions. I don't think you can answer all my questions either. My source is Mark Bonocore's article "the Council of Chalcedon and the Papacy.
Whether this claim is true or not is beside the point. The entire Eastern Church acted in accordance with Canon 28 and had already been doing so before the Canon was ever put forward.He says that all the Greek historians, such as Theodore the Lector, recognized only 27 Canons because Pope St. Leo had vetoed the other one.
And he quotes Chalcedon as saying things like this, for example:
"For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him ...Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. -- Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451"
Rome was the Imperial city and the primary Apostolic See in the West. If Irenaeus was writing to an Eastern audience after the establishment of Constantinople he would have said much the same about Constantinople.This would seem to fit with Irenaeus's statement that all the churches must have recourse to the Roman Bishop
Cyprian considered Peter to be a "type" of the Apostles and that all faithful bishops sat in Peter's chair.and Cyprian's statement that Rome is "The Chair of Peter, and the Principal Church, from which priestly unity takes its source".
I suggest you widen your reading to include actual historians rather than the heavily biased rants of Bonocore. He deliberately leaves a lot of details out.
Whether this claim is true or not is beside the point. The entire Eastern Church acted in accordance with Canon 28 and had already been doing so before the Canon was ever put forward.
Sounds like they were flattering him in an effort to get him to accept the Canons of the Council, which he eventually did, apart from Canon 28.
Rome was the Imperial city and the primary Apostolic See in the West. If Irenaeus was writing to an Eastern audience after the establishment of Constantinople he would have said much the same about Constantinople.
Cyprian considered Peter to be a "type" of the Apostles and that all faithful bishops sat in Peter's chair.
It is unhelpful to post quotes of quotes of quotes when there is no context to understand the quote in. If you want to quote Afanassieff then please provide sufficient context or a link to the work you are quoting. If you can't, then don't quote them. I don't have time to look them up.Oh I'd love to read more but I'm not able to.
As to Chalcedon just "flattering" Pope Leo, maybe Chalcedon meant what they said when they called Leo their "Head", since they also said that the Church is built on Peter, and that it was Leo who "had been charged with custody of the Vine by the Savior".
Phil Vaz (Papal Authority and the Primacy of Rome") quotes the EO scholar Meyendorff who quotes the EO scholar Afanassieff, who says that: according to Cyprian, Rome is the See of Peter, and the Bishop of Rome alone is the direct heir of Peter, and that Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church, and that Cyprian testifies to this repeatedly.
It is unhelpful to post quotes of quotes of quotes when there is no context to understand the quote in. If you want to quote Afanassieff then please provide sufficient context or a link to the work you are quoting. If you can't, then don't quote them. I don't have time to look them up.
I'll tell you if and when you are able to post the context.What context could explain Afanassieff's acknowledgement, for example, that, for Cyprian, Rome alone is the direct heir of Peter?
Cyprian's letters have long been in the public domainI want to quote from Cyprian's Epistle to Cornelius, but I'm not sure about how copyright works.
I'll tell you if and when you are able to post the context.
Cyprian's letters have long been in the public domain
If I have time I'll hqve a look. I've been off work for two weeks due to surgery but wil be back in the saddle as of Monday, so I can't guarantee that I will be able to brush up on the history of the period.
You've stated yourself that you know very little of the history, but knowing the background and circumstances is of vital importance when understanding what the fathers meant when they wrote about something.
Some fathers teach this. Many more fathers teach that the Church is built on Peter's confession of faith.I only know a few things. For example, I know that the Church is built on Simon Rock, and that the fathers teach this also.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what terrible heresy has been tearing at the unity of the Church since the schism. None of the Ecumenical Councils were held on a whim, but only in response to serious falsehood spreading within the Church. The so called ecumenical councils which have been held in the West since that time, many of them anyway, are the complete antithesis of those held before the schism. There is also the fact that the term "ecumenical" was tied in with the Roman empire and particularly its capital, which had been moved to Constantinople. That empire has ceased to exist for centuries now, so it would be strange to call a new council by the title of "ecumenical".I know that the Eastern Orthodox haven't had an Ecumenical Council for centuries, which doesn't make sense to me, if indeed there is no Papal Supremacy.
Some fathers teach this. Many more fathers teach that the Church is built on Peter's confession of faith.
Perhaps you can enlighten us as to what terrible heresy has been tearing at the unity of the Church since the schism. None of the Ecumenical Councils were held on a whim, but only in response to serious falsehood spreading within the Church. The so called ecumenical councils which have been held in the West since that time, many of them anyway, are the complete antithesis of those held before the schism. There is also the fact that the term "ecumenical" was tied in with the Roman empire and particularly its capital, which had been moved to Constantinople. That empire has ceased to exist for centuries now, so it would be strange to call a new council by the title of "ecumenical".
We have had several pan-orthodox councils since that time, but nothing in response to anything so serious as experienced by the Church in the first few centuries.
All mentioned without any context whatsoever.Of course I agree that the Church is built on Simon Rock's confession of faith. That would also support the Papal claims.
But as I far as I can tell, it's not just "some fathers" who say the Church is built on Simon Rock. It is the plain meaning of Scripture AND the teaching of the very fathers who say the Church is ALSO built on Peter's Confession.
There are many fathers who say the Church IS built on Peter. I know of some of them: HippolytusHilary, Basil, Chrysostom, the Council of Chalcedon, Epiphanius, Ephrem, Leo, Gregory Nazianzen, Gregory of Nysaa.
Dave Armstrong says that the following fathers held it was Peter, not his faith or confession, that is the rock on which the Church is built:
Tertullian
Hippolytus
Origen
Cyprian
Firmilian
Aphraates the Persian
Ephraim the Syrian
Hilary of Poitiers
Zeno of Africa
Gregory of Nazianzen
Gregory of Nyssa
Basil the Great
Didymus the Blind
Epiphanius
Ambrose
John Chrysostom
Jerome
Augustine
Cyril of Alexandria
Peter Chrysologus
Proclus of Constantinople
Secundinus (disciple and assistant of St. Patrick)
Theodoret
Council of Chalcedon
The reformation is your problem. It wasn't Orthodox christians shouting Sola Fide.As to the rest I'll have to think about it. I don't know history well. But I know that the "Reformation" was quite a great heretical crisis.
All mentioned without any context whatsoever.
The reformation is your problem. It wasn't Orthodox christians shouting Sola Fide.
We've been far too busy being persecuted by Turks and Communists to come up with any new heresiesSo you're saying the East hasn't had any doctrinal crises since the Seventh Ecumenical Council?
Are you sort of saying that you guys have just been doing awesome, spiritually, for a millenium while the West drools on itself?
I would have to read up some more as my memory is not the best anymore.Do you know a lot about the Ecumenical Councils and the fathers? If so, I have questions.
For example, at the Council of Ephesus I've read that Pope Celestine's legates declared Peter's Supremacy and Rome's Supremacy as the Successor of Peter, the Prince and Foundation of the Church.
Apparently the Council of Ephesus made no objection at all. They also said that they were compelled by the Canons and by Pope Celestine to condemn Nestorius.
And they called Pope Celestine "the guardian of the faith".
Do you know anything about this?
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?