For Catholics to consider

[Montalban]

Cyprian also changed his text (which this Catholic apologist site recognises)

First Version: Although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single See, thus establishing by His own authority the source and hallmark of unity. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy was given to Peter, in order to show that there is but one Church and one See…If a man does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith?

Second Version: Although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after the Resurrection…yet, in order that the unity might be unmistakable, He established by His own authority a source for that unity having its origin in one man alone. No doubt the other Apostles were all that Peter was, endowed with equal dignity and power, but the start comes from him alone, to show that the Church of Christ is one…If a man does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, does he imagine he still holds the faith ?
Fr. Hardon Archives - Christ to Catholicism - Chapter III. Tradition of the Roman Primacy

 

[ivebeenshown]

If you present a position, whether it's an opinion that's what you've done.

That's quite alright, but I have no obligation to prove a negative, that is, that Jesus did not give the keys to anyone but Peter. I require a solid reason to believe that the keys were promised to anyone else before I can believe that. I used to think that the binding and loosing were not a power of the keys but when I discovered otherwise (from the catechism), I recanted. I am not in any way seeking to oppose Holy Tradition.

The Church Fathers (cited in the article, and subsequently referred to in discussion) differ from you

That's alright as well, because I don't feel obligated to base my beliefs on the opinions of every pope or Church Father. One Pope or one Church Father does not constitute the body of Holy Tradition for me. I don't know what you know about the doctrine of papal infallibility, but it's not a doctrine that everything every pope says is correct.

What position? You're not 'arguing' so I take it you don't want a response. It's a way of making statements without recourse to backing them with facts - because it's then claimed 'no statement/position/argument was made'. One can just keep responding saying that they suppose such and such to be the case. Even though one can 'question' a text'.

Let me know if you want to discuss this or not.

I am trying to discuss this with you. The thread seems to call out Catholics to help with refining your article... and we are discussing some issues and citations within your article, are we not?

Because of the evidence in the article. You're asking me to re-type the evidence I've given there and that will possibly help my article!

It is not that re-typing (pasting?) your evidence will by itself help your article, it's that presenting an argument to me in personal discussion would allow for better analysis on my end, and a more cohesive discussion on this website. If you arguments accompany the citations, it becomes easier to assess each statement.

I have read the evidence you linked for me, and I see no reason to believe that there is more than one chair of Peter. As I said, I do not believe that anything stated by one pope or father is correct. I believe in 'ex cathedra' and 'magisterium'.

 

[IndieVisible]

I have no problem with One Pope being in charge by election of Bishops. I have a problem with the infallibility claim tho

 

[Fotina]

I'd tend to agree. Like I asked earlier in the thread, why did "Pope" Victor c195ad even presume the right to excommunicate 1/2 the Church?

PS---IMO, this relates to Leo and Hillary (mentioned earlier) as Irenaues at the time of Victor submitted Gaul to Rome's authority. Then Leo enforces it. Cool, eh?

He presumed what was not the tradition and practice from the beginning, the reason why the eastern patriarchs rejected papal supremacy ambitions.

 

[Rick Otto]

I have no problem with One Pope being in charge by election of Bishops. I have a problem with the infallibility claim tho

So did Lord Acton about which he said:' Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
You should read Garry Will's description of the council. It was called for definition of "The Immaculate Conception" to keep the mostly German cardinals away out of disinterest, & then added to the agenda at the last minute. "Papal Sin - Structures of Deceit" is the book.

 

[ivebeenshown]

So did Lord Acton about which he said:' Power corrupts & absolute power corrupts absolutely.'
You should read Garry Will's description of the council. It was called for definition of "The Immaculate Conception" to keep the mostly German cardinals away out of disinterest, & then added to the agenda at the last minute. "Papal Sin - Structures of Deceit" is the book.

Papal infallibility is not about absolute power.

 

[Standing Up]

He presumed what was not the tradition and practice from the beginning, the reason why the eastern patriarchs rejected papal supremacy ambitions.

Irenaeus rebukes Victor's dividing the church, but doesn't really question Victor's ability to do so. It's "keep the peace", not "you don't have the right".

 

[ivebeenshown]

Irenaeus rebukes Victor's dividing the church, but doesn't really question Victor's ability to do so. It's "keep the peace", not "you don't have the right".

That's interesting.

Did Victor effectively follow through with it?

 

[MrPolo]

Eventually it was accepted in the West. In 1215 at the Fourth Council of the Lateran the Roman church accepted Constantinople's position – albeit when Constantinople was in western hands following the Fourth Crusade. Subsequently at the Council of Florence this was confirmed to the Greek Patriarch of Constantinople.

"...and so the opposition of Rome gave way after seven centuries and a half, and the Nicene Canon which Leo declared to be “inspired by the Holy Ghost” and “valid to the end of time”[198]
ref is...
Phillip Schaff - Excursus on the Later History of Canon XXVIII at CCEL
NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Your new post presents another question though. (Ignoring the data I've accumulated on a 27 canon acta and assuming that and the other links I've provided and seen are unreliable)
If canon 28 was "against the Cahtolic idea of the papacy" and Rome supposedly embraced this idea from a council that spoke against the Catholic idea of a papacy, then why didn't the Catholic idea of the papacy end in 1215?

 

[Standing Up]

That's interesting.

Did Victor effectively follow through with it?

He tried, but was rebuked.


9. Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.1706

1706 There has been considerable discussion as to whether Victor actually excommunicated the Asiatic churches or only threatened to do so. Socrates (H. E. V. 22) says directly that he excommunicated them, but many have thought that Eusebius does not say it. For my part, I cannot understand that Eusebius’ words mean anything else than that he did actually cut off communion with them. The Greek reads ἀκοινωνήτους π€ντας ἄρδην τοὺς ἐκεῖσε ἀνακηρύττων ἀδελφούς. This seems to me decisive.
​

10. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor.
NPNF2-01. Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

So, he tries, but is rebuked. But the question remains, why does Victor even think he has the right?

 

[Thekla]

Victor it would seem, like any bishop, can refuse to commune (commemorate the Liturgy) with another.

 

[ivebeenshown]

Victor it would seem, like any bishop, can refuse to commune (commemorate the Liturgy) with another.

What I want to know is this: if the bishops have the right to refuse communion with others, and there is no one particular bishop that the Church is built upon for a sign of unity, are we left up to our own ability to determine which communion is proper?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Irenaeus rebukes Victor's dividing the church, but doesn't really question Victor's ability to do so. It's "keep the peace", not "you don't have the right".

That is all the Gentiles' first Pope, Paul, desired

1Corinthians 11:18 For foremost indeed of coming together ye in *the assembly I am hearing schisms/divisions in ye to be firstly,
and part some I am believing it.

1 Corinthians 14:33 for not is of tulmuts/akatastasiaV <181> the God, but of peace,
as in all the Outcalleds of the Saints.

 

[Montalban]

Your new post presents another question though. (Ignoring the data I've accumulated on a 27 canon acta and assuming that and the other links I've provided and seen are unreliable)

I've addressed your data

If canon 28 was "against the Cahtolic idea of the papacy" and Rome supposedly embraced this idea from a council that spoke against the Catholic idea of a papacy, then why didn't the Catholic idea of the papacy end in 1215?

If you noted the text I gave, originally the Papacy accepted it in the context of having defeated Constantinople and establishing Latin bishops in eastern Sees

Then it didn't matter about 'elevating' the See of Constantinople, because it was Latin (because of the Fourth Crusade) and thereofre that See was still deemed 'under' the Pope, by another Catholic device - the 'charism of Peter'. 1215 is after the Fourth Crusade (1204). The Sees were emptied of Orthodox and filled with Latins.

When again the confirmed it it was during the talks at reunion. The See was back in Orthodox hands but reunion would have meant subverting Orthodoxy and accepting Catholicsm which still has the Pope as leader.

So for the Latins the accepting of Canon 28 wouldn't have affected their own idea of the Papacy because both occasions meant that the See that they'd raise in 'honour' would have been de jure subservient to Rome

For Orthodox it's important, as I noted because it shows that position in 'honour' is not fixed.

 

[Erose]

Further support that John Chrysostom wasn't in communion with Rome...
It must also be remembered that he took his vows from Meletius (whom we noted earlier was not in communion with Rome). He accepted as an authority men not in communion with Rome. After Meletius died John Chrysostom accepted Flavian as his bishop[154] - another person not in communion with Rome.[155] John Chrysostom spent much of his life not in communion with Rome


[154] Socrates Scholasticus The Ecclesiastical History Book V.9

[155]Puller, F. W., (1893), The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome, (Longmans, Green & Co; NY), p266

I'm still confused here. Why do you say that Meletius was not in communion with Rome? I have found no where showing that Meletius was excommunicated by the Pope or that Meletius was formally declared a heretic by the Pope. Besides being in communion with the Catholic church just requires you to be Catholic and as far as I can tell Meletius was never not Catholic. The problem in Antioch was due to a schism caused by the Emperor Constans after he banished Meletius and appointed Paulinus, and was made much worse due to the Arians and other political factors.

Besides this even though the Pope initially favored Paulinus over Meletius, due to the lack of viable information, this doesn't mean that communion with the Catholic church was broken since as you have pointed out in your Wiki article Patriarchates elected their own Patriarchs and this was not the function of the Pope to do and still is not. If you have ever done research into the workings of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates you will discover that this is still the case. The pope does not interfere with the workings of the other Patriarchates unless asked by that Patriarchate for assistance.

As in the case of this one. The pope didn't get involved until he was asked to do so. He initially sided with Paulinus primarily due to insufficient information of what was really happening in Antioch and once he received the proper information from legates sent to him, by I believe St. Basil, he effectively got involved by issuing anathemas against the Arians and by sending a decree back with the legates that effectively ended the schism between the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria.

This story if anything highlights the effectiveness of the papacy in supporting the orthodoxy of the church when it is needed, and when the Emperor got involved in Church politics it hardly ever was positive.

Like I said I think that there is some confusion here upon what Communion with Rome actually means.

 

[Thekla]

I'm still confused here. Why do you say that Meletius was not in communion with Rome? I have found no where showing that Meletius was excommunicated by the Pope or that Meletius was formally declared a heretic by the Pope. Besides being in communion with the Catholic church just requires you to be Catholic and as far as I can tell Meletius was never not Catholic. The problem in Antioch was due to a schism caused by the Emperor Constans after he banished Meletius and appointed Paulinus, and was made much worse due to the Arians and other political factors.

Besides this even though the Pope initially favored Paulinus over Meletius, due to the lack of viable information, this doesn't mean that communion with the Catholic church was broken since as you have pointed out in your Wiki article Patriarchates elected their own Patriarchs and this was not the function of the Pope to do and still is not. If you have ever done research into the workings of the Eastern Catholic Patriarchates you will discover that this is still the case. The pope does not interfere with the workings of the other Patriarchates unless asked by that Patriarchate for assistance.

As in the case of this one. The pope didn't get involved until he was asked to do so. He initially sided with Paulinus primarily due to insufficient information of what was really happening in Antioch and once he received the proper information from legates sent to him, by I believe St. Basil, he effectively got involved by issuing anathemas against the Arians and by sending a decree back with the legates that effectively ended the schism between the Churches of Antioch and Alexandria.

This story if anything highlights the effectiveness of the papacy in supporting the orthodoxy of the church when it is needed, and when the Emperor got involved in Church politics it hardly ever was positive.

Like I said I think that there is some confusion here upon what Communion with Rome actually means.

This claims communion with Rome was restored (though, iirc, not actually enacted until after the death of St. Meletius ?), which would imply it was also broken.

On the Communion of Damasus and Meletius: Fourth-Century Synodal Formulae in the Codex Veronensis LX. Edited and translated by Lester L. Field, Jr. Pp. xii + 304. (Studies and Texts, 145.) Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2004. isb

Delegates/legates from Rome twice investigated the matter by visit, and twice came to the same conclusion.

Please note that not in communion is found in several ways: actual co-commemoration of the Liturgy itself or those representing another, and also the commemoration of the name of a patriarch and/or local metropolitan/bishop during the Liturgy. There is also formal excommunication (which is to announce what is actually in practice in the Liturgical setting to some extent), the pronouncing of anathema.

There is also the question re: bishops in the eastern Catholic Church and Rome - for example, some of the Byz. Catholics in the US have not had a bishop for approaching a year. Is this due to the disinterest of the Byz. Catholics in having a bishop ?

 

[Erose]

Concerning your comment on Leo I:

The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter’s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. According to Leo, the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.[citation needed]

This was not just the opinion of Pope Leo the great but also the Eastern Bishops as well as shown from the Council of Chalcedon after reading the Tome of Pope Leo in session II:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodoxbelieve. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the truefaith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.


Again in session III:

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the CatholicChurch, and the foundation of the orthodoxfaith, has stripped him of the episcopate, and has alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.

It should be pointed out that as far as history shows not one Eastern Bishop cried foul over this statement but agreed upon this statement.

The point I am making here is that at the time when both the East and the West were one Church, there was no condemnation of this type of language as there is today among the Orthodox. So the question is what changed in the East to make this language unacceptable?

 

[Thekla]

Concerning your comment on Leo I:

The doctrine of the sedes apostolica (apostolic see) asserts that every bishop of Rome, as Peter&#8217;s successor, possesses the full authority granted to this position and that this power is inviolable on the grounds that it was established by God himself and so not bound to any individual. Pope Leo I (440-461), with the aid of Roman law, solidified this doctrine by making the bishop of Rome the legal heir of Peter. According to Leo, the apostle Peter continued to speak to the Christian community through his successors as bishop of Rome.[citation needed]

This was not just the opinion of Pope Leo the great but also the Eastern Bishops as well as shown from the Council of Chalcedon after reading the Tome of Pope Leo in session II:

After the reading of the foregoing epistle, the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodoxbelieve. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the truefaith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away.


Again in session III:

Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the CatholicChurch, and the foundation of the orthodoxfaith, has stripped him of the episcopate, and has alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties.

It should be pointed out that as far as history shows not one Eastern Bishop cried foul over this statement but agreed upon this statement.

The point I am making here is that at the time when both the East and the West were one Church, there was no condemnation of this type of language as there is today among the Orthodox. So the question is what changed in the East to make this language unacceptable?

Read the entire statement of the Council, not just bits of it.
They were stating that Leo was in accord with Cyril and themselves; in fact, they measured Leo's statement against Cyril's, and almost the entire finding was a reiteration of Cyril's words - quotations in fact - with a limited use of Leo's. The statement itself does not single out Leo as the only such speaker - but that Leo is in agreement with the apostolic witness that is the standard of the Council.

Last year, Philothei and myself translated this from the Greek -- the statement and thrust is in no wise a statement on the patriarchate of Rome.

 

[Erose]

This claims communion with Rome was restored (though, iirc, not actually enacted until after the death of St. Meletius ?), which would imply it was also broken.

On the Communion of Damasus and Meletius: Fourth-Century Synodal Formulae in the Codex Veronensis LX. Edited and translated by Lester L. Field, Jr. Pp. xii + 304. (Studies and Texts, 145.) Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 2004. isb

Delegates/legates from Rome twice investigated the matter by visit, and twice came to the same conclusion.

Please note that not in communion is found in several ways: actual co-commemoration of the Liturgy itself or those representing another, and also the commemoration of the name of a patriarch and/or local metropolitan/bishop during the Liturgy. There is also formal excommunication (which is to announce what is actually in practice in the Liturgical setting to some extent), the pronouncing of anathema.

I don't see your evidence in the link.

There is also the question re: bishops in the eastern Catholic Church and Rome - for example, some of the Byz. Catholics in the US have not had a bishop for approaching a year. Is this due to the disinterest of the Byz. Catholics in having a bishop ?

Which Eparchy? There are a few and the appointment of a bishop in the Byz. Catholic church is the responsibility of the Head of that Particular Church and not the responsibility of the Pope. On a side note my diocese (Roman rite) was without a bishop for over two years! I think that alot of the delay in some cases due to the discernment process of electing a new Bishop.

 

[Thekla]

I don't see your evidence in the link.

I don't have the full text,

secondly, to establish that these fragments demonstrate that communion was restored between Damasus of Rome and Meletius of Antioch before the latter's death while presiding at the Council of Constantinople in 381.

How can a communion which is already in existence be restored ?

Which Eparchy? There are a few and the appointment of a bishop in the Byz. Catholic church is the responsibility of the Head of that Particular Church and not the responsibility of the Pope. On a side note my diocese (Roman rite) was without a bishop for over two years! I think that alot of the delay in some cases due to the discernment process of electing a new Bishop.

Not in this case. And this was also a problem in China as well - a bishop was needed (a year again), the Vatican would not give approval, so the Chinese Church did it themselves. (Its not been sorted out yet.)

The Vatican must okay it.