The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
Alexander T., Raphael1999, Adrián Badida, fr nick, Andres Belizario
5640 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 registered members (Fr. Deacon Lance), 163 guests, and 80 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Byzantine Nebraska
Church of the Holy Trinity (UGCC) - Brazil
Papal Audience 10 November 2017
Upgraded Russian icon corner
Russian Greek Catholic Global Congress
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics34,827
Posts412,417
Members5,640
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: mardukm] #355969 11/16/10 06:04 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Melkite Convert Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by mardukm
Dear brother Thanos888

Originally Posted by Thanos888
However, what exactly, dearest brothers, would you expect the Coptic Church to do when the head of the Catholic Church excommunicates us openly during a mass over the filoque?

What could we have done?

I feel there is much that you can learn here about the Catholic Church, not just from a doctrinal perspective, but also from a historical and ecclesiastical perspective. For example, it might interest you to know that "the head of the Catholic Church" did not excommunicate anyone. He was actually dead for several weeks already at the time his legate laid the Bull of Excommunication at Hagia Sofia.

I see you are also unaware of the varied Traditions within the Catholic Church. Though the Latins comprise the greatest portion of the Catholic Church, there are also Eastern Catholics (of the Byzantine Tradition), Oriental Catholics (Syriac, Armenian, Indian, Ethiopian, and Coptic Traditions), as well as Chaldean Catholics (of the Assyrian Tradition). It surprises you that there are Catholics who do not recite filioque in the Creed. I suspect there are more surprises in store for you (pleasant ones) as you learn more about the Catholic Church, if you are willing. We in the Catholic Church have learned to look very deeply into our theological underpinnings to find the Faith that unites us all. There are differences, to be sure, but no more than there were in the early Church. We have learned to live with them and with each other as one, as our Lord instructed us to do.

ByzCath is a wonderful place for you to learn about the Byzantine Catholic Faith - and even Oriental Catholicism. It is a great place to see how one can be Orthodox while being in communion with Rome. However, judging from your posts, your focus is on what the Latin Catholic Church teaches (or teaches wrongly, in your opinion). If you want to discuss about what the Latin Catholic Church really teaches in particular, may I humbly suggest that you visit the Catholic Answers website. Hear it from the horse's mouth, I always say.

Blessings,
Marduk


Dear Marduk,

My apologies for not having seen your post before I just posted mine. I see that you made some of the same points that I did, so I hope I didn't offend you with my post.

Peace and blessings,
Scott

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Melkite Convert] #355972 11/16/10 06:19 AM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Nelson Chase Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Couldn't have said it better! Amen!

Blessed Philips Fast! ICXC-NIKA!

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Melkite Convert] #355973 11/16/10 06:29 AM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
I
Irish Melkite Offline
Global Moderator
Member
Offline
Global Moderator
Member
I
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 9,962
Originally Posted by Melkite Convert
Thanos888: I respect your coming here to discuss these things, but please do keep in mind that this is an Eastern Catholic Forum. We are not Latin Catholics, and much of what you discuss applies only to the Latin Church. That is a distinction that very few people feel comfortable making (present company excluded), but it is there.


Scott,

You are correct in noting that Thanos has frequently raised issues that are more pertinent to the Latin Church than they are to the Eastern and Oriental Churches, and that much confusion sometimes results from the efforts to formulate answers explaining the divergent spirituality and theological understandings of the two.

However, you are incorrect in your description of this site as an Eastern Catholic forum. It is, rather, an Eastern Christian forum. I'd recommend that you read the link which Bob/Theophan posted above as to Who We Are.

Many years,

Neil


"One day all our ethnic traits ... will have disappeared. Time itself is seeing to this. And so we can not think of our communities as ethnic parishes, ... unless we wish to assure the death of our community."
Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: StuartK] #355982 11/16/10 02:14 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
mardukm Offline
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
The Coptic Orthodox Church uses the creed of Saint Athanasious.


The so-called "Athanasian Creed" is a Western baptismal creed composed in Gaul, some time in the fifth century. It would surprise me greatly if it was used by the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Sorry I was not here when this discussion was going on. For everyone's information, the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed is sometimes referred to as the Athanasian Creed in the Coptic Tradition. When brother Thanos888 referred to the Athanasian Creed, he was referring to the N-C Creed, not the "Pseudo"-Athanasian Creed.

Blessings,
Marduk

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Irish Melkite] #355993 11/16/10 07:50 PM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Melkite Convert Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by Irish Melkite
Originally Posted by Melkite Convert
Thanos888: I respect your coming here to discuss these things, but please do keep in mind that this is an Eastern Catholic Forum. We are not Latin Catholics, and much of what you discuss applies only to the Latin Church. That is a distinction that very few people feel comfortable making (present company excluded), but it is there.


Scott,

You are correct in noting that Thanos has frequently raised issues that are more pertinent to the Latin Church than they are to the Eastern and Oriental Churches, and that much confusion sometimes results from the efforts to formulate answers explaining the divergent spirituality and theological understandings of the two.

However, you are incorrect in your description of this site as an Eastern Catholic forum. It is, rather, an Eastern Christian forum. I'd recommend that you read the link which Bob/Theophan posted above as to Who We Are.

Many years,

Neil


Neil,

Thank you for the correction. I think I was just confused because I get to this site via the Byzantine Catholic website and never really paid attention to the title of the forum. Thanks again for the correction, and I apologize if I misled anyone in my post. Lord, have mercy!

All the best,
Scott

Last edited by Melkite Convert; 11/16/10 07:56 PM.
Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Nelson Chase] #356002 11/17/10 12:36 AM
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Melkite Convert Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Apr 2010
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by Nelson Chase
Couldn't have said it better! Amen!

Blessed Philips Fast! ICXC-NIKA!


Thank you, Nelson.

The same to you. Many blessings for the Fast!

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #356005 11/17/10 12:47 AM
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,410
A
AMM Offline
Member
Offline
Member
A
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,410
Where there is the eucharist, there is the church. Where there is the eucharist, there is the faith of Peter.

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #400854 10/29/13 09:36 PM
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Hieromonk Ambrose Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,505
Dear Thanos, here is something fascinating in the understanding of Pope Shenouda and the Coptic Orthodox Church.

Peter was in Rome only for two brief years before his death.
Go to Chapter IV. The Issue of the PRIMACY OF PETER:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050827230121/http://www.stmark-la.com/book.html

Excerpts:
7. Facts about Peter:
1. 44 AD.............Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem at 44 AD so how was he present in Rome at that time?!

2. 45 AD.............Clodius Caesar exiled all the Jews and the Christians from Rome at 45 AD, and the book of Acts made reference to this event (Acts 18:2). So it is again impossible for Peter to be in Rome then.


3. 50 AD..............In 50 AD, he attended the apostles council in Jerusalem, so it was impossible for him to be in Rome then.


4. 57-58 AD.........St. Paul wrote to the Romans in 57-58 AD asking to be given a chance to reach them and teach them about God. This is a proof that Peter did not preach the Romans in Rome, otherwise Paul wouldn't have asked to be given a chance to go.


5. 58 AD...............In 58 AD when Paul sent his epistle to Rome, he greeted 20 people, and 2 families, and the name of Peter was not among them which means that he (Peter ) was not there at that time.


6. 60 AD..............When St. Paul reached Rome at 60 AD, the Book did not tell us that he met with Peter, but rather Paul met the leaders of the Jews.. thus proving that Peter did not preach them with the Lord Jesus.

7. 62-63 AD.........St. Paul stayed in Rome for two years after preaching the Romans, (62/63 AD) meaning that if Peter reached Rome then, the church of Rome was founded, established and was strong by the works of the Holy Spirit and Paul.


8. 65 AD..............Therefore we acknowledge what Origen said, that, St. Peter came to Rome before he died, about 65 AD, to chase Simon the sorcerer, who offered money to him (Peter) and John for the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:9-24), and Peter was crucified there and died.


Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Michael_Thoma] #402583 01/06/14 09:24 PM
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 82
F
Fr. John Morris Offline
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 82
Historically, the ancient Church followed the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire. The Bishop of the provincial capital, the Metropolis, was called the Metropolitan. Canon VI which establishes the authority of the Metropolitans of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch make no mention of any ties to St. Peter.
Canon IX of the Council of Antioch in 341 specifically states that the Bishop of the Metropolis, provincial capital, has primacy over the province, "because all men of business come together from every quarter to the Metropolis." Canon III of the 2nd Ecumenical Council, Constantinople I in 381, states,"The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome." Once again there is no mention of St.Peter in the Canon. The Council of Chalcedon which raised Jerusalem to the level of a Patriarchate also makes no mention of St. Peter. Canon 28 of Chalcedon states, "Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon,which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the
Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration,
gave equal privileges (ἴσα πρεσβεῖα) to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her" Again the ranks were dependent on the rank of the city, not due to any connection with St. Peter.
The idea that certain sees have higher rank because of their association with St. Peter only developed later and was never accepted by the East.
Fr. John W. Morris

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Thanos888] #402584 01/06/14 09:37 PM
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 82
F
Fr. John Morris Offline
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Sep 2013
Posts: 82
St. Peter and his successors in Rome held a primacy on honor as senior Bishop of the Church and "first among equals." Canon VI of the 1st Ecumenical Council, Nicaea I in 325, limited the administrative authority of Rome to the West and affirmed the administrative independence of Alexandria and Antioch. The 7 Ecumenical Councils also assumed authority over the Bishop of Rome. For example, before it accepted the Tome of Leo, the 4th Ecumenical Council, Chalcedon in 431, sent the document to a committee to study to determine if it was Orthodox. The 5th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553 threatened to excommunicate and remove Pope Vigilius if he did not accept the decrees of the council. The 6th Ecumenical Council, Constantinople III in 680, did not hesitate to condemn Pope Honorius I for heresy. As organized by the canons of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, each local Church elected its own Bishops and administered its own internal affairs, subject only to an Ecumenical Council. It is true that some ancient Popes and Western theologians made statements that can be interpreted to claim universal jurisdiction for the Pope, but none of the Councils recognized the universal jurisdiction of the Pope, much less infallibility or authority superior to an Ecumenical Council. At the anti-Photian Council of Constantinople in 869 the papal legates requested that Patriarch Ignatius of Constantinople, who was restored to his throne by the council, and the Eastern delegates recognize the authority of Rome to unilaterally issue declarations on the doctrine of the Church. Both Patriarch Ignatius and the Eastern delegates rejected the papal request arguing that the Pope lacked such authority and that the agreement of all 5 Patriarchs was required for any doctrinal definition binding on the whole Church.
Fr. John W. Morris

Last edited by Fr. John Morris; 01/06/14 09:50 PM.
Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Fr. John Morris] #402723 01/11/14 05:38 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Bless Father John!

I don't know if the sixth Council condemned Pope Honorius for "heresy" but for his being implicated in the monothelite issue. That doesn't mean he wasn't really condemned - he was and his successors had to repeat the condemnation until well into the 12th century.

At the same time, you omit the quite "over the top" praise the Sixth Council expressed for the Bishop of Rome as successor to St Peter etc.

I don't think you would find anything comparable in any RC document in the last several hundred years.

And despite all that you, quite articulately, have presented above, there is no reason why a future union Council between East and West cannot go "beyond" all of this to determine a precise administrative role for the Bishop of Rome as arbiter of the Particular Churches in a united Communion.

As an aside, I visited an Anglican parish (during a Christmas house tour) for some refreshments. During tea, there were copies of Anglican newsletters around. In three issues alone, there were letters to the editor from Anglicans decrying the abuses in the Anglican church (which we all know about) while, at the same time, asking out loud why the Anglican Church was not yet in communion with the Bishop of Rome (who would have moved decisively to correct the situation, the Anglican bishops having failed in this . . .).

The question overall has to do with mechanism - the Bishop of Rome was seen as a kind of arbiter in the first millennium. Could he be such again today?

Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) quoted Orthodox writers who affirmed that the "Primacy is good for the Church. But let the pope show that he has the faith of Peter and then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter."

Alex

Last edited by Orthodox Catholic; 01/11/14 05:39 PM.
Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #402727 01/11/14 08:25 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Recluse Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I don't know if the sixth Council condemned Pope Honorius for "heresy"


”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
(The Sixteenth Session of the Council of Constantinople)

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
But let the pope show that he has the faith of Peter and then let him enjoy the privileges of Peter.


If we say to ourselves ' You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,' then we too become Peter, for whoever is united to Christ becomes Peter.
Origen



Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Recluse] #402730 01/11/14 10:09 PM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
The question is how the Council understood the pope's heresy - and much has been written on this point by Orthodox theologians.

Origen's quote is very valid.

But there is another level regarding primacy based on Peter that Fr. Meyendorff and the Orthodox tradition discuss. Your quote here is out of place in that regard.

Alex

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Orthodox Catholic] #402734 01/11/14 11:12 PM
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Recluse Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,226
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The question is how the Council understood the pope's heresy - and much has been written on this point by Orthodox theologians.


The council labeled him as an outright heretic. What more do you want?

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
But there is another level regarding primacy based on Peter that Fr. Meyendorff and the Orthodox tradition discuss.


I am not quite sure what Fr. Meyendorff meant in the comment that you have cherry-picked. I know that he was not a proponent of a supreme infallible papacy. Whatever he meant in context, I must add that I sometimes do not agree with the writing of the late Fr. Meyendorff (but that is only my lowly opinion).

I prefer to look at the issue in a purely patristic sense.

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter [Re: Recluse] #402735 01/12/14 12:15 AM
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Orthodox Catholic Offline
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,173
Dear Recluse,

How do you know I've cherry-picked anything? For someone who hates judgementalism, you love to impute motive.

Pope Honorius was not condemned as a Monothelite but as someone who did not condemn the views of Sergius et al.

Therein lies a distinction.

The Council also praised St Agatho and confirmed the role of the Papacy in approving Orthodox doctrine.

Alex

Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2020 (Forum 1998-2020). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.3