Do Catholics and Orthodox rely on private interpretation?

[patricius79]

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!

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.

 

[laternonjuror]

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.

They don't qualify as Catholic Councils, they fail to fulfill the criteria!

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!
These Councils in the Middle Ages, all but the one dealing with The Moslem threat to Constantinople, Florence,in their beginnings, held consultations together, allowing the Anglican Church to have the pre-eminence because S.Joseph of Arimathea introduced Catholicism to Britain just after Christ's Crucifixion. They also opposed the Pope's attempts and claims to Jurisdiction and infact gained a remarkable amount of success.
They stressed the right of the Council to preside over the pope! They sacked one Bishop of Rome and another disappeared in to themists of the Alban Hills.

 

[Albion]

They don't qualify as Catholic Councils, they fail to fulfill the criteria!

I was merely saying that the RCC considers them to be Ecumenical Councils.

 

[laternonjuror]

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.

According to the early fathers, along with many Roman Catholics, the Church isn't built on S.Peter, but on S.Peter's faith!

It it detailed enough on these blogs but you will not accept it, which I regret intensly!As for Papal Supremacy, it's a myth. For my own opinion,if the Church in the middle ages, hadn't been under the thumb of the European Monarchies, there would not even have been a dream of Supremacy!

Regarding the Pope and general Councils, of the Seven, the pope had nothing to do with any of them, except ,possibly adding his voice to the cries of the Bishops at the court of Constantine. S.Leo, asked for a General Council, to debate various things and the Emperor
ignored him so he sent a letter, which won him acclaim..The seven were called to debate the Christological misunderstandings prevelent at that time. Four were Christological , two are explanatory and one, the seventh is called by Anglican Catholic Bishop's a matter of manners., After the close of the Councils, the details were sent around to the various churches and affirmed. This was the usual method and when they were all agreed, then they became Ecumenical.

 

[laternonjuror]

I was merely saying that the RCC considers them to be Ecumenical Councils.

I thought for a minute you had been lost to the faith!!

 

[Albion]

According to the early fathers, along with many Roman Catholics, the Church isn't built on S.Peter, but on S.Peter's faith!

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!

 

[laternonjuror]

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'm not sure how to go about this,?
There's a marvellous book, just been republished, "Judgment of the Anglican Church, (Posterior to the Reformation!) F.Russell. I have two copies,the the book republished by Abe Books. Which isn't too good and a copy on my Computer, from Kindle. The Kindle one is ,I think the much better edition.
It is the opinions of the Anglican Bishops of the Reformation and after, of Anglican beliefs throughout the sixteen hundred years from them to the early fathers. Don't know if you'll enjoy it, but I did. Don't know either if your intersted. But anyhow I thought I'd tell you! In other words the beliefs of the Church in England until about 100yrs ago!
Later Non Juror!

 

[prodromos]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

This would seem to fit with Irenaeus's statement that all the churches must have recourse to the Roman Bishop

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.

and Cyprian's statement that Rome is "The Chair of Peter, and the Principal Church, from which priestly unity takes its source".

Cyprian considered Peter to be a "type" of the Apostles and that all faithful bishops sat in Peter's chair.

 

[patricius79]

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.

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.

 

[prodromos]

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.

 

[patricius79]

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.

What context could explain Afanassieff's acknowledgement, for example, that, for Cyprian, Rome alone is the direct heir of Peter?

I want to quote from Cyprian's Epistle to Cornelius, but I'm not sure about how copyright works.

 

[prodromos]

What context could explain Afanassieff's acknowledgement, for example, that, for Cyprian, Rome alone is the direct heir of Peter?

I'll tell you if and when you are able to post the context.

I want to quote from Cyprian's Epistle to Cornelius, but I'm not sure about how copyright works.

Cyprian's letters have long been in the public domain

 

[patricius79]

I'll tell you if and when you are able to post the context.

Cyprian's letters have long been in the public domain

Okay. Thanks. I wish I could get the Meyendorff book from the library, because we have little money and its hard to justify buying a lot of books when there people don't even have enough to eat.

Here is Cyprian's Epistle 54 (aka 55, or 58), paragraph 14.

I'm not sure very much what he is talking about, except that he's talking about heresy, and he talks about how these heretics are even appealing to the Throne of Peter, from which priestly unity takes its source

14. To these also it was not sufficient that they had withdrawn from the Gospel, that they had taken away from the lapsed the hope of satisfaction and repentance, that they had taken away those involved in frauds or stained with adulteries, or polluted with the deadly contagion of sacrifices, lest they should entreat God, or make confession of their crimes in the Church, from all feeling and fruit of repentance; that they had set up outside for themselves— outside the Church, and opposed to the Church, a conventicle of their abandoned faction, when there had flowed together a band of creatures with evil consciences, and unwilling to entreat and to satisfy God. After such things as these, moreover, they still dare— a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics— to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access. But what was the reason of their coming and announcing the making of the pseudo-bishop in opposition to the bishops? For either they are pleased with what they have done, and persist in their wickedness; or, if they are displeased and retreat, they know whither they may return. For, as it has been decreed by all of us — and is equally fair and just— that the case of every one should be heard there where the crime has been committed; and a portion of the flock has been assigned to each individual pastor, which he is to rule and govern, having to give account of his doing to the Lord; it certainly behooves those over whom we are placed not to run about nor to break up the harmonious agreement of the bishops with their crafty and deceitful rashness, but there to plead their cause, where they may be able to have both accusers and witnesses of their crime; unless perchance the authority of the bishops constituted in Africa seems to a few desperate and abandoned men to be too little, who have already judged concerning them, and have lately condemned, by the gravity of their judgment, their conscience bound in many bonds of sins. Already their case has been examined, already sentence concerning them has been pronounced; nor is it fitting for the dignity of priests to be blamed for the levity of a changeable and inconstant mind, when the Lord teaches and says, Let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay. Matthew 5:37

 

[prodromos]

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.

 

[patricius79]

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.

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. 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.

 

[prodromos]

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.

Some fathers teach this. Many more fathers teach that the Church is built on Peter's confession of faith.

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.

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.

 

[patricius79]

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.

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

How many fathers said the Church is NOT built on Peter, or that it is built ONLY on his confession?

Also, Pope St. Leo is regarded by the Orthodox as a saint. But didn't he claim Papal Supremacy?

Also, my sources say that the Council of Chalcedon said that Leo was stripping Dioscorus of his episcopate THROUGH THEM. Do you know about that. Why would they say that it was Leo who was doing the disciplining through them. Why not just strip him of his bishopric themselves?

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.

 

[prodromos]

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

All mentioned without any context whatsoever.

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.

The reformation is your problem. It wasn't Orthodox christians shouting Sola Fide.

 

[patricius79]

All mentioned without any context whatsoever.

The reformation is your problem. It wasn't Orthodox christians shouting Sola Fide.

So 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?

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?

 

[prodromos]

So 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?

We've been far too busy being persecuted by Turks and Communists to come up with any new heresies

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?

I would have to read up some more as my memory is not the best anymore.
You should too, going to primary sources and historians rather than wasting your time reading apologetics.