|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 20, 2009 23:52:24 GMT -5
Hello Steven! I literally posted quotes by the Church Fathers that stated that they believed that The Church was founded "in" Rome by Peter and that Peter was the leader and that Peter was the ONLY leader in his time. Which Church Father said that "The Church" was founded in Rome? The Church was founded long before Saint Peter went to Rome. You see what I mean? Giving quotations from the Holy Fathers that doesn't say what you believe. I don't expect you to repsond to each and every quote, but we can take them each one by one and examine them because they seem to contradict what you state. Fine with me. That way, I can prove that some of your quotation are irreverent to this discussion, on the Roman Papacy Here, we have Cyprian stating the following facts: 1. Jesus founded The Church upon Saint Peter.2. Peter is in charge of The Church. 3. There is only one authority over The Church. 4. Peter is the "prime" Apostle. No arguments here, although we would have to defined Saint Peter authority within the Church, if it akin to the Roman Pope role in the Roman Church. 5. Whoever is not in union with Saint Peter and The Church founded upon him is suspect as "not" holding true to The Faith and is still a member of that The Catholic Church that Jesus founded upon Saint Peter. 6. There is only one Church that Jesus founded upon Peter.7. Any church outside of that Church is dividing Christianity. No objection. I really can't see how this ties to the Roman Papacy, as taught by the Roman Church in the Great Schism, and fully explained on in the Vatican Councils.  In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 21, 2009 0:09:45 GMT -5
One more thing...how can The Church Fathers not believe Roman Bishop had a superiority over the entire Eastern Bishops, when The Eastern Bishops were in communion with The Roman Bishop? If they weren't then how could they schism? They would have to first be in communion with Rome in order to break away from it, no? And, is there any historical (i.e. Church Fathers' statements) that they believed that The Eastern Orthodox Church existed as it does now back before 1054 A.D. and that it was the EO that Saint Peter founded? Come on Steven! Even you have to agree that even though the Eastern Churches, before the Great Schism, was in communion with the Western Apostolic Church, this noway applied that the Eastern Patriarchs was under the authority of the Roman Church or that the Eastern Churches was under the authority of the Roman Pope. To say otherwise is to ignore Historical evidence. The Roman Pope had control over his diocese (the prerogatives were given to it by the Councils). The Church of Constantinople was given equal privileged as the Roman Church in the 4th Holy Ecumenical Council, Council of Chalcedon (451). Pope Saint Leo the Great refuse to accept the Canons of the Council, in fact the Roman Church didn't accept them until hundreds of years later, but did it matter? Nope. His protest meant nothing to the Eastern Churches. It was the Ecumenical councils which divided up the Patriarchates (giving specific territories to different Patriarchs at the council of Chalcedon) agaisnt the wishes of the papacy. Many of the decisions of the councils went agaisnt the wishes of the Popes (as in the 5th council, Constantinople II, which openly defied Pope Vigilus), but were still upheld as ecumenical. I will repeat my former statement: the Early Church both PRIMARILY and ULTIMATELY conciliar and that this is a mark of the Church. By the way, The Roman Popes can be judged by ecumenical synod. No less than two Roman Popes was condemn: The 5th Council condemned Pope Vigilus for his refusal to condemn 3 Nestorian (heretical) writings; and the 6th Council condemned Pope Honorius for his promotion of monothelitism (heresy). Yes, it quite clear that the Roman Popes did not have a superiority over the Eastern Bishops, that the Roman Popes wishes can be overturn by an Ecumenical Council, and that a Roman Pope can be condemn as a heretic by a Church Council.  Second, as you know, the names given to our Churches, came after the Great Schism. Besides, may I remind you the Patriarch of Antioch is also a Successor of Saint Peter, in a special way, just like the Roman Bishop. Not trying to be a smart donkey here, just wondering what is the basis for your belief that EO Bishops weren't subject to Rome "before" the schism when The Church Fathers clearly taught that it is in Rome where The Church (not the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church) was established? The Eastern Patriarchs was not subject to the Roman Pope, as if he was there Head. The Bishop of Rome had no jurisdiction outside of his diocese but only his own diocese and those prerogatives that were given to it by the Councils (for example, as a Court Appeal), and even then it was limited. All the claims given by the Roman Church to the Roman Papacy, after the Great Schism of 1054AD, are totally foreign in the writings of the Holy Fathers. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 21, 2009 8:30:15 GMT -5
Hello Steven! I literally posted quotes by the Church Fathers that stated that they believed that The Church was founded "in" Rome by Peter and that Peter was the leader and that Peter was the ONLY leader in his time. Which Church Father said that "The Church" was founded in Rome? The Church was founded long before Saint Peter went to Rome. You see what I mean? Giving quotations from the Holy Fathers that doesn't say what you believe. Optatus " You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]). Pope Damasus I "Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 21, 2009 8:47:19 GMT -5
Ok, I'll list the first quote with my next post and we can continue from there. Well, according to The Church Fathers, they see him as the leader of the entire Christian world as chosen by Jesus Christ Himself as as the one Jesus made the foundation of The Church. 5. Whoever is not in union with Saint Peter and The Church founded upon him is suspect as "not" holding true to The Faith and is still a member of that The Catholic Church that Jesus founded upon Saint Peter. 6. There is only one Church that Jesus founded upon Peter.7. Any church outside of that Church is dividing Christianity. Easy... 1. The Church (according to these historical figures, men you consider "Church Fathers") was established "in" Rome. 2. The Papacy was established by The Church. Here are some Church Fathers being quoted on The Authority of The Pope (notice, it specifically mentions "Rome"): Hermas "Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]). Ignatius of Antioch "Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father" (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]). "You [ the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force" (ibid., 3:1). Irenaeus "But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]). Cyprian of Carthage " Cyprian to [Pope] Cornelius, his brother. Greeting. . . . We decided to send and are sending a letter to you from all throughout the province [where I am] so that all our colleagues might give their decided approval and support to you and to your communion, that is, to both the unity and the charity of the Catholic Church" (Letters 48:1, 3 [A.D. 253]). "Cyprian to Antonian, his brother. Greeting ... You wrote ... that I should forward a copy of the same letter to our colleague [Pope] Cornelius, so that, laying aside all anxiety, he might at once know that you held communion with him, that is, with the Catholic Church" (ibid., 55[52]:1). "With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (ibid., 59:14). Firmilian "[ Pope] Stephen ... boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. ... Stephen ... announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters 74[75]:17 [A.D. 253]). Pope Julius I "[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write us so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. ... Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? " (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35). |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 21, 2009 9:05:03 GMT -5
One more thing...how can The Church Fathers not believe Roman Bishop had a superiority over the entire Eastern Bishops, when The Eastern Bishops were in communion with The Roman Bishop? If they weren't then how could they schism? They would have to first be in communion with Rome in order to break away from it, no? And, is there any historical (i.e. Church Fathers' statements) that they believed that The Eastern Orthodox Church existed as it does now back before 1054 A.D. and that it was the EO that Saint Peter founded? Come on Steven! Even you have to agree that even though the Eastern Churches, before the Great Schism, was in communion with the Western Apostolic Church, this noway applied that the Eastern Patriarchs was under the authority of the Roman Church or that the Eastern Churches was under the authority of the Roman Pope. OK. Church Father quote then to support this? It is my understanding that The Christian Church was unified under the title of The Universal Church (The Catholic Church) before Eastern Churches were excommunicated from The Catholic Church for failing to accept the authority of The Roman Church. Is that you understanding of it? Well, according to The CFs' quotes I posted, The Roman Bishop had authority over all of Christendom. Council of Constantinople I "The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome" (canon 3 [A.D. 381]). I respect you command of history, but does this in any way negate what The CF's believed (that The Church was founded in Rome)? And that it had authority over all Christians? Of course (The Anti-Popes prove that), but, according to The Church Fathers, they (Popes) had authority and anyone who refused to recognize the authority of a duly elected Pope was considered a heretic. I'd like to stick to "pre-Schism" days. I'd like to stick to what The Church Fathers are quoted as saying instead of jumping hundreds of years ahead. I have no problem recognizing that there was a schism after the 11th Century, but I'd like to build up to that point by going over what was universally believed by The Church Fathers before that. As for the Patriarch of Antioch, according to The Church Fathers, Peter is the chosen leader of The Christian Church and his chair was established "at" Rome and stayed at Rome. I don't remember any Church Father stating that his authority was ever moved to any other Church other than The Church at Rome. Of course, if you can quote a Church Father that we both recognize as a legitimate Church Father stating this, we can discuss that. So, it is E.O.'s belief that every Christian had to be subject to Rome "except" for them? According to The CF's that we both recognize as authoritative, they specifically said that anyone who didn't accept The Roman Church's Bishop as head of their Church was out of communion with The Church that Jesus Christ started. The Church Fathers (who we are, I believe, discussing here) clearly believed this (as I have proven with the numerous quotes I posted). Well, The Church Fathers actually speak about Roman Popes in their quotes. But, we're going to have a chance to address each quote one by one in a new thread. Since you've already stated that you accept them as CF's, then there should be no problem with our agreeing to use them. C U there. |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 21, 2009 23:26:00 GMT -5
Hello Steven! Which Church Father said that "The Church" was founded in Rome? The Church was founded long before Saint Peter went to Rome. You see what I mean? Giving quotations from the Holy Fathers that doesn't say what you believe. Optatus " You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]). Pope Damasus I "Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). Once again, the first quote only speak about the fact that Chair of the Roman Church was founded upon Saint Peter, and not that the Church was founded "on/in" the Roman Church, specifically. Concerning the second, written by a Roman Pope, no one deny that the Roman Church had primacy [note: NOT supremacy] of honor. Second, the See of Antioch is also from Saint Peter. So are you saying that before Saint Peter went to Rome, there was no such thing as "The Church"? In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 21, 2009 23:40:26 GMT -5
No they didn't. They never saw the Roman Pope in the same way Catholics today see him. To say otherwise, is to put post Latin 1054AD schism thought in the Early Church Fathers writings. asy... 1. The Church (according to these historical figures, men you consider "Church Fathers") was established "in" Rome. 2. The Papacy was established by The Church. Here are some Church Fathers being quoted on The Authority of The Pope (notice, it specifically mentions "Rome"): 1) Again, your belief is nowhere found in the Early Church Fathers. 2). The Roman Papacy, as it today taught by the Catholics, was NOT established by the Church. Hermas "Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]). This doesn't prove the Authority of the Pope. Let's stick to what the Text said. It said that Hermas shall write two little books, and will sent one to Saint Clement AND to others. His duty was not to send the book solely to Saint Clement. Me thinks you reading to much into the text. O.k, I see you open another thread. I will respond to the quotes later then. In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Ramon on Aug 22, 2009 0:06:18 GMT -5
It is my understanding that The Christian Church was unified under the title of The Universal Church (The Catholic Church) before Eastern Churches were excommunicated from The Catholic Church for failing to accept the authority of The Roman Church. Is that you understanding of it? Except we believe that it was Rome who left the Church, and thus today, we hold that the Roman Church is a heretical and schismatic Church. But you and other Catholics will say that it was the East who enter into Schism. Well, according to The CFs' quotes I posted, The Roman Bishop had authority over all of Christendom. Actually, the Roman Church has a Primacy of Honor and his authority was very limited, even in the Ecumenical Councils. Council of Constantinople I "The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome" (canon 3 [A.D. 381]). Yes, the Roman Church was first because that has been the custom. She had the first Primacy of Honor. Canon 28 of the fourth Ecumenical Council: "Following in every detail all the decrees of the holy Fathers and knowing about the canon, just read, of the one hundred and fifty bishops dearly beloved of God, gathered together under Theodosius the Great, emperor of pious memory in the imperial city of Constantinople, New Rome, we ourselves have also decreed and voted the same things about the prerogatives of the very holy Church of this same Constantinople, New Rome. The Fathers in fact have correctly attributed the prerogatives (which belong) to the see of the most ancient Rome because it was the imperial city. And thus moved by the same reasoning, the one hundred and fifty bishops beloved of God have accorded equal prerogatives to the very holy see of New Rome, justly considering that the city that is honored by the imperial power and the senate and enjoying (within the civil order) the prerogatives equal to those of Rome, the most ancient imperial city, ought to be as elevated as Old Rome in the affairs of the Church, being in the second place after it. Consequently, the metropolitans and they alone of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, as well as the bishops among the barbarians of the aforementioned dioceses, are to be ordained by the previously mentioned very holy see of the very holy Church of Constantinople; that is, each metropolitan of the above-mentioned dioceses is to ordain the bishops of the province along with the fellow bishops of that province as has been provided for in the divine canons. As for the metropolitans of the previously mentioned dioceses, they are to be ordained, as has already been said, by the archbishop of Constantinople, after harmonious elections have taken place according to custom and after the archbishop has been notified." (Canon 28 of the Council of Chalcedon, 451AD). The papal legates were not present for the vote on this canon, and protested it afterwards, and was not ratified by Pope Leo in Rome. Pope Saint Leo the Great refuse to accept the Canons of the Council, in fact the Roman Church didn't accept them until hundreds of years later, but did it matter? Nope. His protest meant nothing to the Eastern Churches. Yes, I see now, the Roman Bishop had a superiority over the entire Church.  I respect you command of history, but does this in any way negate what The CF's believed (that The Church was founded in Rome)? And that it had authority over all Christians? I don't negate the teachings of the Holy Fathers. The Holy Fathers never taught "Roman Papacy", as taught TODAY by Catholics. Of course (The Anti-Popes prove that), but, according to The Church Fathers, they (Popes) had authority and anyone who refused to recognize the authority of a duly elected Pope was considered a heretic. Yet at the same time, a Roman Pope can be excommunicated and condemn as a heretic by a Church Council. A Roman Pope wishes can be ignore or overturn, as did the Church in the fourth Ecumenical Council. Although Pope Saint Leo the Great refuse to abide by the Canons of the fourth Ecumenical Council, it was still enforced in the East, and the Council and the Canons was accepted as authoritative statements by the Eastern Churches. It took some hundreds of years before the Church of Rome finally caught up with the East and recognize the authenticity of the Canons........ I'd like to stick to "pre-Schism" days. Yes, and the Patriarch of Antioch is historically a Successor of Saint Peter.  So, it is E.O.'s belief that every Christian had to be subject to Rome "except" for them? We was in communion with Rome AND Rome was in communion with us for 1,000 years. Do you mean subject to the Pope as if he was the Leader of the entire Christian Church as the Vicar of Christ, or that he was over the Eastern Patriarch as the Supreme Bishop? In that case, this wasn't the case in the Early Church. Even a careful study of the Ecumenical Councils (all held in the East) will prove that. In IC.XC, Ramon P.S., since you started another thread, let discuss the writings of the Early Church Fathers there. See you there Bro! In IC.XC, Ramon |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 22, 2009 10:28:12 GMT -5
Optatus " You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]). Pope Damasus I "Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]). Once again, the first quote only speak about the fact that Chair of the Roman Church was founded upon Saint Peter, and not that the Church was founded "on/in" the Roman Church, specifically. You separate The Roman Catholic Church from The See of Peter? The See at Antioch is only relevant "because" it is acknowledged by The See at Rome. What was it that they called it an the council of Constanitnople? The New Rome? This is because Rome is what legitimizes it and any other Christian center. You will not find one Church Father stating that The Catholic Church started by Jesus Christ was founded in Antioch. To the contrary, they insist that it was in Rome that The Church was founded: Tertullian "[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches." (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]). For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (ibid., 32). There were many "Churches" throughout the evangelized area, but there was and is only one headquarters for The Church that Jesus Christ started and not one Church Father accepted by both EO and RC ever states that it is in Antioch that The Church was founded and headquarted. The only thing that makes any (c)hurch a (C)hurch is their direct lineage to The Roman Church established by Saint Peter who was the Prime Apostle chosen by God to start His Church post Jesus' ressurection. The Roman Catholic Church is at the forefront not at the decisions of the other Churches, but by God's will. In other words, the Churches that The Roman Church spawned don't give it it's legitimacy, but vice/versa...it gives them their legitimacy. And the word "honor" isn't mentioned in that Church Father's quote. Most importantly, primacy literally means supremacy: Main Entry: primacy Part of Speech: noun Definition: supremacy Synonyms: authority, command, domination, power, prelacy primacy –noun 1. the state of being first in order, rank, importance, etc. 2. Also called primateship. English Ecclesiastics. the office, rank, or dignity of a primate. 3. Roman Catholic Church. the jurisdiction of a bishop, as a patriarch, over other bishoprics, or the supreme jurisdiction of the pope as supreme bishop. Do you accept or reject the definition of "primacy" as defined? No. What The Church Fathers are saying is that the institution of The Catholic Church was founded in Rome and was led by Saint Peter. When you say "Church" in that question, are you speaking of the spiritual Church or the actual institutional Church? I'm speaking of the historical institutional Church's foundations as decreed by The Fathers. Over and over and over again, they give him (Peter) authority over the other Apostles and over the entire Church regardless of where Christians are in the world. This is what "they" say over and over and over again. Without adding any words to their words, these are the beliefs of The Church Fathers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 22, 2009 10:41:16 GMT -5
No they didn't. They never saw the Roman Pope in the same way Catholics today see him. To say otherwise, is to put post Latin 1054AD schism thought in the Early Church Fathers writings. Well, The See of Peter is "at" Rome, agreed? What does Augustine say about that? Augustine"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called " The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]). The Roman Church as it was in the 1st Century didn't exist in Christ's time. The Bible as it is today didn't exist in Apostolic time. Computers as they are today didn't exist in The Garden of Eden. The Eastern Orthodox Church (as it is today) didn't exist before 1054 A.D.. Yet all exist today and all are true. The Roman Papacy is like The Church...evolving. Peter and The Apostles set the foundation for 1 leader, a group of supporters and rightful successions. There are so many things that we Catholics (Roman/Orthodox) do today that wasn't taught by The Church in the 1st Century. That is alone cannot deny what The Church has evolved into (both RC/EO). Tell me this...name one council that Jesus held? Zero. Yet, The Apostles held councils. Does that make Jesus inferior to The Apostles? Or The Apostles "not" doing Jesus work because they held councils that Jesus never held? Of course not. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 22, 2009 10:59:06 GMT -5
It is my understanding that The Christian Church was unified under the title of The Universal Church (The Catholic Church) before Eastern Churches were excommunicated from The Catholic Church for failing to accept the authority of The Roman Church. Is that you understanding of it? Except we believe that it was Rome who left the Church, and thus today, we hold that the Roman Church is a heretical and schismatic Church. But you and other Catholics will say that it was the East who enter into Schism. That is the first time I've ever heard an EO say that they left us. Let's look at how the Schism occured: The East-West Schism, or the Great Schism, divided medieval Christendom into Eastern (Greek) and Western (Latin) branches, which later became known as the Eastern Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church, respectively.
In 1054, Roman legates traveled to Cerularius to deny him the title Ecumenical Patriarch and to insist that he recognize the Church of Rome's claim to be the head and mother of the churches.[1] Cerularius refused. The leader of the Latin contingent, Cardinal Humbert, excommunicated Cerularius, while Cerularius in return excommunicated Cardinal Humbert and other legates.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East-West_SchismIs this historically accurate or not according to your understanding/indoctrination? (Note that I chose a non-Catholic/non-Orthodox source for us to start at the middle) How could The Roman Catholic Church "leave" a Church (The Eastern Orthodox Church) that never existed before the 11th Century and The Roman Catholic Church is historically proven to have existed before The 11th Century? In other words, how can the egg lay the chicken? Why does it have a primacy of honor over the EO Church? And, where does this "primacy of honor" theory originate? Did The Church Fathers teach this? Did The Church Fathers ever call The EO Church the Church founded by Peter or it's headquarters the "foundation" of Christ's Church the way they do about The Roman Church? (Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to see where these terms and beliefs come from) Canon 28 of the fourth Ecumenical Council: "New" Rome? What does that mean? Why does it compare itself to Rome? How does it benefit or legitimize itself by comparing itself to The Roman Church? So, you could say that The Eastern Churches were not in agreement with The Roman Church? And what do The Church Fathers say about that? Also said there was this... Council of Chalcedon "Bishop Paschasinus, guardian of the Apostolic See, stood in the midst [of the Council Fathers] and said, ‘ We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city [Pope Leo I], who is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed to sit in the [present] assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat, he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out" (Acts of the Council, session 1 [A.D. 451]). "After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘ This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo!’" (ibid., session 2). Optatus of Milevus" In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]). Council of Constantinople I "The bishop of Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because his city is New Rome" (canon 3 [A.D. 381]). Seems here, that it is the Eastern Church who has the "primacy of honor" AFTER The Bishop of Rome (not before). This places Rome over Constantinople, true? Jerome " I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]). "The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘ He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2). Here, Saint Jerome swears allegiance to a Roman Catholic Pope. Is Jerome accepted as a Church Father by your Church? Yes, I see now, the Roman Bishop had a superiority over the entire Church. Again, there is a lot of things that are taught today that weren't taught by The Fathers. Is The Holy Trinity Doctrine "less" true because it wasn't taught as a Doctrine until hundreds of years "after" Christ? Modern teachings by the infallible Church are revelations. There is not "one set" of teachings that existed before a certain date and everything else after that is to be abandoned. You'd have to abandon your Bible because it didn't exist in Apostolic times either. If a Pope has been improperly placed at the head of The Church, then yes. When it has not been done by the guidance of The Holy Spirit, then that Pope is always doomed to failure and to being removed by The Church. There were "Anti-Popes" that attempted to take power by might and they were dealt with. God didn't allow them to fester there. This isn't new. This happened in Apostolic times (with false leaders popping up in Christianity and being duly admonished by The Apostles). And yes...The Catholic Church takes hundreds of years to accept things. We don't just take whatever comes down the pike as automatically acceptable. The Bible itself took hundreds of years to create. Time is not of the essence in The Church...truth is. And, Eucamenical Councils didn't exist in Jesus' time...are they "less" valid then (according to your standards of judging something's validity as to whether or not how they exist today when compared to their existance in Apostolic times)? Are you talking about an EO Patriarch? If so, could you show me the historical lineage? Also, don't The Church Father's teach that he who rejects Rome rejects The Church Jesus started? According to them, the "orthodox" faith comes from Roman Church leaders such as Hegesippus, Dionysius, Pinytus of Crete, Philip, and Apollinarius, and Melito, and Musanus, and Modestus, and Irenaeus (who soundly defends The Roman Catholic Church). Eusebius said this. So, it is E.O.'s belief that every Christian had to be subject to Rome "except" for them? We was in communion with Rome AND Rome was in communion with us for 1,000 years. You believe that your Patriarch excommunicated our Pope. Do you have any secular historical evidence to support this? Historically, I believe that it was the other way around. Again, how can The Patriarch (who didn't exist before The Pope) excommincate The Pope (who has existed since the founding of The Church)? You keep going back to the Ecumenical Councils...but what do The Church Father's teach? Let's quote The Church Fathers (not EO functions). I wouldn't dare use Roman Catholic functions to try to prove Eastern Orthodoxy wrong...that would be biased. That's like Russia saying The United States is wrong because The Russian Government says so. ;D Here's a simple new thread for us... You said The Church Fathers' never said The Church was founded in Rome, right? fideidefensor.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=churchfathers&thread=691 |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 22, 2009 11:20:01 GMT -5
There was no council or Church Father that established the primacy of St. Peter's chair. It was Jesus Christ Himself that established it.
No quote, argument or decree will ever change what Jesus said.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 22, 2009 11:25:11 GMT -5
There was no council or Church Father that established the primacy of St. Peter's chair. It was Jesus Christ Himself that established it. No quote, argument or decree will ever change what Jesus said. The "Chair" was established by The Church...Jesus established Peter's authority to shepherd (guide) the flock (The Church). |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 22, 2009 11:30:59 GMT -5
"Chair" means the same thing as "authority". 1Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,
2saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;
3therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them. Matthew 23 |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 22, 2009 11:33:48 GMT -5
"chair" means the same thing as "authority". ; ) When The Church Fathers use the word "chair", they literally refer to Saint Peter's Chair (which didn't exist until after Jesus died because while Jesus was on earth, He was the Leader of The Apostles, but after He left us, a "chair" of Peter was established physically "in" Rome). |
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Aug 22, 2009 11:35:13 GMT -5
So, Cepha, did Moses only have authority AFTER he died?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 22, 2009 11:38:33 GMT -5
So, Cepha, did Moses only have authority AFTER he died? Course not. After he died, his power of leadership was transferred to Joshua. |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Aug 22, 2009 11:48:01 GMT -5
Jerome"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter.
I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built.
Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane.
Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).
"The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria" (ibid., 16:2). ___________________________________________________ Also, did you notice "whom" Jerome places in authority over "whom"? He places The Pope in Rome over whoever is trying to lead in Syria...know what's in Syria? Antioch. He subjects himself to Pope Damascus' authority and acts as a liason between The Pope and asks The Pope to whom is it that he should speak to in Syria (not the other way around...Syria isn't telling Rome what to do, Rome is telling Syria what to do, that is, according to Jerome). Was Jerome "against" The Patriarch of Antioch then? And, if he was talking about anybody else but The EO Church why then didnt he address this request to their Patriarch? Why did he have to ask a Roman Pope whom he should speak to in Syria if Antioch was in charge of that realm?
|
|
