www.byzcath.org

The Primacy of Saint Peter

Posted By: Thanos888

The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 07:50 AM

Peace in Our Lord Jesus Christ,


I would like to discuss this issue as a Coptic Orthodox Christian with you all.

I am aware that ultimately, our main difference rests on this issue.

As Roman Catholics, you are of the opinion that the primacy of Saint Peter is not just an organizational issue, but a theological one.

Let's discuss this for a bit.

Jesus addressed Simon by what seems to have been the nickname "Peter" (Cephas in Aramaic, Petros [rock] in Greek) and says, "On this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it."

First, I will present to you how the Coptic Orthodox Church understand this statement:

We understand it as follows:

On his faith. The rock, his faith - Christ will build His Church. That was because, it was through his faith that he testified that Christ IS the Son of God.

So, is the Church to be built on the PERSON of Saint Peter, or the FAITH of Saint Peter?

In the beginning, the apostles were the 1st Bishops of the Church.

I do believe, according to my understanding, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that Saint Peter was the Bishop of Rome and Antioch.

Saint James was the Bishop of Jerusalem.

Saint Andrew - of Constantinople.

Saint Mark - Alexandria.

etc..

So, we have a situation where each apostle has a bishopric. If we were all of one faith, One Church, then surely, after the death of the 1st Apostles, that the descendant of Saint James COULD WELL have been elected the successor of Saint Peter?

Do you see my point? In the early Church - we were all Catholic Apostolic. There was no reason why a Coptic Christian (i,e an EGYPTIAN CATHOLIC APOSTOLIC Christian) could not have travelled to Rome, become a bishop himself and succeeded Saint Peter.

Or - is it the case where it was only possible for one of the clergy that Saint Peter had ordained to succeed him? Is that the case?

You see my point? If it was on the PERSON of saint Peter, then Saint Peter's son would have had to be his successor, not his own disciples (those whom he had under his bishopric).

So, both Saint Peter (Your Founder) and saint Mark (our Founder) had the same exact faith when they went out their separate ways.

Both of them had Configuration X (Dogma, Creed, values, faith) as their faith. The same faith.

So, when we were in unity, in the beginning, nothing was stopping any of the discples of the disciples from being under the authority of the successor of any of the various Holy Sees. You agree??

So logically, what was required to succeed Saint Peter was someone who was ordained through the apostolic hierarchy, and who had the same configuration of faith 'X'.

So, if we, as Coptic Orthodox Christians, are NOT under the hierarchy of the successor of Saint Peter, but our Pontiff's faith is Configuration X, then to SOME catholics, we are not saved. That's right folks. To some Catholics, that means we are not saved.

Wow.

Do you believe this?

Anyway, the interesting point is this:

Saint Peter's faith was at Configuration X.
What about the faith of his successors? Was it X?
Are you at release X? or have you incremented it? Are you perhaps now at X.10? or X.20?
What version is it at?

Whilst the Coptic Orthodox Church is still at release X, we haven't innovated a thing. We haven't added nor taken away from what Saint Peter and Saint Mark had. Have we ??

Look at you all!! The fact that YOU exist (Byzantine Catholics) is the image of what your Church was at around version X.1. And I must say, you do look and behave extremely much like us.

So, again, I ask - is it the PERSON of Saint Peter, or the FAITH of Saint Peter??

Let's say it is the PERSON of Saint Peter, which would mean that - it is the FAITH of Saint Peter, but his successor MUST be in Rome. His successor must be the chief of the apostles.

That's great! I would agree with that. Why not?

But, the problem is - the Coptic Orthodox Church sees itself at Version X. It doesnt see you at Version X at all. In fact, as I said, your very existance (Byzantine Catholics) is a testimony that this version has incremented and evolved.

Here is an incremented version of your faith. This was in Notre Dame Cathedral Paris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZbzTQDhkGA&feature=related

Don't worry if you don't understand French, you will understand this perfectly well at the end.

Do you not think that us being united with you would be good for us? Do you think it is out of our disobedience that we are not under Rome?

It is out of our passion to hold on FIRMLY what we received from our Founder - Saint Mark, and the Church Fathers that we are not in union with you.

Let's say we were One Church (hypothetically speaking).

What would it look it? Well, you'd have the Pope, and many Patriarchs of different Churches (Greek, Coptic, Russian etc). I assume the Patriarchs would be like "Senior Cardinals of the Church".

Would you agree that if a Pope was to be selected, well - that would mean the choice would be open to everyone who was a Cardinal. Which could mean someone from the Greek Patriarchate could be the next Pope of Rome.

Naturally. Right? Or is God racist? Even if we were united, One Church, all UNDER the Pope of Rome, that only someone who was Italian could actually be ordained as the new Pope??

Again, this just underlines my point:

The Church will then be built on the FAITH of Saint Peter, not HIM PERSONALLY. But how can a faith exist without a person!??? Well - Saint Peter isn't physically here with us today, and his Church is still around - so I guess that would mean that someone with his faith is sitting in his seat.

The question for you now is simple. Is the person sitting in the Throne of Saint Peter today CARRYING the same Faith (Configuration X) that Saint Peter had???

Because, with all due respect, the Catholic Church looks nothing like you, and you resemble us more than you look like them.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 12:37 PM

I just wish to summarise my post briefly. Apologies if it was too long:

If Christ wanted Saint Peter (Him as a Person) to be the rock on which He would build His Church, then you should have ordained the biological sons of Saint Peter as his successors.

If it is the faith of saint Peter - then that would imply any member of the One Catholic Apostolic Church could have been the successor of Saint Peter. Anyone who had the correct faith, that is.

Our faith is the same as that of Saint Peter, whilst unfortunately, it seems that what the Catholic faith is today is an incrementation of that.

I posted a video link of Charismatic prayer in the Holy Church of Notre Dame - Paris. You will see catholics jumping up and down and singing around the altar.

This is not the faith of Saint Peter. You agree?

But - we can argue that these groups do not represent the True Catholic Church, but then after Vatican II, the filoque, purgatory, immaculate conception, supremacy of the Pope etc, (the list goes on) - seems a quite a far stretch from what the original faith was.
Posted By: Michael_Thoma

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 12:58 PM

Brother Thanos,

GLORY TO JESUS CHRIST!

Regarding St. Peter, the answer to your question is BOTH - the Church is built on the the confessed FAITH of St. Peter as well as the Person.

The See of St. Mark IS Petrine in that St. Mark was Apostle St. Peter's disciple.

"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.” (Book VII, Epistle XL of St Gregory I, Pope of Rome to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria)

It was said that the three original Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were given primacy in their respective regions partly due to their Petrine origins. In addition the Arabic Hudoyo Canons gives the Patriarch of Patriarchs role to the Pope of Rome.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 01:28 PM

Hello Michael,

Yes, I am aware you all consider Saint Mark as the secretary of Saint Peter (correct me if I'm wrong) - lol..

Saint Mark actually, was not an Apostle. He was an evangelist, but as far as I'm aware, he wasn't an apostle.

So, the Church was to be established on the FAITH and PERSON of Saint Peter? Right?

I think your reasoning is that Saint Peter IS the head of the Church; i.e. that it bothers you that there are separate patriarchates outside that of Rome.

But this brings us to the next question.

The Orthodox have one small problem with all this. They HONESTLY don't mind having 1 leader - nor being under the authority of One Pope or Patriarch. Their problem is your faith.

Your faith has evolved from that which Saint Peter had.

* The dogmatic additions, councils and retractions by the RC make you look like "innovators" of the faith rather than the custodians of it.

* The charismatic movement within the Church is quite worrying.
This is definately NOT the faith of Saint Peter.

The Coptic Church has a huge problem with all this.

It suffered, more than any other Church, for keeping the faith. Not only suffered in terms of the number of martyrs it lost for the faith, but suffered also to ensure nothing was altered from what it had received from the Apostolic teachings.

The Coptic Orthodox Church prides itself in the fact that the 21st Patriarch of the See of Saint Mark was Saint Athanasious the Apostolic. Yes, that's right, the chap that wrote your creed happened to be our 21st patriarch.

The theologians who presided over every single council, from the Nicea to Constantinople were all from the Patriarchate of Alexandria.

Its going to be very hard to ask them to throw away what they have been keeping sacred and consistent. But the thing is this Michael: Your Church needs the Orthodox Church. It needs to revert back to Orthodoxy for its own good. Its stuck now.

If we were all of one faith, one dogma, one creed, then there would be no issue about supremacy. I can assure you, our patriarchs, bishops and metropolitans are not "authority hungry" individuals. Not at all. They are "responsibility minded" not authoritarian-minded.

So, if we were one Church, and our Patriarchs became senior Cardinals of the Catholic Church - then any of them could be elected as the next Pope? Right?

See... I don't think they'd want that, but.. that's not for me to say. Im in no position to speak on their behalf.

The point is, logically, it seems to be that the seat of Saint Peter, without the Faith of Saint Peter is not feasible.
Posted By: mardukm

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 02:29 PM

Dear brother Thanos888,

I just wanted to point out that our Oriental brethren in the Syriac Orthodox Church also regard the primacy of St. Peter as a theological issue, not merely canonical/organizational.

This is the general position of the apostolic Churches in the Syriac Tradition, including the Syriac Orthodox, the Churches of the East (ACOE and Chaldean Catholics), and the Maronites. It is something the Latin Catholic Church and the Churches of the Syriac Tradition have in common. They even have their own dialogue through the Pro Oriente foundation, distinct from the dialogue with other Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

I'm very busy right now, so I can only give quick responses. Hopefully, in several days, my schedule will be freed up more, and I can give more detailed responses.

Blessings,
Marduk
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 03:05 PM

No one denies the primacy of Peter. The question is what kind of primacy he held. And I can assure you, nobody on any side is going to be particularly happy with the answer to which history points.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 03:21 PM

Hi Stuart,

What kind of Primacy did he hold?

Please tell us.

I really don't know.

Let's just stop one second and face facts:

a) YOUR Church is the Holy Apostolic Church of God
b) So is ours
c) We need to unite

Let's get this over with mate.

What happened?
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 04:52 PM

There have been Fathers of the Church who have given both impressions that it is the faith of St Peter and also the person of St Peter. I think if we use that phrase only namely "you are Peter and upon this rock i will build my Church we do not have a clear understanding, you need to include what Christ said to Peter following that statement.
"And I will give "you" (singular) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you (singular) bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you (singular) loosed in heaven."

Stephanos I
Posted By: ByzBob

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 05:54 PM

Likewise, there have been fathers who disagree that the keys were given to Peter alone.


When you hear the words: 'Peter, do you love me?' imagine you are in front of a mirror and looking at yourself.
Peter, surely, was a symbol of the Church. Therefore the Lord in asking Peter is asking us too.
To show that Peter was a symbol of the Church remember the passage in the
Gospel: 'You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church and the gates of hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven.
Has only one man received those keys? Christ himself explains what they are
for: 'Whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.' If these words had been said only to Peter, now that he is dead who would ever be able to bind and loose?
I make bold to say that all of us have received the keys. We bind and loose. And you also bind and loose.
Whoever is bound is separated from your community: he is bound by you. When he is reconciled, however, he is loosed, thanks to you because you are praying for him. We all in fact love our Lord, we are all his members.
And when the Lord entrusts his flock to shepherds, the whole number of shepherds is reduced to one individual body, that of the one Shepherd.
Peter is undeniably a shepherd, but without doubt Paul also is a shepherd, each Apostles is a shepherd. All the holy bishops are shepherds, without a shadow of a doubt. Serm. Morin, 16 (Miscellanea Agostiniana, 493ff.) -St. Augustine:
Posted By: desertman

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 06:06 PM

Quote
There have been Fathers of the Church who have given both impressions that it is the faith of St Peter and also the person of St Peter. I think if we use that phrase only namely "you are Peter and upon this rock i will build my Church we do not have a clear understanding, you need to include what Christ said to Peter following that statement.
"And I will give "you" (singular) the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and whatever you (singular) bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you (singular) loosed in heaven."

Stephanos I


I agree, the context is everything in this passage. I have a protestant relative who tried to argue that Jesus was actually telling Peter the opposite - something like "you are rock (small stone), and on THIS rock (big boulder - symbolizing Jesus Himself), I will build my Church." Totally ignoring that Jesus starts the sentence out praising Peter with "Blessed are you", and then giving him the keys to bind and loose.

And then there is also John 21:15-17 - "feed my lambs", "tend my sheep", "feed my sheep". Jesus seems to want Peter to be intensely aware that he will be in charge in those very dramatic verses. You can almost imagine Peter sort of laughing uncomfortably as he answers three times "You know that I love you.". I love that scene.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 06:11 PM

Doesn't it also end with "Get thee behind me, Satan"?
Posted By: desertman

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 06:15 PM

Different conversation. grin
Posted By: ByzBob

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 07:18 PM

Originally Posted by desertman
I agree, the context is everything in this passage. I have a protestant relative who tried to argue that Jesus was actually telling Peter the opposite - something like "you are rock (small stone), and on THIS rock (big boulder - symbolizing Jesus Himself), I will build my Church." Totally ignoring that Jesus starts the sentence out praising Peter with "Blessed are you", and then giving him the keys to bind and loose.

And then there is also John 21:15-17 - "feed my lambs", "tend my sheep", "feed my sheep". Jesus seems to want Peter to be intensely aware that he will be in charge in those very dramatic verses. You can almost imagine Peter sort of laughing uncomfortably as he answers three times "You know that I love you.". I love that scene.


I see Peter, contrite of heart, perhaps with tears in his eyes, as he his Lord restores him, through a three fold confession of love, after his three-fold denial of his Lord. This passage's relation to the question of primacy is questionable at best.
Posted By: desertman

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 07:47 PM

Quote
I see Peter, contrite of heart, perhaps with tears in his eyes, as he his Lord restores him, through a three fold confession of love, after his three-fold denial of his Lord. This passage's relation to the question of primacy is questionable at best.


I wasn't trying to make light of the passage by my subjective imagining. I also imagine Peter becoming gradually more contrite and sober, as the promptings continue by Jesus which causes him to realize the seriousness of what is being said - that He will be leaving them again and the role of shepherd is now being passed on to Peter. All this when he had just decided to go back to being a fisherman!
In what way is the passage's relation to this topic questionable at best?

Posted By: ByzBob

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by desertman
In what way is the passage's relation to this topic questionable at best?


I guess it depends on one's definition of primacy. The Roman Catholics I have talked to that typically bring up this passage wish to anachronistically pour the papal definition of 1870 back into the text, which, in my estimation, is to abuse the passage.
Posted By: desertman

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 09/30/10 08:29 PM

Quote
I guess it depends on one's definition of primacy. The Roman Catholics I have talked to that typically bring up this passage wish to anachronistically pour the papal definition of 1870 back into the text, which, in my estimation, is to abuse the passage.


I hear you. I didn't go there because I thought the debate on this thread was between primacy vs. no primacy at all.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 10/01/10 07:54 AM

Hi everyone,

I'm not here to debate anyone. I'm not here proselytising my particular Church either. The beauty about Orthodox and Catholics having a chat is ultimately you respect everything we respect. We only get a bit upset with you whenever we see sacraments not being taken seriously in your Church. Other than that, your welfare is not just important for us, but it is for us also.

To me, the primacy of Saint Peter is not even dogmatic. Its not a theological issue NOR soteriological! If Christ wanted Saint Peter has the head of the head on earth, then surely the tongue of fire would have just appeared on Saint peter's head on the day of the Pentecost to which he could have laid hands on the other apostles and ordained them.

On that day, on the day of the Penetcost, the Bride of Christ on earth was born. I didnt see any hierarchy then. I didnt see that the tongue of fire first appeared on St. Peter's head and then after a while, it appeared on everyone else's head.

Concerning the First Ecumenical Council - yes, the 1st, the one in Jerusalem (The Council of Jerusalem); it says in the Bible that all the Apostles and Elders gathered together to discuss the issue. What was the point of having a meeting/a council if the opinion of the other Apostles wasn't important? Why didnt they just go to Saint Peter and tell him "Peter, listen up, you're our head, what do we do?"

Its not required for my salvation to be under the Pope of Rome. Is it?

He who believes and is baptised is saved. There was no condition there about being under the Pope of Rome for that salvation.

I've spoken to MANY Catholics about this issue, and even some who claim to be theologians, and it appears to be the main blocking issue.

I could understand if the the show stopper was:

* Homosexuality
* Women priests
* Purgatory
* Baptism by faith alone
* No need for priesthood

But, out of all the issues, it is one that has no importance. No efficacy.

In fact, had we all been under the authority of Rome, we'd ALL be in a mess: we'd have left Orthodoxy, we'd have adopted the scientific explanations on how the Bread is transfered into the Body of Christ, and cornered ourselves.

We are a reference point for you to come back to.

We are a landmark to help you find yourselves again - especially at a time when you need it.

Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 10/01/10 04:55 PM

Quote
Why didnt they just go to Saint Peter and tell him "Peter, listen up, you're our head, what do we do?"


Beyond that, Peter did not even preside. That honor fell to James, the Brother of the Lord, head of the Jerusalem Church, which, as the Mother Church, had priority over all others. And, after all sides had presented their views, it was James who summarized and then issued a ruling to which all assented.

Another matter that always puzzled me is the relative status of the Pope vs. the Apostles. Let's just assume for the moment that Catholic tradition is correct, and that Linus did succeed Peter as head of the Church in Rome (that assumes, by the way, that there was just a single Church in Rome, and not at least two). St. John the Theologian was still around on Patmos, and would be down through the pontificate of St. Clement of Rome. If we take the notion that the Pope's status as "Heir of Peter" is the source of his primacy over the entire Church, does this mean that St. John would, of course, defer to them? Or does John's status as the Beloved Disciple, his personal commission by the Lord himself, and his intimate personal knowledge of Jesus Christ place him over or outside of whatever primacy the first century successors of Peter might have claimed?
Posted By: ajk

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 10/02/10 05:25 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
Why didnt they just go to Saint Peter and tell him "Peter, listen up, you're our head, what do we do?"


Beyond that, Peter did not even preside. That honor fell to James, the Brother of the Lord, head of the Jerusalem Church, which, as the Mother Church, had priority over all others. And, after all sides had presented their views, it was James who summarized and then issued a ruling to which all assented.
"...preside....honor...head...Church of Jerusalem...Mother Church...priority...issued ruling..." It seems a rather developed ecclesiology is being applied, and that can suggest unwarranted, anachronistic conclusions. For the sake of argument, however, using the same ecclesiology, here is a case of a Pope, Peter, and a bishop, James, functioning in a collegial manner. And, after all, it was Peter who earlier in very primitive but highly significant settings, had taken the lead:

The Choosing of Matthias: Acts 1:15 In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,...22 beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us -- one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."

Choosing one to replace Judas as "a witness to his resurrection." Very significant, very foundational.

And the first "sermon" on the very day of Pentecost:RSV Acts 2:14 But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words.

Think of it -- right after the descent of the Holy Spirit.

Originally Posted by StuartK
Another matter that always puzzled me is the relative status of the Pope vs. the Apostles. Let's just assume for the moment that Catholic tradition is correct, and that Linus did succeed Peter as head of the Church in Rome (that assumes, by the way, that there was just a single Church in Rome, and not at least two). St. John the Theologian was still around on Patmos, and would be down through the pontificate of St. Clement of Rome. If we take the notion that the Pope's status as "Heir of Peter" is the source of his primacy over the entire Church, does this mean that St. John would, of course, defer to them? Or does John's status as the Beloved Disciple, his personal commission by the Lord himself, and his intimate personal knowledge of Jesus Christ place him over or outside of whatever primacy the first century successors of Peter might have claimed?
Hypothetical, non-obtaining situations are just that. In fact, as it has actually turned out, John was Apostle at Patmos, and Linus, Cletus and Clement Popes at Rome, and all functioned without incident and turned out quit nicely for the Church. Be puzzled no longer.
Posted By: Michael_Thoma

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 10/02/10 05:55 PM

The Primacy of Saint Peter as held by the Syriac Orthodox Church (which I as a Syro-Malankara Catholic hold the same Syriac Tradition, and you as Coptic Orthodox are in full Eucharistic Communion) presented by His Grace Aboon Mor Thomas Athanasius, PhD:

http://www.syrianchurch.org/Articles/PrimacyofStPeter.htm
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 10/02/10 09:05 PM

As I said, nobody disputes Peter's primacy, only what that primacy meant, and how it is exercised by those who claim to be his successors.
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 10/03/10 02:30 AM

First of all the use of the words "under Rome" is highly charged.
One should use in communion with Rome.
There are also Patristic texts that support the idea of the primacy of the Roman see, "the Church which has preemminence and presides in love, also text which says the Roman see has never erred. They are countless.

No one wishes to make a conflict, but if we are going to speak about the subject lets get all the cards on the table at least.

Stephanos I
Posted By: Stephanos I

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 10/03/10 02:32 AM

Actually did you know that tend my lambs is a bad translation.
It implies rule my sheep. That is why this text has been seen as supporting the Primacy of Peter.
Stephanos I
Posted By: ajk

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/01/10 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Michael_Thoma
"Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life [Rome]. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist [Alexandria]. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years [Antioch]. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself.” (Book VII, Epistle XL of St Gregory I, Pope of Rome to Pope Eulogius of Alexandria)

It was said that the three original Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch were given primacy in their respective regions partly due to their Petrine origins. In addition the Arabic Hudoyo Canons gives the Patriarch of Patriarchs role to the Pope of Rome.
MGR. PIERRE BATIFFOL in his book Saint Gregory the Great comments on this quote of Pope St. Gregory the Great; the comment is in this post, link.
Posted By: theloveofwisdom

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/01/10 05:13 PM

Thanos888 and anyother persons interested in the nature of the Roman Petrine Primacy,

If you take the time to read this article, it will explain how the 1st ecumenical council (Nicea), assumes the primacy of the Roman pontiff- and even rests on its authority to reaffirm the jurisdiction of the see of Alexandria and the other ancient sees of the Church. The fact that the Roman Pontiff's "custom" is used as a rationale against Meletius to affirm the jurisdiction of Alexandria and the other sees implies that the council acknowledged the authority of Rome above and over the other sees. So much for "first among equals". This article is written against Anglicans, however, its reasoning is still valid against the orthodox as well. Do take the time to read it thoroughly and honestly- I think you will find the arguments in it to be very convincing.

http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm
Posted By: johnzonaras

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/05/10 01:02 PM

Love of wisdom, you should be careful when make such statements as this. What edition of the Canons are you using? As early as ;late 4th century, church men knew that the Canons of Nicaea had interpolations in them on this issue. You should read up on the case of Apiarius; else where on this blog I noted:

it would do well for those in the west to review the case of Apiarius in North Africa. It was this event that caused St. Augustine of Hippo to tell the Bishop of Rome to stay out of the affairs of the church in North africa. I have referenced more details about good old Apiarius elsewhere on this site (http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=267189)

Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/05/10 01:09 PM

Do not fall into the trap of defining primacy in terms of jurisdiction. Primacy in the early Church worked on entirely different principles.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/05/10 02:03 PM

Dear brothers,

My apologies if I was not clear. I am all for Primacy within the Church. Whether one is catholic or orthodox, we have a hierarchy. There is leadership in the Church.

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?

Your emissary, in 1054, went to the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople and during the mass, placed the bull of excommunication on the alter.

His final words, after removing the sand from his sandals, before leaving the Church was something along the lines of 'let God judge my actions'...

So, you excommunicated us, and now we are being punished for being ex-communicated?

If the Roman Catholic Church starts to add dogmas, left right and centre, then what exactly could those who refrain from such practices do??

Your priests no longer get married, in some Churches you give the blood and the Body, and some others you give only the Body. In some Churches in the RC you have become charismatic, in some others, there is so much traditionalism that even the traditionalist catholics RE-baptise anyone catholic wishing to become a traditionalist.

The Roman Catholic Church has clearly moved away from orthodoxy.

What did you want us to do with your dogma of "transubstantiation" ? Did you want us to apply this in our Church and scientify a mystery and confuse everyone?

What could we have done?

Was it REALLY worth excommunicating us over the procession of the Holy Spirit -whether He proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just through the Father?? Is it really worth it?

I can assure you that our pontiff (H.H Pope Shenouda) is not a figurehead. He doesn't thrive on power, but he holds firm to the responsibilities given to him.

His mandate is to keep the teachings of the Apostles that were handed to him. That's it.

So, he will be sincere to the teachings of the Fathers. If your pontiff goes off and creates dogmas that disagree with the Church fathers, even though you may have the right of leadership, we cannot go off and agree to it.

We just cannot.

We are the Church of Saint Athanasious the apostolic, Saint Basil the Great, Saint Gregory the Theologian, Saint Demiana, Saint Mark the Evangelist. We are the Church of Saint Anthony the monk, the father of all the monks, the one who founded monasticism.

What did you want us to do with our spiritual heritage? Ignore it for the sake of appeasing a leadership that, for us, was developing contradictory teachings to the Church Fathers who presided before him??

What could we do??

The hand of reconciliation is always there. But you cannot ask us to ignore our responsibilities. The Pope of Alexandria is mandated to keeping the faith and passing it on to someone else after him. He's really into innovation.

We do what we've always done in the Coptic Church.

That doesn't mean we are not ONE Church by the way!! Not at all.

If a father has 2 sons and both disagree, does it make one son less of a son than the other?? Can either son say that the love the father has for him is MORE or LESS than that for his brother??

However, God will judge us according to our hearts. We are NOT at all interested in having a split Catholic Apostolic Church like this; but it has nothing to do with pride, nor stubbornness.. it has to do with being responsible for what we were given; for what was handed to us.


Posted By: desertman

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/05/10 02:37 PM

For Pope Benedict XVI's views on primacy,(written while he was still a Cardinal)"The Primacy of Love":


an excerpt:

"The empty chair that points to the primacy in love speaks to us accordingly of the harmony between love and order. It points in its deepest aspect to Christ as the true primate, the true presider in love. It points to the fact that the Church has her center in the liturgy. It tells us that the Church can remain one only from communion with the crucified Christ. No organizational efficiency can guarantee her unity. She can be and remain world Church only when her unity is more than that of an organization--when she lives from Christ. Only the eucharistic faith, only the assembly around the present Lord can she keep for the long term. And from here she receives her order. The Church is not ruled by majority decisions but rather through the faith that matures in the encounter with Christ in the liturgy."

http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2006/ratzinger_primacylove_dec06.asp
Posted By: theloveofwisdom

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/05/10 05:39 PM

johnzonaras,

Why don't you read the article? It will be very good for you and I recommended it to ALL Eastern Christians. The version of the 6th Nicene canon that is used in this article is accepted as authentic by the whole of Christendom, and all Christians who accept the 1st ecumenical council. It just a matter of interpretation that is being discussed in the article. All other alternative interpretation fall short of the validity of this interpretation put forth. I know about the eastern objections to falsified canons- I almost became eastern orthodox about 10 years ago. However, this article is one of the main reasons I did not.
Posted By: theloveofwisdom

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/05/10 08:24 PM

Thanos888,

Originally Posted by Thanos888

I'm not here to debate anyone. I'm not here proselytizing my particular Church either.


You say you are not here to proselytize or debate, but you come to this forum repeating the same old tired cliches that have been answered over and over in the past.

Originally Posted by Thanos888

My apologies if I was not clear. I am all for Primacy within the Church. Whether one is catholic or orthodox, we have a hierarchy. There is leadership in the Church.


You are still not being clear- it seems that you are willing to accept that Rome has a Primacy, but the point you are missing is the nature of that primacy. As Catholics, we believe that the Primacy of the Roman Church is a divine primacy- instituted by Christ himself. Not just an arbitrary primacy that the whole church happens to agree to.

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?
Your emissary, in 1054, went to the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople and during the mass, placed the bull of excommunication on the alter.
His final words, after removing the sand from his sandals, before leaving the Church was something along the lines of 'let God judge my actions'...
So, you excommunicated us, and now we are being punished for being ex-communicated?


Furthermore, you are making claims that you cannot even make regarding your church. Didn't you say that you are a Coptic? If I'm not mistaken it was the eastern orthodox that were excommunicated in 1054, not the oriental orthodox. The oriental orthodox (in our view) became schismatic when they rejected the council of Chalcedon- which defined that Christ had TWO natures, hypostatically united in the person of Christ. Whether this was a linguistic issue (and a matter of misunderstanding) is a matter for the church to take up- but the fact remains that it was the eastern orthodox- whom the oriental orthodox already considered as heretical, who were excommunicated in 1054, not the oriental orthodox.

Originally Posted by Thanos888

If the Roman Catholic Church starts to add dogmas, left right and centre ...
If your pontiff goes off and creates dogmas that disagree with the Church fathers...


Statements like this incite debate- and so, you must substantiate your claims that dogmas were "created" by the Roman Catholic church.

Originally Posted by Thanos888
Your priests no longer get married...


St. Epiphanius (320 – 403)-
"he who leads a married life is not admitted by the Church to the order of Deacon, Priest, Bishop or sub-Deacon."[Haeres. 59, c. 4.]

St. Jerome (347 420)-
"Bishops, Priests and Deacons are chosen from virgins or widowers, or, at least, they remain perpetually chaste after being elevated to the priesthood."[Ep. ad Pammach.]
"You certainly admit that he cannot remain a Bishop who begets children in the episcopacy; for, if convicted, he will not be esteemed as a husband, but condemned as an adulterer."[Adv. Jovin., lib. 1.]
"What will the churches of the East, of Egypt and of the Apostolic See do, which adopt their clergy from among virgins, or if they have wives, they cease to live as married men."[Adv. Vigilantium.]

Thannos888- The primitive Church did not allow clergy to be married. If a married man was taken into the priesthood due to the scarcity of vocations among the unmarried- the canons of the church required them to live separated from their wives (or as brother and sister) after their ordination.This discipline was relaxed to some extent in the eastern church- but has always been the tradition in the west- it was the east that changed this discipline- not the west. If anything, perhaps the east never had/implemented this practice, but to go so far as to claim that the Roman Church changed is simply NOT true.

Originally Posted by Thanos888
... in some Churches you give the blood and the Body, and some others you give only the Body


Liturgical changes, provided the develop organically, are NOT out of the ordinary for the Church. How one receives the Body and Blood of our Lord, (whether in one species or both) is not a creation of a dogma- it is discipline. I can however, provide you with ample evidence that the Coptic Church changed its own liturgy- but the difference is that in this case, it was precisely because the members of your church DID change a Dogma.

If you examine the Trisarigon on all the rites of Christianity you will notice that the Oriental Church's have a modified Trisarigon. All the rest of the rites have:
"+Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal: have mercy on us."

Only in the oriental orthodox churches was it changed, and it remains changed to this very day.

"+Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal, who was crucified for us, have mercy on us."

At first, it does not seem like a significant change. But what you must understand is to whom the Trisarigon is traditionally spoken to. It is an echo of the hymn of the Angels as they adore the All Holy Trinity in heaven. The Trisarigon, taken in its context in all the rites of christendom refers to The Holy Trinity.- And that is what it originally referred to even in the Coptic and oriental liturgies- but ever since the change took place in your liturgy there was some confusion- and now it refers to Christ only, and not the All Holy Trinity.

But why the change? DO you know why this change happened in your liturgy?

Because a priest named Peter the Fuller, protected by the current Emperor's son-in-law usrurped the Antiochian Patriarchal Throne for himself. He insighted an revolt against Chalcedon. In spite of the formulation of Chalcedon- he made his clergy sing " ...who was crucified for us, have mercy on us".

Peter the Fuller added this phrase to suite his novel newly created theology- A new Dogma he created. See, when Christ died on the Cross, we Chalcedonian Christians (Diphysites) say that Jesus died in his human nature only. But if we were 'monophysites'- that is, if we believed that Christ does not have 2 natures but only 1 nature- we cannot say that He died only in one nature, while his divine remained immortal- so we would have to say that his Divinity died- either that or he did not die at all. And since Christs Divinity is identical with that of His Father and the Holy Spirit- it would follow that the Holy Trinity died. At the time, there was a group from among the Oriental Orthodox called the that Theopaschites that actually believed that from Good Friday to Easter Sunday, there was no living God.

In order to avoid this blasphemy and heal the division made by this Patriarch Peter the Fuller- his successor, Kalandion, tried to compromise between the two Trisarigons making it explicit that the Trisarigon now referred to Christ only, and not the All Holy Trinity. He proposed the new Trisarigon:

"Holy God holy and strong holy and immortal Christ the King who wast crucified for us have mercy on us"

But the monophysites rejected this. More than anything else, the Monophysite Oriental orthodox's rejection of this compromise at the time really shows that they really did these profess the Theopaschite heresies.
Later, this anomoly in the Oriental liturgies became explained away as refering to christ only- a proposition which the early monophysits rejected. (note: the previous few parahraphs is a praphrase of pages 190-191 of "The lesser eastern churches" By Adrian Fortescue http://books.google.com/books?id=PS...=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false)

Originally Posted by Thanos888
In some Churches in the RC you have become charismatic, in some others, there is so much traditionalism that even the traditionalist catholics RE-baptise anyone catholic wishing to become a traditionalist.

The Roman Catholic Church has clearly moved away from orthodoxy.


There indeed is a lot of trouble in the Roman Church today- but it does not follow that it has moved away from orthodoxy. The Roman Church is being attacked by the devil and his minions precisely because it has NOT moved from orthodoxy. The ONLY christian church in the WORLD that has not moved away from orthodoxy is the Roman Church and the eastern churches who are united to it. A simple proof of this is to look at how the various teachings of all other christians has changed regarding divorce and remarriage, and regarding birthcontroll. The Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthrodox churches have deviated on a very simple moral teaching- 'contraception is immoral and a grave sin'. Divorce is also considered acceptable (though very rare) in your church.

It seems pointless to me that you are quibbling about disciplines and liturgical norms when non Roman Catholic (and non EC's) churchs teach that contraception is licit.

Originally Posted by Thanos888

Was it REALLY worth excommunicating us over the procession of the Holy Spirit -whether He proceeds from the Father and the Son, or just through the Father?? Is it really worth it?


The filioque was not invented by the Roman Church. If you look, there is ample evidence that the western church always held this teaching, and that it also existed in the east in a similar fashion by the presence of "through the son" in various writings. One of the primary reasons for this excommunication was not only the filioque- certainly it contributed. But the immediate reason the excommunication took place was an issue of authority. The Patriarch of Constantinople was excommunicated because he refused to acknowledge The Roman See's divine headship over the whole church. Again do read the article I posted above.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/CouncilNicaeaSixthCanon.htm

I find it very Ironic that you are attributing this excommunication to your church, when your Church rejected the council of Chalcedon, which was the council that gave Constantinople its status as the new Rome after it was approved by the Pope of Rome.

Originally Posted by Thanos888

What could we do??


In 1741 a Coptic bishop in Jerusalem, Amba Athanasius, became a Catholic. There is now an Alexandrian Rite sui juris particular Church in full communion with the Pope. You should join them. There the liturgical and spiritual heretige of your Church is respected- but this way you can be in full communion with the Pope of Rome and fully integrated to the Church that Jesus Christ established.

Pax
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/05/10 09:12 PM

Enough, both of you! A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing, and the two of you combined are a perambulating catastrophe.
Posted By: DTBrown

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 01:36 AM

Quote
In 1741 a Coptic bishop in Jerusalem, Amba Athanasius, became a Catholic. There is now an Alexandrian Rite sui juris particular Church in full communion with the Pope. You should join them. There the liturgical and spiritual heretige of your Church is respected- but this way you can be in full communion with the Pope of Rome and fully integrated to the Church that Jesus Christ established.


Could I suggest something?

Seeing that you are from California, have you ever visited a Catholic Coptic parish? As I understand, there is one in the Los Angeles area.

You should do that and then visit a Coptic Orthodox parish to compare the two. There are many differences. Ask the Coptic Catholic parish about the differences and ask the Coptic Orthodox parish about the differences.

Also, ask the Coptic Catholic parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Orthodox need to to convert to.

And ask the Coptic Orthodox parish how faithful they feel the Coptic Catholic parish is to the Coptic tradition.

In my experience in discussions with Coptic Orthodox many of them feel the Coptic Catholics have a long way to go in fully respecting "the liturgical and spiritual heritage" of the Coptic Church.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 01:17 PM

Quote
Also, ask the Coptic Catholic parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Orthodox need to to convert to.


Never mind that--ask the Holy See the same question.

In the Ravenna Statement (to which the Coptic Orthodox Church was not a party, but to which it applies anyway) the Catholic Church rejected uniatism as a modality for reconciliation, and acknowledged that the Orthodox Churches are fully sufficient for the salvation of their members. The Catholic Church foreswore at that time all actions that might even hint at proselytism, because it does not seek submission or assimilation, but true communion in the Holy Spirit.

Loverofwisdom is acting in a manner contrary to the policy and desires of the Holy See, whose primacy he claims to be upholding through his act of disobedience. Aside from that, I don't think anyone with an iota of sense could possibly be persuaded by his rather simplistic and ahistorical understanding of the Roman primacy, the Petrine Ministry and the relationship of the Church of Rome to other apostolic Churches.

While I do not agree with Thanos888, either (he attributes to the Catholic Church a number of beliefs or positions it either never held or has since repudiated), he has more of the argument on his side.
Posted By: AMM

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 02:10 PM

Quote
You should join them.


Very nice.
Posted By: ajk

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by DTBrown
Could I suggest something?

... ask the Coptic Catholic parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Orthodox need to to convert to.

A good question. Since I don't have the opportunity to ask, I'd like to know the expected answer. But let me also form and ask a corresponding question, wanting also to know its expected answer:

Ask the Coptic Orthodox parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Catholic need to convert to.

Likewise:

Originally Posted by StuartK
In the Ravenna Statement... the Catholic Church ... acknowledged that the Orthodox Churches are fully sufficient for the salvation of their members.

Is that an accurate characterization of the Ravenna Statement? In any case, in a corresponding way, can it be said:

In the Ravenna Statement (or elsewhere or in some way)... the Orthodox Churches ... acknowledged that the Catholic Churche(s) is/(are) fully sufficient for the salvation of its/(their) members.
Posted By: DTBrown

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 03:30 PM

Fr. Deacon Tony asked:

Quote
Ask the Coptic Orthodox parish if they view themselves as the place where the Coptic Catholic need to convert to.


I could be wrong, but I wouldn't be surprised if you are more likely to get a "yes" reply from the Coptic Orthodox parish than the Coptic Catholic parish.

My purpose in framing the questions was to point out to member Theloveofwisdom that many Eastern Catholic parishes (such as the Coptic Catholic parish) are likely to be very uncomfortable with telling a person from a corresponding Orthodox jurisdiction (such as the Coptic Orthodox) that they need to join their parish. There are various reasons for this, I believe.

I am hoping that Theloveofwisdom would get to know both parishes (Catholic Coptic and Catholic Orthodox) before he would make such a statement ("You should join them") again.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 05:33 PM

Quote
In the Ravenna Statement (or elsewhere or in some way)... the Orthodox Churches ... acknowledged that the Catholic Churche(s) is/(are) fully sufficient for the salvation of its/(their) members.


The statement in Ravenna is reciprocal: both Churches acknowledge the sufficiency of the other. Those Orthodox Churches that endorsed Ravenna endorsed that statement, too. In any case, what the Orthodox do or don't do does not affect what we do or don't do.
Posted By: ajk

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Quote
In the Ravenna Statement (or elsewhere or in some way)... the Orthodox Churches ... acknowledged that the Catholic Churche(s) is/(are) fully sufficient for the salvation of its/(their) members.


The statement in Ravenna is reciprocal: both Churches acknowledge the sufficiency of the other. Those Orthodox Churches that endorsed Ravenna endorsed that statement, too. In any case, what the Orthodox do or don't do does not affect what we do or don't do.
Where in the Revenna Statement is this acknowledgment found?
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 07:27 PM

Sorry, I actually meant Balamand.


Quote
13) In fact, especially since the Pan-Orthodox Conferences and the Second Vatican Council, the rediscovery and the giving again of proper value to the Church as communion, both on the part of Orthodox and of Catholics, has radically altered perspectives and thus attitudes. On each side it is recognized that what Christ has entrusted to His Church—profession of apostolic faith, participation in the same sacraments, above all the one priesthood celebrating the one sacrifice of Christ, the apostolic succession of bishops—cannot be considered the exclusive property of one of our Churches. In this context it is clear that rebaptism must be avoided.

15) While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remains secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for His own and the design of God for His Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.

18) Towards this end, Pope Paul VI affirmed in his address at the Phanar in July 1967: "It is on the heads of the Churches, of their hierarchy, that the obligation rests to guide the Churches along the way that leads to finding full communion again. They ought to do this by recognizing and respecting each other as pastors of that part of the flock of Christ entrusted to them, by taking care for the cohesion and growth of the people of God, and avoiding everything that could scatter it or cause confusion in its ranks" (Tomos Agapis, n. 172). In this spirit Pope John Paul II and Ecumenical Patriarch Dimitrios I together stated clearly: "We reject every form of proselytism, every attitude which would be or could be perceived to be a lack of respect" (7 December 1987).

22) Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Eastern, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox. It aims at answering the spiritual needs of its own faithful and it has no desire for expansion at the expense of the Orthodox Church. Within these perspectives, so that there will no longer be room for mistrust and suspicion, it is necessary that there be reciprocal exchanges of information about various pastoral projects and that thus cooperation between bishops and all those with responsibilities in our Churches can be set in motion and develop.

25) Furthermore, the necessary respect for Christian freedom— one of the most precious gifts received from Christ—should not become an occasion for undertaking a pastoral project which may also involve the faithful of other Churches, without previous consultation with the pastors of these Churches. Not only should every form of pressure, of any kind whatsoever, be excluded, but respect for consciences, motivated by an authentic exigency of faith, is one of the principles guiding the pastoral concern of those responsible in the two Churches and should be the object of their common reflection (cf. Galations 5:13).
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 07:53 PM

Hi everyone,

First of all, I looked at my previous post, and I realised there's a mistake: I meant to say that we are NOT innovators of dogmas, but rather custodians of it.

The only point I was making was that the Coptic Orthodox Church has a mandate to keep the teachings of the Church Father.

Look, you cannot deny that your Church has lost some sort of spiritual tradition:

Let's take for example the Eucharist - explain this: Why is it in the mass the priest prays on a Host and yet distributes to the congregation other smaller hosts that were not part of the host he ate from.

Do you see what I mean?

Look, all these are ultimately problems that can be solved ... im sure but I just want u to know that to win Orthodox over to the Catholic Church, the following would be required:

a) Returning back to the correct spiritual traditions
(Mass with Blood & Body!)

b) No more charismatic movements - no talking in tongues, no people being slain in spirit

c) Correct dogmas -

1) The Filoque
2) The immaculate conception

Both of these are becoming more or less like the Orthodox's definitions, but it needs to become officialized.

3) Purgatory.

None of these really matter to me. If purgatory exists - great. LUCKY US! if it doesn't exist, Oh DEAR! Who knows??

I think the Orthodox Church recognize Christ's words to the good thief when He said to him "Tonight, you shall be with me in Paradise"

It means that his repentance, his faith and his suffering and death with Christ on the Cross was enough to put him through to Paradise. There was no time spent for him in some place paying for sins. This is quite a big issue.

Look, Please don't tell me i'm quibbling here. I love the RC. I really do. Some days I wake up and I wish I was catholic. You're lovely people, and even your Church today is wonderful.

However, what can I do? These issues don't make sense to me.

What I wanted to say also was that your Church has changed / added dogmas.. for example: the Filoque - I mean.. why on earth did you add this for? We CANNOT, for the life of us, start adding/changing dogmas.. you see??

PLEASE do not see this post as an attack.. on the contrary, I WISH for unity between you a lot, but I'm describing the obstacles facing us.

As for priests being celibate, that's great.. we have priests that are celibate and some that are married. THose that are celibate CAN become bishops (ONE DAY), those that are married can only become proto-priests (senior priests) - but that's it.

Concerning the issue with the Coptic Catholic Church, it doesnt make much sense to me why there is a Coptic Catholic Church in the USA - why don't they just attend ANY catholic church in the USA?? Strange... the BEST thing about the Catholic Church is that a Catholic Christian is not united to his brother/sister by culture... what unites you IS Jesus Christ... not because members speak a certain language. This is what I dislike about many Orthodox Churches - sometimes you find it is more like a cultural centre... especially the Greek Orthodox Church.

A lot of Coptic Catholic Churches have our rites in them.. they are SO close to us in how their mass is - the hymns, the lectionary etc. - these all came from the Coptic Orthodox Church, but are being used by them.

Ultimately, what Im trying to say is - concerning the primacy of Saint Peter, is that - I DONT MIND if Saint Peter IS the head of the Church.. but the patriarchate of Alexandria CANNOT join a Church by compromising on dogmatic issues.

We only recognize 3 councils:

Nicea,
Ephesus
Constantinople.

That's it.

I think you guys are up to vatican II?? That's what I meant when I said that we are NOT innovators. We don't innovate ANYTHING.

Besides, as far as I was aware, given that Saint Mark was a disciple of Saint Peter, by virtue of that, it sort of makes us closer to you than you think.

Please forgive me if I offended anyone here. Don't be angry with me. I'm NOT attacking your Church. I love it. Even with the differences, its a lovely Church. I gain a lot in the RC. I'm just being frank about the problems concerning unity.

DOn't attack the messenger!!
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 08:09 PM

StuartK,

I love the Catholic Church, and many Coptic Christians also. I think many Greek and Russian also. Especially in Europe. Your church is WONDERFUL.

Please understand, it is out of love for it, I'm telling you what the problems are! I don't have this love for the protestant, the evangelical, NOR the non denominationalists.

I'm telling you the mindset of the Coptic Christian - how we view things.

Our Patriarch is Saint Athanasious the Apostolic.. the 22nd POPE OF THE CHURCH OF ALEXANDRIA. He wrote the Catholic faith AND the Coptic Creed also. He was our Pope. When he wrote it, the filoque was not mentioned in there. You added this.

I'm just being open with the problems here.

For the immaculate conception, to us, Saint Mary is a Saint, She is pure and Holy in everything, so we don't mind what you say - she appeared in our Church in a FULL BLOWN MEGA apparition in Zeitun. I doubt if we had the wrong faith, or if we were heretical, that the mother of God would have appeared and being the pivotal point that caused MANY to believe in Christ as God, INCLUDING muslims.

In fact, the Coptic Church prides herself in the fact that the apparition of Saint Mary is the only televised apparition of the Holy Virgin. If you want pictures, check out zeitun.org or google "Virgin Mary Zeitun" and see it for yourselves. Muslims were 1st to see her.

I go to the RC when I can, and I enjoy it very much. I've helped evangelise people to join the Roman Catholic Church even.

Look, if someone said to me that they've discovered Christ and wants to be baptised, and they've chosen the Roman Catholic Church, i would not only be happy for them, I'd be a bit envious, if it was in a country like Italy or France. I wouldn't feel this way if it was the protestant Church. I'd try to explain to the importance of sacraments, the importance of priesthood, the importance of the Eucharist.. etc.

I hope I've made my position and intentions clear.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 08:26 PM

I should think that before one attacks or criticizes a Church (and people here will tell you I am not shy about taking just about everyone to task now and again), don't you think you should at least be able to state accurately what that Church believes and teaches? Because, if you will pardon me, many of your statements about the Latin Church are seriously off the mark--and some verge on caricatures of Latin beliefs and practices.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/06/10 10:27 PM

StuartK,

Im not attacking OR criticizing the Church at all! Where have I criticized it? I'm just pointing out the issues that as far as I can see are stopping unity.

You teach that there is purgatory - it is a place for purification of our souls. This was explained to me by many Catholic priests.

I'm not disputing it, I'm just thinking aloud: the Good thief on the Cross, did he spend time in purgatory? He stole from people that may not have forgiven him; however, through his repetance, he had immediately qualified for direct entry into Paradise with our Lord.

What is so "off the mark" about that statement?

Concerning the dogmas of your Church:

Saint Athanasious (our 22nd Patriarch - Pope of Alexandria) wrote the Nicene Creed. He didnt add the part of the Filoque in there.
Your Church added this in 1054.

What is so "off the mark" about that statement?

None of this is criticism. I'm just pointing out the issues that seem to be blocking unity between us. That's all.

If you think I've missed something, or I have been inaccurate in my understanding of our differences, then would you also think the same of our Bishops who have been opposed to unity for the same reasons?

Do you think maybe they have been also "off the mark" with their understanding also??

I used to think that the issue of the filoque was not of great importance - but then after a lot of research, it turns out that to the Coptic Orthodox Church, this is of grave importance.

I'd like to summarize my point of view here before this thread goes in all directions:

* There are some dogmatic differences between us. These differences are beginning to fade away with dialogue. A good example is that of the immaculate conception. The definition of this is NOT what it was 50 years ago.
* Therefore, in tackling the issue of the Primacy of Saint Peter, it would be wise to iron out the dogmatic differences FIRST because this is what is holding back unity. The Coptic Orthodox Church, although I cannot speak on her behalf, I know it is hindered by any dogmatic innovations AFTER the 3rd Council.
Primacy is fine - so long as your Holy Pontiff at least shares the same faith and dogmas as the orthodox church.

Posted By: johnzonaras

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/07/10 05:13 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Do not fall into the trap of defining primacy in terms of jurisdiction. Primacy in the early Church worked on entirely different principles.


In my book, we should go back to those rules; it would certainly resolve many of the issues on this matter. Dump the outcome of Vat I.


Thanos, you are in error to say the Creed of Nicaea was written by good ol' Athy. In reality it is a modification of the baptismal creed of Caesarea in Palestine and I believe Eusebius of Caesarea offered it to serve as the model for our Creed. You more correctly could say that ol' Athy (Athanasius) edited the text of the Caesarean Creed.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/07/10 07:39 PM

Johnzonaras,

The Coptic Orthodox Church uses the creed of Saint Athanasious. Whether he modified it or not from a previous creed is neither here nor there. What is important is that his creed didnt have the word Filoque in there; yours does.

Its quite remarkable that you consider him a defender of the faith for you, yet you seem to take lightly what he defended.
Posted By: johnzonaras

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 01:04 AM

Thanos, I am a member of the Eastern Orthodox Church so the last time I checked, unless you know something I don't, the EOC's version of the Creed does not have the filioque in it.

Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 02:58 AM

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.

Now, Thanos888 is most likely referring to the so-called Nicene Creed, which most assuredly was not composed by St. Athanasius, though undoubtedly he supported the Creed that was drafted at the Council of Nicaea (using a Palestinian baptismal creed probably introduced by Eusebius of Caesarea). But the Creed used today is not that Creed, but rather the symbol of faith issued by the Council of Constantinople, long after St. Athanasius had fallen asleep in the Lord.

The original Creed of the Council of Nicaea hardly makes mention of the Holy Spirit at all, save to mention His existence and our belief in Him:

Quote
We believe in one God, the Father Almighty,
Maker of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father,
Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one essence with the Father;
By whom all things were made
Who for us men, and for our salvation, came down and was incarnate and was made man;
He suffered, and the third day he rose again, ascended into heaven;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
And in the Holy Spirit.


But, to the best of my knowledge, no existing Church uses this Creed; all use the Creed of Constantinople, however it is named. And the Eastern Churches, both Catholic and Orthodox, do not employ the so-called Filioque clause. Moreover, the entire Catholic Church professes that the Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father alone, and is sent forth into the world by the Son, which is precisely what Athanasius and the Father taught. The Catholic Church acknowledges that the uninterpolated Greek text of the Creed of Nicaea-Constantinople is the only ecumenically binding symbol of faith for all Christians. So, the Filique is basically a non-issue. The Orthodox won. Get over it.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 12:26 PM

StuartK,

This is remarkable..

You are saying that the Filoque is not in your creed? But I attended a mass (a Traditionalist Mass in latin) and it was there in the creed.

Yes, I was referring to the Nicene Creed.

Before I go any further, i want to re-iterate a few things I mentioned before:

I am no theologian. Everything that I know is from my own personal reading and what we've been taught in Sunday School. Sure, I've read on Anselm and soteriological differences between us, but - i'm no theologian at all.

So StuartK - are you saying that the employment of the Filoque is NOT used or is it removed??

Thanks again for your patience with me,

God bless you all
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 02:17 PM

Quote
You are saying that the Filoque is not in your creed? But I attended a mass (a Traditionalist Mass in latin) and it was there in the creed.


Not all Catholics are Roman (and not all Romans are "traditionalists), but even Romans omit the Filioque when they celebrate Mass in the presence of Orthodox priests and bishops. The Pope himself leaves it out of ecumenical documents, and the 1995 "Clarification" on the procession of the Holy Spirit, issued by the Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Christian Unity, specifies that only the Creed without the Filique is ecumenical, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father from eternity and is sent into the temporal world through the Son,

Eastern Catholics never had to include the Filioque, though many jurisdictions did so out of a misguided effort to be "more" Catholic, or to distinguish themselves from their Orthodox counterparts. Since the Second Vatican Council's Decree on the Eastern Churches, and the Decree on Ecumenism, there has been a dual emphasis on (a) restoring the fullness of the authentic Traditions of the Eastern Churches; and (b) eliminating unnecessary sources of friction with the Orthodox Church. With those objectives in mind, almost all of the Eastern Catholic Churches have suppressed the Filioque, a situation that has existed at least since the 1990s.
Posted By: PeterPeter

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
With those objectives in mind, almost all of the Eastern Catholic Churches have suppressed the Filioque, a situation that has existed at least since the 1990s.


Nevertheless during the Byzantine-Ukrainian Divine Liturgy aired live every week on the Vatican Radio we can always hear the Creed with the filioque clause and the references to "all orthodox Christians" substituted with "all Chrisitans".
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 03:32 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
[quote]With those objectives in mind, almost all of the Eastern Catholic Churches have suppressed the Filioque, a situation that has existed at least since the 1990s.


Oh my goodness! I was totally unaware.

WOW! hahah.. this is great.

Listen, Stuart. Im NOT gay, but I love you. I do. You're an extremely handy person to have around.
I really appreciate your answer!

This is great news.

Are there any official sources on this that I could show to my Orthodox friends??

The orthodox Christian, by the way, like his or her Church, hates to compromise on spiritual tradition. We see your Church as an apostolic Church. It rightfully is. So, obviously seeing stuff like the filoque in your creeds is just problematic for us.

What is the deal now? Are they taking it off (the filoque) only for ecumenical reasons, or is it now permanently removed?

What about other stuff like purgatory? or the immaculate conception?

Thanks again stuart. You're a star.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by PeterPeter
Originally Posted by StuartK
With those objectives in mind, almost all of the Eastern Catholic Churches have suppressed the Filioque, a situation that has existed at least since the 1990s.


Nevertheless during the Byzantine-Ukrainian Divine Liturgy aired live every week on the Vatican Radio we can always hear the Creed with the filioque clause and the references to "all orthodox Christians" substituted with "all Chrisitans".


PeterPeter, you're a party-pooper!

Why is this? I thought from Stuart that the Byzantine Catholics had left out the filoque, and then you go off and add it?

But let's get this straight:
Can a person be catholic and NOT believe in the filoque?? Yes or No?
Posted By: PeterPeter

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 06:16 PM

In the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church it is up to the local ordinary to decide whether filioque should be inserted.

It is routinely inserted in Poland, and as far as I know, also in Ukraine.

I think there's no difference in Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the precedence of the Holy Spirit, the insertion is the problem.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 06:28 PM

Hi PeterPeter,

What do you the "insertion" is the problem?

We believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. You believe that the procession is from the Father and the Son. No?

I cannot believe still that this is an issue for division. OK.. im no theologian, but to be divided over something like this is careless in my opinion. The dogma of the filoque, as far as I can see, did more damage than good.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 06:50 PM

Quote
It is routinely inserted in Poland, and as far as I know, also in Ukraine.


I have recordings of Liturgy at St. George Cathedral in Lviv, and the Filique most definitely is not there.

Quote
I think there's no difference in Catholic and Orthodox understanding of the precedence of the Holy Spirit, the insertion is the problem.


The USSCB has been working for some time on the best way of suppressing the Filioque in the Latin rite, in order, as they put it, "to bring liturgical usage into line with doctrinal teaching".
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/09/10 06:55 PM

Are there any official sources on this that I could show to my Orthodox friends??
The Father as the Source of the Who...Spirit in the Greek and Latin Traditions


Posted By: DTBrown

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/10/10 12:40 AM

The last I checked the local Ukrainian Catholic parish about 150 miles N of here still sang the Filioque. I think it is also still used in the Phoenix, Arizona parish as well.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/10/10 01:32 AM

That's nothing. The Ukrainian parish in Riverhead, New York didn't even sing the Liturgy, and had statues of the Sacred Heart of Jesus and the Sacred Heart of Mary on plinths outside the entrance.
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/10/10 01:32 AM

Quote
You believe that the procession is from the Father and the Son. No?


No.
Posted By: catholicsacristan

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/10/10 02:02 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
[quote]

I have recordings of Liturgy at St. George Cathedral in Lviv, and the Filique most definitely is not there.


Glory to Jesus Christ!

It may not be in recordings from there, but they do take it. I was there for ordinations this past summer and can attest to it first hand.
Posted By: Thanos888

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/10/10 09:08 AM

This thread is becoming very confusing.

I'm lost.

Can someone just kindly tell me Can a person have the Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church IF they reject the Filoque Dogma?

For me, the immaculate conception is now a non issue - the RC have clearly changed the definition of this so its OK for us.
Purgatory - I don't personally believe it, but its not in the creed which is good. As I said - Christ said to the thief on the cross "TODAY you shall be with me in Paradise". He didnt spend any time in purgatory.
Finally, the Primacy of Peter: I believe there were 12 apostles. Peter was definately the leader - or a leader - this is true. But when the See of Saint peter has added dogmas, you cannot expect us to follow therefore, the Coptic Orthodox Church is founded ON the faith of Saint Peter, on the faith of Saint Mark and the apostles. Their priesthood is valid, just as yours is.

If their priesthood is valid, then so are our sacraments.

Again, would Saint Mary appear in Egypt, the Holy Theotokos, to heal thousands, to be the reason why many converted to Christianity, if our Church was in ANYWAY heretical???

If the division with Rome was based purely on snobbery, I would agree.. but i know its not. The dogmatic issues that weigh heavily in the hearts of the Coptic Clergy are so important, they cannot just forget their spiritual traditions and spiritual teachings for the sake of just uniting to make all catholics feel happy.

Posted By: dochawk

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/11/10 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by Thanos888

We believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. You believe that the procession is from the Father and the Son. No?


Seven.

OK, cattle.

No, these answers make no sense, but neither does the question.

[Others with more theology will doubtless state this more clarly than I do.]

A lot of the problem comes from the differences between the Latin and Greek languages.

The Holy Spirit proceeds in origin from the Father, and proceeds temporally through the Son.

As near as I can tell, pretty much all Orthodox & Catholic theologians would agree with this statement.

And the creed used in each church says this.

However, Greek has several different words which translate to the same word in Latin. Using the Greek word used in the creed for procession, the Latin would come out as, "proceeds in origin from both the Father and the Son." Catholic theologians would agree that this is heretical.

Orthodox theologians would agree that the Spirit proceeds in origin from the Father and proceeds Temporally from the Son--but this translates to, "proceeds from the Father and proceeds from the Son"--which (in the absence of understanding the linguistic differences) may as well drop the identical verbs.

If what is actually meant is discussed, there is no dispute. Drop things to a few words, which translate differently, and you have a problem.

Yes, a thousand year problem due to mutual refusal (not merely failure) to understand what the other is saying.

The best term I have for this is, "recto-cranial inversion."

frown
Posted By: johnzonaras

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/11/10 08:18 AM

Thanos, my point has been made by Stuart and others.

the whole issue of the origin has been treated in detail by J.N.D. Kelly in the book "Early Christian Creeds."
Posted By: theloveofwisdom

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/11/10 06:53 PM

Quote
Thanos888 said:
This thread is becoming very confusing.

Indeed... Any person in the right mind would think so. But I will try to explain to you why below. Indeed the Church is in a state of confusion.
Quote
Thanos888 said:
Can someone just kindly tell me Can a person have the Holy Communion in the Roman Catholic Church IF they reject the Filoque Dogma?

No catholic is allowed to publically reject any Dogma of the Catholic Church. Anything done/said that is contrary to this statement is a result of the failing's of churchmen- and there are MANY these days- even up to the Pope's of Rome themselves. They are only human after all, and we catholics believe that the infalliabilty of the Popes is restricted to Faith and Morals- NOT acts of prudence or policy.
So, to answer your question- if someone who openly and publically rejects any Dogma is admitted to the sacraments, it is not due to an allowance by the Church, but due to the failings of churchmen- Popes included.

Quote

Thanos888 said:
The RC have clearly changed the definition of this so its OK for us.

Pardon??? Would you mind providing a reference for this?? Let me save you the time and effort... There is no such reference. It is NOT possible for the church to change an infallibly defined dogma. And if you think that the Catholic Church is willing to change its dogma to please other churches in order to attain unity- then ANATHEMA TO SUCH A UNITY!!!! Such a unity makes God a liar. This is because the infallibly of the Church (through this pope) was invoked for this dogma. Here is part of the definition:
Quote

Pope Pius IX said:
We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.

Hence, if anyone shall dare--which God forbid!--to think otherwise than as has been defined by us, let him know and understand that he is condemned by his own judgment; that he has suffered shipwreck in the faith; that he has separated from the unity of the Church; and that, furthermore, by his own action he incurs the penalties established by law if he should dare to express in words or writing or by any other outward means the errors he think in his heart.


We do not need to unite the Church. The church is already one- to say otherwise is blasphemy. Jesus prayed that his disciples be one, therefore, if we say that 'we need to unite' then Jesus's prayer (in John 17) was ineffective, this is blasphemy because He is God. The Church is one, just as the Nicene Creed says. And only one Church has all 4 marks of the Church mention in the creed-
1.ONE
2.HOLY
3.CATHOLIC(UNIVERSAL)
4.APOSTOLIC
To say the church is divided is to deny the creed you are trying to defend by denying the filioque.
"We believe in ONE holy catholic and apostolic church."
The Coptic Church and orthodox may be holy and apostolic- But they do not even claim to be ONE or Catholic(universal).
Only the Church united to Rome has claimed in the past that in it is found the unity and that others must necessarily enter into to be saved, just as all entered the Ark in the time of Noah to be saved. The One True Church must at least claim to be the One True Church. Any church that does not cannot be the One True Church. Only The Holy Catholic Church united to the Pope of Rome has all 4 marks of the true Church, especially UNIVERSAL.

You yourself said:
Quote

Thanos888 said:
the BEST thing about the Catholic Church is that a Catholic Christian is not united to his brother/sister by culture... what unites you IS Jesus Christ... not because members speak a certain language. This is what I dislike about many Orthodox Churches - sometimes you find it is more like a cultural centre... especially the Greek Orthodox Church.


The orthodox are not universal- they often only have a few rites, and are mostly national churches, not universal churches.

Quote
Thanos888 said:
TODAY you shall be with me in Paradise". He didnt spend any time in purgatory.


Thannos888, you should know that you have a very flawed conception of purgatory. As Catholics, we believe that there is a twofold effect of mortal sin on the soul. One effect is eternal damnation, and the other effect is damage to the soul. When we receive the forgiveness of sin (as a result of confession or perfect contrition), eternal damnation is removed, but the other effect of the sin remains- the damage to the soul. One must repair the damage done to the soul before entering heaven. This repair happens either in this life or the next- but it happens nonetheless. The good thief is an example of the repairing ones soul in this life. He took the physical punishment due to his sins, and said "We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong." LK 23:41. So the fact that he went "TODAY" into paradise does not contradict or undermine the teaching of Purgatory. It only means that that particular thief did not go to purgatory- not that there is no purgatory.

Quote
Thanos888 said:
the See of Saint peter has added dogmas

The See of Peter did not add dogma. Was the dogma of the Holy Trinity added in the Council of Nicea? Was the Dogma of the Theotikos added in the council of Emphasis? NO and NO. The church does not add Dogma- the church clarifies teaching already existent. This is what the Roman church has done in all things that you claim were 'invented' by the Roman Church.

Quote

Again, would Saint Mary appear in Egypt, the Holy Theotokos, to heal thousands, to be the reason why many converted to Christianity, if our Church was in ANYWAY heretical???

An apparition does not necessarily mean ones church is perfectly orthodox. Consider the following possibilities:

Perhaps it was not the blessed Mother in Zeitun- (I think it was though) But remember that Satan can appear as an Angel of Light. Even if people were healed, that does not prove it was from God. In the Gospels, the devils made people sick- if they can make people sick, then they can heal people too.
Perhaps it was the Blessed Mother in Zeitun-
but in that case, the Church united to the Roman Pope also has had amazing apparitions. Consider Fatima in 1917. It was the greatest public miracle since the resesrerction of Jesus. Therefore signs are not necessarily a sign of truth.
Perhaps it was the Blessed Mother in Zeitun-
but consider that she was silent. When the blessed mother appeared in Fatima in 1917, she warned about and predicted world war, warned of the annihilation of nations, she gave a vision of Hell, she warned that the people should repent and amend their lives, she gave a remedy to the problems etc...

Remember that we cannot say the Church is divided, we can only say that some left the True Church established by Jesus. The only Church that even claims to have all 4 marks of the Church of the Church of the Nicene Creed is the Church united to the Pope of Rome.

And it is for this reason the Devil is attacking Her.
The Holy Virgin's message at Fatima in 1917 basically says that the Church is the body of Christ, and today, she is going through a passion like the body of Jesus. The Church is being scoured, mocked, spat upon, confused with a crown of thorns, and being led up the hill of calvary to be crucified. This is why there is so much confusion (for example- the charismatic 'catholics', deterioration of liturgy, shunning of tradition etc..)

It makes sense to believe that if God allows the enemies of the Church to prevail over her completely because of the sinfulness of the churchmen, then the end if time will occur- This is because Jesus promised the Church will remain until the end of time. The end of Church is necessarily the end of the World.

But if God will in His mercy, and through the intercession of the Immaculate All Holy Mother of God, deigns to save His Church- then the blood of the martyrs will be the seed of Christians, and a new Christiandom will be established. The whole world will convert, adore Our Lord Jesus, and honor the Immaculate heart of His Mother- and a time of great peace will be given to the world.

All the difficulties you keep bringing up have been answered over and over in the past- unfortunately, few here have enough charity to tell you the truth you need to hear. All you need to do is look for the answers. I am willing to point you in the right direction or directly answer any questions you may have- but my time is limited so please bear with me.
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/12/10 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by theloveofwisdom
All the difficulties you keep bringing up have been answered over and over in the past- unfortunately, few here have enough charity to tell you the truth you need to hear. All you need to do is look for the answers. I am willing to point you in the right direction or directly answer any questions you may have- but my time is limited so please bear with me.


Perhaps you might want to answer those on a Traditionalist Latin forum, given the apparent disdain you have for this site.

Obviously, the Catholics here are neither charitable enough nor, I suspect, in your opinion, neither sufficiently 'o'rthodox nor Catholic to do so and the Orthodox here are, likewise, neither charitable enough to do so nor capable of doing so, especially given that they often
'only have a few rites' and are 'not universal'.

I so love it when folks come here to point out the errors of our ways and to save us from ourselves. I particularly enjoy it when their apparent hope is to save all of us - both the Catholics and Orthodox among us - we may not be able to concelebrate, but at least we can be consaved.

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: theophan

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/12/10 06:47 PM

theloveofwisdom:

Christ is in our midst!!

May I suggest that you go to Town Hall and read the first thread entitled "Who We are." This is not a Catholic board, but an Eastern Christian board wherein we have members of many different Eastern Churches and some Western members of both Latin Catholic and Protestant professions.

To echo Irish Melkite, please don't come here to sow discord. We are here learning from and about each other--something very much needed in a world that finds us all irrelevant because of our internal bickering. The tone you bring does nothing for our learning about each other or for Christian charity. If for no other reason, please go to 1Corinthians13 and let that chapter sink in before you come back with the type of post you've just placed here.

Bob
Moderator
Posted By: theloveofwisdom

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/12/10 09:38 PM

Quote
To disagree or post an opposing view is one thing; to deluge the Forum with massive amounts of material and to harangue is another. We aren't a venue for (rhetoric) - Catholic or Orthodox; there are plenty of those.


theophan:
Thank you for this reference, it was helpful. Point well made. I understand and I will abide by your forum regulations from here and on. But, in my defense, I was simply responding to 'rhetoric' that was already posted and granted as true by some members of this forum. It seems that some members of this forum have a tolerance for one type of rhetoric, and not for another. The reason my response was so massive is because it was a response to already existing massive amounts of rhetoric posted before me by Thanos888.

Thanos888:
I am sincerely interested in where I can find more information regarding Rome changing its dogmas for ecumenical reasons (ie: regarding the immaculate conception). Please provide us with a reference so as to enlighten us all, myself included.

Irish Melkite:
I don't think its prudent to post things such as what I've tried to respond to without providing some source or reference- I am new to this forum, and I'm very surprised at the degree which some of the EC's dissent with the Magisteriam of the Roman Church whom they claim and defend as their head. I'm just trying to make sense of this all. I find that I've had to ask for sources for other things that were discussed through out this forum- and no one seems to be able to come up with anything. Other members have expressed similar concerns as well. I understand this is not an academic venue- it is just a forum... but how much unanswered rhetoric, and unsubstantiated claims are we going to allow to clutter this forum? How useful will this forum really be if that is the case? Are we then just here learning about rumors of the faith we share, or are we hoping to learn about the actual faith we share. I do not disdain this site- I was contributing and doing by best to give a direct answer to a sincerely truth-seeking mind (Thanos888) whom I believe has been misinformed. I personally do not see how contributing what I believe to be true in an honest and straightforeward way is in anyway an uncharitable act. In fact, this is how I would want to be told the truth if I were inquiring- unambiguously. And I am inquiring. But if my contributions are not wanted, then so be it- I just hope that you will afford me the same charity I offered you and not simply dismiss my honest questions/objections/responses- the likes of which I've asked above.

Pax et Bonum
Posted By: mardukm

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/13/10 03:41 PM

Dear brother Stuart,

Originally Posted by StuartK
Do not fall into the trap of defining primacy in terms of jurisdiction. Primacy in the early Church worked on entirely different principles.

It's a rare thing, but we agree here. grin

Blessings
Posted By: mardukm

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/13/10 03:50 PM

I feel this thread is splitting into so many topics, it's hard to keep track.

Dear Brother Thanos888,

Regarding filioque, the theology of filioque is fully accepted in the Catholic Church, whether Western, Eastern or Oriental. I suspect you don't understand what the theology of filioque actually is. I think the Byzantines expressed it well when they stated in their condition for reunion with the Latin Catholic Church back in the 17th century that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, while insisting that they do not need to insert filioque into the Creed.

Not using filioque in the Creed is a different issue from acknowledging the theology behind filioque. The theology behind filioque is fully Orthodox. If you want a more detailed explanation, I would be willing to give it, but I would ask that you start a different thread for the matter.

Blessings,
Marduk
Posted By: mardukm

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/13/10 04:17 PM

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
Posted By: Athanasius The L

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/13/10 05:00 PM

Of course, at Catholic Answers, which has more than its fair share of lunatics, one can also run into a lot of garbage. I would not recommend it.
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/14/10 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Athanasius The L
Of course, at Catholic Answers, which has more than its fair share of lunatics, one can also run into a lot of garbage. I would not recommend it.


Although I might have phrased it a bit differently than my brother, Ryan, I will readily admit to sharing much the same attitude about CA.

As a place to learn about the East, it is woefully inadequate. There are continued efforts by a few well-informed regulars there and by some of our own brothers and sisters (Hesychios, Deacons Randy and Lance, Mardukm, Ghosty, and ByzCath, among others - and, of late, our old friend, Alex) who post there, to minimize the misinformation that is bandied about by Latin posters who 'heard', 'read'. 'know', etc, one or the other factoid about the East. Regardless, damage is done regularly by persons who manage to sound authoritative with no real knowledge base on which to support their assertions and pronouncements.

As regards using it as a source for information about the Latin Church, it should be ideal; however, the vast number of Latin posters there, all coming from significantly different knowledge bases and levels of understanding, allows one to walk away with way too many variant answers to any question - a number of which will be absolutely incorrect.

Those differing opinions having been offered, let us not turn this thread into a discussion of other internet fora.

Many years,

Neil
Posted By: JimG

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/14/10 12:32 PM

Neil

I agree with you assessment of the fora on Catholic Answers. I think, unfortunately, ignorance is the medium of exchange on way to many discussions on the Internet. There is a forum on the Eastern Churches that I looked at a few times but I soon lost interest possibly because the posters have to spend so much time correcting errors posted on other fora there.

However, I believe the resources available on the site and the apologists pages are excellent sources of information on the Latin Church. The one caveat I would make is that, while they are all very orthodox with the small "o" many if not most of the people who work there are converted Protestants often Protestant ministers who are now professional lay apologists, a concept that is almost mind boggling for a cradle Catholic.

This has two implications, 1) their style is distinctly evangelical both in approach and delivery. Nothing wrong with this it is just "different." 2) Like a lot of converts I have run into, they are more "Catholic" than than the Catholics. Most of their positions are extremely conservative and inflexible. I am not saying this is good or bad, it is just the way it is.

Finally, one of their apologists, Jimmy Akin, has a new book called The Fathers Know Best which is apparently a commentary on the church fathers from a RC perspective. Mr. Akin is one of those former Protestant ministers and is extremely knowledgeable and articulate, at least on his radio appearances. I suspect this is a very good source for learning about the Latin understanding of the Church Fathers. I haven't read it yet but hope to get a copy soon.

Jim
Posted By: Melkite Convert

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/16/10 06:00 AM

Hello everyone,

Yes, it has been a while since I have been on the boards, so to speak, but I can't believe what I just wandered into here. It seems as though everyone is not making the distinction between the Latin Catholic Church and the other Catholic Churches. While I can respect theloveofwisdom, it seems as though he or she is painting with a very broad brush and replaying Latin Catholic talking points.

For example, one has to remember that Eastern Catholics don't use the term "Purgatory". Yes, we pray for the dead, but we don't have the same theology of merit and eternal and temporal punishment that the West developed, so the doctrine of Purgatory as it is formulated by the West makes no sense to us. The Latin Church did not expect the Eastern Catholics to accept the Latin's formulation of the doctrine as seen in Article 5 of the Union of Brest: "We shall not debate about purgatory, but we entrust ourselves to the teaching of the Holy Church." By omission, the Church does not require us to think the same way about this.

The same goes for the Immaculate Conception. I really have no problem with the doctrine, but it doesn't make any sense to an Eastern Catholic because of the way the Holy Father chose to formulate the definition. Yes, we believe in the original sin but not original guilt. There again, the concept of merit is used and that really has no place in Eastern theological language.

Also, one need only look at Article 1 of the Union of Brest to get an insight into how the Latin Church allows the Eastern Churches to maintain our own theology:

"Since there is a quarrel between the Romans and Greeks about the procession of the Holy Spirit, which greatly impede unity really for no other reason than that we do not wish to understand one another - we ask that we should not be compelled to any other creed but that we should remain with that which was handed down to us in the Holy Scriptures, in the Gospel, and in the writings of the holy Greek Doctors, that is, that the Holy Spirit proceeds, not from two sources and not by a double procession, but from one origin, from the Father through the Son."

In other words, the Latin Church does not require us to believe in the double procession of the Spirit. Most Latin Catholics do not know this, but it is there for all to see.

http://east2west.org/ is a good place to start in trying to sort our the differences between Eastern and Western Christianity.

Also, as regards the issue of priestly celibacy, I don't think the issue is as cut-and-dried as theloveofwisdom has expressed it in previous posts. There actually is more evidence that there might have been a married clergy in the West than previously thought. However, the understanding of clerical celibacy and how it developed is much more complicated and nuanced than we would care to admit. It's very easy to say Rome never had it and the East deviated from that practice, but I don't think it's quite that simple. Here's a good place to start with that: http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...con_cclergy_doc_01011993_chisto_en.html.

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.

Peace and blessings,
Scott
Posted By: Melkite Convert

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/16/10 06:04 AM

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
Posted By: Nelson Chase

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/16/10 06:19 AM

Couldn't have said it better! Amen!

Blessed Philips Fast! ICXC-NIKA!
Posted By: Irish Melkite

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/16/10 06:29 AM

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
Posted By: mardukm

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/16/10 02:14 PM

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
Posted By: Melkite Convert

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/16/10 07:50 PM

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
Posted By: Melkite Convert

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/17/10 12:36 AM

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!
Posted By: AMM

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 11/17/10 12:47 AM

Where there is the eucharist, there is the church. Where there is the eucharist, there is the faith of Peter.
Posted By: Hieromonk Ambrose

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 10/29/13 09:36 PM

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.

Posted By: Fr. John Morris

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/06/14 09:24 PM

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
Posted By: Fr. John Morris

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/06/14 09:37 PM

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
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/11/14 05:38 PM

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
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/11/14 08:25 PM

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


Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/11/14 10:09 PM

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
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/11/14 11:12 PM

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.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 12:15 AM

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
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
How do you know I've cherry-picked anything?


You pulled one quote out of context from Fr. Meyendorff. That is cherry-picking. It's okay, I am guilty of that often. grin

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


The council called him an outright heretic. There is no sugar coating it.[/quote]
Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 02:46 PM

Whoah! Recluse and I are on the same page with this one. The words of the Council are both harsh and unambiguous--deservedly so.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
Whoah! Recluse and I are on the same page with this one.


Break out the Baklava! grin
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 06:13 PM

Well, if I have brought Stuart and Recluse together on some thing -- I think I deserve some sort of online citation for this!

The point is still what kind of "heretic" Pope Honorius was condemned as.

The qualitative difference is still there. He didn't act as pope when he should have to counter Monothelitism. It was St Agatho, his successor, who did so and the Council praised Agatho for doing that.

Sometimes the issue of Honorius is brought forward as a jab at the papacy.

In fact, while Honorius failed and was condemned, it was he that was condemned and not the papacy.

That was the point I was responding to in Fr. Morris' post.

Long live the Pope! (There, I might have brought Stuart and Recluse together yet again . . . is there no online citation that I would be up for here?)

See, Recluse, I'm not so bad after all. And as for you, Stuart . . . grin

Alex
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The point is still what kind of "heretic" Pope Honorius was condemned as.


There are not "degrees" of heretics. A heretic is a heretic. The council condemned him as a heretic.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
In fact, while Honorius failed and was condemned, it was he that was condemned and not the papacy.


He was the Pope....and he was a heretic. I'm not sure why you are trying to twist it.


Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 10:43 PM

Dear Recluse,

There are certainly degrees of heresy, like sinfulness, and theologians/historians examine such subtleties.

If you see things in black and white, that's your call and I respect it.

Again, it was not my intention to "twist" anything. But if you would like to impute motive, that's your call.

Thanks for lighting the candle for Jeremy.

Alex
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by StuartK
The words of the Council are both harsh and unambiguous--deservedly so.


No way, Stu, just conciliar over-kill, if you ask me.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 11:04 PM

Dear Utroque,

Thank you for your insight here!

Alex
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/12/14 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
There are certainly degrees of heresy


Sorry if it disturbs you Alex. But there is no way around it. Pope Honorius was a heretic and the council was very clear about it.


Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Unfortunately, the discussion which he was looking for that he had hoped would help his family isn't going to happen on this Forum.


You can most certainly continue your discussion on the other thread if you think it will help Jeremy and his family. But I will not be a part of the discourse. I can only pray for them.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 03:46 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Dear Utroque,

Thank you for your insight here!

Alex


Insightful or not, this whole thing against poor Pope Honorius is a non-starter.

1. Pope Honorius was condemned by the Council as an heretic for an heresy he did not teach.

2. He was not, nor could he have been there, to defend himself.

3. His letters (the evidence) were burned. Poof!

That's enough for me. Was there treachery involved? Who knows? Like I sad, "Over-kill".
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
1. Pope Honorius was condemned by the Council as an heretic for an heresy he did not teach.


So you do not believe the council? You think he was not a heretic?

Originally Posted by Utroque
2. He was not, nor could he have been there, to defend himself.


The anathema was repeated many times after that council.

Originally Posted by Utroque
That's enough for me. Was there treachery involved? Who knows?


Wow! Treachery! So the Holy Spirit did not guide this council when they condemned him as a heretic?
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 05:05 PM

In fact, the case of Honorius is often quoted by those who are against the authority of the Pope of Rome.

It was his successor, Pope St Agatho, who led the charge to condemn Honorius via his letter.

Agatho spoke with the Voice of Peter in that letter as he condemned Monothelitism and what his predecessor did. He did not present his letter to the Council for deliberation.

The Council accepted the papal letter with enthusiasm and proclaimed that Peter had indeed spoken through Agatho.

So the fact that this Bishop of Rome, Honorius, was condemned had no bearing on the usually habitual orthodox authority of the Bishops of Rome.

If we were to question the authority of the Pope based on Honorius' case, we would also have to question that of the Eastern Patriarchs, since a number were condemned along with Honorius.

And there have been many more heresiarchs who have occupied the Sees of the Christian East than at Rome.

Alex
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 05:52 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
It was his successor, Pope St Agatho, who led the charge to condemn Honorius via his letter.

Agatho spoke with the Voice of Peter in that letter as he condemned Monothelitism and what his predecessor did. He did not present his letter to the Council for deliberation.


In the letters of Pope St. Agatho to the Emperor and Council that I have read he mentions nothing of Honorius. He does write this very poignant passage:

Quote
Wherefore the predecessors of Apostolic memory of my littleness, learned in the doctrine of the Lord, ever since the prelates of the Church of Constantinople have been trying to introduce into the immaculate Church of Christ an heretical innovation, have never ceased to exhort and warn them with many prayers, that they should, at least by silence, desist from the heretical error of the depraved dogma, lest from this they make the beginning of a split in the unity of the Church, by asserting one will, and one operation of the two natures in the one Jesus Christ our Lord: a thing which the Arians and the Apollinarists, the Eutychians, the Timotheans, the Acephali, the Theodosians and the Gaianitae taught, and every heretical madness, whether of those who confound, or of those who divide the mystery of the Incarnation of Christ.


Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
If we were to question the authority of the Pope based on Honorius' case, we would also have to question that of the Eastern Patriarchs, since a number were condemned along with Honorius.


There were many in the East who were also anathematized for the same heresy. That is the point. The East does not attribute supremacy or infallibility to Her Patriarchs.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque

In the letters of Pope St. Agatho to the Emperor and Council that I have read he mentions nothing of Honorius.


Let us look at the Council again. It is very clear.

SESSION XVI.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. VI., col. 1010.)
[The Acclamations of the Fathers.]

Many years to the Emperor! Many years to Constantine, our great Emperor! Many years to the Orthodox King! Many years to our Emperor that maketh peace! Many years to Constantine, a second Martian! Many years to Constantine, a new Theodosius! Many years to Constantine, a new Justinian! Many years to the keeper of the orthodox faith! O Lord preserve the foundation of the Churches!O Lord preserve the keeper of the faith!
Many years to Agatho, Pope of Rome! Many years to George, Patriarch of Constantinople! Many years to Theophanus, Patriarch of Antioch! Many years to the orthodox council! Many years to the orthodox Senate!

To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrthus, the heretic, anathema!

To Paul the heretic, anathema!
To Peter the heretic, anathema!
To Macarius the heretic, anathema!
To Stephen the heretic, anathema!
To Polychronius the heretic, anathema!
To Apergius of Perga the heretic, anathema!
To all heretics, anathema! To all who side with heretics, anathema!

May the faith of the Christians increase, and long years to the orthodox and Ecumenical Council!
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 07:08 PM

The East does not attribute supremacy to her Patriarchs because none of them, save for the Pope of Rome, ever spoke with the authority and voice of St Peter, as the movement of events at the Sixth Ec. Council demonstrates.

Pope St Agatho didn't offer his letter in which he pronounced the Orthodox doctrine to the Council for review, deliberation or discussion.

He offered it as a fait accomplit - and the Fathers of the Council were only too willing to accept it and extoll the Papacy.

That is all in the declarations of the Sixth Council.

Alex
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The East does not attribute supremacy to her Patriarchs because none of them, save for the Pope of Rome, ever spoke with the authority and voice of St Peter, as the movement of events at the Sixth Ec. Council demonstrates.


The Patriarchs and bishops are the successors of all the apostles...which includes St Peter. There was never any such "supremacy" in the early Church. The declaration of Pope Honorius as a heretic is testament to that.

Read the Council again. wink

Since you are fond of quoting Fr. Meyendorff...I will also quote him because he has a nice explanation of this so that you may understand better.

This step into Monotheletism, which he was first to make, is the famous fall of Honorius, for which the Sixth ecumenical council condemned him (681) a condemnation which, until the early Middle Ages, would be repeated by all popes at their installation, since on such occasions they had to confess the faith of the ecumenical councils. It is understandable, therefore, that all the critics of the doctrine of papal infallibility in later centuries--protestants, Orthodox and anti-infallibilists at Vatican I in 1870--would refer to this case. Some Roman Catholic apologists try to show that the expressions used by Honorius could be understood in an orthodox way, and that there is no evidence that he deliberately wished to proclaim anything else than the traditional faith of the Church. They also point out quite anachronistically that the letter to Sergius was not a formal statement, issued by the pope ex cathedra, using his charisma of infallibility, as if such a concept existed in the seventh century. Without denying the pope's good intentions which can be claimed in favor of any heresiarch of history, it is quite obvious that his confession of one will, at a crucial moment and as Sergius himself was somewhat backing out before the objections of Sophronius, not only condoned the mistakes of others, but actually coined a heretical formula, the beginning of a tragedy from which the Church (including the orthodox successors of Honorius on the papal throne) would suffer greatly (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Division (Crestwood:St. Vladimir's, 1989), p. 353).
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by Recluse

Let us look at the Council again. It is very clear.


In the case of Pope Honorius the Council Fathers were clearly wrong, IMHO. They simply misconstrued what he wrote, and I think I have no less an authority to testify to the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius than St. Maximos, Confessor. Of course, the Orthodox East would say, in that case, St. Maximos was wrong or, at least misconstrued. smile

The Council Fathers taught no error in this. It was simply bad judgement. Their dogmatic statement expressing the orthodox teaching on the two wills in Christ, the very essence of the Council, is, of course, from the Holy Spirit, and commands my assent as a believer.
Posted By: Orthodox Catholic

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/13/14 10:16 PM

Recluse,

I am not fond of quoting Fr. Meyendorff. I like to quote a broad range of scholars, although not necessarily here.

Fr. Meyendorff repeats the modern Orthodox stance on the papacy - as do you - which has no relation to the way the Orthodox East of the first millennium actually saw the Papacy and praised it, as the Sixth Council, to name but one example, did.

The idea, as brought forward here, that the Papacy is a "human" thing and not of divine backing, is totally quashed in the praises heaped upon Pope St Agatho in the Sixth Council and also elsewhere.

It was the Pope, in fact, and NOT the Council Fathers who crushed the Monothelite heresy which had infected the entire church at the time.

The sixth Council brought forward nothing new - it was the Pope who did and who acted as the sole Petrine authority at the time.

In fact, look at it another way. It was BECAUSE Pope Honorius failed to act as Pope and pronounce against Monothelitism on behalf of the entire Church that he was condemned. In other words, the Orthodox Catholic East at the time looked to the Pope to speak and when he did not, as in Honorius' case, it clamoured for his condemnation etc.

No, I will board the train of Orthodoxy, but will get off at the station that is named, "Papacy."

The Papacy is the Crown of Orthodoxy and without it the Church is not living according to the Will of Christ via the Petrine Primacy (and Meyendorff DOES affirm the Petrine Primacy of the Pope, for your information, sir).

When the Moscow Patriarchate gave its assessment of the role of the Papacy at the end of last year, it was simply expressing an error.

I understand that error now - in fact, you've helped me understand the error of an Orthodox Church without the Papacy. For that, I really do thank you, despite the feeling I have that you really don't like me.

I also understand now, after so many thousands of posts that I can no longer relate to the Forum as it is constituted.

At least I can respect the Orthodox, like yourself, who are firm in their convictions. That I really do respect, sir.

I've always wondered about those Eastern Catholics who affirm a kind of indifferentism about the imperatives of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy - thinking the two are just "silly" in not seeing they are one and the same. And they are not one and the same.

But tonight I've experienced something quite remarkable. I've come to a successful conclusion about who I am spiritually. Yanking chains with Slavipodvizhnik and others about politics is one thing and it is largely unproductive. It does show how religion and politics very often do blend.

Tonight, I know in the strongest possible sense who I am religiously. I accept what the See of Rome affirms and anathematize what that See anathematizes. There is only one true Church that has kept all that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ has willed for it.

And that Church is headed and taught by the Roman Pontiff, in the early Church, at the Sixth Council and today.

I've found my peace and go my way.

God bless you, Recluse. God bless all here.

Alex
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/14/14 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Utroque
In the case of Pope Honorius the Council Fathers were clearly wrong, IMHO.


Then you are saying that the Holy Spirit did not guide this Council. That is the first time I have ever heard a Catholic or Orthodox Christian say that the fathers of the sixth Oecumenical Council were wrong! With all due respect, I'll take the word of the fathers over your opinion.


Originally Posted by Utroque
They simply misconstrued what he wrote, and I think I have no less an authority to testify to the orthodoxy of Pope Honorius than St. Maximos, Confessor. Of course, the Orthodox East would say, in that case, St. Maximos was wrong or, at least misconstrued.


You have misinterpreted St Maximos.

Originally Posted by Utroque
The Council Fathers taught no error in this.


But you just said they were wrong.

Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/14/14 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
Fr. Meyendorff repeats the modern Orthodox stance on the papacy - as do you - which has no relation to the way the Orthodox East of the first millennium actually saw the Papacy and praised it, as the Sixth Council, to name but one example, did.


On the contrary, I think Fr. John is spot on! grin

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The idea, as brought forward here, that the Papacy is a "human" thing and not of divine backing, is totally quashed in the praises heaped upon Pope St Agatho in the Sixth Council and also elsewhere.


There are countless times that praises are heaped upon the Pope of Rome in the early Church. This does not prove some type of supremacy or infallibility.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
It was the Pope, in fact, and NOT the Council Fathers who crushed the Monothelite heresy which had infected the entire church at the time.


The council declared that Honorius was a heretic and they anathematized him.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The sixth Council brought forward nothing new - it was the Pope who did and who acted as the sole Petrine authority at the time.


The Pope was part of the Council. The Council declared Honorius to be a heretic.

Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/14/14 09:22 AM

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
In fact, look at it another way. It was BECAUSE Pope Honorius failed to act as Pope and pronounce against Monothelitism on behalf of the entire Church that he was condemned.


What did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say? Why did it condemn Pope Honorius? The Council condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome, not as a private theologian. They condemned him for advancing heretical teachings which it says were inspired by Satan. The Council condemns him by name, as a heretic.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
No, I will board the train of Orthodoxy, but will get off at the station that is named, "Papacy."


You are free to get off at that station. I will board the train of Orthodoxy, but will get off at the station that is named, "Orthodoxy." grin

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
The Papacy is the Crown of Orthodoxy and without it the Church is not living according to the Will of Christ via the Petrine Primacy


I happen to believe that Holy Orthodoxy is the living Church according to the Will of Christ via Apostolic succession, and provides the fullness of truth.


Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
(and Meyendorff DOES affirm the Petrine Primacy of the Pope, for your information, sir).


Well sir, Fr. John says:

"The doctrine of St Cyprian of Carthage on the “See of Peter” being present in every local Church, and not only in Rome, is well-known."

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
When the Moscow Patriarchate gave its assessment of the role of the Papacy at the end of last year, it was simply expressing an error.


This is your opinion. I will abide by and agree with what the MP stated.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
you've helped me understand the error of an Orthodox Church without the Papacy.


How could it be that I have assisted you in understanding an error that does not exist? grin

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
despite the feeling I have that you really don't like me.


How could you possibly say that I do not like you? I do not know you....and you do not know me. We have briefly met on an internet discussion forum. There is not much that we agree about, but I certainly do not dislike you. We are called to love one another. You are my brother in Christ.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I also understand now, after so many thousands of posts that I can no longer relate to the Forum as it is constituted.


You continually say this....and then you return for more debate. Perhaps you should take a sabbatical?

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
At least I can respect the Orthodox, like yourself, who are firm in their convictions. That I really do respect, sir.


Alex....if I did not believe what I know about Holy Orthodoxy...I would not be able to be in the Holy Orthodox Church. When I was a Byzantine (Ruthenian) Catholic, I came to a point where I no longer accepted some of the doctrines that I was compelled to accept by being in Communion with Rome.....and so I had to leave.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I've always wondered about those Eastern Catholics who affirm a kind of indifferentism about the imperatives of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy - thinking the two are just "silly" in not seeing they are one and the same. And they are not one and the same.


No.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I've come to a successful conclusion about who I am spiritually.


There are not too many people who can make that statement.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
There is only one true Church that has kept all that our Lord, God and Saviour Jesus Christ has willed for it.


Indeed.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
And that Church is headed and taught by the Roman Pontiff


I will disagree with you.

Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
I've found my peace and go my way.


Іди з Богом
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/14/14 01:42 PM

Quote
Originally Posted by Recluse

Then you are saying that the Holy Spirit did not guide this Council. That is the first time I have ever heard a Catholic or Orthodox Christian say that the fathers of the sixth Oecumenical Council were wrong! With all due respect, I'll take the word of the fathers over your opinion.


I am not saying this. You are. I am saying that Pope Honorius was not a heretic, and the Fathers were wrong to condemn him.

Quote
You have misinterpreted St Maximos.


I stand in good company.


Originally Posted by Utroque
The Council Fathers taught no error in this.


But you just said they were wrong.



I said that they were wrong in their condemnation of Pope Honorius, not in what they taught. You're misconstruing me.

As far as treachery is concerned; the history of the Church and her Councils and Synods are filled with such. The miracle is that the Holy Spirit has worked through it all to bring truth to those who truly believe. If you do not find this so, then I think we're living on different planets.

You seem to be wielding a big cudgel. May I humbly suggest you drop it.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/14/14 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
I am saying that Pope Honorius was not a heretic, and the Fathers were wrong to condemn him.


I know what you are saying....and you are mistaken. The holy fathers of the Council say that he was a heretic. This was confirmed many times after. I will believe the fathers and the Council.

Originally Posted by Utroque
I stand in good company.


Most of the "company" does not say what you think they are saying. wink

Originally Posted by Utroque
I said that they were wrong in their condemnation of Pope Honorius


I know what you said...and you are mistaken. The Council contradicts you...and I do not think that you know more than the holy fathers and the Council.

Originally Posted by Utroque
As far as treachery is concerned; the history of the Church and her Councils and Synods are filled with such.


There is nothing "treacherous" about the Council's condemnation of Honorius.

Originally Posted by Utroque
The miracle is that the Holy Spirit has worked through it all to bring truth to those who truly believe.


Amen brother. That is why I believe the holy fathers of the Council when they say that he was a heretic.

Originally Posted by Utroque
You seem to be wielding a big cudgel.


You must have the wrong guy. I do not believe in wielding cudgels. smile
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/14/14 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Recluse
Most of the "company" does not say what you think they are saying. wink


You tell me, then, what you think they are saying.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/14/14 09:48 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
You tell me, then, what you think they are saying.


Here is a synopsis of the usual debate on the subject.
http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/maximos1.htm

Posted By: mardukm

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/15/14 06:54 AM

Originally Posted by Recluse
Originally Posted by Orthodox Catholic
In fact, look at it another way. It was BECAUSE Pope Honorius failed to act as Pope and pronounce against Monothelitism on behalf of the entire Church that he was condemned.


What did the Sixth Ecumenical Council say? Why did it condemn Pope Honorius? The Council condemned him in his official capacity as the bishop of Rome

Really? Pope Honorius was dead. He was still Pope at that time? That's news to me!

Blessings,
Marduk
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/15/14 08:24 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Pope Honorius was dead.


The Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."

The Sixteenth Session adds: "To Theodore of Pharan, the heretic, anathema! To Sergius, the heretic, anathema! To Cyrus, the heretic, anathema! To Honorius, the heretic, anathema! To Pyrrhus, the heretic, anathema!"
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/15/14 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Recluse
Originally Posted by Utroque
You tell me, then, what you think they are saying.


Here is a synopsis of the usual debate on the subject.
http://www.saintjonah.org/articles/maximos1.htm



Perhaps they can add these two quotes, one from Pope St. Agatho's letter to the Council and the other from St. Maximos' dispute with Pyrrhus, to that web page:

Quote
“This is the original substance of our faith, the very one that has been maintained in either tempestuous or halcyon days by the spiritual Mother of your most serene Empire. She cannot be any other than the Church of Christ's apostles, that supported by God's grace has never wandered out of the true path of Tradition, which the years to come will clearly show; for She has never admitted the corruption of later heresy: on the contrary she has preserved the Deposit of Faith immaculate, as she received it at the beginning from Jesus' apostles who ruled Her. She will keep it unsullied to the end. Indeed She thus achieves what was divinely promised by our Lord, who said to the Prince of disciples what has been reported in the Gospels; ‘Peter, Peter, now Satan has claimed his right to sift you like wheat; but I have asked for thee that thy faith should not fail; as for thou, when you are converted, steady thy brethren’ May your Serene Majesty think that the Lord and Saviour of all, the very essence of our faith, has promised that Peter's orthodoxy could not fail and has commanded him to confirm the faith of his brothers; which every one of the Pontiffs that have preceded me, the minim among them, has always done carefully, as has been universally acknowledged.”

The Dispute:

“Pyrrhus: what can you answer about Honorius who, a few years ago stated in the letters he sent to Sergius that obviously there was but one will-power in Our Lord Jesus Christ?
“Maxim: Which version of these letters must be considered as the more undeniable, the more consistent with truth: either the one by the secretary who wrote under Honorius' direction, and who is all the more reliable as he is still alive after illuminating all the western countries with the splendour of religious integrity, or had we better confide in what is reported by the citizens of Constantinople who conveniently utter only what pleases them?
“Pyrrhus: the more trustworthy interpretation is afforded by the one who wrote the letters.
“Maxim: now then, this is what the latter wrote to Emperor Constantine (III) when Pope John (IV) ordered him to give his own account: ‘You may be sure that what we have said of the one, unique, will-power in Our Lord, must not be understood as describing both his natures at once, the human and the divine one. This applies only to his human nature. When Sergius announced that some people taught that there were two will-powers fighting each other in Jesus Christ, we answered that there were no conflicting inclinations in Him’.”



Then again they might say they were inaccurate translations of the original Greek and/or Latin, or worse still, forgeries.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/15/14 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
Then again they might say they were inaccurate translations of the original Greek and/or Latin, or worse still, forgeries.


The best answer lies with the words of the Council....which were confirmed many times beyond the Council. Pope Honorius was declared to be a heretic. It is really quite clear.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/15/14 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by Recluse
Originally Posted by Utroque
Then again they might say they were inaccurate translations of the original Greek and/or Latin, or worse still, forgeries.


The best answer lies with the words of the Council....which were confirmed many times beyond the Council. Pope Honorius was declared to be a heretic. It is really quite clear.


And I think there is enough evidence to show that the judgement against good Pope Homorius I at Constantinople III was incorrect, if not vindictive.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/15/14 06:31 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
And I think there is enough evidence to show that the judgement against good Pope Homorius I at Constantinople III was incorrect, if not vindictive.


And you are pretty much alone on that one.

The Great (sixth) Ecumenical Council disagrees with you. wink

You can rebel against the judgment of the Holy Fathers if you wish.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/15/14 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
And I think there is enough evidence to show that the judgement against good Pope Homorius I at Constantinople III was incorrect, if not vindictive.


Quote
And you are pretty much alone on that one.


That could be. I fear not being alone for what I believe to be true.




Quote
You can rebel against the judgment of the Holy Fathers if you wish.


As far as rebelling against the fathers is concerned; I'm not sure they were all holy. In any case, I'm not rebelling against them. Just disagreeing with their judgement against Pope Honorius. So be it.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/15/14 08:59 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
As far as rebelling against the fathers is concerned; I'm not sure they were all holy.


Oh my. frown
Posted By: mardukm

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by Recluse
Originally Posted by mardukm
Pope Honorius was dead.


The Acts of the Thirteenth Session of the Council state, "And with these we define that there shall be expelled from the holy Church of God and anathematized Honorius who was some time Pope of Old Rome, because of what we found written by him to [Patriarch] Sergius, that in all respects he followed his view and confirmed his impious doctrines."

SOME TIME POPE OF OLD ROME indicates that he USED to be Pope, Pope no longer at the time of his condemnation.

So I disagree that a Pope of Rome was being condemned by an Ecum Council.

If such an event occurred while the Pope was still Pope, the procedure would have been for the Pope to be given a chance to explain himself. And I have no doubt that, if that happened, the Pope would have exonerated himself easily.

I admit the matter might be viewed very differently from a miaphysite such as myself. I believe Pope Honorius was a miathelite, not a monothelite, and it was due to misunderstanding of his words that he was condemned.

Granted -- he was rightly condemned for supporting the heresy, which Catholic sources (such as the old Catholic Encyclopedia) often readily admit. Whether he supported it because he was actually heretical or because of an ineffective exercise of his office is immaterial. His letter supported the heresy PERIOD and was thus condemned as a heretic.

Blessings,
Marduk
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 09:33 AM

Originally Posted by mardukm
So I disagree that a Pope of Rome was being condemned by an Ecum Council.


You are playing with words. He was the Pope of Rome when he supported the heresy. He was condemned as a heretic by the Council. Period.

Originally Posted by mardukm
And I have no doubt that, if that happened, the Pope would have exonerated himself easily.


Really? Easily? That is a "what if" scenario. The fact is: He was condemned and anathematized as a heretic by the Council.

Posted By: StuartK

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 10:56 AM

I love Rome--"Not always right, but NEVER wrong".
Posted By: theophan

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 11:04 AM

Christ is in our midst!!

I think where we break down in these discussions is in the idea we have of an Ecumenical Council and how they were perceived until recently.

My understanding is that the Holy Spirit speaks in council by one of two means: the unanimous agreement of the assembled bishops and in the voice of the lone dissenter. Whether the Fathers are holy or knaves matters nothing since the decisions taken are under the Holy Spirit's guidance.

Bob
Posted By: ajk

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 11:09 AM

Originally Posted by StuartK
I love Rome--"Not always right, but NEVER wrong".
And there's a very succinct definition of infallibility.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by theophan
the decisions taken are under the Holy Spirit's guidance.


Well said.
Posted By: Utroque

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 02:02 PM

Originally Posted by mardukm
Whether he supported it because he was actually heretical or because of an ineffective exercise of his office is immaterial. His letter supported the heresy PERIOD and was thus condemned as a heretic.

Blessings,
Marduk


It most certainly is not immaterial. A man, who by all other accounts was a man of God and deep faith, was condemned as a heretic by an Ecumenical Council. At most, Pope Honorius was guilty of using imprecise language that Patriarch Sergius and others understood to support their heretical cause. The Lateran Council of 642 quickly corrected any imprecision coming from Rome. He did not teach heresy nor was he a heretic. Like I said in a previous post: the Council's action with regard to Pope Honorius was over-kill. A posthumous censure for indiscretion would have been a more appropriate response. But for Constantinople; they did a slam dunk!

Asserting that every decision of an Ecumenical Council is infused with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit is fundamentalism of the worst kind. Pronouncements on the content of the faith, yes; but a a Canon affecting discipline, church order or the judgement on the guilt or innocence of a particular individual? No, I do not accept that.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Utroque
No, I do not accept that.


You can march to your own drummer. I will abide by the Council.

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

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 02:36 PM

Originally Posted by Recluse
Originally Posted by Utroque
No, I do not accept that.

You can march to your own drummer. I will abide by the Council.
”To Honorius, the heretic, anathema!”
(The Sixteenth Session of the Council of Constantinople)

It would be far more useful to discuss the issues raised at this council than to hurl anathemas.

ISTM that if the council issued an anathema, it issued an anathema.

It is reasonable to explore the various statements considered by the council, to study the nuance and what later church fathers thought of the issues.
Posted By: Recluse

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by Administrator
It would be far more useful to discuss the issues raised at this council than to hurl anathemas.


Have I hurled anathemas? We have a poster here saying that the Fathers were not holy and the Council was in error...and you accuse me of hurling anathemas?

I will bow out of this thread. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

Posted By: Administrator

Re: The Primacy of Saint Peter - 01/16/14 03:16 PM

Originally Posted by Recluse
Originally Posted by Administrator
It would be far more useful to discuss the issues raised at this council than to hurl anathemas.


Have I hurled anathemas? We have a poster here saying that the Fathers were not holy and the Council was in error...and you accuse me of hurling anathemas?

I will bow out of this thread. Please forgive me if I have offended you.

It certainly appears as if you are hurling anathemas.

But both sides appear to be way off topic.

If anyone wishes to continue the discussion of the anathema, I suggest the following:

1. According to the documents posted here the anathema was issued. No one can say that it wasn't unless can appeal to the documents issued by that council.

2. It is fair to say that the person anathematized didn't really mean what he was accused of (i.e., hold that position). But it should be recognized that the council had a particular understanding and acted upon it. One can offer that the council didn't have all the facts and was wrong, but that doesn't change the fact that the council issued an anathema based upon the information before it.

It's also fair to state that council documents are best interpreted with the Church. That means look to how the whole Church received the decrees of a council.

3. Should one claim that the indeed the council misunderstood, it is appropriate to summarize why, collect and offer the supporting evidence, and add it to a queue for a future council to consider.

4. In the end, each side may have to politely agree to disagree.
© 2020 The Byzantine Forum