History of the Papacy

[buzuxi02]

No you didnt. You provided quotes exalting the apostle Peter which even protestant preachers do to honor various biblical figures. The latin apologists then twist the hyperbole used to trick the masses as most will never look them up to verify what is being insinuated. Let me give you an example, why have the Latin apologists NEVER EVER QUOTED THE FOLLOWING from John Chrysostom?:

He has reached the whole world, has taken possession of it and has filled it with his cry not by loudly lifting his voice but by uttering his words with the aid of divine grace... It is the son of Thunder, the Beloved of Christ, the pillar of all the churches in the whole world. It is he who possesses the keys of heaven, it is he who has drunk the chalice of Christ and has been baptised with His baptism...He has all heaven for his stage, for theater the entire world, for audience all the angels.. The powers above stand by this apostle, astounded at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and in bloom of his virtue. in consequence he attracted even Christ himself and received the grace of the Holy Spirit. Having prepared his soul as a golden toned lyre, well made and inlaid with precious stones, he brought it about that the Holy Spirit should send forth a great and sublime sound by its means." (Chrysostom on John hom 1)

Have you ever heard latin apologists using this quote? It definately is more exalted than anything else they have ever written about Peter, is it not?

See what I mean about throwing spaghetti against a wall and seeing what can stick? But imagine that John Chrysostom was speaking of Peter and not the son of Thunder John, would this quote not be plastered all over every single latin apology? We wouldnt hear the last of it! But of the millions of manuscripts in 2000 years of christianity all the papal apologists can come up with is 2 pages of single sentence quotes many of which are forgeries and the rest out of context! Throwing spaghetti at the wall.

 

[patricius79]

No you didnt. You provided quotes exalting the apostle Peter which even protestant preachers do to honor various biblical figures. The latin apologists then twist the hyperbole used to trick the masses as most will never look them up to verify what is being insinuated. Let me give you an example, why have the Latin apologists NEVER EVER QUOTED THE FOLLOWING from John Chrysostom?:

He has reached the whole world, has taken possession of it and has filled it with his cry not by loudly lifting his voice but by uttering his words with the aid of divine grace... It is the son of Thunder, the Beloved of Christ, the pillar of all the churches in the whole world. It is he who possesses the keys of heaven, it is he who has drunk the chalice of Christ and has been baptised with His baptism...He has all heaven for his stage, for theater the entire world, for audience all the angels.. The powers above stand by this apostle, astounded at the beauty of his soul, and his understanding, and in bloom of his virtue. in consequence he attracted even Christ himself and received the grace of the Holy Spirit. Having prepared his soul as a golden toned lyre, well made and inlaid with precious stones, he brought it about that the Holy Spirit should send forth a great and sublime sound by its means." (Chrysostom on John hom 1)

Have you ever heard latin apologists using this quote? It definately is more exalted than anything else they have ever written about Peter, is it not?

See what I mean about throwing spaghetti against a wall and seeing what can stick? But imagine that John Chrysostom was speaking of Peter and not the son of Thunder John, would this quote not be plastered all over every single latin apology? We wouldnt hear the last of it! But of the millions of manuscripts in 2000 years of christianity all the papal apologists can come up with is 2 pages of single sentence quotes many of which are forgeries and the rest out of context! Throwing spaghetti at the wall.

Thanks for the quotation from Chrysostom about John. No, I've never heard it. But that doesn't mean much, given my ignorance.

The fathers I cited explicitly say the Church is built on Simon Rock. Chrysostom, for example, calls Simon Rock "the first of the Apostles" and "the foundation of the Church". Similarly with Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephrem, etc
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

I've seen numerous quotations from the fathers at Catholic sites showing a consensus on Simon Rock's Headship among the Apostles.

Are you saying there were fathers--or even one father--that expliclty says that it is John, and NOT Peter, who is the preeminent Apostle?

Also, why do you think Christ gave Simon the name "Rock"?

 

[buzuxi02]

The fathers I cited explicitly say the Church is built on Simon Rock. Chrysostom, for example, calls Simon Rock "the first of the Apostles" and "the foundation of the Church". Similarly with Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Ephrem, etc
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm

It proves nothing. For example Chryostom called Peter the 'mouth of the apostles' because for Chrysostom he truly was the spokesperson on behalf of all the apostles. This is clear in his homily where he says the confession of faith is the confession of all the apostles. He also calls Paul by the same titles and the official liturgical church texts refers to both Peter and Paul as Corphaei (pluraL for chiefs). Their feast day is on the same day its a joint commemoration and everything that is applied to Peter is applied to Paul.

You see thats the problem- that you go to catholic sites, Why not go to CCEL.ORG and read the primary texts in their entirety? You will see that Pope Leo NEVER considered himself what Rome claims, this includes epistles pleading with the emperor and emperess to take up his grievances against Constantinople (which they rejected as pouting), epistles to bishops that any authority Rome and Antioch and Alexandria have come from the Nicene canons alone not from some divine source. He wrote an Epistle to the emperor Marcion that he was shocked that the majority of world's bishops at Chalcedon rejected the papal legates plea to not revise the nicene canon, the papal legates advice were completely neutered. He laments to Emperess Pulcheria in one epistle that he could not find an alliance with the Illyrian bishops who have rejected his grievance and the entirety of the church under them have adopted all the canons of Chalcedon. The entire Church rejected his grievances as being just a hissy fit.

Just read various epistles, it doesnt have to be about the pope, you will start then to see how epistles and apologies and biblical commentary have nothing to do with what they claim.

 

[patricius79]

Yes proves nothing. For example Chryostom called Peter the 'mouth of the apostles' because for Chrysostom he truly was the spokesperson on behalf of all the apostles. This is clear in his homily where he says the confession of faith is the confession of the apostles. He also calls Paul by the same and the official liturgical church texts refers to both Peter and Paul as Corphaei (pluraL for chiefs). Their feast day is on the same day its a joint commemoration and everything that is applied to Peter is applied to Paul.

Hi Buzuxi,

Okay. Thanks.

Chrysostom calls Simon Rock "the first of the Apostles" and "the foundation of the Church". Does he say that about Paul or any of the other Apostles?

 

[buzuxi02]

No he says better stuff. Just read the quote above. Thats just from homily 1 on the gospel of John! Plenty more where that came from. Everything that has been said about Peter has been said a million times to everyone else, it means nothing.
How in the world do you find anything special in those quotes? And then how do you connect that with the italian city of Rome? Even Cyprian was talking about himself as the chair of Peter in Carthage Africa! It still doesnt mean Carthage has divine magical powers.

 

[patricius79]

No he says better stuff. Just read the quote above. Thats just from homily 1 on the gospel of John! Plenty more where that came from. Everything that has been said about Peter has been said a million times to everyone else, it means nothing.
How in the world do you find anything special in those quotes? And then how do you connect that with the italian city of Rome? Even Cyprian was talking about himself as the chair of Peter in Carthage Africa! It still doesnt mean Carthage has divine magical powers.

Hi Buzuxi,

Do any of the fathers refer to any of the other Apostles as "the foundation of the Church" or "the first among the Apostles"?

Also, why do you think that Christ gave the name "Rock" to Simon?

As to Cyprian, I read that the EO scholar Afanassieff says that for Cyprian Rome is the Chair of Peter Par Excellence. Doesn't Cyprian say that Rome is "the Chair of Peter, and the Principal Church, from which priestly unity takes its source"?

 

[buzuxi02]

For Cyprian the chair of Peter is any bishop as opposed to those schismatics who set up rival churches.

Read Cyprian's epistle 26. The Rock is Cyprian himself as the archbishop of Carthage.

 

[patricius79]

For Cyprian the chair of Peter is any bishop as opposed to those schismatics who set up rival churches.

Read Cyprian's epistle 26. The Rock is Cyprian himself as the archbishop of Carthage.

It sounds like we don't know of any fathers who say anyone besides Simon Rock is the first among the Apostles or the Foundation of the Church.

As to Cyprian: Okay. But the EO scholar Afanassieff said--I believe--that for Cyprian Rome is in a special way the Chair of Peter.

And as I just quoted, for Cyprian Rome is "the principal Church, from which priestly unity takes its source".

Also, doesn't Alexander Schmemann, the EO scholar, say that the Fathers and Councils unanimously declare Rome to be the senior church and center or ecumenical agreement?

 

[buzuxi02]

I dont know who these Orthodox scholars are. I know of Meyendorff but never read his stuff and is not taken seriously as a scholar. Yes the councils gave it the first in rank, not because of Peter or some divine origin, and that 'center' is essentially useless except in presiding over a council and coordinating certain events. It sounds fancier than what it is.

 

[patricius79]

I dont know who these Orthodox scholars are. I know of Meyendorff but never read his stuff and is not taken seriously as a scholar. Yes the councils gave it the first in rank, not because of Peter or some divine origin, and that 'center' is essentially useless except in presiding over a council and coordinating certain events. It sounds fancier than what it is.

Schmemann must be pretty big, because the article on Papal Primacy at the Greek Orthodox Church of America site referenced him in a positive way. And--another example--one of the EO posters in the EO area of Christian forums quotes him. In other words, it seems like I see his name around a lot.

As for Meyendorff, when I called the EO priest in my area, he told me to read Meyendorff's book on Peter's Primacy. So apparently he does take him seriously as a scholar.

As for "center of ecumenical agreement": I think that is a big deal, as you seem to agree with it too.

Obviously a divine institution's center would have a spiritual, Petrine reason for its centrality.

 

[buzuxi02]

No ive already discussed what it means. And that center was equal to Constantinople, actually Rome was inferior as more rights were given to Constantinople in those councils.

You also want to know how it doesnt mean much?? In current ecumenical dialogues no one really cares about the rankings. They play no role

 

[patricius79]

No ive already discussed what it means. And that center was equal to Conatantinople, actually inferior as more rights were given to Constantinople in those same canons.

Then why would Schmemann say that all the Fathers and Councils see Rome as the center of Ecumenical Agreement?

Also, why would Cyprian refer to "the chair of Peter" rather than the chair of Paul, or of John?

 

[buzuxi02]

Being a student of the councils myself I would say he is greatly mistaken. The acts of the councils are available online, there is even a pdf file of the entire council of Chalcedon which is like 700 pages long!
Any study of the primary texts does not support those assertions.

 

[patricius79]

Being a student of the councils myself I would say he is greatly mistaken. The acts of the councils are available online, there is even a pdf file of the entire council of Chalcedon which is like 700 pages long!
Any study of the primary texts does not support those assertions.

Schmemann says that the Orthodox are inaccurate about the issue of Roman Primacy because of their anti-Roman bias.

 

[buzuxi02]

Ive already proven im right by quoting primary texts. Many of them are public domain and easily found on the web.

Heck just reading the book of Acts and Romans is a good start.

 

[patricius79]

Ive already proven im right by quoting primary texts. Many of them are public domain and easily found on the web.

Heck just reading the book of Acts and Romans is a good start.

Which texts do you mean? I quoted Chrysostom, Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, etc, who agree with Scripture that the Church is built on Simon Rock.

And why, then, does Schmemann say that the Orthodox are not correct about Roman Primacy in the early Church?

 

[prodromos]

And why, then, does Schmemann say that the Orthodox are not correct about Roman Primacy in the early Church?

Schmemann is entitled to his opinion.

 

[buzuxi02]

I will just demonstrate from two primary texts that all these 'quotes' supposedly about the papal supremacy are false and in some instances misleading:

St Cyprian epistle 26:
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the gospel, and says to Peter: I say unto you, That you are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the church flow onwards; so that the church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this, then, is founded on the divine law, I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the church; when the church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.

click here for entire epistle---->CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle 26 (Cyprian of Carthage)
So as you can see Cyprian claims he himself is the rock of Peter since he is the presiding bishop of the throne of Carthage. Now lets take a look at what Pope Leo says in epistle 14 to the bishop of Thessaloniki and excise the misleading interpolated 'commentary':

{xii In case of difference of opinion between the vicar and the bishops the bishop of Rome must be consulted. The subordination of authorities in the church expounded} <---- scribes interpolated title, in modern papal usage one thinks the entire paragraph is about the pope when it is in reference to the first sentence only:

But if in that which you believed necessary to be discussed and settled with the brethren, their opinion differs from your own wishes, let all be referred to us, with the minutes of your proceedings attested, that all ambiguities may be removed, and what is pleasing to God decided. For to this end we direct all our desires and pains, that what conduces to our harmonious unity and to the protection of discipline may be marred by no dissension and neglected by no slothfulness...

The connection of the whole body makes all alike healthy, all alike beautiful: and this connection requires the unanimity indeed of the whole body, but it especially demands harmony among the priests. And though they have a common dignity, yet they have not uniform rank; inasmuch as even among the blessed Apostles, notwithstanding the similarity of their honourable estate, there was a certain distinction of power, and while the election of them all was equal, yet it was given to one to take the lead of the rest. From which model has arisen a distinction between bishops also, and by an important ordinance it has been provided that every one should not claim everything for himself: but that there should be in each province one whose opinion should have the priority among the brethren: and again that certain whose appointment is in the greater cities should undertake a fuller responsibility, through whom the care of the universal Church should converge towards Peter's one seat, and nothing anywhere should be separated from its Head. Let not him then who knows he has been set over certain others take it ill that some one has been set over him, but let him himself render the obedience which he demands of them: and as he does not wish to bear a heavy load of baggage, so let him not dare to place on another's shoulders a weight that is insupportable

click here for entire epistle--->CHURCH FATHERS: Letter 14 (Leo the Great).
"By ordinance" he is refering to canon 9 of Antioch and canon 34 of the Apostles (he reaffirms this in ch 3 of the same epistle) . The Peter's one seat is NOT the pope nor Rome, but any presiding bishop of the metropolis. By omiting the misleading title its clear that both Cyprian and Leo are using 'Peter's one seat' as refering to the presiding bishop of an entire province located in the largest city of that province.

Lets look at these ordinances:

Canon 9 of Antioch 341AD
It behooves the bishops in every province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought for the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, (according to the ancient canon which prevailed from [the times of] our Fathers) or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with the piety which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent on his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him undertake nothing further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

Canon 34 of Apostolic canons
The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit.

Patricius I dont think i will change your mind, but i have laid out just a sampling of primary texts. One believes what they want to believe in the end so I wont post again. I think this thread has run its course.

 

[laternonjuror]

Thanks. Dave Armstrong lists more then 40 Patriarchs (of Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch) who were heretical between about 450 A.D. and about 700 A.D. Most of them were Monophysites, and many were Monothelites.

This may well be so, obviously he can read! I don't know,like you I'm a novice! Howandever, The Popes, as I have under stood, have been guilty to false teaching and breaking the, Canons of the Catholic Church and Ecumenical Councils, in that they have called a,' Robber Council,'(i.e. Trent ) been guilty of schism,and of breaking the Apostle Paul's Injunctions in adding to Scripture and to cap it all, as it were, they have issued either additions to the Creed of the 315 Holy Fathers, at Niceae, or a new creed!

So, if that's true--and even if Honorius was heretical, though not in a definitive way--wouldn't Rome still have a much better record than the East?
No they wouldn't. If, as all Churches do, they have Bishop's of poor character, they do not build up a facade of inexactitudes and downright evasions, to protect them.
Rome has terrible form on record. In trying to force events on the African Bishops at a Council of Carthage , they were found guilty of passing off,on to the trusting African Bishops a forged set of Minutes of the Sardican Council, as Nicean. Luckily, though , they were simple and trusting, as indeed am I, they sent for copies of the Nice minutes and saw off the totally dishonest and dishonourable scheme.They claimed that Sardica acknowledged and supported the false moves of the Roman See! In regard to the aforesaid minutes
of Sardica, these were paraded about and distorted by varius Roman ,'apologists,'so much so, they have brought the very word in to disrepute.
Further according to sources, some of them Roman, many other instances of Forgery are extant, i.e. The Liber Pontificalis, The Donation of Constantine,The Isadorian Decretals,( The Donation has been described as ,'one of the Great Frauds of the two Christian Millenia.) When you improve in your studies, mind reading your Aquinas, at least five times he quotes the forgery!
All details of the above are to be read in, "A Handbook on the Papacy," by a Bishop of the Irish Church! Bishop Shaw Kerr.

Basically it seems like only a few Popes are brought up as potential heretics: especially Liberius, Honorius, and Vigilius.
Not saying I know a lot about history (I'm glad, I don't either.).. just asking questions

Every Pope since the Reformation,that is Trent, or everyone that has taught Papal authority over Bishops and Infallibility, has taught heresy.



.

 

[patricius79]

deleted by author. double post.