The "Arabic" Canons of Nicaea being pro-Papist?

[Wandile]

Wandile curls up every night with his History of the Council of Florence published by TAN Books.

I love the work of Father Gill and it’s not a mistake that it’s the leading work on the council to this very day because unlike other works, it actually relies on all available sources and ironically (against charges of biased reading and sourcing) basis its reliance on the acts of Syropoulos over Bessarion’s in most instances where disputes arise between the two accounts.

 

[recent convert]

Well Bishop Kallistos Ware in his book: The Orthodox Church & Steven Runciman in his book: The Great ( Orthodox) Church in Captivity maintain that the unionist delegates at Florence did not have the support of most Orthodox Christians they supposedly represented.

Then what about a possible factor of the Avignon Paoacy?

 

[Wandile]

Well Bishop Kallistos Ware in his book: The Orthodox Church & Steven Runciman in his book: The Great ( Orthodox) Church in Captivity maintain that the unionist delegates at Florence did not have the support of most Orthodox Christians they supposedly represented.

Then what about a possible factor of the Avignon Paoacy?

Most of the EO delegates attending the council were anti-unionist initially including men like Bessarion. Ironically Mark was a unionist and felt that the the only issue to be solved was the filioque, not even papal authority was an issue to him. However we have deviated too much and are speaking about the Greeks instead of the Syriac tradition and the Arabic canons

 

[Samn!]

As regards the Syriac tradition, there's very little in favor of any special regard for Rome if you actually look at the sources rather than modern Roman polemical texts.

If you read French, I'd recommend taking a look at Raphaël Chaba, ''La Primauté de Pierre et du pape dans l’Église Syrienne orthodoxe'', Studia Orientalia Christiana, Collectanea 5 (1960): 183-214. If you forgive my translation, with regard to the types of texts you cited above, this is Chaba (a Syriac Catholic priest)'s assessment:

The documents have conserved certain professions of faith of some Jacobite patriarchs or bishops where they recognize the primacy of the Roman pontif. We cite the case of the patriarch Daoud al-Kaisoumi (1222-1252) and his Maphrian Youhanon ibn al-Ma'dani (1263), the message of the patriarch Behnem al-Hedli (1412-1465) to the Council of Florence, the visit to Rome by the patriarch Ni'matallah (1557-1576), another message by the patriarch Abdallah Stephen (1521-1557). But this information has been declared non-existent and falsified. This is why it is useless to discuss it further.

Conclusion- The impression produced by these pages is perhaps a disappointment: the Jacobites do not accept the primacy of the Roman pontifs over the entire church. [...]

In the article, Chaba presents all the evidence for Peter being given a privileged position in Syriac texts, but he points out that he is more often associated with Antioch than Rome. Chaba identifies the following models of primacy in the West Syriac tradition, citing a variety of examples for each:

1. Christ as the sole head.
2. The Patriarch of Antioch.
3. The Four Patriarchs
4. The entire priestly body.

 

[PorphyriosK]

As regards the Syriac tradition, there's very little in favor of any special regard for Rome if you actually look at the sources rather than modern Roman polemical texts.

If you read French, I'd recommend taking a look at Raphaël Chaba, ''La Primauté de Pierre et du pape dans l’Église Syrienne orthodoxe'', Studia Orientalia Christiana, Collectanea 5 (1960): 183-214. If you forgive my translation, with regard to the types of texts you cited above, this is Chaba (a Syriac Catholic priest)'s assessment:



In the article, Chaba presents all the evidence for Peter being given a privileged position in Syriac texts, but he points out that he is more often associated with Antioch than Rome. Chaba identifies the following models of primacy in the West Syriac tradition, citing a variety of examples for each:

1. Christ as the sole head.
2. The Patriarch of Antioch.
3. The Four Patriarchs
4. The entire priestly body.

Also strange that the great Syrian Father St. John of Damascus would write an entire treatise called An Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith with not a single mention of St. Peter, Rome, or the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Wandile]

Most of the EO delegates attending the council were anti-unionist initially including men like Bessarion. Ironically Mark was a unionist and felt that the the only issue to be solved was the filioque, not even papal authority was an issue to him. However we have deviated too much and are speaking about the Greeks instead of the Syriac tradition and the Arabic canons

As regards the Syriac tradition, there's very little in favor of any special regard for Rome if you actually look at the sources rather than modern Roman polemical texts.

If you read French, I'd recommend taking a look at Raphaël Chaba, ''La Primauté de Pierre et du pape dans l’Église Syrienne orthodoxe'', Studia Orientalia Christiana, Collectanea 5 (1960): 183-214. If you forgive my translation, with regard to the types of texts you cited above, this is Chaba (a Syriac Catholic priest)'s assessment:



In the article, Chaba presents all the evidence for Peter being given a privileged position in Syriac texts, but he points out that he is more often associated with Antioch than Rome. Chaba identifies the following models of primacy in the West Syriac tradition, citing a variety of examples for each:

1. Christ as the sole head.
2. The Patriarch of Antioch.
3. The Four Patriarchs
4. The entire priestly body.

I don’t know about the passages you’re mentioning here because they are not what I posted and the the book that has these quotations has numerous upon numerous other quotations of letters from different patriarchs and councils in the Syriac tradition that tie Petrine privileges to Rome.

Naturally, they are applied to the Syrian patriarchs after schism with Rome within their own communion. Till this day they still do. Remember the Syriac tradition is bigger than the syrian orthodox and Syrian catholic. It includes maronites, Indians and Assyrians.

 

[Wandile]

Also strange that the great Syrian Father St. John of Damascus would write an entire treatise called An Exact Exposition on the Orthodox Faith with not a single mention of St. Peter, Rome, or the Bishop of Rome.

That’s actually not strange at all. Matters of ecclesiology were not an issue until the late first millennium. Almost every major dispute concerning orthodox faith was Christological. Still St John’s exact exposition of faith is not literally an exact exposition of faith as many matters of faith are not discussed there.

 

[Wandile]

From the Syriac tradition again. Mar Abdisho of the Assyrian Church of the east (their last great theologian) in the 14th century:

“To the great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid in the grave there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs' (Memra; Risha 1).“

“... And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra9; Risha 8).

 

[Wandile]

 

[Dominika]

It is really not good quote in one apologetic texts that are falsificates and texts that are real but they are quoted out of context, e.g saints Peter and Paul in Antioch broad tradition are assosiated with Antioch plus smaller towns like charmful town Batroun in Lebanon.

 

[Samn!]

I don’t know about the passages you’re mentioning here because they are not what I posted and the the book that has these quotations has numerous upon numerous other quotations of letters from different patriarchs and councils in the Syriac tradition that tie Petrine privileges to Rome.

Naturally, they are applied to the Syrian patriarchs after schism with Rome within their own communion. Till this day they still do. Remember the Syriac tradition is bigger than the syrian orthodox and Syrian catholic. It includes maronites, Indians and Assyrians.

The book you're quoting from is extremely slopping with identifying its sources- for example, you can't simply refer to a Syriac Orthodox patriarch as "Ignatius", since from the 12th century on they all took that name as a title. It's simply not a trustworthy source either in terms of the texts it gives or their context.

In terms of other Syriac traditions, we don't really have any texts produced in India prior to the arrival of the Portuguese (a few manuscripts did manage to survive, but not of texts originally written locally), since the latter burned anything they could find. Likewise with the Maronites, apart from a handful of early Monothelete polemics, the only extensive texts we have from them prior to the arrival of missionaries from Rome are the Kitab al-Huda and the apology of Thomas of Kfartab. Neither has any particular interest in Rome and both are quite bent out of shape about the 6th ecumenical council.

 

[Samn!]

Then, in terms of the Church of the East, there's a tendency to either argue for a modified vision of the pentarchy or associate Peter with either Babylon (on a somewhat disingenuous reading of 1 Peter 5:13) or Antioch, or simply not be interested in these questions. Of the two East Syriac texts you quote above, Ibn al-Tayyib's Nomocanon has been critically edited and if I'm bored this week I'll take a look at what's going on there-- in context, the 11th century Church of the East obviously didn't believe in Roman primacy. The second quote is from a 17th/early 18th century Chaldean Catholic patriarch who obviously would've had that view of Rome, but it says nothing about authentic East Syriac traditions.

 

[PorphyriosK]

That’s actually not strange at all. Matters of ecclesiology were not an issue until the late first millennium. Almost every major dispute concerning orthodox faith was Christological. Still St John’s exact exposition of faith is not literally an exact exposition of faith as many matters of faith are not discussed there.

"Matters of ecclesiology" that are every bit as dogmatic and integral to the orthodox faith as Christology according to Rome.

 

[Samn!]

Yeah, the Exposition has room for chapters on astronomy, geology, human physiology, etc. Ecclesiology-- at least in terms of delineating the prerogatives of this see or that-- just wasn't a meaningful part of the faith. In general, in all the churches apart from Rome (and this is a point made in the article I mentioned above), there's no concept of dogma deriving from authority, but rather of authority being judged by the standard of true dogma. This is why in the Christological debates no one tries to argue that Chalcedon should be accepted because Rome endorsed it. Even when it comes to councils, there's no purely procedural understanding of what makes them valid. Which is frustrating for modern people, I guess, since we see all kinds of theories about what makes an ecumenical council binding, but for late antique and medieval people, at least outside of Rome, it always comes back to a discussion of whether they confirmed the faith once received.

 

[PorphyriosK]

Yeah, the Exposition has room for chapters on astronomy, geology, human physiology, etc. Ecclesiology-- at least in terms of delineating the prerogatives of this see or that-- just wasn't a meaningful part of the faith. In general, in all the churches apart from Rome (and this is a point made in the article I mentioned above), there's no concept of dogma deriving from authority, but rather of authority being judged by the standard of true dogma. This is why in the Christological debates no one tries to argue that Chalcedon should be accepted because Rome endorsed it. Even when it comes to councils, there's no purely procedural understanding of what makes them valid. Which is frustrating for modern people, I guess, since we see all kinds of theories about what makes an ecumenical council binding, but for late antique and medieval people, at least outside of Rome, it always comes back to a discussion of whether they confirmed the faith once received.

Excellent.

 

[Wandile]

It is really not good quote in one apologetic texts that are falsificates and texts that are real but they are quoted out of context, e.g saints Peter and Paul in Antioch broad tradition are assosiated with Antioch plus smaller towns like charmful town Batroun in Lebanon.

I think when they say Rome, they mean Rome. You can try wiggle your way out of this but man I hope your back won’t be aching after all that gymnastics you’ll have to perform.

"Matters of ecclesiology" that are every bit as dogmatic and integral to the orthodox faith as Christology according to Rome.

Dude even post-schism Roman manuals don’t always touch on ecclesiology. Whatever it touches on is based on what the author feels necessary for the readers he is writing for.

 

[Wandile]

Yeah, the Exposition has room for chapters on astronomy, geology, human physiology, etc. Ecclesiology-- at least in terms of delineating the prerogatives of this see or that-- just wasn't a meaningful part of the faith. In general, in all the churches apart from Rome (and this is a point made in the article I mentioned above), there's no concept of dogma deriving from authority, but rather of authority being judged by the standard of true dogma. This is why in the Christological debates no one tries to argue that Chalcedon should be accepted because Rome endorsed it. Even when it comes to councils, there's no purely procedural understanding of what makes them valid. Which is frustrating for modern people, I guess, since we see all kinds of theories about what makes an ecumenical council binding, but for late antique and medieval people, at least outside of Rome, it always comes back to a discussion of whether they confirmed the faith once received.

Yeah that’s actually not true. Roman acceptance was used as a means to reject the other as heretical that’s why even the Nestorians tried to claim Leo’s letter as their own proof of their orthodoxy. It’s the reason why St Leo’s letter was the benchmark for the dogmatic decree of the council which pretty much reissued his letter as its dogmatic decree in redacted form.

[Note: Please don’t even attempt to try bring up the small group of bishops who questioned the tome, as having read the acts, it’s clear the tome taken was orthodox on its face and after its acceptance a small of group of bishops questioned the tome because of language as they held strictly to the cyrlian use of “one” (Ironically St Cyril himself wasn’t even as strictly tied to the use of “one” as they were). The council showed how from a point of common ground, as both parties accepted Cyril from the third council, how the two saints taught the same doctrine despite using different words.]

At the third council almost every doctrinal and judgmental position was taken based on the wishes of Pope St Celestine and St Cyril put them into action. Heck, it’s because of the Roman traditions rejection of Pelagianism that the third council also rejected pelagianism.

 

[Wandile]

Then, in terms of the Church of the East, there's a tendency to either argue for a modified vision of the pentarchy or associate Peter with either Babylon (on a somewhat disingenuous reading of 1 Peter 5:13) or Antioch, or simply not be interested in these questions. Of the two East Syriac texts you quote above, Ibn al-Tayyib's Nomocanon has been critically edited and if I'm bored this week I'll take a look at what's going on there-- in context, the 11th century Church of the East obviously didn't believe in Roman primacy. The second quote is from a 17th/early 18th century Chaldean Catholic patriarch who obviously would've had that view of Rome, but it says nothing about authentic East Syriac traditions.

As regards Ibn Al-Tayyib, Benattibus... you need to show that the part quoted is actually edited/forged because even as late as the 14th century, Mar Abdisho, the great theologian of their church still teaches such sentiments and as early as the 6th century, in their own council in 588, they have similar sentiments again. This clear consistent tradition.

Actually the reason why I quoted the Chaldean patriarch was because by this time papal infallibility had not been even defined for another 2-3 centuries and yet here is an eastern prelate saying Rome cannot err. Remember around this time the union with Rome, though established was very fickle and subject to regular breaks of communion between the two Assyrian lines. The same was said by George the Hagiorite, a saint in the EO communion, who in about 1064 in front of the emperor and the eastern bishops rebuked Michael Cerularius for his stance against Rome and explicitly reminded him of the inerrancy of Rome.

 

[Wandile]

There is also the witness of the Syrian Chalcedonian Bishop Theodore Abu-Quarrah,who lived between the 8th and 9th century, when he wrote:

"You should understand that the head of the Apostles was St. Peter, to whom Christ said, ‘You are the rock; and on this rock I shall build my church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it.’ After his resurrection, he also said to him three times, while on the shore of the sea of Tiberius, ‘Simon, do you love me? Feed my lambs, rams and ewes.’ In another passage, he said to him, ‘Simon, Satan will ask to sift you like wheat, and I prayed that you not lose your faith; but you, at that time, have compassion on your brethren and strengthen them.’ Do you not see that St. Peter is the foundation of the church, selected to shepherd it, that those who believe in his faith will never lose their faith, and that he was ordered to have compassion on his brethren and to strengthen them? As for Christ’s words, ‘I have prayed for you, that you not lose your faith; but you, have compassion on your brethren, at that time, and strengthen them’, we do not think that he meant St. Peter himself. Rather, he meant nothing more than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, that is, Rome. Just as when he said to the apostles, ‘I am with you always, until the end of the age’, he did not mean just the apostles themselves, but also those who would be in charge of their seats and their flocks; in the same way, when he spoke his last words to St. Peter, ‘Have compassion, at that time, and strengthen your brethren; and your faith will not be lost’, he meant by this nothing other than the holders of his seat.

Yet another indication of this is the fact that among the apostles it was St. Peter alone who lost his faith and denied Christ, which Christ may have allowed to happen to Peter so as to teach us that it was not Peter that he meant by these words. Moreover, we know of no apostle who fell and needed St. Peter to strengthen him. If someone says that Christ meant by these words only St. Peter himself, this person causes the church to lack someone to strengthen it after the death of St. Peter. How could this happen, especially when we see all the sifting of the church that came from Satan after the apostles’ death? All of this indicates that Christ did not mean them by these words. Indeed, everyone knows that the heretics attacked the church only after the death of the apostles – Paul of Samosata, Arius, Macedonius, Eunomius, Sabelllius, Apollinaris, Origen, and others. If he meant by these words in the gospel only St. Peter, the church would have been deprived of comfort and would have had no one to deliver her from those heretics, whose heresies are truly ‘the gates of hell’, which Christ said would not overcome the church. Accordingly, there is no doubt that he meant by these words nothing other than the holders of the seat of St. Peter, who have continually strengthened their brethren and will not cease to do so as long as this present age lasts."​

In another tract of his:

“As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council, and to strengthen them, even as we have demonstrated in other places. We ask Christ to confirm us in this forever, that we might inherit through it his kingdom, in that we have joined with it the doing of his commandments. To him be praise, along with the Father and the Holy Spirit, forever and forever."(On the Death of Christ)

​

 

[PorphyriosK]

Wandile here frantically posting his bs again to cope with the release of yet another heretical Francis document.

So, just some more opinions by an ancient bishop about St. Peter as the Rock that we're supposed to be impressed by? Yeah, we can do that too:

“Peter and John were equal in dignity and honour. Christ is the foundation of all - the unshakable rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice. ~Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius.

"He (Peter) has not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.” ~Augustine, Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul.

“But observe how Peter does everything with common consent; nothing imperiiously.” ~John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12

“To all the apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says "As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you: " ~Cyprian, De Unitate 4.

“For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose... when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself unsolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held a primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.” ~Cyprian, Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of heretics.

“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops., nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.” ~(Cyprian's opening address to the Council of Carthage.

“… through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the church is founded upon the bishops and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this then is founded on the divine law,I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church.” ~Cyprian to the Lapsed, Epistle XXVI.

Fathers who thought of the rock as Peter: 17
Fathers who thought it referred to Peter's confession: 44
Fathers who thought Christ was the rock: 16
Fathers who thought the rock was all the apostles: 8
Conclusion: 80% of the Fathers did not recognize Peter as the rock.

* ^^ taken from a survey of the Fathers compiled by RC scholar Jean de Launoy

Yet Vatican I insists Peter as the Rock is the only interpretation ever held by the Church and anathematizes all the Fathers I just quoted above:

"To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema."

- Vatican I, Session 4

I have no doubt your parishes in Africa are bastions of RC orthodoxy, but whatever traditional RC expressions they are managing to retain is in spite of Rome, not because of it. Still, if you need to come here to keep cope-posting, we'll be here for you bro.

 

[Samn!]

Yeah that’s actually not true. Roman acceptance was used as a means to reject the other as heretical that’s why even the Nestorians tried to claim Leo’s letter as their own proof of their orthodoxy. It’s the reason why St Leo’s letter was the benchmark for the dogmatic decree of the council which pretty much reissued his letter as its dogmatic decree in redacted form.

[Note: Please don’t even attempt to try bring up the small group of bishops who questioned the tome, as having read the acts, it’s clear the tome taken was orthodox on its face and after its acceptance a small of group of bishops questioned the tome because of language as they held strictly to the cyrlian use of “one” (Ironically St Cyril himself wasn’t even as strictly tied to the use of “one” as they were). The council showed how from a point of common ground, as both parties accepted Cyril from the third council, how the two saints taught the same doctrine despite using different words.]

At the third council almost every doctrinal and judgmental position was taken based on the wishes of Pope St Celestine and St Cyril put them into action. Heck, it’s because of the Roman traditions rejection of Pelagianism that the third council also rejected pelagianism.

The Tome was accepted on the basis of its compatibility with Cyril's Christology, as the acts of Chalcedon make clear. It's then basically memory-holed in Eastern Christological discourse in favor of Cyril's anathemas and then the 5th council, which Rome was uh... not enthusiastic about.

Abu Qurra's statements about Rome are interesting, but they're recognized as being outliers. His Arabic works aren't critically edited and lots of manuscripts have rather different material in these passages. Lamoreaux, whose translation is the closest we currently have to a text-critical reading based on multiple manuscripts, argues (probably correctly) that the material about Rome is original, but that it's a sign of Abu Qurra's polemical creativity, since it's an entirely novel argument in Christological polemic. I've read more Arabic and Syriac Christological texts than really is healthy, and the only other one I'm aware of that makes a sustained argument ecclesiology is an unpublished 10th century text, probably also from Northern Syria, that has a rather different take as Abu Qurra- that is, any issue where one patriarchate is in the wrong, it's clear who's in the wrong. The argument being that Rome's error in the filioque was just as obvious as Dioscorus' about Chalcedon.

In terms of Ibn al-Tayyib, he obviously didn't believe that Rome had any particular authority about doctrine, what with his not accepting any council from Ephesus on.

The point is that you can't cherry-pick poorly translated, uncontextualized quotes randomly strung together and expect people to take you seriously. If people actually thought of the papacy like you think they did, the entire picture of Church history would be different. But if you're familiar with the life of the Church in the Eastern Mediterranean and further afield prior to the Crusades, Rome just wasn't that big a deal to anyone besides Constantinople (which was for obvious, and unfortunate, reasons of power-politics).

 

[Mor Ephrem]

I think when they say Rome, they mean Rome.

Rome or “Eternal Rome”?

 

[Mor Ephrem]

Wandile here frantically posting his bs again to cope with the release of yet another heretical Francis document.

LOL

 

[Alpo2]

Fathers who thought of the rock as Peter: 17
Fathers who thought it referred to Peter's confession: 44
Fathers who thought Christ was the rock: 16
Fathers who thought the rock was all the apostles: 8
Conclusion: 80% of the Fathers did not recognize Peter as the rock.

* ^^ taken from a survey of the Fathers compiled by RC scholar Jean de Launoy

Yet Vatican I insists Peter as the Rock is the only interpretation ever held by the Church and anathematizes all the Fathers I just quoted above:

In this case the Church seems to agree with Vatican I:

Kontakion — Tone 2
Today Christ the Rock glorifies with highest honor / the rock of Faith and leader of the Apostles, / together with Paul and the company of the Twelve, / whose memory we celebrate with eagerness of faith, / giving glory to Him Who glorified them!

The Holy Glorious and All-Praised Leaders of the Apostles, Peter and Paul - Troparion & Kontakion

Sermon of Saint Augustine, Bishop of Hippo Today the Holy Church piously remembers the sufferings of the Holy Glorious and All-Praised Apostles Peter and Paul. Saint Peter, the fervent follower of Jesus Christ, for the profound confession of His Divinity: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of…

www.oca.org

I don't understand why people seem to make an issue of this. Peter is the Rock but that doesn't imply infallability, universal jurisdiction etc. Papacy as presented by RCs is still a heresy.

 

[PorphyriosK]

In this case the Church seems to agree with Vatican I:

I guess someone better inform our hierarchs as soon as possible!

But seriously, read it again: Vatican I anathematizes the Fathers I quoted above for saying things like all the Apostles were given equal power, Peter had a primacy of honor only, etc.
So in what way is the Church in agreement with the Vatican I definition above?

I don't understand why people seem to make an issue of this. Peter is the Rock but that doesn't imply infallability, universal jurisdiction etc.

I'm not the one making a big issue of it, Rome is.

Papacy as presented by RCs is still a heresy

Yes indeed. So why are you and I debating again?

 

[brlon]

Synaxis of the Twelve Holy Apostles - Kontakion Tone 2: Today Christ the Rock glorifies with highest honour the rock of Faith and leader of the Apostles, together with Paul and the company of the Twelve whose memory we celebrate with eagerness of faith, giving glory to Him Who glorified them.

This kontakion does not support any Vatican I claim for supremacy of the successor of the Apostle Peter but rather the exact opposite - Christ honours Peter together with Paul and the company of the Twelve.

 

[PorphyriosK]

“As for us, through the grace of the Holy Spirit, our sole goal is to build ourselves on the foundation of St. Peter, he who directed the six holy councils. These councils were gathered by command of the Bishop of Rome, the city of the world. Whoever sits on that city’s throne is authorized by Christ to have compassion on the people of the church, by summoning the ecumenical council

Someone should've also informed the good bishop that it was the Emperors who summoned all those Councils, not the Bishop of Rome. The notion that a 9th century Syrian bishop would be unaware of this fact makes these tracts even more suspicious.

 

[Alpo2]

So in what way is the Church in agreement with the Vatican I definition above?

IMO this one:

Vatican I insists Peter as the Rock

So why are you and I debating again?

Nah, not debating. Just saying that there's no need to disagree with RCs on this.

 

[Alpo2]

This kontakion does not support any Vatican I claim for supremacy of the successor of the Apostle Peter but rather the exact opposite - Christ honours Peter together with Paul and the company of the Twelve.

Admittedly English is not my native language but anyway how many leaders the apostles have? Two? Twelve? Either doesn't seem to make much sense.

I agree though that it doesn't say anything about successor of Peter. There's no "Peterhood" to be inherited and even if there was Antioch would have as much claim for it as Rome.

 

[Samn!]

It seems to me that that troparion plays with the multiple interpretations of "the Rock" found among the fathers... so it has the rock being Christ, the faith and Peter all at once. Because really, if we hold to tradition, all of these are valid and not mutually exclusive. The development of the ideological (and ultimately, purely political) notion that Peter = Rome and that there is some kind of Petrine succession has been traced by historians ad nauseam.

In terrms of "how many leaders do the apostles have?", scripture is kind of ambiguous. The Lord obviously wasn't keen on any apostle claiming or seeking leadership. I don't think it can at all be denied that Peter had a leadership role, but so did John, James and Paul. There's not really a good scriptural example of Peter successfully leading the other apostles, which is telling. In any case, Peter was open to being corrected when that was necessary and did not preside at the Council of Jerusalem.

 

[PorphyriosK]

IMO this one:





Nah, not debating. Just saying that there's no need to disagree with RCs on this.

It's cool, I think you may have just misunderstood me. There is obviously no issue with Peter being the Rock and there is no disagreement with that title in itself. It's just not the only legit interpretation and was in fact a minority view among the Fathers. Vatican I claims it as the only legitimate view and anathematizes all other views. That's what we disagree with, that's all.

 

[Alpo2]

^Fair enough. I guess I read too much into your comments. Sorry about that.

 

[noahzarc1]

Wandile here frantically posting his bs again to cope with the release of yet another heretical Francis document.

So, just some more opinions by an ancient bishop about St. Peter as the Rock that we're supposed to be impressed by? Yeah, we can do that too:

“Peter and John were equal in dignity and honour. Christ is the foundation of all - the unshakable rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice. ~Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius.

"He (Peter) has not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.” ~Augustine, Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul.

“But observe how Peter does everything with common consent; nothing imperiiously.” ~John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12

“To all the apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says "As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you: " ~Cyprian, De Unitate 4.

“For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose... when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself unsolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held a primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.” ~Cyprian, Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of heretics.

“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops., nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.” ~(Cyprian's opening address to the Council of Carthage.

“… through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the church is founded upon the bishops and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this then is founded on the divine law,I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church.” ~Cyprian to the Lapsed, Epistle XXVI.

Fathers who thought of the rock as Peter: 17
Fathers who thought it referred to Peter's confession: 44
Fathers who thought Christ was the rock: 16
Fathers who thought the rock was all the apostles: 8
Conclusion: 80% of the Fathers did not recognize Peter as the rock.

* ^^ taken from a survey of the Fathers compiled by RC scholar Jean de Launoy

Yet Vatican I insists Peter as the Rock is the only interpretation ever held by the Church and anathematizes all the Fathers I just quoted above:

"To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema."

- Vatican I, Session 4

I have no doubt your parishes in Africa are bastions of RC orthodoxy, but whatever traditional RC expressions they are managing to retain is in spite of Rome, not because of it. Still, if you need to come here to keep cope-posting, we'll be here for you bro.

Brother I do not think it is correct to say Vatican I "anathematizes all the Fathers" because as you cited the issued had been discussed and differing opinions abounded. Up until that point of Vatican I there had been several opinions on the matter. The anathema would apply to those after the decree of the Vatican I council. It is not a retroactive anathema.

 

[PorphyriosK]

^Fair enough. I guess I read too much into your comments. Sorry about that.

No need to apologize brother. God bless.

 

[PorphyriosK]

Brother I do not think it is correct to say Vatican I "anathematizes all the Fathers" because as you cited the issued had been discussed and differing opinions abounded. Up until that point of Vatican I there had been several opinions on the matter. The anathema would apply to those after the decree of the Vatican I council. It is not a retroactive anathema.

Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part Noah.

It anathematizes the opinions held by all but a minority of the Fathers, while not anathematizing any of them personally.

Good to see you.

 

[noahzarc1]

Perhaps a poor choice of words on my part Noah.

It anathematizes the opinions held by all but a minority of the Fathers, while not anathematizing any of them personally.

Good to see you.

I see so you're saying if one today holds to what one finds to be the majority of the Fathers on this issue they are anathematized, while what is seen as the minority opinion, if held today, is determined to be the correct one?

I just want it to be clear, no one prior to Vatican I is anathematized. However, I can see how you are saying holding to the opinion of a certain father (or fathers) if that opinion does not seem to align with Vatican I (or vice-versa) then technically that "Father is anathematized." I can see that but it would be a discussion far outside this thread.

Good to see you too Brother!

 

[PorphyriosK]

I see so you're saying if one today holds to what one finds to be the majority of the Fathers on this issue they are anathematized, while what is seen as the minority opinion, if held today, is determined to be the correct one?

I just want it to be clear, no one prior to Vatican I is anathematized. However, I can see how you are saying holding to the opinion of a certain father (or fathers) if that opinion does not seem to align with Vatican I (or vice-versa) then technically that "Father is anathematized." I can see that but it would be a discussion far outside this thread.

Good to see you too Brother!

I suppose it really comes down to the differences in understanding about what constitutes dogma. Orthodoxy believes the Faith was perfectly defined once and for all time in our unchangeable Creed. The Creed was considered a perfect summation, containing every dogma necessary for salvation, and was never to be touched or tampered with under pain of anathema. All the beliefs it outlined were handed down from the time of the Apostles and received and made clear by the Fathers. So the notion that 1800+ years after the Apostolic Age, one See of Christendom would believe itself able to unilaterally define a dogma (a dogma defining its own powers no less) seems absurd and foreign to the Orthodox ethos.

My question would be: Since dogmas are fundamental truths of the Faith, believed and handed down from the time of the Apostles, how can "matters of ecclesiology" which (as Wandile noted) were never widely discussed until late in the first millennium, be considered dogmatic?

 

[noahzarc1]

I suppose it really comes down to the differences in understanding about what constitutes dogma. Orthodoxy believes the Faith was perfectly defined once and for all time in our unchangeable Creed. The Creed was considered a perfect summation, containing every dogma necessary for salvation, and was never to be touched or tampered with under pain of anathema. All the beliefs it outlined were handed down from the time of the Apostles and received and made clear by the Fathers. So the notion that 1800+ years after the Apostolic Age, one See of Christendom would believe itself able to unilaterally define a dogma (a dogma defining its own powers no less) seems absurd and foreign to the Orthodox ethos.

The gospels contain every necessary dogma for salvation. However, the earliest Christians who died before they were completed were not lacking in salvation as they believed in the orally proclaimed message about Christ. I am not sure if you're referring to Nicaea or Constantinople, but Constantinople modified the creed from Nicaea (without there being a pain of anathema.) Which creed are you referring to that was never to be touched or tampered with under pain of anathema? If it was the Nicene creed, then it was "tampered with" and those fathers are "anathematized." If it is the creed emanating from Constantinople, then it seems the argument would be that once it was "cleaned up and clarified" it was not to be touched under pain of anathema. I do not want to put words in your mouth. However, it then appears you would be arguing for the very thing you're arguing against what you claim Rome did at Vatican I.

I just think this is where it can get tricky when we as layman claim there are anathemas when there are not or claim something was dogmatic if it was never declared to be so. I'm afraid the laity is often left fighting over the things we best let the authorities and clergy settle out.

My question would be: Since dogmas are fundamental truths of the Faith, believed and handed down from the time of the Apostles, how can "matters of ecclesiology" which (as Wandile noted) were never widely discussed until late in the first millennium, be considered dogmatic?

I do not know if you have kids brother. But I look at it this way. On the day a child is born, the parents have all the authority they will ever need over that child. They do not obtain new levels of authority over the child as the child gets older. Instead, what happens? The parents gradually have to make the child aware of the authority of the parents have. No parent would accept from a 17 year old teenager the explanation on a matter, "well mom and dad you did not explain this to me when I was 4 and therefore you have no authority to say it now. You're making up new authority as you go along." Instead, the parents had the authority when the child was born. What they make known to the child at 17 that they did not previously explain to them when they were 4 or 10 or 13 in no way diminishes the standing or authority of that parent when they use the authority over that child at 17.

So how can "matters of ecclesiology" which were never widely discussed until late in the first millennium, be considered dogmatic? This is akin to asking how it can be dogmatic the Church could decide Gentile Christians would not have to be circumcised as they did not discuss it until late into the middle of the first decade of the millennium. God told the Jews time and again the Gentiles would find salvation. Even if someone debunks that, the gospels are clear in John what Jesus did with the salvation of the woman at the well. Could not one claim "surely Jesus should've told the apostles then the Gentiles should forego circumcision." Instead, Jesus gave the authority to Peter who made that decision much later when the dispute arose in Acts 15. The Roman Catholic has no problem with seeing a Pope late in the first century having the same authority Peter had in Acts 15. (Sorry I've not read all you and Wandile discussed here.)

God Bless brother I always enjoy talking with you on these matters. I certainly don't know what Wandile knows.

 

[PorphyriosK]

I'm just presenting to you the Orthodox view of dogma vs the Roman view. Dogmas are expressions of eternal and theological truths. They do not concern things like church governance or circumcision. "Circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing, but the keeping of the Commandments of God."

When we say "Nicene Creed", it is simply shorthand for "Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed". Easier to just say "Nicene". The finalized version is what was determined to be a perfect statement of Faith and was formally established into the Liturgy.

I'm not sure I'm following your parents and children analogy, but I'm sure the problem is on my end, not yours. It's late.

God bless you too.

 

[Wandile]

Wandile here frantically posting his bs again to cope with the release of yet another heretical Francis document.

So, just some more opinions by an ancient bishop about St. Peter as the Rock that we're supposed to be impressed by? Yeah, we can do that too:

“Peter and John were equal in dignity and honour. Christ is the foundation of all - the unshakable rock upon which we are all built as a spiritual edifice. ~Cyril of Alexandria to Nestorius.

"He (Peter) has not the primacy over the disciples but among the disciples. His primacy among the disciples was the same as that of Stephen among the deacons.” ~Augustine, Sermon 10 on Peter and Paul.

“But observe how Peter does everything with common consent; nothing imperiiously.” ~John Chrysostom, Homily III on Acts 1:12

“To all the apostles after His resurrection He gives equal power (parem potestatem) and says "As the Father hath sent me, even so I send you: " ~Cyprian, De Unitate 4.

“For neither did Peter, whom first the Lord chose... when Paul disputed with him afterwards about the circumcision, claim anything to himself unsolently, nor arrogantly assume anything, so as to say that he held a primacy, and that he ought to be obeyed by novices and those lately come.” ~Cyprian, Epistle LXX concerning the baptism of heretics.

“In the administration of the Church each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops., nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power; as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another.” ~(Cyprian's opening address to the Council of Carthage.

“… through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the church is founded upon the bishops and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers. Since this then is founded on the divine law,I marvel that some, with daring temerity, have chosen to write to me as if they wrote in the name of the Church.” ~Cyprian to the Lapsed, Epistle XXVI.

Fathers who thought of the rock as Peter: 17
Fathers who thought it referred to Peter's confession: 44
Fathers who thought Christ was the rock: 16
Fathers who thought the rock was all the apostles: 8
Conclusion: 80% of the Fathers did not recognize Peter as the rock.

* ^^ taken from a survey of the Fathers compiled by RC scholar Jean de Launoy

Yet Vatican I insists Peter as the Rock is the only interpretation ever held by the Church and anathematizes all the Fathers I just quoted above:

"To this absolutely manifest teaching of the sacred scriptures, as it has always been understood by the catholic church, are clearly opposed the distorted opinions of those who misrepresent the form of government which Christ the lord established in his church and deny that Peter, in preference to the rest of the apostles, taken singly or collectively, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction.

The same may be said of those who assert that this primacy was not conferred immediately and directly on blessed Peter himself, but rather on the church, and that it was through the church that it was transmitted to him in his capacity as her minister.

Therefore, if anyone says that blessed Peter the apostle was not appointed by Christ the lord as prince of all the apostles and visible head of the whole church militant; or that it was a primacy of honour only and not one of true and proper jurisdiction that he directly and immediately received from our lord Jesus Christ himself: let him be anathema."

- Vatican I, Session 4

I have no doubt your parishes in Africa are bastions of RC orthodoxy, but whatever traditional RC expressions they are managing to retain is in spite of Rome, not because of it. Still, if you need to come here to keep cope-posting, we'll be here for you bro.

Francis’ new encyclical surprisingly was very orthodox and solid and could have been written by St Basil himself. It’s actually very good. After all the noise, I went and read it and ironically almost everyone I know shares the same sentiments. Rad trads and sedes are the only ones having panic and misquoting the encyclical (You can tell most of them didn’t actually read it in full). I’m actually happy with the encyclical.

As to the rest of what you said, the point is to show the Syriac tradition towards Peter and his links towards Rome. So you’re kind of missing the mark here.