The Byzantine Forum
Newest Members
καθ 321, Sergiusz, zeroneet, Atomic Parakeet 1, Anna777
5,831 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
1 members (byzanTN), 71 guests, and 37 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Photos
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
Holy Saturday from Kirkland Lake
by Veronica.H, April 24
Byzantine Catholic Outreach of Iowa
Exterior of Holy Angels Byzantine Catholic Parish
Church of St Cyril of Turau & All Patron Saints of Belarus
Byzantine Nebraska
Byzantine Nebraska
by orthodoxsinner2, December 11
Forum Statistics
Forums26
Topics35,143
Posts414,764
Members5,831
Most Online3,380
Dec 29th, 2019
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 11 of 11 1 2 9 10 11
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by Chirstopher
I have lost the point of this thread. Can someone summarize where this is at?
Sorry about that. I had pleaded many posts ago that this debate about Pope Leo IX and the Donatio is beyond the topic of this thread.

The topic has slightly changed. It no longer seems to be about Pope Leo IX and the Donatio, but about whether any Catholic source has ever used the Donatio as theological support for papal primacy.

Thanks for your patience.

Blessings,
Marduk

Last edited by mardukm; 05/13/13 06:06 AM.
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by ajk
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Btw, the Ultramontanists won at Vatican I, notwithstanding all the niceties to the contrary. Vatican II in Lumen Gentium et alia made that clear.
I'm not sure what this is trying to convey: made what clear? how?
Mardukm claims that Vatican I adopted what he calls the "High Petrine" view, and rejected what he calls the "Absolute Petrine" view.

Lumen Gentium shows that as a distinction without a difference, demanding that even if the supreme pontiff is wrong, everyone is to act as if he cannot be.
Am I correct in assuming that you are referring to the statement that Catholics are bound to give religious assent to statements by the Pope even though they may not be pronounced infallibly? Rather strange that you claim thereby that there is a distinction without a difference. I'll assume that you did not know the following distinctions on the matter:
(1) The religious assent that is required of every Catholic even for teachings of the Pope that are not infallibly declared is the selfsame religious assent that every person is bound to give to the ordinary teaching of his/her local bishop.
(2) Religious assent is not equivalent to "the assent of Faith," the latter being reserved only for matters that are infallibly taught (the Deposit of Faith and things that are dogmatized).

I hope that helps.

Blessings,
Marduk

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,431
Originally Posted by mardukm
When I debated the matter several years ago, the non-Catholic was claiming that the Donatio was used to support the papal claim of universal "jurisdiction," and that Pope Leo IX used it in that way.

On a side note, I think "the non-Catholic" may very well be the best user name I have ever seen.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
'Khristos af-don'f!
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
(Re?)read the letter of that single Pope Leo IX who used the Donation in a theological manner against "Michael and Leo, bishops of Constantinople and Ohrid," members of the episcopacy. to whom your supreme pontiff addressed the letter.
Bold claim from someone who admits he has never read a translation of Pope Leo's letter.
Even bolder claims from someone who claims he has.
If you contest the translation I read (and my relation of it), translate it yourself for all to see (since you seem to have access to the Latin).
As pointed out to you, we are in the process of doing that.

Since, however, the text of the "Donation" itself exists in several translations, for anyone to see, and contradicts your characterization of it (Churches are not SECULAR entities, and Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem do not lie in the West), perhaps you can cite where your supreme pontiff dismisses the "Donation" as just a "bobble," as I don't see it (nor have anyone else who has studied it: such claims seem to originate with your interpretation).

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
As the citation from "the Catholic Encyclopedia"-which I have already provided you-shows, it was used:"Æneas, Bishop of Paris, refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy [it means supremacy](Adversus Græcos [i.e. the Orthodox], c. ccix, op. cit., CXXI, 758)"
It states that the Bishop of Paris only "refers" to it. You're reading waaay to much into it to support your theory (as you've done with other texts).

So you continually assert, and yet can never substantiate.
You're the one initially making claims that have yet to be substantiated. All I'm doing is challenging your claims. Your own sources are usually enough to refute your own claims
because you say so, ex cathedra?

Besides that, the reader can judge.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Aeneas' reference follows: I have not translated the entire chapter, as I am not in the mood, but you can dispute my synopsis if you like-
Thanks for the effort, sincerely. I do challenge your understanding of the text from Aeneas.

Quote
after which Pope St. Gregory concludes that he is willing to imitate his "inferiors" while "forbiding them the illicit."
Can you please cite exactly where this is in the text? I could not find it.
The concluding sentences of the paragraph, picking up after what I cited from Pope St. Gregory's letter.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Bp. Aeneas then goes on:
De privilegio principatus apostolicae sedis pauca ex multis et diversis auctoritatibus Canonum et Romanorum pontificum...
He then goes on to rant about Constantinople being a secular upstart, referring to the altercation between Pope St. Gregory of Old Rome and EP St. John of New Rome over the title “Ecumencial Patriarch,”
Your reading of the text is rather different from mine.
LOL. What a surprise. The question to ask: whose reading differs from everyone else who has read it? Who is arguing against the standard interpretation?

Originally Posted by mardukm
Your translation of principatus as "supremacy" immediately threw up a red flag ("supremacy" is not a common rendering of principatus). From what I understand
back up a moment. Before we get to your "reading," you make an assertion about my-and, as we shall see, not only "my"-rendering of "principatus." Are we to depend on your "expertise" on its meaning?

The "Dictionary of Ecclesiastical Latin" gives " public office, rule, dominion, sovereignty." J.F. Niermeyer's "Mediae latinitatis lexicon minus" goes on for nearly a page in the same vein, but, through its examples and citations, fleshes out that "principatus" refers to the dominance of a superior over subordinates, not the preeminence of a first among equals (the meaning you seem to be favoring, but the "Mediae" indicates as expressed by "prioratus"): the lord on his manor, a duke in his duchy, a prince in his principality (and NOT a prince merely a member of the ruling family), the emperor in the empire, a bishop in his diocese...the rule of a ruler, and an absolute one at that.

Towards the very end it does list "primacy," but not in a way that helps your definition: it quotes the "Donation"-Pontifex Romanus principatum teneat tam super quattuor praecipuas sedes...[I'll fill in here, because of your "reading," the ellipsis: "Antiochenam, Alexandrinam, Constantinopolitanam et Hierosolymitanam"] quamque etiam super omnes universo orbe terrarum Dei ecclesias. "And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople and Jerusalem [I'll point out here, again, because of your "reading" and its lacuna in geography, none lie in the West], as also over all the churches of God in the -whole world." "translated in Ernest F. Henderson, , Select Historical Documents of the Middle Ages , (London: George Bell, 1910), pp. 319-329" as quoted from the "Medieval Sourcebook" at Fordham University, "the Jesuit university of New York"
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/donatconst.asp
(I might class the Jesuits as "non-Catholic" and even "anti-Catholic." Do you?). Its seems the standard translation into English.

(Nieermeyer lists one more definition thereafter, "the great men of a realm as a body," the only other one of the 15 definitions which can in anyway be used in support your "reading," if only it could fit in the context of the "Donation" and Bp. Aenas' use of it).

As to the reading of this word in question, besides the context (the following clause reads: "And he who for the time being shall be pontiff of that holy Roman church shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world; and, according to his judgment, everything which is to be provided for the service of God or the stability of the faith of the Christians is to be administered. It is indeed just, that there the holy law should have the seat of its rule where the founder of holy laws, our Saviour, told St. Peter to take the chair of the apostleship"), etymology also dictates "supremacy": Octavian chose the term "Principatus" ("first citizen") to name the supreme (and absolute) power of Augustus by which he ruled (not presided) over the Roman Empire. No one was fooled by such false humility (or do you want to argue that Augustus only enjoyed a "high imperial view" and not an "absolute imperial view"?), and as such the term "principatus" designated in Later Latin the munus of absolute power.

Originally Posted by mardukm
From what I understand, Aeneas is not arguing for a papal Roman "supremacy." Far from it.
Then you do not understand Bp. Aeneas.
Originally Posted by mardukm
What he is doing is simply explaining something about the government (a more common understanding of principatus)
only in the common understanding that "the Crown," "the Throne," or "the Palace" have in designating the government in English.
Originally Posted by mardukm
of the Apostolic See.
If was "simply explaining something about the "government," he would have used the entirely SECULAR term "imperium"-which has no spiritual uses-as he indeed did-"dicens non esse competendum duos imperatores in una civitiate simul tractare commune imperium" "saying [Constantine] it is not meet to have two commanders/emperors in one state at the same time with common command."
Again, Bp. Aeneas introduces his reference to the "Donation" "De privilegio principatus apostolicae sedis pauca ex multis et diversis auctoritatibus Canonum et Romanorum pontificum collecta sunt, in quo omnia concilia sanctorum Patrum unanimaiter concordare videntur, nec in aliquo aberrare dignoscuntur" "On the privilege of the supremacy of the Apostolic See, a few out of the many and diverse decrees of the canons and the Roman Pontiffs have been collected, in which all the Councils of the Holy Fathers unanimously seem to agree, nor are discerned anywhere to err."
Where do the canons of the Councils deal with the SECULAR government of "the Apostolic See"?

Originally Posted by mardukm
He explains that Constantine gave (or tried to give) the Pope SECULAR control of the WESTERN lands
He explains no such thing-writing against the Episcopate of the East, why would he?
"ut apicem omnis principatus Romanus papa super omnem Ecclesiam eiusque pontifices perenniter velut jure regio retineret"
"that he maintain the top of all the supremacy of the Roman pope over every Church of which [they are] pontiffs perpetually just as if by kingly right."
You might dismiss "Kingly right" as "SECULAR control," but not "the supremacy...over every Church," nor can you point to a limitation of "over every Church" to "the WESTERN lands" (particularly as the "Donation" explicitly does the opposite).
Originally Posted by mardukm
(that should have been obvious from your own translation as it does not say that Constantine gave him ALL the lands, but simply the "greater part of the various provinces"). Nothing here about universal jurisdiction.
Only not in the SECULAR "imperium." The distinction made proves fatal to your argument: in the jurisdiction of "primatus" it DOES say that Constantine maintained Old Rome's "supremacy" over ALL the Churches:
"principatus Romanus papa super omnem Ecclesiam eiusque pontifices perenniter"
"the supremacy of the Roman pope over every Church of which [they are] pontiffs perpetually"
Everything there about universal jurisdiction
Originally Posted by mardukm
Aeneas goes on to point out that the Pope contradicted Constantine's attempt to give him these temporal honors (the Donatio actually "records" that Pope Sylvester refused the golden crown that Constantine tried to give him as a sign of temporal dominion).

Bp. Aeneas points out no such thing. In fact, comparing the Liber and the "Donation," one sees Bp. Aeneas almost went out of his way to avoid drawing attention to Abp. St. Sylvester's actions.
Originally Posted by mardukm
Because of this sign of humility ("therefore/for this reason" relates Aeneas),
Where?
Bp. Aeneas applies the "Donation" to the "therefore/for this reason" to explain how "On the privilege of the supremacy of the Apostolic See, a few out of the many and diverse decrees of the canons and the Roman Pontiffs have been collected, in which all the Councils of the Holy Fathers unanimously seem to agree, nor are discerned anywhere to err."
Originally Posted by mardukm
Constantine honored the Pope even more. Hence, the singular testament that was broadcast to the whole world, as can be found in the archives of the Gallican Church.

Aeneas thereafter immediately proceeds to contrast the humility of the Roman Pontiff with the haughtiness of the Patriarch of Constantinople who had taken to himself the title of "universal patriarch" (or at least that's how the his Roman opponents understood the claim).
The problem for your "reading" here can be seen by comparison with the "Donation" itself. If Bp. Aeneas wanted to use the "Donation" in this work to magnify Abp. St. Sylvester's humility, he could have:the "Donation" devotes a considerable space to Abp. St. Sylvester's humility. Instead the difference is magnified by its almost complete absence (including the Donation's story of the refusal of the golden crown, which Bp. Aeneas rewrites Abp. St. Sylvester's refusal out) in the Liber Advesus Graecos. In fact, Bp. Aeneas dwells a bit on St. Constantine the Great's humility, leaving Abp. Sylvester's humility to be inferred but barely-and only cryptically-(under)stated.
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
But nothing to the SECULAR (capitalization in deference to your fondness for it) rulers (although a letter to the Emperor Marcian is cited a little earlier, on c. 28 of the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon giving New Rome equal status to Old Rome),
No problem. That doesn't have to be the case in order to refute the claim that the Donatio was being used by Aeneas to promote papal universal control.
Context, context, context. Bp. Aeneas introduces the "Donation" into the context of his claim "On the privilege of the supremacy of the Apostolic See, a few out of the many and diverse decrees of the canons and the Roman Pontiffs have been collected, in which all the Councils of the Holy Fathers unanimously seem to agree, nor are discerned anywhere to err" in his book against the "Greek" episcopate, sandwiched into the context of "promot[ing] papal universal control" through a pile of prooftexts-including the preceding letter of Pope St. Gregory to the bishop of Syracuse which starts the theme of the paragraph asking the question "how can he [the pope of Old Rome] keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, who follows all its customs?." Not the "Constantinopolitan Emperor/Empire." The Church of Constantinople-which, despite all the WEST's claims of "caesaropapism," was never a SECULAR dominion. Bp. Aeneas appends the "Donation" to expound-via the "canons," "pontiffs and Councils of the Fathers"-on the concluding retort: "As for what they say of the Constantinopolitan Church, who doubt that it is subject to the apostolic see? Such also the Most Pius Lord Emperor, and our brother the bishop of the same city, constantly profess." The Church of Constantinople, which didn't lie in the WEST, nor have a TEMPORAL SECULAR jurisdiction.
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
nor on the TEMPORAL (again, in deference to your fondness) alleged prerogatives of the papacy.
Read it again. It's mainly about the TEMPORAL dominion that Constantine tried to grant the Pope, which the Pope refused
Read it again.
"the many and diverse decrees of the canons and the Roman Pontiffs": not about "TEMPORAL dominion."
"the Councils of the Holy Fathers unanimously seem to agree, nor are discerned anywhere to err": not about "TEMPORAL dominion"
"sacred laws in the diverse orders and services, and therefore by splendid dress embellished the ecclesiastical vestments in innumerable temples": not about "TEMPORAL dominion."
"maintain the top of all the supremacy the Roman pope over every Church of which [they are] pontiffs perpetually": not about "TEMPORAL dominion."
Out of the 35 lines of the paragraph in question, these take up 10.
According to Bp. Aeneas Constantine DID grant temporal dominion to the Pope of Old Rome: he asserts this in his only allusion to the "Donation"'s account of Abp. St. Sylvester's refusal "solemniter regia auctorilate Romano pontifici contradita" "solemnly by royal authority the Roman pontiff contradicted," in enacting the "subrogata potestate" "subrogat[ion of] power" in the "TEMPORAL dominion."
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Rather than merely “only ‘refer[ing] to it’” in a way you could dismiss, Bp. Aeneas relies on it as intrinsic to prove or show the grounds of his preceding assertion "on the privilege of the supremacy of the Apostolic See," to explain his preceding assertion that "all the Councils of the Holy Fathers unanimously seem to agree, nor are discerned anywhere to err" on this “supremacy,” as corroboration. “Postquam enim…” In that way he did use it.
No he didn't. Indeed, he writes that the privilege of the governing authority of the Papacy is already evident in the canons and councils.
Alas for your argument, they all came after the time claimed for the fairy tale of the "Donation." Hence the "post" "after" of "postquam," the "Donation" supplying the "quam": "the privilege of the governing authority of the Papacy is already evident in the canons and councils" because the "Donation" had-allegely-already been given. The elementary facts of Constantine presiding in the East over the very First Council of the Holy Fathers issuing canons leave no doubt as to this angle of Bp. Aeneas' use of the "Donation."
Originally Posted by mardukm
But his purpose for relating the story of the Donation was not to give increase to the concept of papal universal control, but rather to demonstrate the humility of the Roman See in contrast to the pretension of the Constantinopolitan See.
In the plain Latin (and now, English) of the paragraph, Bp. Aeneas demonstrates nothing of your argument. Rather, he took as his purpose to give increase to the pretension of Old Rome to universal control, particularly over New Rome: "how can he [the pope of Old Rome] keep the Constantinopolitan Church in check, who follows all its customs?"..."As for what they say of the Constantinopolitan Church, who doubt that it is subject to the apostolic see? Such also the Most Pius Lord Emperor, and our brother the bishop of the same city, constantly profess"..."On the privilege of the supremacy of the Apostolic See, a few out of the many and diverse decrees of the canons and the Roman Pontiffs have been collected, in which all the Councils of the Holy Fathers unanimously seem to agree, nor are discerned anywhere to err"..."in which furthermore among other things he especially wanted to check, that he maintain the top of all the supremacy the Roman pope over every Church of which [they are] pontiffs perpetually just as if by kingly right"...etc. That you turn a deaf ear to his leitmotif does not mean everyone else cannot hear it. Or is Bp. Aeneas' downplaying of the Donation's aggrandizement of the humility of Abp. St. Sylvester a "demonstration of the humility of the Roman See"?
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Just the citation of the CE should have shown you were reading waaay too little of it: a “defence of the Roman primacy”
More likely, the reason that the old CE stated that Aeneas only "referred" to it was exactly because he did not use the Donatio in the way it might have been expected to be used.
This sentence lacks any sense: you mean because he did not use the Dantio in the way you expected it to be used?

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Aeneas “refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy,”
Yes, he only "refers" to it, because he did not actually use it to bolster claims to Roman primacy, but for an altogether different reason.
The "CE" only says "refers" to it because (unlike Peter Damnian) he does not cite it, in contrast to his identification of his other sources: one is supposed to know from his characterization as " the singular privilege and miraculous testament he has commanded to be draw up for the Apostolic See...broadcast in the whole world from that time on...the same law, by whose copies of the Churches in France they can peruse" that he means the "Donation."
Originally Posted by mardukm
Quote
that “he maintain the supremacy the Roman pope over every Church of which [they are] pontiffs perpetually just as if by kingly right,”
Note well that Aeneas states Constantine did this only after the Pope refused the temporal honors Constantine tried to give him.
Bp. Aeneas fails to highlight Abp. St. Sylvester's alleged refusal, nor does he limit Constantine's largesse to temporal honors. Note well, Constantine grants all these temporal honors before the allusion to Abp. St. Sylvester's being "conterdicted solemnly by royal authority." In Bp. Aeneas' account, Emperor Constantine is demonstrating all the humility.
Originally Posted by mardukm
The humility deserved a proper response. The humility was Aeneas purpose for bringing up the Donatio, not to bolster claims of papal universal control.
You are reading your interpretation of the "Donation" into your "reading" of Bp. Aeneas again. He didn't write the "Liber Adversus Graecos" to praise the virtue of humility; he wrote it to bolster claims of papal universal control. Bp. Aeneas did not bring up the "Donation" to follow up on Pope St. Gregory's words that "Yet, if this or any other Church has anything that is good, I am prepared in what is good to imitate even my inferiors, while prohibiting them from illicit things. For he is foolish who thinks himself first in such a way as to scorn to learn whatever good he may see." Bp. Aeneas brought it up to follow up on the words ""As for what they say of the Constantinopolitan Church, who doubt that it is subject to the apostolic see? Such also the Most Pius Lord Emperor, and our brother the bishop of the same city, constantly profess."

Originally Posted by mardukm
In short, it is simply beyond belief that the Donatio, which pretends that it was Constantine who first granted the papacy its theological prerogative of primacy, would be utilized by any Catholic apologist for the purpose of upholding said primacy.
That you have to argue with Bp. Aeneas, not with me, as he did just that. It appears among your Ultramontanist coreligionists, not my Orthodox ones in the Catholic Church, and they (including Bp. Aeneas), not us, used it. We use it only to take down said supremacy, exposing its fraudulent foundations on sand.

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
'Khristos af'don'f!
Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
‘Khristos af’don’f!
I’m having trouble sleeping, and watching a movie, so I’ll knock off another point.
khen oumethmi af'donf!
I'm impressed that you can multitask.
Not sure I would call it multitasking. Maybe being distracted.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Originally Posted by mardukm
…That St. Peter Damian "relied" on it - well, that's something worth considering. But in what way did he use it? The fact that it was used against a rival claimant to the Roman See seems to indicate that its merit for St. Peter Damian's arguments could not have been theological.
Oh? Why is that?
There wouldn't be any point trying to prove papal primacy to someone who claimed it already. smirk
Ah. One would think, wouldn't he? And yet, Peter Damian does it, arguing that "by the law of the edict of the Emperor Constantine , where he appointed the supremacy of the Apostolic See over all the Churches in the world...thereupon through a series of imperial rescripts he constituted the rank of the Roman Church."

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Peter Damian fails you here (he will fail you even more when we get to the issue of the wives of priests).
Whatever the Saint's pov is on the matter has no relevance to our debate about whether Pope Leo IX forced priests who were married before their ordination to divorce their wives.
It had relevance in Peter Damian and his supreme pontiff. Lord willing, we might get into that, but that might be too much a tangent for me, as I know they don't have anything to do with each other, except that the Ultramontanists joined them. Abp. John Ireland didn't innovate anything.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
In what way did he use it? In his Disceptatio Synodalis, this way: the “Defender of the Roman Church,” the opponent of the “Royal Advocate” confronts this representative of the SECULAR power in their dispute over the interpretation of the Election Decree so...
St. Peter Damian's argument here is not theological, but purely according to what a secular authority (of that time) would find relevant - the canons (or, in this case, "supposed" canon).
In Islamdom "canon" (or rather, "qaanuun") relate to the purely secular authority, but in Christendom, the Church issues canons in exercising its spiritual authority in applying its theology. Although Peter Damian entitles his imagined opponent as "the Imperial advocate," the advocate was pleading the case of the bishop of Rome Honorius II.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Tell me, later on in the same work, is Peter Damian making a theological argument here?
Thus, as these two, the empire and the priesthood, by divine dispensation are united in the one mediator between God and men...
I think this is a theological argument, but at this point, the rationale has nothing to do with the Donatio, but rather with the divine dispensation.
Not unrelated, but we need not belabor it, with so much other rods in the fire.

Originally Posted by mardukm
Originally Posted by IAlmisry
Here, as in Liber Adversus Graecos-and the “Donation” itself-the emphasis on the imperial origins of the Lateran should interest you, as there the Popes of Old Rome were enthroned.
The donation of the Lateran by Constantine is a historical fact, IIRC. My interest would be purely academic.
Peter Damian's wasn't. And while it is an historically indisputable fact that St. Constantine donated St. John of the Lateran, that Peter Damian mentions only in passing that "the Founder" (Peter Damian's term for St. Constantine) build St. Peter's-i.e. the Vatican-on St. Peter's historically disputed grave site (not disputed by me, btw) while passing on to the main topic of the Lateran "thereupon," so claims Peter Damian, "through a series of imperial rescripts he constituted the rank of the Roman Church" indicates more than an academic interest on his part. And it raises the question of the basis of Old Rome's primacy-it containing the seat of power of the Empire or the site of the grave of the Apostle.

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
Likes: 4
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
Likes: 4
Indeed, He is Risen!

Honestly, brother, does this stuff matter anymore? The Donation is an acknowledge forgery that was thought authentic over a thousand years ago, and was used at the time mainly to justify an extension of the temporal power of the papacy. The current Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople are trying to forge a new relationship, based not on forgeries, but on the way things are, and might even entertain visions of the way things could be in God's Holy Church. Frankly, I find the verbal dance you and Mardukum are trying to do bizarre, if not scandalous. The happy relationships displayed by the three popes, Francis, Bartholomew and Towardros, in Rome recently make me very optimistic and fill me with a great deal of Christian joy. I even posted a link to a photo of Two Supreme Pontiffs, laughing! But I hear no laughter from you; only tedious ruminations on the meaning of principatus. To answer this thread: We are, indeed, better off with Pope Francis. I'm sure he would be loathe if I used the word, "under".

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Quote
The current Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople are trying to forge a new relationship, based not on forgeries, but on the way things are, and might even entertain visions of the way things could be in God's Holy Church.

Yes, thank you for saying that!

Quote
To answer this thread:

Wait, actually answering the original question and not arguing in circles about a forged document... Heresy! grin

Quote
We are, indeed, better off with Pope Francis.

Yes, I think the Orthodox and Catholic Churches are better off with Pope Francis. He will build upon the solid foundations of reconciliation started by Blessed John Paul and Pope Benedict XVI. (Regardless of "the donation of Constantine")

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
I
Member
Offline
Member
I
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Christ is risen!
Originally Posted by Utroque
Indeed, He is Risen!

Honestly, brother, does this stuff matter anymore? The Donation is an acknowledge forgery that was thought authentic over a thousand years ago, and was used at the time mainly to justify an extension of the temporal power of the papacy.
and, on the point we have drifted on, to extend the theological power of the papacy and to impose them. Or to attempt to. It has been exposed as a forgery over half a millenium ago, but the edifice for which it serves as scaffolding still stands.

Has
Quote
Pastor Aeternus
been repudiated? No, it has not.
Originally Posted by Utroque
The current Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople are trying to forge a new relationship, based not on forgeries, but on the way things are, and might even entertain visions of the way things could be in God's Holy Church.
I won't speak for Bishop Francis, but the Ecumenical Patriarch might like to think that new relationship is all that matters. Alas! it is not. The way things are, besides 14 other primates, not to mention the Faithful, to which he must answer, he is locked now in a dynamic with the Third Rome which replicates that between Old and New Rome that produced the "Donation." As Solomon informs us in Scripture, "nothing is new under the sun," right after warning us "What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again." The Donation of Constantine on the one side, the forged interpretation of canon 28 of Chalcedon on the other, such do not lay firm foundations.

Originally Posted by Utroque
Frankly, I find the verbal dance you and Mardukum are trying to do bizarre, if not scandalous. The happy relationships displayed by the three popes, Francis, Bartholomew and Towardros, in Rome recently make me very optimistic and fill me with a great deal of Christian joy.
I was quite elated by the joy of the happy relationship displayed by Pope Theodoros II at the enthronement of Pope Teodoros/Tawardos II, and would have no problem if Pope Francis joined in, on the same basis of that joy.
Originally Posted by Utroque
I even posted a link to a photo of Two Supreme Pontiffs, laughing!
Benedict and Francis? Or Francis and Bartholomew?

Pope Teodoros/Tawadrus isn't a supreme pontiff, and doesn't claim to be one. Hence that joy between him and Pope Theodoros and the rest of us.
Originally Posted by Utroque
But I hear no laughter from you; only tedious ruminations on the meaning of principatus. To answer this thread: We are, indeed, better off with Pope Francis. I'm sure he would be loathe if I used the word, "under".
If so, then Pope Francis can eliminate the need to ruminate on the meaning of the "principatus."

Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
Likes: 4
U
Member
Offline
Member
U
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 688
Likes: 4
Quote
If so, then Pope Francis can eliminate the need to ruminate on the meaning of the "principatus."

Sicut Petrus principatus est Apostolorum.


The old Mainers say, "You cahn't get blood out of a turnip". Ruminate on the meaning of that one.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
D
Member
Offline
Member
D
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 450
Originally Posted by Utroque
Honestly, brother, does this stuff matter anymore? The Donation is an acknowledge forgery that was thought authentic over a thousand years ago, and was used at the time mainly to justify an extension of the temporal power of the papacy. The current Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople are trying to forge a new relationship, based not on forgeries, but on the way things are, and might even entertain visions of the way things could be in God's Holy Church. Frankly, I find the verbal dance you and Mardukum are trying to do bizarre, if not scandalous. The happy relationships displayed by the three popes, Francis, Bartholomew and Towardros, in Rome recently make me very optimistic and fill me with a great deal of Christian joy. I even posted a link to a photo of Two Supreme Pontiffs, laughing! But I hear no laughter from you; only tedious ruminations on the meaning of principatus. To answer this thread: We are, indeed, better off with Pope Francis. I'm sure he would be loathe if I used the word, "under".

AMEN!

Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 209
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Feb 2013
Posts: 209
Originally Posted by Utroque
Indeed, He is Risen!

Honestly, brother, does this stuff matter anymore? The Donation is an acknowledge forgery that was thought authentic over a thousand years ago, and was used at the time mainly to justify an extension of the temporal power of the papacy. The current Bishop of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople are trying to forge a new relationship, based not on forgeries, but on the way things are, and might even entertain visions of the way things could be in God's Holy Church.


Simple and eloquent.

Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,243
Likes: 14
Member
Offline
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,243
Likes: 14
I'm all for Papa Francesco and he is just what the doctor ordered for the Latin Church in its current sorry state on a number of fronts.

Traditionalist Catholics should really perhaps not use that term since they have yet to grasp the full monarchical power of the pope - or else, they do but only when they agree with its exercise.

And why is Todd not yet Orthodox?

Alex

Page 11 of 11 1 2 9 10 11

Link Copied to Clipboard
The Byzantine Forum provides message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial, have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as a source for official information for any Church. All posts become property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2022 (Forum 1998-2022). All rights reserved.
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5