For Catholics to consider

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Me neither, mea culpa. However, I would argue the visiblity of Orthodoxy. If Orthodoxy really is the true Church, I have to ask you the same question I ask the protestants. Why are you so obscure? I mean, I never heard of you until I converted to Catholicism, and never encountered you until I joined CF.

The Coptics lived in Egypt and North Africa- but they broke from the Church and within a few centuries were taken over by Muslims.
The Orthodox had most of the Middle-East and a few centuries later, fell to them. Even Greece was part of the Islamic empires - it was saved by others.

The Orthodox and Coptics live in small pockets of faith in nations that were once Christian.

Let's contrast that with the early Church, the true Church which began persecuted and conquered nations and spread the Gospel message. It continues to expand and grow. Which Church does this? That seems obvious.

One could argue that protestantism is growing too, but heretical groups have always existed. They spring up for a while, converting Christians, not pagans (which is what protestants do).

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Thank God I am not "the world' and the apostles have finished speaking.

Now everyone is his own apostle. Christians think God is telling them what relative truths apply to them.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

One of the things that drew me away from the Catholic Church in the first place was when I thought about this use of evidence.

Are you a former Catholic? Just curious.

 

[Rick Otto]

The Catholic Church didn't 'spawn' anything opposed to it. That would be like lies coming from the truth or evil coming from God.

Evil was created by breaking from God. Schismatic groups and heretics create themselves by breaking from the truth.

Except that the RCC isn't God & they broke from apostolic tradition as Polycarp knew it.

 

[MrPolo]

I agree, there are volumes to address here. I want to address 2 briefly.

One is this quote from St. John Chrysostom:

As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ invests them with the same power.​

That is his comment on John 20:22 when Christ breathed on them and sent them forth. I presume the author of the article is trying to say "same power" means there is no Papacy. But rather, St. John Chrysostom is comparing the power Christ gave as the "same power" a king gives to governors. The "same" refers to the kind of power a king has when he appoints governors. I read also the surrounding context and see nothing addressing any sort of primacy among the Apostles, whether as a source of unity, or as an honorary primacy. The issue is not addressed here.

Second is the issue of the Council of Chalcedon, canon 28. In my research, all I can find is evidence that canon 28 was nixed or not accepted. It was not embraced against the Pope's "energetic protests" as the author states. One of my several sources saying as much is an article at the American Orthodox Institute, which says:

According to the official acta of the council, twenty-seven canons were officially recognized. Sometime later, three additional canons were furtively inserted but one of these, Canon 28, was hastily removed on order from Pope Leo upon the recommendations of his legates, who coincidentally were not present when this particular canon was drafted. For several centuries thereafter, no more mention was made of Canon 28 and the following ones, 29 and 30 respectively, were viewed as commentary upon other canons and not as canons in and of themselves.

...

Leo’s championship of the canonical precedents of the first three councils stood him on solid ground. He certainly could not be accused of inconsistency nor was he being self-serving: he himself respected the prerogatives independent sees, as can be evidenced by the letter that he wrote (the "Tome of Leo") and submitted for the approval of the council.

The invalidity of Canon 28 was therefore obvious. In a letter to Marcian, Leo stated in no uncertain terms that Constantinople was not an apostolic see. 9 Writing in a separate letter to the Empress Pulcheria, he used even more forceful language: "As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy Apostle Peter." Faced with this opposition Anatolius quietly withdrew it, never openly bringing it up again.

Time however, was on Anatolius’ side. Leo had more serious problems to contend with, particularly trying to dissuade Attila from attacking Rome. As far as Leo and his successors were concerned, the illegality of the canon remained in force (at least in theory) but given the dire straits of the see of Rome, there was little that they could do as Constantinople quietly enhanced its grip over the three archdioceses in question.

Further investigation of the geopolitical landscape of fifth century Christendom would undoubtedly shed more light on this subject. For our purposes however, it is vital to note the irregularity of Canon 28 and how unsettling it was in its own time. Although its territorial ambitions were strictly limited, it was obvious that an unfortunate precedent had been set. In addition, the acquisition of the patriarchal dignity by the Byzantines only roiled the waters further. Not only was such an honor now bestowed by statute, thus diminishing the luster of the three apostolic sees, but the bearers of this new title viewed it as a first step to explore even greater avenues of glory.​

And it goes on.... And I have other resources also affirming that the council's acta officially contained 27 canons.

 

[Montalban]

I agree, there are volumes to address here. I want to address 2 briefly.

Thanks for replying

One is this quote from St. John Chrysostom:

As a king sending forth governors, gives power to cast into prison and to deliver from it, so in sending these forth, Christ invests them with the same power.​

That is his comment on John 20:22 when Christ breathed on them and sent them forth. I presume the author of the article is trying to say "same power" means there is no Papacy. But rather, St. John Chrysostom is comparing the power Christ gave as the "same power" a king gives to governors. The "same" refers to the kind of power a king has when he appoints governors. I read also the surrounding context and see nothing addressing any sort of primacy among the Apostles, whether as a source of unity, or as an honorary primacy. The issue is not addressed here.

The king, being Jesus, the head of the church.

Remember Chrysostom lived most of his life NOT in communion with Rome

Second is the issue of the Council of Chalcedon, canon 28. In my research, all I can find is evidence that canon 28 was nixed or not accepted.

If you read the article it notes that the RCC did eventually accept it.

It was not embraced against the Pope's "energetic protests" as the author states. One of my several sources saying as much is an article at the American Orthodox Institute, which says:

According to the official acta of the council, twenty-seven canons were officially recognized.Sometime later, three additional canons were furtively inserted but one of these, Canon 28, was hastily removed on order from Pope Leo upon the recommendations of his legates, who coincidentally were not present when this particular canon was drafted. For several centuries thereafter, no more mention was made of Canon 28 and the following ones, 29 and 30 respectively, were viewed as commentary upon other canons and not as canons in and of themselves.​

That's not true. And seems an attempt at all arguments at once; that both the pope didn't protest, but he did and they removed it following his protest

They didn't remove it. The east accepted all those canons. The papacy eventually accepted #28 too. I back my several sources to your one layman! Especially when he's not arguing against Catholicism, but against his perceived claims of the Ecumenical Patriarch (the title, or the abstract will clue the reader into this). It is a belief that the Patriarch is trying to assume the same position within Orthodoxy that the Pope has in the RCC.

Leo’s championship of the canonical precedents of the first three councils stood him on solid ground.

Except he argued not against incursions on his own privellege, but on behalf of the other Sees​

 

[Montalban]

Mr Polo, the Catholic encyclopedia itself shows Orthodox continued to re-affirm Canon XXVIII
"Canon iii of Constantinople (381) and canon xxviii of Chalcedon (451) are renewed"
Council in Trullo

It doesn't say that Canon XXVIII was rejected per se, only that the pope rejected it
"Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith."
Council of Chalcedon

Given that the East (Council of Trullo) re-affirmed it, it wasn't rejected by the whole church

 

[Montalban]

Isaiah 22:20 “In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. 21 I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. 22 I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. 23 I will drive him like a peg into a firm place; he will become a seat of honor for the house of his father. 24 All the glory of his family will hang on him: its offspring and offshoots—all its lesser vessels, from the bowls to all the jars.

Although not really related to the article I linked in the OP, I thought I might talk a bit more about this

One Catholic site tries to make the comparison between OT and NT passages
“St. John Cassian (c. 362-435), who writes:

"O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it." (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)

Compare this to Isaiah 22, which reads:

"On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. ...I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open."

Cassian is clearly drawing from Isaiah 22, and applying it to Matt 16.”
Answer to James White on the Early Papacy

The link between Cassian and Isaiah is their conjecture, not in the works of John Cassian. They actually then go on to say why there’s no evidence for this link elsewhere in the writings of the Church Fathers.

“I believe the reason we don't see Isaiah 22 used more extensively is that it's rooted in a sense of Jewish national identity. And, since most of the fathers were Gentiles, it's not surprising that they see the Keys of Matt 16 referring to authority in a more generic sense (which is equally valid). However, we do see the Kingly, Davidic aspect of the Keys alluded to more often in the Semetic-speaking branches of the Church. For example, Aphraates the Sage (c. 330 A.D.), one of the oldest fathers of the Syrian Church, says
"David handed over the Kingdom to Solomon and was gathered to his people; and Jesus handed over the Keys to Simon and ascended and returned to Him Who sent Him." (Aphraates, xxi, 13).


This is the only church leader I'm aware of that ever makes a direct comparison. It is this Apologetics site’s attempt to explain why there’s so few Church Fathers (one only) who make this connection. Rightly so because the key given to David, and then to Solomon is solely an earthly key. The keys given by Peter are for heaven and earth.

So out of all the Church Fathers who had a chance to comment on this ‘important’ link one does.

The site offers pure speculation that Cassian is making a link to Isaiah's text.

 

[Fotina]

Tradition and history show the exact opposite, as a matter of fact.

It was the east that downplayed the importance of being in communion with the Apostolic See after they established their own Church.

Your post is false.

The East has never denied or downplayed that it was in communion with Rome for the first thousand years of the Church. No reason to deny or downplay it. It's a fact.

However, it's also a fact that during that time Rome ruled only its own jurisdiction in the West and never had universal jurisdiction or supremacy over the entire Church. It's historical fact of the practice of the Church.

It was not ever the tradition of the Church to have a supreme ruler among them then or now. Christ is the Head of the Church. It did grant primacy to Rome as first among equals whose place is now taken by Constantinople after Rome left to go it alone.

The Church was governed then in the same way it is now, independent geographical administrative jurisdictions united in faith and practice. An Orthodox member in good standing may commune in any canonical Orthodox temple anywhere in the world.

After Rome left, the Church continued on in the East as before without missing a beat down to the present day.

That's the facts to deal with.

 

[MrPolo]

Mr Polo, the Catholic encyclopedia itself shows Orthodox continued to re-affirm Canon XXVIII
"Canon iii of Constantinople (381) and canon xxviii of Chalcedon (451) are renewed"
Council in Trullo

It doesn't say that Canon XXVIII was rejected per se, only that the pope rejected it
"Otherwise the pope ratified the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon, but only inasmuch as they referred to matters of faith."
Council of Chalcedon

Given that the East (Council of Trullo) re-affirmed it, it wasn't rejected by the whole church

Ok, so what of the 27 canons in the acta? Here is a link to a translation of the whole Acta, and it lists 27 canons, and calls into question again the 28th canon as one made outside conciliar unity. Can you specifically cite me the evidence that the Pope approved of canon 28 "eventually"? I see that the Popes supposedly embraced this canon in several websites I've visited, but none provide source material. One site said something like "the papacy approved the canons" or something like that but didn't say if 28 was in there.

As for my one layman's take, you may also consider this section of the article:

The spark that lit the fuse was an address given at Holy Cross School of Theology on March 16, 2009 by the Chief Secretary of the Holy Synod of Constantinople, the Very Rev Dr Elpidophorus Lambriniades. This speech may have been partly in response to an article written by Metropolitan Philip Saliba, the primate of the Antiochian archdiocese in North America. Saliba’s essay questioned the validity of Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon.​

There also seems to be the following citation often quoted by the Catholic apologists from then-bishop

Also, if canon 28 is a sound argument from the early Church against the Papacy, then I have many questions. If such is the case and canon 28 was re-affirmed at Trullo, then what is currently the relation of the bishop of Constantinople to the rest of the Church? Do the Orthodox believe it to be a seat to make disciplinary or customary norms for the whole Church?
And what in canon 28 should Catholics read that should demonstrate that their view of the Papacy is wrong?

Also, if, according to the Orthodox view that for authority to work, the bishops must make decisions together (such as I heard for instance in a youtube video of the late Elder Arsenie Papacioc criticizing the idea of a Pope), then how can canon 28 by Orthodox (or Catholic) standards carry any weight? Especially in light of other letters from the bishops at Chalcedon writing to Leo like:

And this golden chain leading down from the Author of the command to us, you yourself have stedfastly preserved, being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all. Whence we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of Truth, not giving our instruction each singly and in secret, but making known our confession of the Faith in conceit, with one consent and agreement And we were all delighted, revelling, as at an imperial banquet, in the spiritual food, which Christ supplied to us through your letter: and we seemed to see the Heavenly Bridegroom actually present with us. 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 to their country and their ease? Of whom you were, chief, as the head to the members, showing your goodwill ... We have ratified also the canon of the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second: for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which belongs to you, to the church in Constantinople also, by virtue of your great disinterestedness in sharing all your own good things with your spiritual kinsfolk.​

And finally, what do we make of the letter by then Bishop of Constantinople Anatonius to Leoarticle by Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore, which includes a letter of apology from the Bishop of Constantinople to Pope Leo at the time regarding the incident of canon 28)

Those are just a few questions that come to mind!

 

[MrPolo]

TRemember Chrysostom lived most of his life NOT in communion with Rome

I've never heard this before. What parts of his life were in and out of communion with Rome?

 

[tadoflamb]

Remember Chrysostom lived most of his life NOT in communion with Rome

Your post is false.
The East has never denied or downplayed that it was in communion with Rome for the first thousand years of the Church. No reason to deny or downplay it. It's a fact.

Huh?

 

[ivebeenshown]

This is the only church leader I'm aware of that ever makes a direct comparison. It is this Apologetics site’s attempt to explain why there’s so few Church Fathers (one only) who make this connection. Rightly so because the key given to David, and then to Solomon is solely an earthly key. The keys given by Peter are for heaven and earth.

So out of all the Church Fathers who had a chance to comment on this ‘important’ link one does.

The site offers pure speculation that Cassian is making a link to Isaiah's text.

That's okay by me. I don't think the passage is necessarily a prophecy of the papacy, but it is a sort of prefigure of Christ, and also a fine demonstration of God delegating authority and stewardship to individuals as he will.

 

[Thekla]

Huh?

Chrysostom, while still in Antioch, was ordained by bishop Meletius, who later presided at the Second Ecumenical Council (381), and served under Meletius as his bishop.

Rome did not recognize Meletius as bishop, preferring Paulinus.

Chrysostom also served under bishop Flavian of Antioch, who was also not in communion with Rome.

Constantinople, where Chrysostom later served as patriarch, was at this time in communion with Rome and had been so and continued to be so.

 

[ivebeenshown]

I would be interested in how you came to that conclusion since on another thread you said that the clause about the powers following the clause about the keys being in the same sentence didn't necessarily mean the powers were those of the keys.

Grammatically, there was nothing necessitating that interpretation, but there wasn't anything preventing it either. I accepted in in faith due to Church teaching.

 

[MrPolo]

Chrysostom, while still in Antioch, was ordained by bishop Meletius, who later presided at the Second Ecumenical Council (381), and served under Meletius as his bishop.

Rome did not recognize Meletius as bishop, preferring Paulinus.

Chrysostom also served under bishop Flavian of Antioch, who was also not in communion with Rome.

Constantinople, where Chrysostom later served as patriarch, was at this time in communion with Rome and had been so and continued to be so.

In what I've read there was confusion as to Meletius or Paulinus as bishop, but I haven't read anything that extended to their appointees, but maybe they were considered "out of communion" too? Could it be that it was not a matter of being "excommunion" but rather who the Pope saw as the Antiochene bishop? i.e. Meletius was not excommunicated but rather not seen as the bishop.

Was there a specific issue between Chrysostom and the Roman bishop?

Sources always appreciated.

 

[Fotina]

However, I would argue the visiblity of Orthodoxy. If Orthodoxy really is the true Church, I have to ask you the same question I ask the protestants. Why are you so obscure? I mean, I never heard of you until I converted to Catholicism, and never encountered you until I joined CF.

FYI

Number of adherents - Orthodox

Based on the numbers of adherents, Orthodoxy is the second largest Christian communion in the world after the Roman Catholic Church.[14] The most common estimates of the number of Orthodox Christians worldwide is approximately 300 million.[15]
Orthodoxy is the largest single religious faith in Eastern Europe, including Greece (95%), Russia (80%),[16] Ukraine (80%),[17] Romania (87%),[18] Belarus (85%), Bulgaria (83%), Serbia (84%),[19] Georgia (89%), Moldova (93%), the Republic of Macedonia (65%), Cyprus (80%), Montenegro (74%),.[20]
The number of Orthodox adherents represents about 36% of the population in Bosnia and Herzegovina (Bosnian Serbs). In Albania the adherents number around 25% out of a 40% Christian population, the others being Roman Catholic. As the dominant religion in northern Kazakhstan, it represents 40% of Kazakhstan, and 4% of Lithuania, 9% of Latvia,[citation needed] and 13% of the Estonian population. Large Orthodox Christian communities exist in the Mediterranean countries of Syria (80% of Christian population,[citation needed] which in turn is about 10% of the total population), Lebanon (40% of Christian population) and 10% of the whole Lebanese population, Jordan (80% of Christian population), Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip (Palestinian Christians) with some families able to trace their ancestry to the earliest Christians of the Holy Land. Small numbers of Orthodox minorities live in Poland, Slovakia, Hungary (Romanian minority), Turkey, Azerbaijan, and as many as 25,000 in the Czech Republic.[citation needed]
In addition, there are also significant Eastern Orthodox communities in Western Europe (including the transplanted Greek, Romanian, Serbian, Macedonian, Albanian, Bulgarian and Russian communities), Africa, Asia (see the Orthodox Church of China and Orthodox Church of Japan), Australia, North America through the pattern of immigration from Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the last 400 or some years. In USA and Canada the Orthodox minority is growing and at present it comprise between 1% and 5% of the total population.
Ancient Eastern Orthodox communities still have large populations in countries such as Lebanon and Israel (Jerusalem and Bethlehem). Large Orthodox communities with ancient histories have been completely removed from some of their ancestral homes and therefore no longer have a presence in those locations, specifically Anatolia and Cappadocia.
The numerous Protestant groups in the world, if taken all together, outnumber the Orthodox,[21] but they differ theologically and do not form a single communion.[22]

 

[Rick Otto]

Grammatically, there was nothing necessitating that interpretation, but there wasn't anything preventing it either. I accepted in in faith due to Church teaching.

Cool.
Then Church teaching ipso facto admits that the powers of the keys were given to all His disciples in Matt 18.
That would distance the connection between the keys plural in Matt 16 from the key (singular) of David in Isaiah, wouldn't it?

 

[ivebeenshown]

Cool.
Then Church teaching ipso facto admits that the powers of the keys were given to all His disciples in Matt 18.
That would distance the connection between the keys plural in Matt 16 from the key (singular) of David in Isaiah, wouldn't it?

I believe so. Jesus says he holds the key of David in Revelation 3, I think. So with this in mind, Isaiah 22 apparently demonstrates that God may see fit to entrust authority symbolized by keys to a human steward, and also that Christ is a 'nail fastened in a sure place.'

Here's the Catechismal reference in case you were interested:

II. THE POWER OF THE KEYS

981 After his Resurrection, Christ sent his apostles "so that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be preached in his name to all nations."526 The apostles and their successors carry out this "ministry of reconciliation," not only by announcing to men God's forgiveness merited for us by Christ, and calling them to conversion and faith; but also by communicating to them the forgiveness of sins in Baptism, and reconciling them with God and with the Church through the power of the keys, received from Christ:527

[The Church] has received the keys of the Kingdom of heaven so that, in her, sins may be forgiven through Christ's blood and the Holy Spirit's action. In this Church, the soul dead through sin comes back to life in order to live with Christ, whose grace has saved us.528

 

[Thekla]

In what I've read there was confusion as to Meletius or Paulinus as bishop, but I haven't read anything that extended to their appointees, but maybe they were considered "out of communion" too? Could it be that it was not a matter of being "excommunion" but rather who the Pope saw as the Antiochene bishop? i.e. Meletius was not excommunicated but rather not seen as the bishop.

Twice, Rome sent some (Jerome at one point) to determine who it found to be the rightful bishop, and twice pronounced Paulinus the rightful bishop. Defying Rome, Meletius continued to serve as bishop, but outside the city walls.

Was there a specific issue between Chrysostom and the Roman bishop?

Apparently the validity of Meletius and Flavinus.

Sources always appreciated.

Just a wiki, but quick find, and with citations:
Meletius of Antioch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia