Is this true?

Photini · Nov 12, 2003

Philip said:
The Canon that Maximus cited may or may not be from the Council of Nicea. There is debate as to whether or not it is authentic.

I was just thinking that whether or not there was acceptance of the term "Vicar of Christ" in regards to the Patriarch of Rome, would be a fairly good indicator of it's authenticity. If ever there were sticklers when it comes to terminology...it was the very early Fathers.

Philip · Nov 12, 2003

I think I remember reading that the earliest use of the title was by Pope Gelasius in the 2nd half of the 5th Century.

Maximus · Nov 12, 2003

What I found interesting about the document is that it is a pretty accurate description of the canons of Nicea (the undisputed ones, if you have read I Nicea), and that it is in Arabic, not Latin.

I do not know its date yet, but when I get time I will try to find out.

My personal opinion is that it is not from Nicea but is a late interpolation. If the Nicene Canons had contained such a section, there never could have been a dispute over papal authority, could there?

But it is interesting!

Orthodox6 · Nov 12, 2003

Maximus said:
I also think that Church history and the Fathers are pretty plain that the Bishop of Rome held a kind of presidency within the College of Bishops. There is nothing heterodox about acknowledging that.

A-OK. I think all Orthodox know that the Bishop of Rome held a "primacy of honor" within the original five sees. He simply lost that primacy when the papacy developed far enough along it's path that the See of Rome had departed from the Church.

I can tell that I'm unintentionally rubbing people the wrong way, so I'll bow out of the arena.

Regards to all.

Philip · Nov 12, 2003

Maximus said:
What I found interesting about the document is that it is a pretty accurate description of the canons of Nicea (the undisputed ones, if you have read I Nicea), and that it is in Arabic, not Latin.

Should it be in Greek or Latin?

Maximus · Nov 12, 2003

Philip said:
Should it be in Greek or Latin?

I would think one or the other. One might expect the latter of a forgery by supporters of a monarchical papacy.

I just found it odd that the original was in Arabic. Seems to lend it a bit of credibility, however tenuous.

Philip · Nov 12, 2003

I would have guessed Greek. Just what I need -- something else that will bug me until I research it.

Photini · Nov 12, 2003

Philip said:
I would have guessed Greek. Just what I need -- something else that will bug me until I research it.

LOL.....I know the feeling!

Philip · Nov 13, 2003

Well, I thought about it some and am now of the opinion that it should be in Greek. One of the key words of the Symbol is the Greek homoousion, not the Latin consubstantialem.

Maximus · Nov 13, 2003

Philip said:
Well, I thought about it some and am now of the opinion that it should be in Greek. One of the key words of the Symbol is the Greek homoousion, not the Latin consubstantialem.

I'm sure the original records of Nicea were in Greek. The document I quoted was a summary of what are purported to be the Nicene Canons. It was in Arabic.

What I meant is that one would expect a late, interpolated canon supporting expanded papal claims to be in Latin, the language of Rome.

The fact that it appears in Arabic is curious to me.

MariaRegina · Nov 14, 2003

Maximus said:
I'm sure the original records of Nicea were in Greek. The document I quoted was a summary of what are purported to be the Nicene Canons. It was in Arabic.

What I meant is that one would expect a late, interpolated canon supporting expanded papal claims to be in Latin, the language of Rome.

The fact that it appears in Arabic is curious to me.

I agree, Maximus.

My priest told me that the original Nicea documents were in Greek because that was a more precise language for theology.

Maximus · Nov 15, 2003

I am Orthodox, yet I think it is abundantly clear that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles, and the bishops of Rome were regarded as his successors. I also think the early bishops of Rome held more than honorific authority in the Church, although not the monarchical authority that would develop later.

Anyway, what I really wanted to bring up was something that occurred to me in reading and studying St. Ignatius of Antioch recently.

If you study what St. Ignatius had to say about the relationships of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, you will see that he envisioned a hierarchy (duh!) that is aptly summarized in this passage:

". . . be eager to do everything in God's harmony, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbytery in the place of the council of the apostles and the deacons, most sweet to me, entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians, 6).

This image is repeated over and over in St. Ignatius' letters: the bishop presiding in the place of God . . .

It occurred to me that if such an arrangement is God's plan for the local churches, why would God use something different for the universal Church as a whole?

I mean, why would God concentrate authority at the local level in the hands of one man and not create a similar executive office for the Church as a whole?

I know I will get jumped on for thinking along those lines, but what about it?

It seems to me that if the pattern of a single ruling bishop and a council of presbyters is God's plan for the local churches, then it would make sense that He had something similar in mind for the Church as a whole.

Why concentrate authority in one individual at the local level only to leave the universal Church a potential chaos of competing bishops?

Orthodox6 · Nov 15, 2003

Maximus said:
If you study what St. Ignatius had to say about the relationships of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, you will see that he envisioned a hierarchy (duh!) that is aptly summarized in this passage:

". . . be eager to do everything in God's harmony, with the bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbytery in the place of the council of the apostles and the deacons, most sweet to me, entrusted with the service of Jesus Christ" (Letter to the Magnesians, 6).

_________________________________

What was the context for this writing? (i.e. Who are the Magnesians? Were they within St. Ignatius' flock?) (implication being to ask if this was a "localized" epistle -- in which case it would be "bad history" to extrapolate and assume that the content applied elsewhere)

____________________________________

Maximus said:
It occurred to me that if such an arrangement is God's plan for the local churches, why would God use something different for the universal Church as a whole?

I mean, why would God concentrate authority at the local level in the hands of one man and not create a similar executive office for the Church as a whole?

___________________________
Those are fair and logical questions. It remains, however, that conciliarity is what God DID choose for His [Orthodox] churches. (Remember that there is no such thing as "THE" Orthodox Church.)

Maximus said:
I know I will get jumped on for thinking along those lines, but what about it?

__________________________________________
It would be wrong to "jump" on you. I hope you don't misunderstand what I write in this reply, and think that I am "jumping" on you.

_________________________________

Maximus said:
Why concentrate authority in one individual at the local level only to leave the universal Church a potential chaos of competing bishops?

I honestly don't know why He decided as He did. If I may be permitted a "theologoumena" (personal speculation that carries zero authority, but does not deny the faith) (the loosest of definitions!) -- perhaps conciliarity is another reminder of the Holy Trinity, and the essential unity among many.

Thanks for your post, Maximus!

Orthodox6
(who is glad that you seem to be staying on)

Maximus · Nov 15, 2003

Thanks for your reply, Orthodox6.

The context of the Letter to the Magnesians is that St. Ignatius was being transported to Rome by an escort of ten Roman soldiers in order to be executed there. He wrote letters to churches that were in his path or that sent representatives to meet with and comfort him.

I believe most, if not all, of his letters have the same description of the role of bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Magnesians is typical in that sense.

Photini · Nov 16, 2003

Here is a page with Orthodox responses to Catholic apologists. I haven't really read through it yet.

http://pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/responsestopa.htm

Is this true?

Gone.

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Orthodox Christian

Active Member

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Orthodox Christian

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Gone.

Orthodoxy: Old School, Hard Core Christianity

Orthodox Christian

Well-Known Member

Orthodox Christian

Active Member

Orthodox Christian

Gone.

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency