Do Catholics and Orthodox rely on private interpretation?

[laternonjuror]

Is this the best you can do? You did not succeed in scaring me.

as an English Catholic, I should never dream of scaring a lady? But when I see you follow the Rpublican party,You scare me! Have you nothing else to do but frighten old men?

 

[Albion]

as an English Catholic, I should never dream of scaring a lady? But when I see you follow the Rpublican party,You scare me! Have you nothing else to do but frighten old men?

Such irrational thinking, if kept up, is going to offset all the effort you put into your religious and historical presentations.

 

[laternonjuror]

Such irrational thinking, if kept up, is going to offset all the effort you put into your religious and historical presentations.

it was a joke, but if it offends ? I apologise readily, sincerely and honestly to the lady and any other person who I have upset.

 

[patricius79]

http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/guettee_thepapacy.pdf

But it is not possible conscientiously to study these facts from reliable documents without eliciting this truth: that the influence of the Bishop of' Rome did not arise in an universal authority-that it did not even have its source in an authority recognized by all the Western Churches, but was simply derived from the importance of his See.
Rome was the centre of all communications between different parts of the Empire. The faithful crowded thither from all quarters-for political business or private interests and thus her testimony as an Apostolic Church was strengthened by the faithful who came thither from all parts of the world, bringing the witness of all the Churches to which they severally belonged.
Such is the sense of a passage of St. Irenæus, of which the Roman theologians have made the strangest misuse.
This great theologian, attacking the heretics who sought to corrupt the faithful at Rome, establishes against them the Catholic rule of faith, preserved everywhere and always. "But," he adds, "as it would be very tedious to enumerate in such a work the succession of all the Churches, we will trace that of the very great and very ancient Church and known of all, which was founded and established at Rome by the two very glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul; which possesses a tradition that comes from the Apostles as much as the Faith declared to men, and which has transmitted it to us through the succession of her Bishops; by that, we confound all those who in any manner whatsoever, either through blindness or bad intention, do not gather where they should ; For. every Church, that is to say, the faithful who are from all places, are obliged to go toward that Church, because of the most powerful principality. In this Church, the tradition of the Apostles has been preserved by those who are of all countries."
The Romish theologians choose a bad translation of this passage, in order to find in it an argument in favor of the papal sovereignty. Instead of saying that the faithful of the whole world were obliged to go to Rome, because it was the Capital of the Empire, the seat of government, and the centre of all business, civil and political, they translate convenire ad by the words, to agree with-which is a misinterpretation; they make potentiorem principalitatem refer to the Church of Rome, and they see in this its primacy, whereas these words are only used in a general manner, and nothing indicates that they do not solely designate the capital and principal city of the Empire.​

Now it sounds like your author is claiming that the reason for this centrality or primacy of Rome was merely political, and that all Bishops are equal.

But why would a merely temporal reality determine the correctness of doctrine? Doesn't the Orthodox scholar Afanassief acknowledge that the belief of the Bishop of Rome predetermined what doctrines were accepted by the Church?

Afanassief apparently also acknowledges that the Orthodox have no systematic doctrine of Church government, and openly states that the Orthodox cannot refute the Catholic doctrine of Primacy.

Likewise Schmemann admits that the Orthodox have not honestly evaluated the role of Rome in the early Church.

And, again, what is the ecclesiastical standard for determining which councils are "Ecumenical", if its not the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop?

As I mentioned, there were many Councils held in the East which are not deemed Ecumenical, such as numerous councils in Constantinople which affirmed Arianism as true.

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



​

 

[patricius79]

Because only seven ecumenical councils have been freely affirmed to by the Universal Church of God.!
)

How do you know? There were numerous other councils in the early Church. Why are they not Ecumenical?

 

[Meowzltov]

as an English Catholic, I should never dream of scaring a lady? But when I see you follow the Rpublican party,You scare me! Have you nothing else to do but frighten old men?

LOL you are funny. Actually I have no party preference, or rather I find both parties detestable. But of the two of them, I choose to opt for the right to life party, and away from the special interest party. But I have some views in each camp. Basically my political views line up with Catholic teaching.

 

[prodromos]

Now it sounds like your author is claiming that the reason for this centrality or primacy of Rome was merely political, and that all Bishops are equal.

The fathers of the 4th Ecumenical Council stated exactly that in Canon 28

But why would a merely temporal reality determine the correctness of doctrine?

It doesn't. I don't know why you suggest such a thing. It certainly doesn't follow from the above.

Doesn't the Orthodox scholar Afanassief acknowledge that the belief of the Bishop of Rome predetermined what doctrines were accepted by the Church?

I haven't seen any such thing suggested.

Afanassief apparently also acknowledges that the Orthodox have no systematic doctrine of Church government, and openly states that the Orthodox cannot refute the Catholic doctrine of Primacy.

So? I doubt you'll find many other scholars who agree with him.

Likewise Schmemann admits that the Orthodox have not honestly evaluated the role of Rome in the early Church.

Which says nothing about the above texts I've quoted.

And, again, what is the ecclesiastical standard for determining which councils are "Ecumenical", if its not the Supremacy of the Roman Bishop?

Truth.

As I mentioned, there were many Councils held in the East which are not deemed Ecumenical, such as numerous councils in Constantinople which affirmed Arianism as true.

Truth prevailed.

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

To answer that, I will post another couple of excerpts, when time permits.

 

[patricius79]

The fathers of the 4th Ecumenical Council stated exactly that in Canon 28

It doesn't. I don't know why you suggest such a thing. It certainly doesn't follow from the above.

I haven't seen any such thing suggested.

So? I doubt you'll find many other scholars who agree with him.

Which says nothing about the above texts I've quoted.

Truth.

Truth prevailed.

To answer that, I will post another couple of excerpts, when time permits

Why did the Eastern Churches for six centuries recognize only 27 Canons of Chalcedon? Why did the Patriarch of Constantinople apologize for Canon 28 and acknowledge that the whole force of the Canons depended on the approval of Pope Leo?

Why the Council of Chalcedon refer to Pope Leo as their "Head" and the "Custodian of the Vine", and to themselves as children and Pope Leo as their father, and say that the Church is built on Peter, and say that Peter is the Prince of the Apostles, and say that "Peter has spoken through Leo!"?

As to "Truth prevailed", of course I agree. But ecclesiastically, the Arian Councils of Constantinople were formed by Bishops, and if all Bishops have equal authority as you say, then why weren't these councils "Ecumenical"?

 

[bbbbbbb]

LOL you are funny. Actually I have no party preference, or rather I find both parties detestable. But of the two of them, I choose to opt for the right to life party, and away from the special interest party. But I have some views in each camp. Basically my political views line up with Catholic teaching.

I wasn't aware that the Catholic church promoted any particular political teachings until the recent encyclical came out. It seems, from what I have read, the Pope Francis is considerably to the left of the American Democratic party on political issues of economics.

 

[Meowzltov]

I wasn't aware that the Catholic church promoted any particular political teachings until the recent encyclical came out. It seems, from what I have read, the Pope Francis is considerably to the left of the American Democratic party on political issues of economics.

Like I said already, on some issues we are Democrat, on others we are Republican. For example, on the option for the poor and the environment we are on the left. However on marriage being between a man and a woman, and for a prolife stance, we are on the right.

 

[laternonjuror]

How do you know? There were numerous other councils in the early Church. Why are they not Ecumenical?

Because the Church at large, the One , Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church hasn't admitted, or ,recognised them.I do know some of people who recognise 8, Henry VIII did, according to Dr Kidd. But the extra Council was a Synod that attested belief in the other seven. None other than these are accepted by Catholics. Certainly not Trent! They are usually referred to as, 'Latin,' or Western Councils. They relate to none but the Holy Roman Church and its satellites.

 

[Albion]

Because the Church at large, the One , Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church hasn't admitted, or ,recognised them.I do know some of people who recognise 8, Henry VIII did, according to Dr Kidd. But the extra Council was Synod that attested belief in the other seven. None other than these are accepted by Catholics. Certainly not Trent! They are usually referred to as, 'Latin,' or Western Councils. They relate to none but the Holy Roman Church and its satellites.

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.

 

[prodromos]

Why did the Eastern Churches for six centuries recognize only 27 Canons of Chalcedon?

Which Eastern Churches would that be? and where did you pull that figure of six centuries from. If Canon 28 wasn't acknowledged in word, it certainly was in spirit, as is plainly seen through recorded history.
Ah, perhaps you are referring to when Rome finally accepted Canon 28, when the 4th Crusaders had ousted the duly appointed patriarch and put a Latin puppet on the throne. Hypocracy much?

Why did the Patriarch of Constantinople apologize for Canon 28 and acknowledge that the whole force of the Canons depended on the approval of Pope Leo?

He was being diplomatic? The fact of the matter is, all the relevant canons did was make official that which had already been the case in practice.

Why the Council of Chalcedon refer to Pope Leo as their "Head" and the "Custodian of the Vine", and to themselves as children and Pope Leo as their father, and say that the Church is built on Peter, and say that Peter is the Prince of the Apostles, and say that "Peter has spoken through Leo!"?

If they considered the Pope as you claim, why did they ignore Pope Leo's judgement delivered to the Council and make their own judgement? Why was the orthodoxy of Leo's tome judged against Cyril's 12 chapters? It was only after they had carefully examined Leo's tome that the fathers of the Council judged that it was in agreement with Cyril's work. When they declared that Peter had spoken through Leo, it was only because his tome was in agreement with the 12 chapters of Cyril.

As to "Truth prevailed", of course I agree. But ecclesiastically, the Arian Councils of Constantinople were formed by Bishops, and if all Bishops have equal authority as you say, then why weren't these councils "Ecumenical"?

Lots of factors. The Holy Spirit works in many ways and through many people, raising up champions of the faith where needed.

 

[prodromos]

But the Roman Church recognizes its own councils--those occurring after the Great Schism--as being "Ecumenical Councils."

It is only recently that they have labelled them as "Ecumenical Councils", not sure exactly when.

 

[patricius79]

Which Eastern Churches would that be? and where did you pull that figure of six centuries from. If Canon 28 wasn't acknowledged in word, it certainly was in spirit, as is plainly seen through recorded history.
Ah, perhaps you are referring to when Rome finally accepted Canon 28, when the 4th Crusaders had ousted the duly appointed patriarch and put a Latin puppet on the throne. Hypocracy much?

He was being diplomatic? The fact of the matter is, all the relevant canons did was make official that which had already been the case in practice.

If they considered the Pope as you claim, why did they ignore Pope Leo's judgement delivered to the Council and make their own judgement? Why was the orthodoxy of Leo's tome judged against Cyril's 12 chapters? It was only after they had carefully examined Leo's tome that the fathers of the Council judged that it was in agreement with Cyril's work. When they declared that Peter had spoken through Leo, it was only because his tome was in agreement with the 12 chapters of Cyril.

Lots of factors. The Holy Spirit works in many ways and through many people, raising up champions of the faith where needed.

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.

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"

This would seem to fit with Irenaeus's statement that all the churches must have recourse to the Roman Bishop, and Cyprian's statement that Rome is "The Chair of Peter, and the Principal Church, from which priestly unity takes its source".

 

[patricius79]

Because the Church at large, the One , Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church hasn't admitted, or ,recognised them.I do know some of people who recognise 8, Henry VIII did, according to Dr Kidd. But the extra Council was Synod that attested belief in the other seven. None other than these are accepted by Catholics. Certainly not Trent! They are usually referred to as, 'Latin,' or Western Councils. They relate to none but the Holy Roman Church and its satellites.

I'm not talking about the Councils after the Great Schism. I'm talking about those in the early Church, such as the Councils in Constantinople which approved Monophysitism. Or the Councils which approved Arianism.

You say that the Church has not recognized them. But that seems circular. How do you know what the true Church is if you don't have an ecclesiastical standard for which councils are Ecumenical?

 

[laternonjuror]

googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('div-gpt-ad-1431698694306-1'); });

This is true,

I'm not talking about the Councils after the Great Schism. I'm talking about those in the early Church, such as the Councils in Constantinople which approved Monophysitism. Or the Councils which approved Arianism.

You say that the Church has not recognized them. But that seems circular. How do you know what the true Church is if you don't have an ecclesiastical standard for which councils are Ecumenical?

Friend,
You should really read the posts and not just the bits you find instant answers for!
The Church through its bishops decides what is acceptable, the Pope has his say, but it is the bishops of the Universal Church, that is to say those that hold to the ancient faith!
As to what the ,'True Church is,'? Every one properly baptised and who accepts the Gospel of Christ , entered in Scripure and explained and interpreted by the Holy Ghost, who intend to do what the Church should do, is a member?

 

[patricius79]

This is true,

Friend,
You should really read the posts and not just the bits you find instant answers for!
The Church through its bishops decides what is acceptable, the Pope has his say, but it is the bishops of the Universal Church, that is to say those that hold to the ancient faith!
As to what the ,'True Church is,'? Every one properly baptised and who accepts the Gospel of Christ , entered in Scripure and explained and interpreted by the Holy Ghost, who intend to do what the Church should do, is a member?

Do the Monophysites qualify?

 

[laternonjuror]

I'm not talking about the Councils after the Great Schism. I'm talking about those in the early Church, such as the Councils in Constantinople which approved Monophysitism. Or the Councils which approved Arianism?

It was at 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 (AD70) 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!

 

[laternonjuror]

Do the Monophysites qualify?

It's a pity, somewhat, that we can,t ask Honorius?