St. Peter, Vatican Claims, and Location, Location, LOCATION!

[ialmisry]

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

I'll provide a quote at the end for this. Alexandria inherited the "faith of St Peter" from the evangelist St Mark, who was St Peter's disciple. A line of Apostolic succession, though not physical presence.

The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

You're correct. St Mark, St Peter's disciple, brought "St Peter's faith" to Alexandria. This is why is is recognized as such.

He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

Debatable due to resources.

The Apostolic Constitutions says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and others (St Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liber Pontificalis, etc) who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution),

Rome has never had anything to do with the Papacy, other that that being the current seat. The papacy isn't Rome, the papacy is in Rome. If the Patriarch of Moscow became Pope, he could sit in Russia all day long, and still be the Pope.

he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.

It wasn't mentioned to support the papacy. It was mentioned to support that he was ever in Rome. That was doubted by the previous poster.

Whenever apologists for the Vatican try to gloss over the fact that St. Peter founded the See of Antioch and through his disciple St. Mark founded the See of Alexandria, the last refuge is that St. Peter was martyred at Rome.  They never explain, however, how, according to what the Vatican teaches about its papacy, that matters.

That the manner that the Vatican has selected the holder of the papacy as it defines it has changed over time creates difficulties in examinging this question. Yet we can start with the present canons on the matter:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, tradition tells us, was consecrated by St. Peter at Antioch. Tradition also would affirm that St. Peter was always joined in communon with St. Ignatius.  St. Ignatius of course had "an episcopal character"-which isn'tt needed anyways-as did SS. Linus and Clement in Rome.  St. James in Jerusalem was also still alive at Jerusalem, where he had presided over the Council of Jerusalem and rendered its decision.  Tradition tells us the the Apostles SS. Peter, James and John consecrated St. James to his position as bishop of Jerusalem.  So even if we are focused on St. Peter, there are plenty of candidates: there is no reason why St. Ignatius or even St. James could not be successor to St. Peter as "pope": after all, Pope John Paul II was Archbishop of Krakow when he was elected (and tradition identifies St. Paul as the consecrator of St. Linus, his companion  2 Timothy 4:21).  Why not take St. Mark as St. Peter's successor? Tradition, even quoted by Pope St. Gregory, calls St. Mark the disciple of St. Peter and indeed considers Alexandria-where the title/office of the papacy originated-a Petrine see because St. Mark founded it at St. Peter's instruction, if the supremacy supposedly went from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome with St. Peter, why not to Alexandria with his discple, the Evangelist St. Mark? Supposedly the soujourn in Avignon didn't affect the papacy, so why not move to Alexandria?


The teaching of the Vatican depends on a division between the papacy and episcopate based from St. Peter. Otherwise, there is no reason why the Patriarch of Antioch isn't THE successor of St. Peter.  The Vatican gets around this by combing the papacy as the successor of St. Peter with the episcopate of the bishop of Rome.  But we have no basis in the traditions-laying aside for a moment the problem that there was no papacy at that date-to make such a combination.

So, what is the basis for claiming primacy for the successor of St. Peter at Rome and not for the successor of St. Peter at Antioch, when, according to Vatican dogma, there is no requirement to be in Rome?

Btw, interesting that at the same time the issue came up at the highest level of the Empire: St. Peter was martyred during the persecusion of Nero. When Nero committed suicide, in the Year of Four Emperors, Emperors for the first time took office outside of Rome.

 

[stanley123]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, 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."

etc.

 

[ialmisry]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, 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."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

 

[Shlomlokh]

It had nothing to do with St. Peter, there being no developed ancient tradition that he ever set foot in Egypt (the Coptic legend of today seems to be connecting 1 Pet. 5:13 with Babylon in Egypt (Old Cairo). And he certainly was not there before he was in Antioch, which is recorded in Holy Scripture.  Alexandria, unlike Antioch and Rome, has never claimed to have been founded directly by St. Peter.

I'll provide a quote at the end for this. Alexandria inherited the "faith of St Peter" from the evangelist St Mark, who was St Peter's disciple. A line of Apostolic succession, though not physical presence.

The succession of St. Peter at Alexandria never claimed that St. Peter was ever there, just that his disciple St. Mark founded the Church of Alexandria. Odd thing that the traditions of those three sees never speak of Jerusalem, where St. Peter obviously was and received his consecration. Alexandria never precedes Antioch in the history of the Apostles, but it did in the imperial ordering of the metropolises.

You're correct. St Mark, St Peter's disciple, brought "St Peter's faith" to Alexandria. This is why is is recognized as such.

He was succeeded by St. Linus, who was consecrated by St. Paul.

Debatable due to resources.

The Apostolic Constitutions says that Linus was the first bishop of Rome and was ordained by Paul, and that he was succeeded by Clement, who was ordained by Peter. Cletus is given as Linus's successor by Irenaeus and others (St Jerome, Eusebius, John Chrysostom, the Liber Pontificalis, etc) who present Linus either as the first bishop of Rome or, if they give Peter as the first, as the second.

As for having the presence of St. Peter to consecrate bishops until his martyrdom, that doesn't say anything after his martyrdom. Even according to the Vatican's own rules, a pope doesn't have to become pope in Rome (otherwise the Avignon papacy blows a nearly century hole in the institution),

Rome has never had anything to do with the Papacy, other that that being the current seat. The papacy isn't Rome, the papacy is in Rome. If the Patriarch of Moscow became Pope, he could sit in Russia all day long, and still be the Pope.

he becomes pope immediately when he accepts his election (which he doesn't have to do in Rome, nor does he have to be elected at Rome).  This is not like the Aaronic High Priest, who had to be consecrated in Jerusalem, nor the succession of the elders of Israel, who had to lay hands on their successors in the Promised Land.  Hence the basis of the relevance of where St. Peter was martyred does not exist to support the claims of the papacy.

It wasn't mentioned to support the papacy. It was mentioned to support that he was ever in Rome. That was doubted by the previous poster.

Whenever apologists for the Vatican try to gloss over the fact that St. Peter founded the See of Antioch and through his disciple St. Mark founded the See of Alexandria, the last refuge is that St. Peter was martyred at Rome.  They never explain, however, how, according to what the Vatican teaches about its papacy, that matters.

That the manner that the Vatican has selected the holder of the papacy as it defines it has changed over time creates difficulties in examinging this question. Yet we can start with the present canons on the matter:

Can. 331 The bishop of the Roman Church, in whom continues the office given by the Lord uniquely to Peter, the first of the Apostles, and to be transmitted to his successors, is the head of the college of bishops, the Vicar of Christ, and the pastor of the universal Church on earth. By virtue of his office he possesses supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church, which he is always able to exercise freely.

Can. 332 §1. The Roman Pontiff obtains full and supreme power in the Church by his acceptance of legitimate election together with episcopal consecration. Therefore, a person elected to the supreme pontificate who is marked with episcopal character obtains this power from the moment of acceptance. If the person elected lacks episcopal character, however, he is to be ordained a bishop immediately.

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them. Moreover, this primacy strengthens and protects the proper, ordinary, and immediate power which bishops possess in the particular churches entrusted to their care.

§2. In fulfilling the office of supreme pastor of the Church, the Roman Pontiff is always joined in communion with the other bishops and with the universal Church. He nevertheless has the right, according to the needs of the Church, to determine the manner, whether personal or collegial, of exercising this office.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, tradition tells us, was consecrated by St. Peter at Antioch. Tradition also would affirm that St. Peter was always joined in communon with St. Ignatius.  St. Ignatius of course had "an episcopal character"-which isn'tt needed anyways-as did SS. Linus and Clement in Rome.  St. James in Jerusalem was also still alive at Jerusalem, where he had presided over the Council of Jerusalem and rendered its decision.  Tradition tells us the the Apostles SS. Peter, James and John consecrated St. James to his position as bishop of Jerusalem.  So even if we are focused on St. Peter, there are plenty of candidates: there is no reason why St. Ignatius or even St. James could not be successor to St. Peter as "pope": after all, Pope John Paul II was Archbishop of Krakow when he was elected (and tradition identifies St. Paul as the consecrator of St. Linus, his companion  2 Timothy 4:21).  Why not take St. Mark as St. Peter's successor? Tradition, even quoted by Pope St. Gregory, calls St. Mark the disciple of St. Peter and indeed considers Alexandria-where the title/office of the papacy originated-a Petrine see because St. Mark founded it at St. Peter's instruction, if the supremacy supposedly went from Jerusalem to Antioch to Rome with St. Peter, why not to Alexandria with his discple, the Evangelist St. Mark? Supposedly the soujourn in Avignon didn't affect the papacy, so why not move to Alexandria?


The teaching of the Vatican depends on a division between the papacy and episcopate based from St. Peter. Otherwise, there is no reason why the Patriarch of Antioch isn't THE successor of St. Peter.  The Vatican gets around this by combing the papacy as the successor of St. Peter with the episcopate of the bishop of Rome.  But we have no basis in the traditions-laying aside for a moment the problem that there was no papacy at that date-to make such a combination.

So, what is the basis for claiming primacy for the successor of St. Peter at Rome and not for the successor of St. Peter at Antioch, when, according to Vatican dogma, there is no requirement to be in Rome?

Btw, interesting that at the same time the issue came up at the highest level of the Empire: St. Peter was martyred during the persecusion of Nero. When Nero committed suicide, in the Year of Four Emperors, Emperors for the first time took office outside of Rome.

Do you think you could address Steve Ray's claims in his book "Upon This Rock"? Some of my Roman Catholic friends here quote it to me to prove that Christ singled out St. Peter as having the role and power the pope of Rome enjoys today. I myself have not read the book, but they said that it was at a very specific spot that Christ gave St. Peter the keys that has immense meaning behind. Of course, we all know that Our Lord gave the keys to the rest of the Apostle's only 2 chapters later in St. Matthew's gospel (something they refuse to acknowledge).

I never heard this or read this until they told me about Steve Ray's book so it makes me very suspicious. Do you have any thoughts on this?

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[ialmisry]

Do you think you could address Steve Ray's claims in his book "Upon This Rock"?

What specifically? I haven't read the whole book but large parts of it, much of it not being particularly original and poised against the Protestants and not the Orthodox.  I've seen him speak a number of times: he seems rather taken by the Eliakim nonsense, something I've discussed here and elsewhere, e.g.

The unique promise to Peter was not the binding and loosing one since in Matt 18:18 it was applied to all the Apostles.

Right you are!

The unique promise to Peter (the Rock upon which the Church was to be built) was that he would hold the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

and those keys do what?

The meaning of the power of the keys is foreshadowed in Isaiah 22
20 On that day I will call my servant Eliakim son of Hilkiah,
21 and will clothe him with your robe and bind your sash on him. I will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
22 I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and no one shall shut; he shall shut, and no one shall open.
23 I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honour to his ancestral house.
24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his ancestral house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.
25 On that day, says the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish, for the Lord has spoken.

The Keys signify the plenary power conferred upon Peter and his successors as the Vicars of Christ.

Ah, yes. The Eliakim prophecy.  One of my favorites.  I do have to commend you though, it is usually not quoted with the verse in black (raises questions I guess).

I always point out that the Douay Rheims translation, one done to win the Anglicans back to submission to the Vatican, has every reason to make use of this "proof text."  Yet it states that Eliakim is "a type of Christ."

Someone at CAF did find a reference to this interpretation in a manuscript of Francis de Sales, which was published in the 1800's, which claims "But is the commandment which in Isaias (xxii.) is given to Eliacim which is parallel in every particular with that which Our Lord gives to S. Peter.....Could anything fit better than these two Scriptures? For: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona, because flesh and blood have not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven- is it not at least equivalent to: I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias?", but no explanation of where that interprettion which "fits better" not appearing until after the Protestant reformation.

On the subject of JRR Tolkien, kings, and stewards, I find The Return of the King makes exactly the point Fabio is making: I assume Tolkien, a devout RC by all accounts, must have believed in papal infallibility, and was surely familiar with Eliakin typology. But in his book, Tolkien shows us a steward, Denethor, who does exactly what the Orthodox here are saying popes do (and Eliakin did): he takes power that's not his and refuses to move over for the king! (cf. "the Grand Inquisitor" in _Brothers Karamazov_)

You know that in the Old Testament Kingdom of David, there was a steward of the House as well right?

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah: And I will clothe him with thy robe, and strengthen him with thy girdle, and I will commit thy government into his hand: and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him [as] a nail in a sure place; and he shall be for a glorious throne to his father's house." - Isaiah 22:20-23

Odd that the Vatican didn't know that for over a millenium.  The first published eisogesis I've seen on this is from the 19th century (the manuscript it is based on is from the 17th IIRC).  The notes of the Douay-Rheims, a Bible translated specifically to lure the English from the headship of the king to the headship of the Vatican, says only "Eliakim, a type of Christ."

Btw, as all Vatican apologists, you leave out the next verses:
24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, says the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord has spoken it."

You really see no parallel between this and Matthew 16 and 18? Reeeeeeally? Not even a parallel to the office of the Bishop as the steward of his diocese?

I see no reason to set up bishops so they can "be removed...be broken and shall fall" so that the diocese "which hung thereon, shall perish."

And again, I see no reason to see what the Fathers didn't see, until your fathers imagined it post 1517.

Again, I find it hard to believe that the Eliakim prophecy is so obvious and correct that it wasn't seen until De Sales was combating Protestants and came up with it.

Some of my Roman Catholic friends here quote it to me to prove that Christ singled out St. Peter as having the role and power the pope of Rome enjoys today.

First problem: any singling out of St. Peter doesn't automatically transfer his successor; his successor does not automatically mean St. Linus (1st bishop of Rome) over for exaple St. Mark who went to Alexandria; does not automatically mean Rome over Antioch.

I myself have not read the book, but they said that it was at a very specific spot that Christ gave St. Peter the keys that has immense meaning behind.

They always claim that: not very outstanding about that claim in this book. One problem even the "Catholic Encyclopedia" admits:

I just found out that one of the holdouts at Vatican I circulated the stats of Church Fathers on Who was the rock.  I think we have the same here. And on the keys, even the CE admits the Fathers don't speak of it in the Ultramonstanist sense.

What's CE?
"Catholic Encyclopedia"

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm
Of course the Orthodox know why the Fathers seldom speak of it: why talk about what does not exist?

LOL. How apropos, the metochion/embassy Church of Constantinople which the Vatican has approprieated, built on the demolished (per Vatican order) real Donation of Constantine, which contains St. Peter but not that cathedra the Vatican claims to speak from.

The Cathedra that the Pope does speak from as Successor to St. Peter.

Like Pope Honorius.

And no, even your Vatican doesn't place its cathedra there but at St. John of the Lateran. The chair in the Vatican is a gift of the Frankish emperors.

Of course, we all know that Our Lord gave the keys to the rest of the Apostle's only 2 chapters later in St. Matthew's gospel (something they refuse to acknowledge).

They also refuse to acknowlege that a few verses latter Christ tels him "Get behind me Satan!", that the most citations of his name have to do with his denial of Christ, and that a few chapters after Mat. 16 the Apostles are arguing about who is the greatest: if Christ had made St. Peter supreme a few chapters before, why would the Apostles be in the dark about who had supremacy?

Another problem is that the passage in question is from Matthew, a Gospel associated with St. Peter's first see, Antioch, and not St. Mark's, the Gospel associated with Rome.

I never heard this or read this until they told me about Steve Ray's book so it makes me very suspicious. Do you have any thoughts on this?

I'm not sure what specific claim you are referring to. Post and I wil try to repsond.

 

[ialmisry]

I was thinking about the example of Pope Gregory X, the supreme pontiff elected after the longest conclave in the Vatican's history (1268–1271).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_election,_1268%E2%80%931271
he however wasn't in the conclave. In fact, he was in Palestine on Crusade, which is where, since he accepted his election there, he became pontiff, no where near St. Peter's martyrdom and shrine.

More interesting is Pope Adrian V.  He annulled the rigid enactments of Gregory X relating to the papal conclaves.  He was sent to England in 1265 by Pope Clement IV (1265–68) to mediate between Henry III of England (1216–72) and his barons, and to preach the Crusades; he remained there for several years as the papal legate, serving from October 1265 to July 1268. His diplomatic position was such that his name is still on the oldest extant piece of English statute law, the Statute of Marlborough of 1267, where the formal title mentions as a witness "the Lord Ottobon, at that time legate in England". (Also on this legation was a young diplomat, the future Boniface VIII.) In April 1268 he issued a set of canons, which formed the basis of church law in England until the reformation of the sixteenth century.

Under the influence of Charles of Anjou, he was elected pope to succeed Innocent V on July 12, 1276, but died at Viterbo on August 18, 1276 without ever having been ordained to the priesthood; he is buried there in the church of S. Francesco. Technically, since Adrian V was never ordained bishop, he never truly became the Bishop of Rome, but traditionally he is counted in the papal succession.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Adrian_V

Rather a problem, since he annulled Pope Gregory X's rules on electing popes, which supposedly which were used until 1963, and hence affects the validity of the popes elected between 1276 until 1963. He didn't have an "episcopal character" but whether that prevents "full and supreme power over the church" in part or at all, and what that says about his power to dictate the terms of papl elections.

 

[Deacon Lance]

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned. 

 

[ChristusDominus]

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned. 

Yes, a few discrepancies.

 

[ialmisry]

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned. 

Yes, a few discrepancies.

It shows being from a couple sources pasted together without harmonizing or editing.

Of course, that makes it clear that it is a problem that the conclaves followed the rules of Pope Gregory X when Pope Adrian annulled them.

 

[stanley123]

I don't think the article is reliable.  The same article declares he was archpriest of St Mary Major, something he could not have been without being a priest.  I think perhaps, given that he was elected on July 12 and died August 18, he was not formally enthroned. 

Yes, a few discrepancies.

The encyclopedia brittanica also says that Adrian V died before he was ordained a priest or consecrated.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/6517/Adrian-V
So that would be an example of a Roman Catholic Pope who was neither a priest nor a bishop?

 

[stanley123]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, 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."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

 

[prodromos]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, 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."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

It is a poor translation of what he wrote, for example, Rome is not the "most ancient church known to all", as other churches were established before Rome. Abbé Guettée gives a good analysis of the quote from the last paragraph of page 21 of the following. He does take a very polemic tone which is unfortunate, but it does not impact the validity of his analysis.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf

 

[stanley123]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, 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."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

It is a poor translation of what he wrote, for example, Rome is not the "most ancient church known to all", as other churches were established before Rome. Abbé Guettée gives a good analysis of the quote from the last paragraph of page 21 of the following. He does take a very polemic tone which is unfortunate, but it does not impact the validity of his analysis.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf

thanks for this reference. It is informative on several points. I guess that I will have to go to the original latin text and attempt to translate it myself to see exactly what is implied. Still, while not necessarily agreeing with everything he says, it is an interesting reference which needs to be studied.

 

[ialmisry]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, 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."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

I've said so several times.

Now I do believe that SS Peter and Paul (plural) established the episcopate at Rome, because that is what the Fathers and the consensus of Tradition and the Faithful teach, e.g. St. Irenaeus:

Since, however, 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

Note SS. Peter AND Paul:Ultramontanists like to gloss over that "and" part. Hence the quote you supplied (or rather your quote trawl) from St. Irenaeus "and he goes on to say" (3:3:4-3:4:1)"In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,— a man who was of much greater weight, and a more steadfast witness of truth, than Valentinus, and Marcion, and the rest of the heretics. He it was who, coming to Rome in the time of Anicetus caused many to turn away from the aforesaid heretics to the Church of God, proclaiming that he had received this one and sole truth from the apostles—that, namely, which is handed down by the Church. There are also those who heard from him that John, the disciple of the Lord, going to bathe at Ephesus, and perceiving Cerinthus within, rushed out of the bath-house without bathing, exclaiming, Let us fly, lest even the bath-house fall down, because Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within. And Polycarp himself replied to Marcion, who met him on one occasion, and said, Do you know me? I do know you, the first-born of Satan. Such was the horror which the apostles and their disciples had against holding even verbal communication with any corrupters of the truth; as Paul also says, A man that is an heretic, after the first and second admonition, reject; knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sins, being condemned of himself. Titus 3:10 There is also a very powerful Epistle of Polycarp written to the Philippians, from which those who choose to do so, and are anxious about their salvation, can learn the character of his faith, and the preaching of the truth. Then, again, the Church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the apostles.  Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?"

notice the plural "they [the Apostles] did commit the Churches?

The best analogy I've ever seen is this:
Quote
Here it is obvious that the faith was kept at Rome, by those who resort there from all quarters. She was a mirror of the Catholic World, owing here orthodoxy to them; not the Sun, dispensing her own light to others, but the glass bringing their rays into a focus.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.iv.html

I like it.  ;D

What do you think of the following portion of St. Irenaeus' letter.

For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [Rome], on account of its pre-eminent authority.

It seems that it goes against every ecumenical council's teaching, but St. Irenaeus was no slouch either.

Not against every Ecumenical Council. Just the Sixth.

But that's only in appearance.  On this passage:

I have seen you twist stuff in the past to support your positions.

We were together on CAF and you know that time and again the Orthodox were able to rebuff the patristic quotes given in support of the papal claims by demonstrating that the quotes were falsified, by being truncated, by having phrases and sentences removed, or simply by mistranslation.  One of the worst offenders in this regard are the quotes in the articles offered on the papacy by Catholic Answers.

The falsification of patristic quotes does nothing to advance Roman Catholic claims.  It shows that people are ready to use bad polemics and it calls into question the "scholarship" supporting the papacy claims.

The Latin translation of Iranaeus:
Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique conservata est ea quae est ab apostolis traditi

Their is the conjecture that the underlying Greek term was archaiotes, which is connected to the idea of being tied to a source. E.g.
http://books.google.com/books?id=PjmA_joIEmAC&pg=PA141&lpg=PA141&dq=potentior+principalitas+auctoritas&source=bl&ots=J49vfIGla_&sig=ge21ovzJ2OTd-0BGrRY4TrDPOjw&hl=en&ei=MrytSav0AcTAnQeElfi1Bg&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result

Hence the confusion between the translation "superior origin" or "superior authority," just underlining the problem, as I stated above about the faulty Latin translation on which we must try to figure out what St. Iranaeus said.  And of course, the problem with the Vatican interpretation is that a) St. Iranaeus explicitely couples the origin with St. Paul, not just St. Peter, b) Rome didn't have a superior origin to Antioch nor Jerusalem in this.  And Iranaeus explicitely speaks of taking recourse to the most ancient Churches.  In the West this was Rome, but in the East it was not.

Scribe of the kingdom: essays on theology and culture, Volume 1 By Aidan Nichols

I also believe in what St. Irenaeus wrote in support of the whold Church against Pope St. Victor, when the latter tried to exercise universal jurisdiction:

It seems like the answer to my OP is no. No such writings exist.

You do realize that asking for quotes like you do against Ultramontanis, you seem to be asking something akin to asking for quotes of the Fathers against Episcopalianism: it didn't exist in full bloom to be written against.

Mat. 13:24 Another parable he put before them, saying, "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field; 25 but while men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and went away. 26 So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. 27 And the servants of the householder came and said to him, 'Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then has it weeds?' 28 He said to them, 'An enemy has done this.' The servants said to him, 'Then do you want us to go and gather them?' 29 But he said, 'No; lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. 30 Let both grow together until the harvest; and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.'"

Until the weeds appear, the Fathers understanbly are silent.

Btw, on Polycrates:

Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate.  But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor...Thus Irenæus, who truly was well named, became a peacemaker in this matter, exhorting and negotiating in this way in behalf of the peace of the churches. And he conferred by letter about this mooted question, not only with Victor, but also with most of the other rulers of the churches.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf201.iii.x.xxv.html#iii.x.xxv-Page_243

Of course we believed with Rome when she professed the Orthodox Faith.  As for her present state:

When he was Orthodox. We still would "follow" him, if he followed the Fathers. Let him confess the Orthodox Faith, and he shall be first.

St. Symeon of Thessalonica (15th cent., after the sack of Constantinople) writes:

One should not contradict the Latins when they say that the Bishop of Rome is the first. This primacy is not harmful to the Church. Let them only prove his faithfulness to the faith of Peter and to that of the successors of Peter. If it is so, let him enjoy all the privileges of pontiff ... Let the Bishop of Rome be succesor of the orthodoxy of Sylvester and Agatho, of Leo, Liberius, Martin and Gregory, then we also will call him Apostolic and first among other bishops; then we also will obey him, not only as Peter, but as the Savior Himself
.....
Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): "nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne"...As to the supremacy, since we are not setting forth a treatise, let the same great Basil present the matter in a f'ew words, "I preferred to address myself to Him who is Head over them."..For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way... But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, "Peter has so spoken," or anything of like honor, but this also, "Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church."
http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx

 

[ialmisry]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, 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."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

It is a poor translation of what he wrote, for example, Rome is not the "most ancient church known to all", as other churches were established before Rome. Abbé Guettée gives a good analysis of the quote from the last paragraph of page 21 of the following. He does take a very polemic tone which is unfortunate, but it does not impact the validity of his analysis.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf

thanks for this reference. It is informative on several points. I guess that I will have to go to the original latin text and attempt to translate it myself to see exactly what is implied.

By St. Irenaeus, or the Latin translator?

 

[rakovsky]

Ialmisry,

You are making good points. It's the biggest danger, risk, and obstacle to reunion.

The RC church may be closer to Orthodoxy in theory than they are, but at least with protestants and Orientals you can agree to disagree.

With the RC church, their rules say everyone must accept the RC Pope on all matters of faith and must be his subject.

In purely logical terms, making a true agreement to reunite with Rome while it has these rules would apply the Ukrainian Catholic experience in America to everyone on a world scale: Moscow, Greece, Ukraine, Serbia, Jerusalem, Antioch, everyone.

Dialogue is good, ecumenism is good, worshiping together is good, circumstantial sharing of the Eucharist is good, but reunion, communion, unia, and union are impossible and destructive while the RC church has a rule or belief saying one must accept the RC pope on all matters of faith and be his subject.

 

[podkarpatska]

Ialmisry,

You are making good points. It's the biggest danger, risk, and obstacle to reunion.

The RC church may be closer to Orthodoxy in theory than they are, but at least with protestants and Orientals you can agree to disagree.

With the RC church, their rules say everyone must accept the RC Pope on all matters of faith and must be his subject.

In purely logical terms, making a true agreement to reunite with Rome while it has these rules would apply the Ukrainian Catholic experience in America to everyone on a world scale: Moscow, Greece, Ukraine, Serbia, Jerusalem, Antioch, everyone.

Dialogue is good, ecumenism is good, worshiping together is good, but reunion is impossible while the RC church has a rule or belief saying one must accept the RC pope on all matters of faith and be his subject.

You hit the nail on the head.  Even from the most optimistic and serious Orthodox participants in the Orthodox/Roman dialogue, you will get no disagreement.

Many of the theological and doctrinal differences among us can be reconciled through better understanding of each side's systemic
approach to theology, but the meaning of the primacy of the papacy is the big stumbling block and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

 

[rakovsky]

`

Many of the theological and doctrinal differences among us can be reconciled through better understanding of each side's systemic
approach to theology, but the meaning of the primacy of the papacy is the big stumbling block and is likely to remain so for the foreseeable future.

It's worse than a stumbling block. A stumbling block you can get around. Paul says that the prophecy that the Messiah would die and resurrect was a stumbling block to the Jews.

We cannot be the Orthodox church and agree to have union with Rome on its current terms unless we somehow would agree that the RC pope would be right about everything. We cannot be Orthodox and agree to have reunion with Rome unless we agree that the RC Pope is Orthodox!

What was the experience of ACROD 70 years ago when it was still under the RC Pope?

The RC pope has so much power. He was friends with the British Protestant government during the Irish revolts for independence, and he excommunicated the Irish Catholic revolutionaries because they were an underground and therefore "secret" organization.

That's ridiculous- it's like excommunicating secretive Allied people's-resistance groups in WWII or underground American revolutionaries who secretly put a warning lantern in Boston's church-tower.

Do you realize what that means? The Irish Catholic people wanted independence, the Pope sided with the British government and easily and arbitrarily excommunicated the patriots, and there was little for the Irish Catholic people to do about it but obey it as the supreme infallible word that no Patriarch could contradict. (And you complain about Metr. Phillip? LOL) Do you realize what that means about the RC church's internal ability to change its position on papal supremacy and what that means about the consequences of a reunion with its current supremacy rule?

The Pope has so much power and the Catholic church is so strong. Do you expect his millions of RC subjects to want to and be able to easily change his position on his supreme power over everyone?

If God wishes it, he will, but...

Look at the Latin "Patriarch" of Jerusalem that Rome has put there since the time of the RC Crusades. I think there was also talk of a Ukrainian Catholic patriarch in Ukraine recently.

What kind of power do the Latin "Patriarchs" of Kiev and Jerusalem have compared to Rome? They are his subjects, because that's what a true agreement and union with the RC Pope would mean with its rules about his supremacy in doctrines and obedience.

The C Church may be the closest to the O Church in many ways, it could have a valid Eucharist, grace, or many other things, but most of all, the papal supremacy rule has to go for unity.

The biggest urging for Orthodox in the ecumenical movement would be a realization of RC people, their faith, their struggles, their sufferings (like the Irish Catholics, Ukrainian Catholics, etc.) the positives in their tradition, their knowledge and learning.

The biggest danger for Orthodox, "pro-ecumenical" or "anti-ecumenical", that reunion presents, would be the danger of failing to realize that papal supremacy is the worst barrier.

Regards.

 

[podkarpatska]

I don't think we disagree. Perhaps you misunderstood my intent. Let me clarify.

I am unaware of any Orthodox member of a sanctioned, on-going dialogue group both here or in Europe, regardless of their level of enthusiasm for the process,  who espouses the model of 'Uniatism' (my apologies for using the word) as being ANY basis or foundation for continuing conversations with Rome. Quite the contrary. I don't believe that one could be Orthodox and take such a position. (Not withstanding my Christian love and understanding towards my Eastern Catholic friends and relatives.)

The use of 'stumbling block' as I intended was not to imply that we Orthodox would somehow be able to reconcile or accept the West's approach to the papacy as it existed in the 11th century and its 'refinement' to modern-day 'universality' as defined by the Roman Church in our era. Rather I meant it as it being an insurmountable obstacle to us.

In St. Paul's use of the term, it would be correct to state that Orthodox eccelisiology, representing the true and proper understanding of the Apostolic and Catholic Church, is the stumbling block to the Romans.

By the way, ACROD was not the only victim of Roman religious imperialism and hegemony in the United States. St. Alexis and his followers who formed the basis of the old Metropolia, now the OCA, were under the Pope in Minneapolis,Wilkes-Barre and elsewhere and suffered from the arrogance and ignorance of the Latin hierarchy, clergy and laity of that time.

 

[rakovsky]

We are writing more of eachother's ideas.

I want to emphasize the importance of the one specific point.

When I hear about dialgoue about reunion in the news, it makes me very happy. But it also brings the worry that those like me who are happy about that direction, and the rarer anti-ecumenists, would miss the forest(obstacle of papal supremacy) for the trees(obstacle individual important doctrines) or its mushrooms(obstacle of past persecution, patriotism/phyletism).


It seems that we must emphasize, discuss, and criticically analyze this point when considering the RC Pope, reunion, and when talking with our RC brothers, like you, Ialmisry, and others are.

 

[podkarpatska]

We are writing more of eachother's ideas.

I want to emphasize the importance of the one specific point.

When I hear about dialgoue about reunion in the news, it makes me very happy. But it also brings the worry that those like me who are happy about that direction, and the rarer anti-ecumenists, would miss the forest(obstacle of papal supremacy) for the trees(obstacle individual important doctrines) or its mushrooms(obstacle of past persecution, patriotism/phyletism).


It seems that we must emphasize, discuss, and criticically analyze this point when considering the RC Pope, reunion, and when talking with our RC brothers, like you, Ialmisry, and others are.

I think that the popular media tends to exaggerate any incremental progress that dialogue is making. Likewise, those within the religious media, both online and in print (Orthodox and RC), tend to spin such news in the direction of their own predispositions or hopes.

None of us can afford to lose sight of the forest for the trees and all that entails. As my mother always said, agreeing to disagree, without being disagreeable, is indeed the key to furthering the conversation.

 

[stanley123]

Can. 333 §1. By virtue of his office, the Roman Pontiff not only possesses power offer the universal Church but also obtains the primacy of ordinary power offer all particular churches and groups of them.  

I have seen where someone has interpreted this claim rather loosely so that it would not imply that the Pope would have power over the Orthodox Churches in the event of a reunion. But as it stands, I would think that it does present an obstacle to reunion of RC and EO since it might  imply, for example,  that the Pope has the power to change the Orthodox liturgy?
As far as the geographic location of the Vatican is concerned, aren't there various documents which indicate that Peter was martyred at Rome. And there is the testimony of  Irenaeus of Lyons in  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3):
"Since, however, 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."
etc.

But how is that determinative?  No Tradition states that an episcopal successor is determined where his predecessor died.

But St. Irenaeus lived in the second century and  is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church? Do you agree with what he wrote here?

It is a poor translation of what he wrote, for example, Rome is not the "most ancient church known to all", as other churches were established before Rome. Abbé Guettée gives a good analysis of the quote from the last paragraph of page 21 of the following. He does take a very polemic tone which is unfortunate, but it does not impact the validity of his analysis.

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/Guettee_ThePapacy.pdf

thanks for this reference. It is informative on several points. I guess that I will have to go to the original latin text and attempt to translate it myself to see exactly what is implied.

By St. Irenaeus, or the Latin translator?

According to the Roberts-Donaldson introduction, the latin version of the original Greek was written at the beginning of the third century. Of course, this is not a unanimous view as Dodwell says that the Latin verision was made at the end of the fourth century.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/info/irenaeus.html
Peter Kirby says that the Loeb classical library version with the original Greek and English translation is reliable.
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/irenaeus.html
The online translation of  Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter III, paragraphs 2–3)
is similar to what was given above. He says that a discussion of this passage and translation may be found in chap. xii. of Dr. Wordsworth’s St. Hippolytus and the Church of Rome.
"... tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority.."
The Latin text given of the last clause is, “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.”
According to the translator, " It is impossible to say with certainty of what words in the Greek original “potiorem principalitatem” may be the translation. ' But he was unable to think of anything better.

 

[ialmisry]

^

CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE:
SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF
CHRISTOPHER DAWSON

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

"TTie Catholic ChuidT," taken from chapter 2 of The Making of Europe (1932).

...The doctrine of St. Clement is characteristically Roman in its insistence on social
order and moral discipline, but it has much in common with the teaching of the
Pastoral Epistles, and there can be no doubt that it represents the traditional spirit
of the primitive Church. It was this spirit that saved Christianity from sinking in
the morass of oriental syncretism.

In his polemic against the Gnostics in the following century St. Irenaeus appeals
again and again to the social authority of the apostolic tradition against the wild
speculations of Eastern theosophy. "The true Gnosis is the teaching of the apostles
and the primitive constitution of the Church throughout the worid." And with him
also it is the Roman Church that is the centre of unity and the guarantee of
orthodox belief. [7]

7. "By its (the Roman Church's) tradition and by its faith announced to men, which
has been transmitted to us by the succession of bishops, we confound all those who
in any way by caprice or vainglory or by blindness and perversity of will gather
where they ought not. For to this Church, on account of its higher origin, it is
necessaiy that every Church, that is, the faithful from all sides, should resort, in
which the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved by those that are
from all parts" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, iii). The expression "propter
potentiorem principalitatem" which I have translated as "higher origin" is
somewhat disputed. It has often been translated as "more powerful headship" or as
"pre-eminent authority" (e.g., in the Ante-Nicene Libraiy translation. Vol. I, p.
261). I think there can be little doubt that principalitas = archaiotes and refers to
the origins of the see, as in the passage of Cyprian, Ep. LIX, 13 - "navigare audent
ad Petri cathedram etEcclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est,"
where "principalem" means the original or earliest church. It is the same argument
that Optatus and St. Augustine were to use against the Donatists, as in the lines:
Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede, et in ordine illo patrum quis cui
successit videte: ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae infernorum portae.
Psalmus c. partem Donat. 18.

http://www.archive.org/stream/ChristianityAndCultureSelectionsFromTheWritingsOfChristopherDawson_989/dawsonChristianityAndCulture-SelectionsFromChristopherDawson_djvu.txt

 

[ialmisry]

In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray's "Oxford Dictionary", s.v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s.v.) The provisions of his Constitution "Ubi Periculum" were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop's house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common. This room and another retired chamber, to which they might go freely, were to be so closed in that no one could go in or out unobserved, nor anyone from without speak secretly with any cardinal. And if anyone from without had aught to say, it must be on the business of the election and with the knowledge of all the cardinals present. No cardinal might send out any message, whether verbal or written, under pain of excommunication. There was to be a window through which food could be admitted. If after three days the cardinals did not arrive at a decision, they were to receive for the next five days only one dish at their noon and evening meals. If these five days elapsed without an election, only bread, wine, and water should be their fare. During the election they might receive nothing from the papal treasury, nor introduce any other business unless some urgent necessity arose imperilling the Church or its possessions. If any cardinal neglected to enter, or left the enclosure for any reason other than sickness, the election was to go on without him. But his health restored, he might re-enter the conclave and take up the business where he found it. The rulers of the city where the conclave was held should see to it that all the papal prescriptions concerning enclosure of the cardinals were observed. Those who disregarded the laws of the conclave or tampered with its liberty, besides incurring other punishments, were ipso facto excommunicated...As a matter of fact these precautions, taken in view of the danger of interference by secular governments, have so far been unnecessary, and elections of popes take place as they always did since the law of the conclave became finally effective. Many popes have legislated on this subject, either to confirm the actions of their predecessors or to define (or add to) previous legislation. Clement V decreed that the conclave must take place in the diocese in which the pope dies (Ne Romani, 1310) and also that all cardinals, whether excommunicated or interdicted, provided they were not deposed, should have the right to vote.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm

While on the surface this might strengthen the Vatican's claims, in fact it weakens it, as Rome is not a necessary element of the supreme pontiff, but merely where St. Peter happened to die.  This would seem to be conflict with this:

The Council of Constance (1417) modified the rules of the conclave to such an extent that the cardinals of the three "obediences" took part in it as well as six prelates from each of the five nations. This precedent (which however resulted happily in the election of the Roman, Martin V) is perhaps the reason why Julius II (1512), Paul III (1542), Pius IV (1561), and Pius IX (1870) provided that in case of their death during an ecumenical council the election of the new pope should be in the hands of the cardinals, not in those of the council.

the college of cardinals growing out of the local clergy of Rome.

 

[Shlomlokh]

Brother Isa,

Here is from Steve Ray's book the claim that I had mentioned a while back. It's in the footnotes,#32, but just as I presumed, has no backing from the Fathers, just Steve Ray's opinions mixed in with some historical information from Josephus.

In Christ,
Andrew

 

[stanley123]

^

CHRISTIANITY AND CULTURE:
SELECTIONS FROM THE WRITINGS OF
CHRISTOPHER DAWSON

THE CATHOLIC CHURCH

"TTie Catholic ChuidT," taken from chapter 2 of The Making of Europe (1932).

...The doctrine of St. Clement is characteristically Roman in its insistence on social
order and moral discipline, but it has much in common with the teaching of the
Pastoral Epistles, and there can be no doubt that it represents the traditional spirit
of the primitive Church. It was this spirit that saved Christianity from sinking in
the morass of oriental syncretism.

In his polemic against the Gnostics in the following century St. Irenaeus appeals
again and again to the social authority of the apostolic tradition against the wild
speculations of Eastern theosophy. "The true Gnosis is the teaching of the apostles
and the primitive constitution of the Church throughout the worid." And with him
also it is the Roman Church that is the centre of unity and the guarantee of
orthodox belief. [7]

7. "By its (the Roman Church's) tradition and by its faith announced to men, which
has been transmitted to us by the succession of bishops, we confound all those who
in any way by caprice or vainglory or by blindness and perversity of will gather
where they ought not. For to this Church, on account of its higher origin, it is
necessaiy that every Church, that is, the faithful from all sides, should resort, in
which the tradition from the Apostles has always been preserved by those that are
from all parts" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, III, iii). The expression "propter
potentiorem principalitatem" which I have translated as "higher origin" is
somewhat disputed. It has often been translated as "more powerful headship" or as
"pre-eminent authority" (e.g., in the Ante-Nicene Libraiy translation. Vol. I, p.
261). I think there can be little doubt that principalitas = archaiotes and refers to
the origins of the see, as in the passage of Cyprian, Ep. LIX, 13 - "navigare audent
ad Petri cathedram etEcclesiam principalem unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est,"
where "principalem" means the original or earliest church. It is the same argument
that Optatus and St. Augustine were to use against the Donatists, as in the lines:
Numerate sacerdotes vel ab ipsa Petri sede, et in ordine illo patrum quis cui
successit videte: ipsa est petra quam non vincunt superbae infernorum portae.
Psalmus c. partem Donat. 18.

http://www.archive.org/stream/ChristianityAndCultureSelectionsFromTheWritingsOfChristopherDawson_989/dawsonChristianityAndCulture-SelectionsFromChristopherDawson_djvu.txt

This is interesting, but how then do you propose to translate the following  Latin text: “Ad hanc enim ecclesiam propter potiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam.” Also, do you consider this to be a correct translation of the original Greek?

 

[Azurestone]

In 1271 the election that ended with the choice of Gregory X at Viterbo had lasted over two years and nine months when the local authorities, weary of the delay, shut up the cardinals within narrow limits and thus hastened the desired election (Raynald, Ann. Eccl., ad ad. 1271). The new pope endeavoured to obviate for the future such scandalous delay by the law of the conclave, which, almost in spite of the cardinals, he promulgated at the fifth session of the Second Council of Lyons in 1274 (Hefele, Hist. des Conciles, IX, 29). It is the first occasion on which we meet with the word conclave in connection with papal elections. (For its use in English literature see Murray's "Oxford Dictionary", s.v., and for its medieval use Du Cange, Glossar. med. et infimæ Latinitatis, s.v.) The provisions of his Constitution "Ubi Periculum" were stringent. When a pope died, the cardinals with him were to wait ten days for their absent brethren. Then, each with a single servant, lay or cleric, they were to assemble in the palace where the pope was at his death, or, if that were impossible, the nearest city not under interdict, in the bishop's house or some other suitable place. All were to assemble in one room (conclave), without partition or hanging, and live in common. This room and another retired chamber, to which they might go freely, were to be so closed in that no one could go in or out unobserved, nor anyone from without speak secretly with any cardinal. And if anyone from without had aught to say, it must be on the business of the election and with the knowledge of all the cardinals present. No cardinal might send out any message, whether verbal or written, under pain of excommunication. There was to be a window through which food could be admitted. If after three days the cardinals did not arrive at a decision, they were to receive for the next five days only one dish at their noon and evening meals. If these five days elapsed without an election, only bread, wine, and water should be their fare. During the election they might receive nothing from the papal treasury, nor introduce any other business unless some urgent necessity arose imperilling the Church or its possessions. If any cardinal neglected to enter, or left the enclosure for any reason other than sickness, the election was to go on without him. But his health restored, he might re-enter the conclave and take up the business where he found it. The rulers of the city where the conclave was held should see to it that all the papal prescriptions concerning enclosure of the cardinals were observed. Those who disregarded the laws of the conclave or tampered with its liberty, besides incurring other punishments, were ipso facto excommunicated...As a matter of fact these precautions, taken in view of the danger of interference by secular governments, have so far been unnecessary, and elections of popes take place as they always did since the law of the conclave became finally effective. Many popes have legislated on this subject, either to confirm the actions of their predecessors or to define (or add to) previous legislation. Clement V decreed that the conclave must take place in the diocese in which the pope dies (Ne Romani, 1310) and also that all cardinals, whether excommunicated or interdicted, provided they were not deposed, should have the right to vote.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04192a.htm

While on the surface this might strengthen the Vatican's claims, in fact it weakens it, as Rome is not a necessary element of the supreme pontiff, but merely where St. Peter happened to die.  This would seem to be conflict with this:

The Council of Constance (1417) modified the rules of the conclave to such an extent that the cardinals of the three "obediences" took part in it as well as six prelates from each of the five nations. This precedent (which however resulted happily in the election of the Roman, Martin V) is perhaps the reason why Julius II (1512), Paul III (1542), Pius IV (1561), and Pius IX (1870) provided that in case of their death during an ecumenical council the election of the new pope should be in the hands of the cardinals, not in those of the council.

the college of cardinals growing out of the local clergy of Rome.

I don't follow.

 

[Azurestone]

My point from the OP's reference is that the Primacy of Peter is not required to be in Rome. It may, and has (post-Schism) been moved. However, by tradition, it has been kept in Rome, not to mention Rome being the resting place of Peter's remains.

However, it was recognized that Rome, for a myriad of reasons (old Rome's position in the empire, St. Peter's last See, etc) would hold that succession as first of the Sees of Peter. It didn't move to a different city because of tradition. Rome was the seat of the Primate.

A couple of quote from Pope St. Leo I (Pope from 440-461) who recognized Peter as chief of the Apostles and the Pope's role to succeed him. Note, I am not arguing for that development of doctrine "papal infallibility".

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf212.pdf
From: Sermon II. - On his Birthday, II.:  Delivered on the Anniversary of his Consecration

Therefore, dearly-beloved, “magnify the LORD with me and let us exalt His name together,” that the whole reason of to-day’s concourse may be referred to the praise of Him Who brought it to pass.  For so far as my own feelings are concerned, I confess that I rejoice most over the devotion of you all; and when I look upon this splendid assemblage of my venerable brother-priests I feel that, where so many saints are gathered, the very angels are amongst us.  Nor do I doubt that we are  to-day  visited  by  a more  abundant  outpouring  of  the Divine Presence, when  so many  fair tabernacles of GOD, so many excellent members of the Body of Christ are in one place and shine with one light.  Nor yet I feel sure, is the fostering condescension and true love of the most blessed Apostle Peter absent from this congregation:  he has not deserted your devotion, in whose honour you are met together.  And so he too rejoices over your good feeling and welcomes your respect for the LORD'S own institution as shown towards the partners of His honour, commending the well ordered love of the whole Church, which ever finds Peter in Peter’s See, and from affection for so great a shepherd grows not lukewarm even over so inferior a successor as myself.  In order therefore, dearly beloved, that this loyalty which you unanimously display towards my humbleness may obtain the fruit of its zeal, on bended knee entreat the merciful goodness of our GOD that in our days He will drive out those who assail us, strengthen faith, increase love, increase peace and deign to render me His poor slave, whom to show the riches of His grace He has willed to stand at the helm of the Church, sufficient for so great a work and useful in building you up, and to this end to lengthen our time for service that the years He may grant us may be used to His glory through Christ our LORD.  Amen.

p. 230


On His Birthday, III:  Delivered on the Anniversary of his Elevation to the Pontificate.

II.  From Christ and through S. Peter the priesthood is handed on in perpetuity.

Although, therefore, dearly beloved, we be found both weak and slothful in fulfilling the duties of our office, because, whatever devoted and vigorous action we desire to do, we are hindered by the frailty of our very condition; yet having the unceasing propitiation of the Almighty and perpetual Priest, who being like us and yet equal with the Father, brought down His Godhead even to things human, and raised His Manhood even to things Divine, we worthily and piously rejoice over His dispensation, whereby, though He has delegated the care of His sheep to many shepherds, yet He has not Himself abandoned the guardianship of His beloved flock.  And from His overruling and eternal protection we have received the support of the Apostles’ aid also, which assuredly does not cease from its operation:  and the strength of the foundation, on which the whole superstructure of the Church  is reared,  is not weakened by  the weight of  the  temple  that rests upon  it.  For  the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual:  and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter. For when, as has been read in the Gospel lesson , the LORD had asked the disciples whom they believed Him to be amid the various opinions that were held, and the blessed Peter had replied, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living GOD,” the LORD says, “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona, because flesh and flood hath not revealed it to thee, but My Father, which is in heaven.  And I say to thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven.  And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.”

III.  S. Peter’s work is still carried out by his successors.

The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook.  For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified.  And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of GOD by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See.  For this, dearly-beloved, was gained by that confession, which, inspired in the Apostle’s heart by GOD the Father,  transcended all  the uncertainty of human opinions, and was endued with  the firmness of a rock, which no assaults could shake.  For  throughout  the Church Peter daily says, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living GOD,” and every tongue which confesses the LORD, accepts the instruction his voice conveys.  This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners.  It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it.  For with such solidity is it endued by GOD that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it.

p.231-233

Note: He also makes it clear that Matthew refers to Peter's faith, not Peter. BUT, it's not just the right faith, it's Peter's faith.

Why Constantinople is allowed to be second:

This letter, in full, is particularly insightful to the nature of the primacy.
Letter XCVIII. From the Synod of Chalcedon to Leo.

IV.  They announce their decision that Constantinople should take precedence next to Rome, and ask Leo’s consent to it. And we further inform you that we have decided on other things also for the good management and stability of church matters, being persuaded  that your holiness will accept and  ratify  them, when you are told.  The long prevailing custom, which the holy Church of GOD at Constantinople had of ordaining metropolitans for the provinces of Asia, Pontus and Thrace, we have now ratified by the votes of the Synod, not so much by way of conferring a privilege on the See of Constantinople as to provide for the good government of those cities, because of the frequent disorders that arise on the death of their bishops, both clergy and laity being then without a leader and disturbing church order.  And this has not escaped your holiness, particularly in the case of Ephesus, which has often caused you annoyance.  We have  ratified also  the canon of  the 150 holy Fathers who met at Constantinople in the time of the great Theodosius of holy memory, which ordains that after your most holy and Apostolic See, the See of Constantinople shall take precedence, being placed second: for we are persuaded that with your usual care for others you have often extended that Apostolic prestige which  belongs  to  you, to  the  church  in  Constantinople  also,  by  virtue  of  your  great disinterestedness  in sharing all your own good  things with your spiritual kinsfolk.  Accordingly vouchsafe most holy and blessed  father  to accept as your own wish, and as conducing  to good government  the  things  which  we  have  resolved  on  for  the  removal  of  all  confusion  and  the confirmation of church order.  ...

p.150

Letter CIV. Leo, the Bishop, to Marcian Augustus.

III.  The city of Constantinople, royal though it be, can never be raised to Apostolic rank. Let the city of Constantinople have, as we desire, its high rank, and under the protection of GOD'S right hand, long enjoy your clemency’s rule.  Yet things secular stand on a different basis from things divine:  and there can be no sure building save on that rock which the LORD has laid for a foundation.  He that covets what is not his due, loses what is his own.  Let it be enough for Anatolius  that by  the aid of your piety and by my  favour and approval he has obtained  the bishopric of so great a city.  Let him not disdain a city which is royal, though he cannot make it an Apostolic See; and let him on no account hope that he can rise by doing injury to others.  For the privileges of the churches determined by the canons of the holy Fathers, and fixed by the decrees of  the  Nicene  Synod,  cannot  be  overthrown  by  any  unscrupulous  act,  nor  disturbed  by  any innovation.  And in the faithful execution of this task by the aid of Christ I am bound to display an unflinching devotion; for it is a charge entrusted to me, and it tends to my condemnation if the rules sanctioned by the Fathers and drawn up under the guidance of GOD’S Spirit at the Synod of Nicæa for the government of the whole Church are violated with my connivance (which GOD forbid), and if the wishes of a single brother have more weight with me than the common good of the LORD'S whole house.

p.154

Position of the cities:

Letter CVI. To Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, in rebuke of his self-seeking.

...For I confess I am so fast bound by love of the whole brotherhood that I will not agree with any one in demands which are against his own interests, and thus you may clearly perceive that my opposition to you, beloved, proceeds from the kindly intention to restrain you from disturbing the universal Church by sounder counsel.  The rights of provincial primates may not be overthrown nor metropolitan bishops be defrauded of privileges based on antiquity.  The See of Alexandria may not lose any of that dignity which it merited through S. Mark, the evangelist and disciple of the blessed Peter, nor may  the splendour of so great a church be obscured by another’s clouds, Dioscorus having fallen through his persistence in impiety.  The church of Antioch too, in which first at the preaching of the blessed Apostle Peter the Christian name arose, must continue in the position assigned it by the Fathers, and being set in the third place must never be lowered therefrom. For the See is on a different footing to the holders of it; and each individual’s chief honour is his own integrity.  And since that does not lose its proper worth in any place, how much more glorious must it be when placed in the magnificence of the city of Constantinople, where many priests may find both a defence of the Fathers’ canons and an example of uprightness in observing you?

p.160-161

 

[Azurestone]

You know, I find it intriguing that the undivided Church split, in a manner of speaking, among the Apostolic Sees.

Rome > Roman Catholic
Alexandria > Oriental Orthodox
Antioch > Eastern Orthodox

 

[ialmisry]

You know, I find it intriguing that the undivided Church split, in a manner of speaking, among the Apostolic Sees.

Rome > Roman Catholic
Alexandria > Oriental Orthodox
Antioch > Eastern Orthodox

Jerusalem > Eastern Orthodox

 

[ialmisry]

Brother Isa,

Here is from Steve Ray's book the claim that I had mentioned a while back. It's in the footnotes,#32, but just as I presumed, has no backing from the Fathers, just Steve Ray's opinions mixed in with some historical information from Josephus.

In Christ,
Andrew

Yes. It seems he, like many others, are bringing their Protestant way of creating tradition into the Vatican, subject to all the problems of prooftexting:what significance would it be to take His disciples "into the Gentile districts" when Jesus and the Twelve were headquartered in "Galilee of the Gentiles"? (Mat. 4:15)

 

[Wyatt]

You know, I find it intriguing that the undivided Church split, in a manner of speaking, among the Apostolic Sees.

Rome > Roman Catholic
Alexandria > Oriental Orthodox
Antioch > Eastern Orthodox

I find that interesting as well. No doubt it must pain the Holy Apostles to see that their Successors are not in full communion with one another. We should pray daily for Christian unity.

 

[deusveritasest]

You know, I find it intriguing that the undivided Church split, in a manner of speaking, among the Apostolic Sees.

Rome > Roman Catholic
Alexandria > Oriental Orthodox
Antioch > Eastern Orthodox

My understanding was that the Patriarchate of Antioch historically has had much more of a balance of the two than Alexandria.

 

[Papist]

You know, I find it intriguing that the undivided Church split, in a manner of speaking, among the Apostolic Sees.

Rome > Roman Catholic
Alexandria > Oriental Orthodox
Antioch > Eastern Orthodox

I think the Catholic Church has something like three Patriarchs of Antioch. LOL

 

[ialmisry]

You know, I find it intriguing that the undivided Church split, in a manner of speaking, among the Apostolic Sees.

Rome > Roman Catholic
Alexandria > Oriental Orthodox
Antioch > Eastern Orthodox

I think the Catholic Church has something like three Patriarchs of Antioch. LOL

no, just one.

the Vatican is a different story.

 

[Papist]

You know, I find it intriguing that the undivided Church split, in a manner of speaking, among the Apostolic Sees.

Rome > Roman Catholic
Alexandria > Oriental Orthodox
Antioch > Eastern Orthodox

I think the Catholic Church has something like three Patriarchs of Antioch. LOL

no, just one.

the Vatican is a different story.

Once again you are confused. The picture you have posted, is of an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.
The Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch are Maronite, Melkite, and Syran. I am glad that I could clear that up for you.

 

[Papist]

Hey Isa, It's all good. when you guys decide you want to join the Catholic Church, we'll let you keep your Antiochian Patriarch.

 

[ialmisry]

Hey Isa, It's all good. when you guys decide you want to join the Catholic Church, we'll let you keep your Antiochian Patriarch.

You tried that with St. Meletius. Didn't work then, won't work now. We stuck, and will stick, with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[Papist]

Hey Isa, It's all good. when you guys decide you want to join the Catholic Church, we'll let you keep your Antiochian Patriarch.

You tried that with St. Meletius. Didn't work then, won't work now. We stuck, and will stick, with the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

Don't you mean that you stuck with and stick with the Eastern Orthodox Church? If you wanna join the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, we would be happy to have you, but then you would have to come into communion with Pope Benedict XVI we all know how  you feel all icky about that.

 

[ialmisry]

Once again you are confused. The picture you have posted, is of an Eastern Orthodox Patriarch.
The Catholic Patriarchs of Antioch are Maronite, Melkite, and Syran. I am glad that I could clear that up for you.

odd that your patriarchs come in the plural. That great font of unity at the Vatican at work again.

Ultramontaine suffragans of the Vatican's supreme pontiff aren't Catholic. We keep the Apostolic definiton of Patriarch St. Ignatius on these things.