Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[CaliforniaJosiah]

.

I plan to ignore anything else you say to me - so don't even bother.

Nonetheless, here is my response to the "Witesses" to the Papacy as presented by my brother and the esteemed professional Catholic Apologist, NewMan99....




Let us stay focused on NewMan's claims here, which he has promised to historically document:

1. The papacy of the CC has infallible authority that is binding over all Christians.

2. The papacy of the CC is the ministry of a SUPREME (not equal) bishop with POWER of jurisdiction to maintain unity and orthodoxy, by virture of his being the bishop of the Roman diocese.

3. This was created by Jesus (during His earthly ministry, thus likely in or before 30 AD), through the Apostle Peter.

4. This ministry was thereafter successed to and by the bishops of the Roman diocese.

We will keep these 4 things very clearly in mind as we evalute the documentation presented.

Part 5 (this is a continuation from Post #302, Post #296, Post #357, and Post #415)

NewMan99 pointed to 6 "witnesses" to document the above 4 things.


Clement (90 AD):

I've previously responded at length to the first. But to quickly review, the first was St. Clement, whom NewMan regards as the bishop in Rome near the end of the First Century, writing in a letter that is typically dated as 90 AD or later.

While it DOES seem that Clement is giving advise in the letter, and such might have been sought by Christians in Corinth, none of the 4 points of the Papacy was remotely stated or suggested. Clement writes 3 generations (60 years) too late for a documentation of Jesus' founding of the papacy, Clement never states that he has any Keys or supreme infallible POWER over anyone; Clement never says that his advise is to be taken BECAUSE he is the Pope and/or Bishop of Rome and/or successor of Peter. In fact, NONE of the 4 distinctives is remotely indicated in the quotes from Clement's letter that NewMan99 brought forth. In fact, our Orthodox brothers and sisters quoted other things from it (especially the plural "we" and "us" rather than the required emphasis on ME) that actually suggests the Orthodox understanding in constract to the RCC one.

What we have in the letter is nothing more than a request for advise from a beloved, entrusted, fellow Christian. No different than what happens millions of times every day among us. NOTHING that suggests the 4 points of the RCC Papacy.

Interestingly, both NewMan and Trento were quick to embrace the teaching of a historian (unknown to me but HIGHLY regarded and esteemed by those two Catholics) who stated that here, in 90 AD, we have, "The FIRST STEP TOWARD the Papacy." Later, NewMan99 reversed and distanced himself from that, but freely admitted that there is no evidence before 90 AD to suggest any step before this. It was my view that from the quote he provided, there's zero evidence that this was even a 'FIRST STEP TOWARD' that.




Let us now consider the other "witnesses" of NewMan99 to the 4 points above....



Ignatius of Antioch (100-107 AD)

It is time to turn our attention to the second witness: Ignatius of Antioch.

So let's set the stage...about 10 years after Clement wrote to the Corinthians, Ignatius of Antioch was arrested by the imperial authorities and sentenced to die in the arena in Rome. This was a big deal (and not just for poor Ignatius) in Church history because Ignatius was not only the Bishop of Antioch (and hence a successor to Peter's episcopal ministry since Peter was one of the founders of the Church there), but he was also the leading Bishop in all of Syria, if not all of Asia. This is the esteem with which the office of Bishop of Antioch was held - to say nothing of his "pedigree" having been ordained by the Apostle John. He was clearly a VERY "heavy hitter" in the early Church.

The Romans did something very interesting. Rather than quickly transport him to Rome (from Antioch) via ship to face his date in the arena, they decided to transport him OVERLAND. This was a calculated - and sobering - way of making an example of him to all Christian communities between Antioch and Rome. It was the Roman way of intimidating Christians and reminding them that even the big fish are not immune from execution by cruel means.

And along the way Ignatius DID, in fact, make contact with numerous Christian communities. In fact, he wrote a total of seven letters to various Churches, including letters to three of the churches that were addressed by Jesus in John's Revelation: Ephesus (Rev 2:1-7), Smyrna (Rev: 2:8-11), and Phildelphia (3:7-13). This happened about 5-10 years after John's Revelation.

But here is the interesting thing about these seven letters to seven churches: Ignatius (remember - he was the disciple of an Apostle), issued teachings and authoritative instructions to all but one of them.

As you probably already figured out, the one letter he wrote WITHOUT teachings or instructions was the letter he wrote to Rome.

Rather, Ignatius wrote things like:

“You have never envied anyone, you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed, which in your instructions you enjoin [on others]. Only request in my behalf both inward and outward strength, that I may not only speak, but [truly] will; and that I may not merely be called a Christian, but truly be found to be one.” (Ignatius to the Romans, Chap. III)

Now, in the above letter, Ignatius asked the Roman Church not to interfere with his impending martyrdom. But along with that, Ignatius speaks of how the Church in Rome "taught" and had "given instruction" to the other Churches.

.... how does the fact that Bishop Ignatius NOT FROM ROME having all this authority document that the singular Bishop of Rome has:

1. The papacy of the CC has infallible authority that is binding over all Christians.

2. The papacy of the CC is the ministry of a SUPREME (not equal) bishop with POWER of jurisdiction to maintain unity and orthodoxy, by virture of his being the bishop of the Roman diocese.

3. This was created by Jesus (during His earthly ministry, thus likely in or before 30 AD), through the Apostle Peter.

4. This ministry was thereafter successed to and by the bishops of the Roman diocese.


Okay, so the Roman congregation taught some things. What does that have to do with whomever you regard as the Pope at this time? Why does that indicate that that Pope (whoever he was), BY VIRTUE OF BEING THE BISHOP OF THAT SPECIFIC DIOCESE, ergo was the supreme, powerful, lord over all Christians? I'm not following you, Bob....

But there's more. In Chapter 1 of his letter to the Romans, Ignatius says that Rome “presides in the chief place” and that it “presides in love”. In this context, Ignatius used the Greek word “prokatheemai,” which is defined as an authoritative, jurisdictional position - and THIS is the meaning of the word “presides” whenever Ignatius uses it.

It is, perhaps, telling that Ignatius never applies this word to the authority of any other Church - he only applies it to the Church of Rome.

We all know that Rome was the capitol of the Roman Empire in 107 AD, and that "all roads lead to Rome" was more than a literal fact. What I'm looking for is that the Bishop of that specific singular diocese is regarded as the infallible, authoritative, supreme, powerful, lord over all BECAUSE (there's the real key) he is the successor to Peter, has those "keys" and is the bishop of that specific, singular, particular diocese. I'm looking for documentation of the 4 things you stated are the distinctives and definition of the Papacy.

THEN - at the end of his letter to the Romans, Ignatius wrote

“Remember in your prayers the church of Syria, which now has God for its bishop, instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, and your love [will also regard it].”

How wonderful! But how does "your love will regard it" have to do with, "You are the Supreme, Infallible, Powerful, lord over all BECAUSE you are the Bishop of the Diocese in Rome and the successor to Peter whom Jesus set up as such with all his successors?" You did not say that the definition of the Papacy is that he alone is regarded as loving.


And let us note this is 100-107 AD. It is some 70 years PAST the claimed event, in fact, nonething you quoted even mentions Peter or Christ giving the keys to Peter, or the Pope there at the time having those keys, or the Pope there at that being being the supreme, infallible, authoritative, lord over all by virtue of being the bishop of that specific diocese: in other words, while the quotes show Christian love, respect and esteem - they do NOTHING to support ANY of the aspects of the Papacy - much less all of them.




Polycarp of Smyrna (165 AD).

In 155 AD - when Polycarp was 85 years old (!), he travelled all the way to Rome as a representative of all the Asian Churches. It wasn't just a social call. It wasn't just a big party or a "meet and greet" with the other Church elders. Polycarp went there with a purpose - and that purpose presupposed the authority of the Bishop of Rome - otherwise his visit would have no purpose! A controversy had arisen in the early Church regarding when Easter should be celebrated in the liturgical calendar. So Polycarp went to Rome to plead the Eastern view to the Bishop of Rome, Anicetus. Polycarp went to explain to the Roman Bishop why the Christians in Asia Minor celebrated the Feast of the Lord's Resurrection on a different date than that celebrated by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. We know of this visit because it is mentioned in Irenaeus' book "Against the Heresies" (Book III) and it is also mentioned in a letter from Irenaeus to Victor, Bishop of Rome (a successor of Anicetus).

This is a very telling event. All things aside with regard to the controversy itself and if one side or the other was wrong, the fact remains that Polycarp APPEALED to the authority of the Bishop of Rome to decide for all the other Churches in Asia Minor which date they were allowed to celebrate Easter.

If what you admit is a presumption on your part is true, he would not have bothered making the trip. The Pope is the infallible, supreme, authority over all, according to you. Ignatius would have accepted such and saved his time and money. And IF the unnamed Pope was regarded as the SUPREME, infallible, authoritative, powerful, lord over all - why to this day does the EO celebrate Easter on a different date than the RC does? You didn't indicate that all others docilicly bowed to WHATEVER the Pope said in this regard as the infallible Vicar of Christ.


Here's what I think if the FAR more natural veiw of what you quoted - and doesn't require your "presumptions." There was a dispute in an issue. One major bishop - the one in Rome - is out of 'synch' with the rest - and Ignatius thinks some consensus would be good. Thus, in Christian love and charity (and perhaps with a desire for unity and consensus) goes to have a discussion with the one brother who seems out of synch. I rather embrace that.


Now, how does that document the 4 things here in review:

1. The papacy of the CC has infallible authority that is binding over all Christians.

2. The papacy of the CC is the ministry of a SUPREME (not equal) bishop with POWER of jurisdiction to maintain unity and orthodoxy, by virture of his being the bishop of the Roman diocese.

3. This was created by Jesus (during His earthly ministry, thus likely in or before 30 AD), through the Apostle Peter.

4. This ministry was thereafter successed to and by the bishops of the Roman diocese.

As I mentioned previously, he wrote before 170 AD. His witness comes 90 years after the death of Peter.

I know....

When you called up your first witness, Clement, and it was noted that he said NOTHING about ANY of the things you define as the Papacy, it was noted that you needed to go closer to the claimed event, not further away. Instead, you have now gone some 150 years past the event, to "witnesses" who aren't witnesses at ALL! By your own admission! And they aren't saying ANYTHING about ANY of the 4 distinctives of the Papacy - and thus aren't saying ANYTHING about the Papacy.



Dionysius of Corinth (180 AD):

Then, Dionysius, replied back to Pope Soter with these words:

“Today we kept the Holy Day, the Lord’s Day (Sunday), and on it we read your letter (Pope Soter’s epistle). And we shall ever have it with us to give us instruction, even as the former one written through Clement.” (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter in Eusebius)

So what is going on here? It is nothing less than the Church of Corinth appealing to, and taking instructions from Rome...and this not the first time that Church took instruction from Rome - they still retained the letter from Clement all those years later!

Dionysius did not stop there. He went on to say:

“You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time." (Dionysius Epistle to Pope Soter of Rome 25:8 in Eusebius).

In other words, Dionysius was comparing the teaching of Pope Soter to that of the Apostles Peter and Paul.

But Dionysius says even more:

"For from the beginning, it has been your custom to do good to all the brethren in various ways and to send contributions to all the churches in every city . . . This custom your blessed bishop, Soter, has not only preserved, but is out-doing, by furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and by urging with consoling words, as a loving father his children, the brethren who are journeying. (Dionysius, Letter to Pope Soter in Eusebius' Church History 4:23:9 [A.D. 170])

When we read the words, minus all the huge imputative assumption and presumptions, we have a very natural and obvious reading. FROM 180 AD (boy, we are getting WAY far away from your point that the Papacy was established in 30 AD or before, and pretty close to the century I suggested, LOL).

The ONLY relevant point I get is the claim that Peter AND PAUL established the congregation in Rome, giving EQUAL status and function and role to them BOTH.

Isn't it wonderful the way Christians spoke to and of each other? What happened to that....

Now, what in the WORLD does any of this have to do with the 4 issues at hand?

1. The papacy of the CC has infallible authority that is binding over all Christians.

2. The papacy of the CC is the ministry of a SUPREME (not equal) bishop with POWER of jurisdiction to maintain unity and orthodoxy, by virture of his being the bishop of the Roman diocese.

3. This was created by Jesus (during His earthly ministry, thus likely in or before 30 AD), through the Apostle Peter.

4. This ministry was thereafter successed to and by the bishops of the Roman diocese.

Look at what Dionysius is really saying here: he calls the Bishop of Rome a "father" (which, of course, is the root of the word "Pope" - Papa in Italian) - he says that Christians in EVERY city are Soter's "children" - he says that Soter "urges" and "consoles" and provides for them. PLUS Dionysius claims that this has been the custom of the Church in Rome FROM THE BEGINNING.

So, in 180 AD, we have the first case of a pastor being called "father?" I KNOW you are not suggesting that all who are referred to by the title "father" are thereby the SUPREME, infallible, authoritative, lord over all Christians. My priest was commonly referred to as "Father." I honestly don't think anyone in my parish regarded him as the Pope. But, I gotta say, I like the language here! I like the family, loving/trust/care thought. Quite in sharp contrast to the Papacy with all its emphasis on power.


But, friend, in all these witnesses, you've failed to do ANYTHING towad the 4 points that define the Papacy. Nothing that says the singular, solitary Bishop of the diocese of Rome is the SUPREME, infallible, authoritative, lord over all, Vicar of Christ BECAUSE (that's the key - totally missing from your witnesses - even the ones so amazingly late) they are the singular, particular Bishop of that diocese, the successor of PETER with the "keys" Christ gave to PETER and thus to that specific, singular bishop. The whole point of the papacy is entirely missing from all of your witnesses.




Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah



.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-
Standing up doesnt seem the type to hurl insults Newman.
In fact, I thought that he was Catholic before this week.
-snip-

FWIW,

Folks, I am not RCC, EO, OO, Assyr, Angli, Prot (in any of its forms) or Restoration (SDA, LDS, JW, Messianic, CoC, or any of its forms).

I am simply a Christian.

I do think NewMan99 has done a solid job at presenting the RCC position of the development of the, hmm, Pope office versus the other "eleven". I also mentioned earlier that no one countered his post re Peter and strengthen your brothers (nor did I, but I do have a reply). (O COMMENT: if you quote past 325 or so, the battle is long lost, IMO, FWIW.)

It does not bother me though. There's no need for insults. I know what Scripture says and I know the very early, verifiable, universally agreed upon Tradition from those same Apostles to the derisively called Quartodecimans (Christ died on the 14th).

It was a battle. And I think I know what happened. I did assume too much from NewMan99.

Anyway, it was not liturgical. It was over a day and a fast, but you will not find a fast associated with Passover. There is, however, one associated with Pentecost (Mt. Sinai, Moses, the Law, 40days). There is also a day. So, when Trento quotes, the bishop above all others possesses power and authority, I agree, that is exactly what happened and over which the battle was fought. Anyone see the connection? In 325AD all (RCC, EO, OO, Assy, P, Restor, etc) agree and deem heretical the APOSTLES and the only verifiable apostolic succession, for goodness sakes!

It is now time to talk about it.

 

[NewMan99]

Mike,​

Re: your post #509.​

Yes, Roman Bishops drew succession from St. Peter, as did Bishops in Antioch. There's still no proof of a 'special' office that passed only to Rome.

If that's what you think, then you are ignoring the Church fathers and YOUR OWN Eastern Orthodox heritage, which recognizes that a) Peter's earthly ministry as Rock and Key-bearer for the Church did not end in Antioch, but in Rome ...being passed on to the Pope of Rome; and b) that the Bishop of Rome DOES possess a special office --namely, the Petrine office to maintain the Church in universal unity and orthodoxy. You ask for proof of this? Well, I again give you YOUR OWN Eastern forefathers. Are you going to acknowledge what they say, or just ignore it as you did the last time I presented these things to you? Read the words of the holy Eastern fathers, who say:​

St. Athanasius (362 A.D.):​

Rome is called "the Apostolic throne." (Athanasius, Hist. Arian, ad Monach. n. 35).​

The Council of Sardica (342 A.D.)​

...A Council presided over by St. Athanasius of Alexandria:​

"If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew ...let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province." (Council of Sardica, Canon 3, 342 A.D.)​

The Council of Ephesus (431):​

....a council presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria, at which the Roman presbyter Philip declared (as recorded in BOTH the Greek Acts as well as the Latin Acts of this Council):​

"There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the Keys of the Kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins; who down even to this day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed Pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place." (Acts of the Council of Ephesus, session 3).​

Theodoret, Bishop of Cyrus in Syria (450):​

"I therefore beseech your holiness to persuade the most holy and blessed bishop (Pope Leo) to use his Apostolic power, and to order me to hasten to your Council. For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds." (Theodoret, Tom. iv.Epist. cxvi. Renato, p. 1197).​

"It pertains to you (Pope Leo) to hold the primacy in all things, for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epist. Leoni)​

"If Paul, the herald of the truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter, to convey from him the solution to those in Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more do we, poor and humble, run to the Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for wounds of the the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things; for our throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret Ibid, Epistle Leoni)​

"For that all holy throne (Rome) has the office of heading the Churches of the whole world, for many reasons; and, above all others, because it has remained free of the communion of heretical taint, and no one holding heterodox sentiments ever sat in it, but it has preserved the Apostolic grace unsullied." (Theodoret, Epist Renato)​

"Hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles." (Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep. 113).​

St. Eusebius of Doryleum (450): ...writing to Pope Leo:​

"The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion." (Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo)​

St. Flavian, Bishop of Constantinople (449): ...writing to Pope Leo:​

"When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. ...Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference ...but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. ...Further to issue an authoritative instruction ...so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound. (Patriarch Flavian of Constantinople to Pope Leo, 449).​

The Council of Chalcedon (451) --composed of 600 Eastern bishops, to Pope Leo:​

"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.​

"You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith." ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98​

"Besides all this, he (Dioscorus) extended his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the Vine by the Savior. We refer to Your Holiness." ---Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.​

"You have often extended your Apostolic radiance even to the Church of Constantinople." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.​

"Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children." --Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep. 98.​

Anatolius, Patriarch of Constantinople (453):​

...writing to Pope Leo to apologize for the Council of Chalcedon trying to make Constantinople the 2nd See after Rome. He defers to Rome's ruling:​

"As for those things which the universal Council of Chalcedon recently ordained in favor of the Church of Constantinople, let Your Holiness be sure that there was no fault in me, who from my youth have always loved peace and quiet, keeping myself in humility. It was the most reverend clergy of the Church of Constantinople who were eager about it, and they were equally supported by the most reverend priests of those parts, who agreed about it. Even so, the whole force of confirmation of the acts was reserved for the authority of Your Blessedness. Therefore, let Your Holiness know for certain that I did nothing to further the matter, knowing always that I held myself bound to avoid the lusts of pride and covetousness." ---Patriarch Anatolius of Constantinople to Pope Leo, Ep 132 (on the subject of canon 28 of Chalcedon).​

Macedonius, Patriarch of Constantinople (466-516):​

"Macedonius declared, when desired by the Emperor Anastasius to condemn the Council of Chalcedon, that 'such a step without an Ecumenical Synod presided over by the Pope of Rome is impossible.'" (Macedonius, Patr. Graec. 108: 360a (Theophan. Chronogr. pp. 234-346 seq.)​

The Libellus Hormisdae (A.D. 519)​

...a document signed by over 2,500 Eastern bishops (including the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, as well as the Bishop of Constantinople), who seek reunion with Rome after the 40-plus year Acacian schism, in which the entire East had rejected the Council of Chalcedon and taught the Monophysism is orthodox doctrine. These Eastern bishops (upon the assent of the orthodox Justin I to the imperial throne) now plead to be re-admitted to communion with Rome, saying ...​

"Because the statement of our Lord Jesus Christ, when He said, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will found my Church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, etc,' cannot be set aside; this, which is said, is proved by the results; for in the Apostolic See religion has always been preserved without spot ....In which (See) is set the perfect and true solidity of the Christain religion." (Hormisdas, Formula Hormisdae Ep. Orient. Praescript. Denzinger's Enchirid, p. 42) in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed. Cathedra Petri --Titles and Perrogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oats, 1879, p. 68.​

It continues .....​

"In the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept undefiled and her holy doctrine proclaimed. Desiring, therefore, not to be in the least degree separated from the faith and doctrine of that See, we hope that we may deserve to be in the one communion with you which the Apostolic See preaches, in which is the entire and true solidity of the Christian religion: promising also that the names of those who are cut off from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, not consentient with the Apostolic See, shall not be recited during the Sacred Mysteries (i.e., the Mass). This is my profession, I have subscribed with my own hand, and delivered to you, Hormisdas, the holy and venerable Pope of the city of Rome." (Formula Hormisdae Episc. Orient. Praescript Denzinger's Enchird. p. 42, ed. 1874) in Charles F.B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri --Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, London: Burns & Oates, 1879, 92​

The Emperor Justinian (520-533):​

Writing (as junion emperor under his uncle Emperor Justin) to the Pope Hormisdas (the same Pope addressed in the Libellus Hormisdae above), ...​

"Let your Apostleship show that you have worthily succeeded to the Apostle Peter, since the Lord will work through you, as Surpreme Pastor, the salvation of all." (Coll. Avell. Ep. 196, July 9th, 520, Justinian to Pope Hormisdas).​

...and to Pope John ...​

"Yielding honor to the Apostolic See and to Your Holiness, and honoring your Holiness, as one ought to honor a father, we have hastened to subject all the priests of the whole Eastern district, and to unite them to the See of your Holiness, for we do not allow of any point, however manifest and indisputable it be, which relates to the state of the Churches, not being brought to the cognizance of your Holiness, since you are the Head of all the holy Churches." (Justinian Epist. ad. Pap. Joan. ii. Cod. Justin. lib. I. tit. 1).​

To be continued...

 

[NewMan99]

Continued from Post #604...​

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650):

A celebrated theologian and a native of Constantinople, ...

"The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High." (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

"How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? Having surely received this canonically, as well as from councils and the apostles, as from the princes of the latter (Peter & Paul), and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....even as in all these things all are equally subject to her (the Church of Rome) according to sacerodotal law. And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers (the popes) are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome." (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)

"If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God ...Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world." (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi x, 692).

John VI, Patriarch of Constantinople (715):

"The Pope of Rome, the head of the Christian priesthood, whom in Peter, the Lord commanded to confirm his brethren." (John VI, Epist. ad Constantin. Pap. ad. Combefis, Auctuar. Bibl. P.P. Graec.tom. ii. p. 211, seq.)

St. Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople (758-828):

"Without whom (the Romans presiding in the seventh Council) a doctrine brought forward in the Church could not, even though confirmed by canonical decrees and by ecclesiastical usuage, ever obtain full approval or currency. For it is they (the Popes of Rome) who have had assigned to them the rule in sacred things, and who have received into their hands the dignity of headship among the Apostles." (Nicephorus, Niceph. Cpl. pro. s. imag. c 25 [Mai N. Bibl. pp. ii. 30]).

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (759-826):

Writing to Pope Leo III ....

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven." (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

Writing to Pope Paschal, ...

"Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed Shepherd of Christ's sheep, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon whom the Catholic Church is built. For Peter art thou, who adornest and governest the Chair of Peter. Hither, then, from the West, imitator of Christ, arise and repel not for ever (Ps. xliii. 23). To thee spake Christ our Lord: 'And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.' Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this. Stretch forth thy hand so far as thou canst. Thou hast strength with God, through being the first of all. (Letter of St. Theodore and four other Abbots to Pope Paschal, Bk. ii Ep. 12, Patr. Graec. 99, 1152-3)

Writing to Emperor Michael, ...

"Order that the declaration from old Rome be received, as was the custom by Tradition of our Fathers from of old and from the beginning. For this, O Emperor, is the highest of the Churches of God, in which first Peter held the Chair, to whom the Lord said: "Thou art Peter ...and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." (Theodore, Bk. II. Ep. 86)

"I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See (Rome), in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation, according to the promise of Him Who cannot lie. Let the blessed and Apostolic Paschal (Pope St. Paschal I) rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter." (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).

"In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning, you the calm harbor of the whole Church, far removed from the waves of heresy, you the God-chosen city of refuge." (Letter of St. Theodor & Four Abbots to Pope Paschal).

"Let him (Patriarch Nicephorus of Constantinople) assemble a synod of those with whom he has been at variance, if it is impossible that representatives of the other Patriarchs should be present, a thing which might certainly be if the Emperor should wish the Western Patriarch (the Roman Pope) to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical synod; but let him make peace and union by sending his synodical letters to the prelate of the First See." (Theodore the Studite, Patr. Graec. 99, 1420)

Shall I go on??? There's plenty more where those statements come from. So, are you modern Eastern Orthodox in communion with these fathers or not? Do you hold to the same Faith as them or don't you?

However Rome still was considered a 'pre-eminent' church (along with Antioch and Alexandria) because of their history - Rome being the place of martyrdom for Sts. Peter and Paul, as well as many others, also being the most important city in the known world at the time, Antioch being where believers were first called 'Christians', as well as the most important city in the orient, and Alexandria because of it's position as capital of the richest province in the empire (Egypt), not to mention the historical Jewish connection...

Again, do you follow the faith of the Church fathers or not? The FATHERS say that Rome held the primacy (and the ultimate authority of the Keys) because it is the See of Peter and succeeds to Peter's ministry. They likewise say that Alexandria and Antioch held LESSER, REGIONAL primacies (under the ultimate authority of Rome) because of their ties of discipleship (through St. Mark and St. Evodius, respectfully) to Petrine Rome. This is the Apostolic Tradition. Why so many of you modern Eastern Orthodox turn a blind eye to it is beyond me.

So, do you want proof of this reality as well? Well, here are some notable examples ...

In A.D. 382, a year after the Council of Constantinople I (which was considered a mere regional council of the Eastern Empire until after the Council of Chalcedon in 451) tried to unseat Alexandria from its Traditional place as the primate in the East and make the Bishop of Constantinople (a non-Apostolic see) second in primacy after Rome, Pope St. Damasus (who is also a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church) issued the following decree IN DEFENSE OF ALEXANDRIA and the original, Apostolic order of primacy:

"Although all the Catholic churches spread abroad throughout the world comprise but one bridal chamber of Christ, nevertheless, the holy Roman church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, Who says: "You are Peter ...(Matt 16:18-19)." In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed Apostle Paul who, along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero, equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph, they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the world. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman church, which has neither stain nor blemish, nor anything like that. The second see is that of Alexandria, consecrated on behalf of the blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an Evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third see is that of Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Peter, where first he dwelled before he came to Rome, and where the name 'Christians' was first applied, as to a new people." (Decree of Damasus # 3, 382 A.D.)

We see this same Tradition reflected in Canon 6 of the Council of Nicaea, which reads ...


"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these,since this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome. Likewise, in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges." (Nicaea, Canon 6).

In other words, Nicaea (as a matter of imperial law) recognizes and upholds the Traditional primacies of Alexandria and Antioch (WITHIN their representative regions of authority) BECAUSE the Bishop of Rome (whose universal primacy is assumed) recognizes that Alexandria and Antioch hold jurisdictional authority (as regional patriarchs) in these places.

I will be getting into more detail about Canon 6 of Nicea later in my response.

To be continued...

 

[NewMan99]

Continued from Post #605...

And we again see this same Tradition upheld in Pope St. Julius' letter to the (Arian) Council of Tyre and to the (Arian) imperial court of Constantinople, in which he complains about the deposition of St. Athanasius from his see of Alexandria, saying ...

“It behoved you to write to us that thus what is just might be decreed for all. For they who suffered were bishops, and the churches that suffered no common ones, over which the Apostles ruled in person. And why were we (the Pope) not written to concerning the Church, especially Alexandria? Or are they (the Arians at Tyre) ignorant that this has been the custom first to write to us, and thus what is just be decreed from this place (Rome)? If therefore, any such suspicion fell upon the bishop there (Alexandria), it was benefiting to write to this church (Rome).” (Julius, Ep. n. 6,21.)

Pope St. Julius, needless to say, is also a saint of the Eastern Orthodox Church. And, when we look to the East, we see this SAME Apostolic Tradition advocated by the Eastern fathers.

For example, as I already presented, Theodoret of Cyrus (a native of Anitoch) says ...

"If Paul, the herald of truth, the trumpet of the Holy Spirit, hastened to the great Peter to convey from him the solution to those at Antioch, who were at issue about living under the law, how much more so do we, poor and humble, run to your Apostolic Throne (Rome) to receive from you (Pope Leo) healing for the wounds of the Churches. For it pertains to you to have primacy in all things, for your throne is adorned with many prerogatives." (Theodoret, Ep. cxiii.)

So, Theodoret recognizes that the throne of Rome is superior in Petrine authority to the throne of Antioch. But, being an Antiochian, he, in the same correspondence, complains against the current Patriarch of Alexandria --the heretic Dioscorus, saying ...

"But this man (Patriarch Dioscorus of Alexandria) will not abide by the decrees (of Nicaea), but brings forward at every turn that his is the Throne of Mark; and yet he knows well that the great city of Antioch has the Throne of Peter, who was both teacher of Mark, and the first and the leader (coryphaeus) of the choir of the Apostles." (Theodoret, T. iv. Ep. lxxxvi.).

Theodoret's point above (what he is attempting to argue) is that the (anti-Monophysite) doctrines of Antioch are in full accord with those of Rome (both churches preserving the true Faith of St. Peter), whereas the Alexandrians (under the heretical Patriarch Dioscorus) have departed from the true Faith of Peter.

What this does show us, however, is that the Tradition related by Pope St. Damasus above --that is, the origins of the three patriarchates (with Alexandria and Antioch drawing their authority via their ties of discipleship to Petrine Rome) --was a universal Tradition and an Apostolic Truth. For, we have the Roman West as well as the Syrian (Antiochian) and the Egyptian (Alexandrian) East all expressing the same Tradition! ...a Tradition which modern Eastern Orthodoxy has forgotten and "swept under the rug" ...because they prefer to follow the politically-motivated (non-Apostolic) novelties of their Byzantine forefathers, who systematically replaced the true and original Apostolic order with a state-sponsored theocracy to serve their "holy" Empire(s), blurring any distinction between the Church of Jesus Christ and their imperial "state cult." This is, imo, the error of Eastern Orthodoxy and the root of its schism with Rome. I am sure you disagree.

Me before:

It was only the 5th Century Byzantines (who were trying to promote their "one-Church, one Empire" agenda and create a political theocracy) who first made the claim that Rome held primacy because it was the original capital of the Empire -- the implication being that Constantinople should hold a similar primacy, because it was the "New Rome." But, even at the time, this silly and untenable argument was rejected by Rome and the other Apostolic patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch, along with the rest of the Church.

You replied:

Well, we've got a canon of an Ecumenical Council which says Rome was capital because of it's political importance, and history seems to back it up.

Maybe in fantasyland - but not in reality. I gave you the historical proof against this before. Canon 28 of Chalcedon was rejected at the time, and was only re-inserted into the ecclesial canons after the Schism (which the imperial agents finally got their way and Eastern canon law became identical with Eastern secular law). See the quote from Bishop Anatolius of Constantinople above, where he APOLOGIZES to Pope Leo about the canon and accepts his veto of it. See also the evidence that I provided for you before that shows that all Eastern church sources speak of only 27 canons of Chalcedon until Photius re-inserted canon 28 in the 9th Century.

Petrine Primacy is based on a bunch of misquoted ECFs...

Oh? And why don't you run through the quotes I provided above and show me exactly how I "misquoted" them? You'll have to do some interesting "tap dancing" to get around their obvious meanings.

And of course some in Alexandria and Antioch rejected Constantinople's position, the first major schism also occured within those churches - because of their unwillingness to submit to authority.

Authority?? Authority based on what??? You seem to assume that Constantinople has "authority" ...even over these Apostolic Churches ...because it was the political capital. And, if this is indeed your reasoning, it is THIS VERY Byzantine mentality which promoted Arianism, and Nestorianism, and Monophysism, and Iconoclasm, and every other state-sponsored, politically-expedient heresy of the early Church. ...all of which Rome had to clean up for the you Easterners, and drag you back into orthodoxy again.

Rome too, couldn't accept the fact they were no longer the imperial capital, which led to their 'power grab' later in history...

You know ... Just repeating historical fairy tales doesn't make them true. You have been misled and you refuse to accept reality. Rome never "grabbed power." If anything, it was consistently even-handed and indulged the consistent power-grabs of your Byzantine forefathers.

Did you read what I said? That Alexandria's influence was over Africa except North Africa. Obviously Carthage had been under Rome's influence since the Punic wars...

My mistake. I assumed you said that the Alexandrian patriarchate included N. Africa. However, YOUR mistake is assuming that Roman ecclesial primacy (or the patriarchal order) has anything to do with political dominance. Need I point out that the same city-state of Rome that conquered Carthage in the Punic wars also conquered the rest of the known world, including Syria (Antioch) and Egypt (Alexandria)? So, according to your implicit model, this would mean that Rome was the sole patriarch of all the regions of the Roman Empire. Even we Catholics don't believe that.

To be continued...

 

[NewMan99]

Continued from Post #606...

Me before:

And, as canon 6 of Nicaea also tells us, the regional authority of Alexandria and Antioch was recognized by the Church BECAUSE the Bishop of Rome recognized the regional authority of these patriarchs in these places.

You replied:

Reading the council, we find no such thing. Yes, their regional authority was recognized, but it was ancient, and not simply because Rome 'allowed it'.

To be continued...almost done...hang in there...

Wrong. You don't know how to read the canon.

Here it is again:

"Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

You read it as modern Protestants do (or try to). But their modernist reading is unreasonable and cannot stand. When Canon 6 of Nicaea says that Alexandria and Antioch have jurisdiction in their respective regions "because this is also the custom of the Bishop of Rome" ...or, to even use your Protestant translation "...since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also," it is clearly NOT saying (as Protestants try to argue) that 'Alexandria should have regional authority just as Rome has regional authority.' This is made evident by the fact (ESPECIALLY in the original Latin and Greek ...I'll provide the Greek and Latin text, if you like) that no such list of regions is provided for Rome. The canon does not say, for example, that 'Alexandria has jurisdiction in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis because Rome has similar jurisdiction in Italy, Gaul, and Spain ' ...or whatever. Rather, the canon speaks about allowing the "ANCIENT CUSTOMS to prevail." And WHERE should these "ancient customs prevail"??? They should prevail in "Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis." And it THEN says that the Bishop of Alexandria should have jurisdiction in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis. But why???? Because THIS is also THE CUSTOM (the 'ancient, prevailing custom') of the Bishop of Rome as well. ...that is, that Alexandria should have jurisdiction in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis. Looked at objectively, this is the ONLY way that anyone can read this canon. And this becomes EVEN MORE obvious once we realize the historical context of WHY this canon was issued at the time of Nicaea. It was because, at the time (and in addition to the Arian crisis), the patriarchate of Alexandria was also torn by an internal schism (the Meletian schism), in which numerous clerics in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis did not recognize the authority of the Patriach of Alexandria. And so, Nicaea re-affirms Alexandria's authority for this reason; and it backs up the fact that Alexandria's authority in these places is "ANCIENT CUSTOM" by citing the fact that the Bishop of Rome ALSO recognizes Alexandria's authority in these places by ANCIENT CUSTOM. And the canon then invokes the same Tradition in regard to the privileges of Antioch, the other Eastern patriarchate. THIS is the true and proper reading of the canon.

I'd like to also add that this Canon (which, again, was enshrining organic Church Tradition as a matter of imperial law) was based upon an earlier imperial legal precedent set by the Emperor Aurelian way back in A.D. 270. At this time (and while the Church was still technically an illegal, underground society), the church of Antioch had deposed their heretical Patriarch, Paul of Samosata. However, Paul refused to step down as patriarch, and he and his tiny party of adherents refused to surrender the bishop's house, which was owned by the Antiochian church. Because of this, the presbyters of Antioch literally sued him, taking their case before the Emperor Aurelian, who was a) residing in Antioch at the time and b) tolerant of Christians, having several Catholic Christians on his personal staff. Agreeing to hear the case about the bishop's house and who should own it, Emperor Aurelian ruled that the true bishop of a given city was whomever the Bishop of Rome recognized to be the true bishop of that city; and since Pope St. Felix had accepted and ratified the deposition of Paul of Samosata, it therefore followed that he was not the rightful bishop and had to surrender ownership of the house. So, 55 years later, the Council of Nicaea is merely invoking this imperial legal precedent. It is saying that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis because the Bishop of Rome recognizes that the Bishop of Alexandria has jurisdiction in all these places. It then, continuing to cite the legal precedent, declares that ...

" ...this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop."

In other words, .... Since the regional jurisdictions of Alexandria and Antioch are recognized by both ancient custom and the custom of Rome (i.e., the legal precedent established by Emperor Aurelian), it therefore follows that these metropolitans (that is, patriarchs ...or both patriarchs and metropolitans within the patriarchates) also possess the right to decide who is or is not bishop within their regions of jurisdiction --the only exception to this being if ...

"...two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail."

In other words, if there is a conflict between metropolitans (or especially between patriarchs), then a bishop may be recognized as a valid bishop based on the majority opinion of bishops. However, within the dynamics of 4th Century ecclesiology, such a "choice of the majority" only manifested itself through the unifying ministry of Rome. For, as the council of Sardica (presided over by the same orthodox bishops from Nicaea) adds to this rule ...

"If any bishop looses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew ...let us honor the memory of the Apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, Bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province." (Council of Sardica, Canon 3, 342 A.D.)

This canon was written especially to deal with the unjust deposition of St. Athanasius of Alexandria, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and other orthodox bishops, who were deposed from their sees and declared to be "untrue" bishops by the Arian majority of bishop in the East. So, "majority" does not mean any majority of bishops whatsoever, but rather the majority of the bishops in communion with Petrine Rome, and acting in accord with it.

Again, where's the proof? Is this an ongoing thing with you? You said you'd provide proof over and over, yet you've provided no such thing.

Oh no...except for all the proof I have offered. And your reply was that you responded to the quotes from my "witnesses" in other threads at other times, but did not know where to find them. Fine - then see all the quotes I have provided above and in my previous posts.

We have canons from 2 different ecumenical councils, and a canon from the Quinisext Council (Trullo), which all confirm the EO version of events.

Yes, the MEDIEVAL and REVISIONIST version of the events. These come from Photius in the 9th Century, who essentially CREATED your state-sponsored religion (i.e., modern Eastern Orthodoxy) and re-worked the historical record in the service of the Byzantine theocracy. Indeed, it is ironic that you accuse Rome of launching a "power grab," when your people are the ones who are guilty of this sin.

All the RCC has is a bunch of out of context ECF quotes, and claims made by Popes which were never accepted by the universal church.

I again give you the Eastern fathers above. If they are quoted out of context, show me how this is so. If not, then stand corrected and admit your error.

Referring to the Christian Church in Jerusalem, you said:

Who said anything about it being a 'Patriarchate'? I just mentioned it because it eventually did became a Patriarchate, and because it is the historical birthplace of Christianity.

It was a state-created patriarchate, just like most things in your Byzantine religion. You cite Jerusalem as if it is a consistent, Apostolic church. It is not. The present church of Jerusalem does not go back to the 1st Century or bear consistent Apostolic witness. It was interrupted, and then restored.

BTW, you've got to be joking or something when you say Jerusalem isn't apostolic - all early sources agree that the first Bishop of Jerusalem was St. James.

St. James presided over the original, Jewish church of Jerusalem. This church ceased to exist in the 130's, and was replaced with a Genitle church - that is, an entirely different Christian community, which took up residence in Aelia (the re-built, Gentile city on the site of Jerusalem). St. Cyril of Jerusalem and Juvernal (who became the first Patriarch of Jerusalem) were bishops of this Gentile community. They were not direct successors to St. James, but merely the "poetic" / symbolic successors of St. James. You EO's fail to acknowledge this distinction - that is, historical reality; and the fact that neither the Bishop of Jerusalem nor the Bishop of Constantinople possess any Apostolic predecessors in their personal lines of succession to their specific ministries. Jerusalem and Constantinople are not Apostolic churches. Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are. ...although Antioch actually no longer exists.

 

[Standing Up]

I mentioned earlier my interest in the third witness, Polycarp. You asserted this, "Polycarp went to explain to the Roman Bishop why the Christians in Asia Minor celebrated the Feast of the Lord's Resurrection on a different date than that celebrated by Rome and the rest of the universal Church. "

The truth is he went to correct Rome because only Rome at that time celebrated the Feast on a certain day. All the rest celebrated it on a different day. I don't think the Apostles taught two different things to two different groups. Do you?

Are you sure about that? I would have to review my notes. You could be right - but that is not my recollection. -snip-

"When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere.37843784 See (Polycrates) p. 773, supra, and Eusebius, H. E., book v. cap. xxiii., etc., pp. 222–226. Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history."

The others left the Quartodeciman practice and adopted the Roman custom. 325ad they deemed heretical the Apostolic practice.

Only Rome. Does this give you pause?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I do think NewMan99 has done a solid job at presenting the RCC position of the development of the, hmm, Pope office versus the other "eleven".

Ah, but it is MY position that this concept DEVELOPED. It is his point that it was created by Jesus in 30 AD.

HE defined the distinctives of the Papacy - and then failed to show that anyone prior to the 4th century had any concept of any of the 4 aspects. IF the Papacy existed in 30 AD, he has show zero evidence of such, IMHO.

It is now time to talk about it.

The Archbishop in the Opening Post and NewMan99's claims and "witnesses" have given all of us things to think about. As have your posts here! Thank you to all!




.

 

[Standing Up]

Ah, but it is MY position that this concept DEVELOPED. It is his point that it was created by Jesus in 30 AD.

HE defined the distinctives of the Papacy - and then failed to show that anyone prior to the 4th century had any concept of any of the 4 aspects. IF the Papacy existed in 30 AD, he has show zero evidence of such, IMHO.






The Archbishop in the Opening Post and NewMan99's claims and "witnesses" have given all of us things to think about. As have your posts here! Thank you to all!




.

I tried to use the word NewMan99 used, the office "developed". Indeed it did. From circa 100 as Trento pointed out indirectly (the bishop is above ALL OTHERS, well all includes apostles, and in fact we clearly see that develop as they excommunicate the apostles and their verifiable line).

Scripture clearly tells us we are living stones being built on the foundation of OT prophets and NT apostles with Christ as the cornerstone. It also calls those who associate with this or that apostle or person carnel; we should 'grow up' into Him, as it were.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

​

362 A.D​

342 A.D.​

342 A.D.​

431 A.D. ​

450 A.D.

450 A.D.

449 A.D.​

451 A.D.​

451 A.D.​

453 A.D.​

466-516 A.D.

519 AD.

520-533 A.D.

.​

Thanks; so not only have you failed to show that the Papacy existed and was embraced as such before the legalization of Christianity, but the first steps toward such as well into the mid 4th century and later (which is what I theorized early in this thread - and you have now rather well documented). Now, I must wonder, how do these quotes from 500 years after the fact "document" that Jesus created the office of the RCC Papacy and that such "existed" from at least 30 AD with the distinctives you gave for such?



Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.​

 

[NewMan99]

Continued from Post #607...

Actually Byzantium was under the Metropolitanate of Ephesus, and of course St. Andrew the first called established the church at Ephesus (as well as that in Byzantium, and other churches in Asia minor).

Are you serious??? Not only is there no Tradition whatsoever that St. Andrew established the church of Ephesus (Ephesus was established jointly, and in two stages, by St. Paul and St. John the Apostle, who also served as its second bishop, after St. Timothy), but Constantinople (Byzantium) was NEVER part of the metropolitanate of Ephesus, which governed the western part of Asia Minor. Constantinople (Byzantium) is located in ancient Thrace --that is, in Europe! As any history book on the subject will tell you, it was originally part of the metropolitanate of Herculea, the principal city of ancient Thrace.

Isn't that what Rome does? Claims that their primacy was based on St. Peter's personal position? The fact is, there was a number of reasons that Rome had primacy in the early church, including being home to so many martyrs and Saints, this is undeniable.

As the Antiochian native, Theodoret of Cyrus (quoted above) says, "For that most holy throne (Rome) has the sovereignty over the churches throughout the universe on many grounds." (Theodoret, Tom. iv. Epist. cxvi). So, no one is denying that Rome's primacy is supported by it being the church of the early martyrs, or the burial place of Peter and Paul, or a church that manifests consistent (uncanny) orthodoxy. But, the PRINCIPAL and SPECIFIC reason why all the fathers recognized for the primacy of Rome was that it succeeded to the ministry (and authority) of St. Peter. This is seen throughout the entire patristic witness, and you are ignoring that witness.

The donatist heresy of course was something else, they claimed that sacraments were invalid if the priest/bishop presiding was sinful, whereas the Orthodox position is that God extends His grace despite the sinfullness of the priest/bishop.

So then why make the argument that the Popes prior to the schism were not saints??? You are not very consistent in your thinking, it seems.

At the same time however, this is not proof of a 'mechanical' succession either.

We do not believe in a "mechanical" succession. We believe in a Sacramental succession. The church of Rome is a 2,000 year-old, UNINTERRUPTED Christian community. This cannot be denied. It is far older than Constantinople, and far older than any other church in existence today. It is also, unlike any Eastern church, consistently orthodox. None of its bishops were ever Arians, or Monophysites, or Monothelites, or Iconoclasts. No ancient Eastern Orthodox church can make this claim. And, since an Apostolic church consists of a Sacramental body (the congregation) presided over by a Sacramental head --that is, the Chair or ministry of a bishop, it therefore follows that the Sacramental nature of the 2,000-year-old church of Rome has always possessed the episcopal office of the one who first established it in Rome; and that person was Simon Peter. This same Simon Peter entrusted his own specific Christ-given ministry (that of Rock and Key-bearer --Messianic Prime Minister for the Church universal) to his episcopal successors at Rome, thus making the Chair of the Roman church the custodian of this Christ-given ministry. This illustrates that the charism of Petrine authority is not something possessed by a specific man (as if it is some kind of "personal charism" ...which is apparently what you assume), but is actually the possession of the Roman church (the 2,000-year-old Christian communion of Rome), and he who succeeds to the role of Sacramental head (i.e., bishop) of the Roman church is thus in Sacramental possession of the ministry of St. Peter because of his Sacramental position in the Roman church. This is the Catholic position.

None of those Popes are recognized as Saints by the Orthodox Church, and of course Photius IS recognized as a Saint.

Go look at your own canons. Both Pope Nicholas and Pope Stephen V [VI] are pre-Schism saints, and acknowledged as saints of the Eastern Orthodox Church. Photius, however, is not a saint by Roman standards. He was actually a very sinful person --a grabber of power, and scheming politician (as well as an intellectual genius ..but intelligence alone does not make a saint). Any objective reading of history must lead one to conclude this. But, if you bother to read Photius' own correspondence, it is abundantly clear that he consistently (and knowingly) lies to people in order to get his way and advance his agenda. I'm sorry, but this is not the behavior of a saint. ....at least not by Western standards. The unfortunate reality about Eastern Orthodox practice is that if often confuses political or national heroes with saints. This is why, for example, you guys glorify (canonized) Constantine (who clearly died as an Arian heretic), and Alexander Nevsky, and the like. These people are not saints. They may be "Christian heroes" to a certain extent, but not saints.

I said this:

Plus, you must not overlook the fact that NONE of the Patriarchs of Constantinople during a century before OR after the Schism were saints. ...Michael Cerularius was certainty no saint.

You replied:

Who said they were? Constantinople could schism and become heretical tomorrow, and our church would still be whole.

Really? And how would you know that you are in your church? This is the main problem with Eastern Orthodoxy. It is purely subjective, and thus completely relativistic. You're "Orthodox" if you think you are.

As for my comment above, don't avoid the issue. The issue is that, at the time of the Schism, your EO forefathers sided with Constantinople against Rome. And don't give me this business about 4 patriarchs all siding against Rome. At the time of the Schism, the so-called "patriarchs" of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were all Byzantine Greek "Melchites" who were totally dependent upon, and answerable to, the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople. They were the Byzantium's agents in what were, by then, predominately Muslim cities. So, the Schism was not a four-to-one split (as EO propaganda likes to claim), but a clear one-to-one split: Rome vs. Constantinople. But, none of the Patriarchs of Constantinople were saints for well over a century before the schism, and none would be a saint again for many centuries thereafter. So, why did your forefathers follow people who were not saints? If doctrinal orthodoxy is dependent on sanctity (which is what you initially tried to claim), then how do you justify your forefathers' adherence to the non-saintly bishops of Constantinople? ...especially when our Pope at the time of the Schism was a saint? ...as was often the case before the Schism, even at the genesis of the Filioque controversy.

As for why Rome is in heresy, they went into schism, and deviated from the faith.

Says who? And by what authority???

This is enough for now. If you really want to get into Canon 7 of the Council of Ephesus as a SUPPOSED example of deviation from the faith, I will gladly get into it, but I am tired and enough is enough for now.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

FWIW,

Folks, I am not RCC, EO, OO, Assyr, Angli, Prot (in any of its forms) or Restoration (SDA, LDS, JW, Messianic, CoC, or any of its forms).

I am simply a Christian.

I do think NewMan99 has done a solid job at presenting the RCC position of the development of the, hmm, Pope office versus the other "eleven". I also mentioned earlier that no one countered his post re Peter and strengthen your brothers (nor did I, but I do have a reply). (O COMMENT: if you quote past 325 or so, the battle is long lost, IMO, FWIW.)

It does not bother me though. There's no need for insults. I know what Scripture says and I know the very early, verifiable, universally agreed upon Tradition from those same Apostles to the derisively called Quartodecimans (Christ died on the 14th).

It was a battle. And I think I know what happened. I did assume too much from NewMan99.

Anyway, it was not liturgical. It was over a day and a fast, but you will not find a fast associated with Passover. There is, however, one associated with Pentecost (Mt. Sinai, Moses, the Law, 40days). There is also a day. So, when Trento quotes, the bishop above all others possesses power and authority, I agree, that is exactly what happened and over which the battle was fought. Anyone see the connection? In 325AD all (RCC, EO, OO, Assy, P, Restor, etc) agree and deem heretical the APOSTLES and the only verifiable apostolic succession, for goodness sakes!

It is now time to talk about it.

Standing Up,

I promise you I will get into this topic with you a little deeper than we have up until now. But I can't tonight. Please give me a day or two and then we can charge ahead.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[NewMan99]

I tried to use the word NewMan99 used, the office "developed".

Yes - my claim (contrary to what CJ says about my claim) is that Jesus founded the Church and commissioned Peter for a special ministry...and this ministry developed through time. It did not "evolve" - it did not just pop up out of the blue - it has existed since Peter even though its style changed as the needs of the Church changed.

 

[sempervirens]

.

What we have in the letter is nothing more than a request for advise from a beloved, entrusted, fellow Christian. No different than what happens millions of times every day among us.
.

In pp 59 and 63 Clement said it would be a sin to "disobey Him through us", to "become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit". I hear Mt 16:19 in that ... "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." - you just hear "advice"?

 

[Albion]

Yes - my claim (contrary to what CJ says about my claim) is that Jesus founded the Church and commissioned Peter for a special ministry...and this ministry developed through time. It did not "evolve" - it did not just pop up out of the blue - it has existed since Peter even though its style changed as the needs of the Church changed.

I can respect that as a theory. Why not? There are dozens of others equally improbable. But think about these points touched upon in what you wrote--quite apart from what you or I or anyone else would LIKE to think Christ did or intended.

Christ in fact said nothing about passing anything given to Peter on to others (as your idea takes for granted).

The commission He gave to Peter (and we agree that there was one) was to open something to the world, presumably in a special or especially notable way. Further, we know that Peter did succeed in doing this because we have the events of Pentecost recorded for us in the NT. As for the idea of a Papacy, of course no one knew of that in Peter's time.

To say that whatever developed was as needed covers just about anything happening, even heresy, etc. doesn't it? IOW, that has no specificity. Whatever path of history one sides with automatically becomes what God intended.

 

[Albion]

In pp 59 and 63 Clement said it would be a sin to "disobey Him through us", to "become obedient to the words written by us and through the Holy Spirit". I hear Mt 16:19 in that ... "whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." - you just hear "advice"?

Surely you don't think that just because Clement was trying to throw his weight around or build his reputation by sounding off in this way...that this means it is to be taken as literally correct or was accepted by the Church as something uniquely authorized by Christ, do you? You wouldn't say that about the comments of most other religious leaders in the past, but here it's supposed to be a "given."

 

[Livindesert]

Seems we have either

Apostles oral and written instructions-Scriptures-1000's of years of Christian interpetation through ECF's-Schismatic Bishops-"saints"-to churches today-Christian teachings

Or we could go Apostles oral and written instructions-Scriptures(with a little history for FYI)-Personal relationship with Chirst.

I personally choose the latter seems like even without a Theology degree or infallible person around I would do much better on my own then joining a community just for worship. Of course I am a bit jaded

 

[sempervirens]

Continued from Post #607...

a church that manifests consistent (uncanny) orthodoxy.
NewMan

St. Jerome once wrote - ingemuit totus orbis et Arianum se esse miratus est - The whole world groaned in wonderment to find itself Arian.

Thankfully (for all of us) Rome and Athanasius prevailed over Arianism - but at one point Arianism held sway over a vast majority of the bishops and the political structure of the empire. (Its one of the sad ironies of history that one of the causes of the great schism, the filioque, arose from a need to defend the faith from a flare up of Arianism in the west.)

 

[sempervirens]

Surely you don't think that just because Clement was trying to throw his weight around or build his reputation by sounding off in this way...that this means it is to be taken as literally correct or was accepted by the Church as something uniquely authorized by Christ, do you? You wouldn't say that about the comments of most other religious leaders in the past, but here it's supposed to be a "given."

Clements letter was accepted by the church at Corinth, read in their liturgy as part of their canon for centuries, and circulated widely. Ultimately it didn't make it into the universal canon but sometimes I wonder where we'd be if it did Which is not to say I consider it scripture - I don't.

 

[Trento]

Clements letter was accepted by the church at Corinth, read in their liturgy as part of their canon for centuries, and circulated widely. Ultimately it didn't make it into the universal canon but sometimes I wonder where we'd be if it did Which is not to say I consider it scripture - I don't.

Attested by Eusebius


"The ecclesiastical history of Eusebius Pamphilus

ECCLESIASTICAL fflSTORY. 101

CHAPTER XVI.

The Epistle of Clement

Of this Clement there is one epistle extant, acknowledged as
genuine, of considerable length and of great merit, which he
wrote in the name of the church at Rome, to that of Corinth, at
the time when there was a dissension in the latter. This we
know to have been publicly read for common benefit, in most of
the churches, both in former times and in our own ; and that at
the time mentioned a sedition did take place at Corinth, is abund-
antly attested by Hegesippus.