|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 3:27:17 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Hi Walterquez,
You seem to be interrogating me, since you don't respond to my questions or arguments but keep asking questions.
But it is obvious to me that both East and West share the same belief as the Trinity, and that I can't leave the Chair of Peter, as Augustine and the fathers called the Prime Ministry.
In point of fact, Gregory the Great said that the Successor of Peter has authority over all other Bishops and was holding, e.g., that the Pope has the authority to annul conciliar decrees, and that Constaintinope is subject to the Roman Church
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num7.htm
E.g. he writes:
"As regards the Church of Constantinople, who can doubt that it is subject to the Apostolic See? Why, both our most religious Lord the Emperor and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople continually acknowledge it" (Epistles 9:26).
He said that he was Successor of Peter, the Chief of the Apostles, and called Rome,
"the Apostolic See, which is the head of all other churches" (Epistles 13:1).
(BTW, Gregory is recognized as a Saint by the EO, and celebrated in the Byzantine Liturgy)
It sounds to me like Gregory rejected the title of "Universal Bishop"--even while saying that all the Churches are subject to him--because its connotation was to deny the immediate authority of all Successors of the Apostles (i.e. the Bishops), which the Papacy has always upheld.
As I understand it, John the Faster--the Patriarch of Constantinople--tried to call himself "Universal Bishop" and "the only Bishop". it was for that reason that Pope Gregory excommunicated him.
(see the above link)
As to Augustine, I know he held that the rock against which the gates of hell will not prevail is the Succession of the Roman Church.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm
.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/7/2010 5:44:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 5:33:31 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 2195
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
I know this is tacking in a different direction, but it would help me to understand the differences more...
Okay, fine then. I am ready to renounce Rome and head East. What does the Eastern Orthodox require of a Roman Catholic to come into full communion with the Eastern Church?
Baptism should be valid. Participation in the Eucharist...ahh, maybe enough common understanding to validly say "amen" to this in the Eastern Church, understanding the primacy of "not Rome"....Confirmation...maybe has to be re-done...???
What about it? What Sacraments that may have been received or been prepared for in the Latin Church might or might not be valid in the Eastern Church? Why or why not?
When you get the chance...
_____________________________
Do we honestly believe that the firefighter, who gave up his life on Sept. 11, 2001 on his 10th trip back into WTC Tower 1, saving civilians...is eternally separated from God, just because he never set foot in a Church, or cracked open a Bible?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 8:47:15 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1742
Status: offline
|
Please forgive me patricius, too much was said and I would like to keep it as simple as possible so I can follow it. I found several quotes against the supremacy of the papacy, and if you don't mind, can you explain why Augustine, Ambrose, and Pope Gregory spoke against it? Even Origen did too.
_____________________________
St. Athanasios the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 8:57:39 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Hi Walter,
2976 answres your question about Gregory the Great.
As to Ambrose, he said the Church is built on Peter, who was set over the Church, so that wherever Peter is, there is the Church.
The Augustine quotation says nothing against this. Augustine stated that the Church is built on Peter.
The general patristic view--as I understand it--was that the Church is built on Peter, on Christ (above all, of course), on Peter's confession, on the confession of Jesus as the Christ, the Son of the Living God.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/rock.htm
The primary sense of Mt 16:18 is clearly the Church being built on Peter, although all these other senses are harmonious and legitimate.
To my knowledge, there is no strain in the fathers saying that the Church is not built on Peter, or that Peter was equal to the other fathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 9:04:29 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Ambrose did say that Peter's primacy is not one of honor, which superficially conflicts with the EO view, and that his primacy was not one of rank, which superficially conflicts with the Catholic view.
But there is no question that the fathers' consensus was that Peter was the Chief Apostle.
Ambrose also said that agreeing with the Catholic Bishops meant agreeing with the Roman Church, and similar:
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 9:18:06 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello walterquez
I understand your wanting to keep it as simple as possible, I will wait my turn.
1 Corinthians 14:33 and 40
Orderly Worship
33For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.
40 But all things should be done decently and in order.
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 9:20:56 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Likewise, one finds St. Sophronius and other Eastern fathers testifying that the foundations of the Orthodox doctrine are at Rome, that Peter succeeded to the role of Moses--as St. Macarius says-- that he alone was given the keys, etc
http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
So in summary: I'm no scholar and I don't hvae all the scholarly answers.
But there is no question that the Catholic position on the Papacy--as with the Filioque--is well-supported by both Eastern and Western fathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 9:32:23 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Here is more evidence that the Church is built on Peter, from Origin, Cyprian, etc:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
e.g. this site quotes Cyprian, who refers to Rome--as did the fathers--as the Chair of Peter.
"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).
As I recall, the EO scholar Meyendorff confirms that Cyprian saw the Roman Church as the root and matrix of priestly unity.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 9:35:46 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
BTW, the last link I gave shows how the Ecumencial Council of Chalcedon said that Peter is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church. This Council also called Pope Leo their "head".
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 10:28:03 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
As to Ambrose, he said the Church is built on Peter, who was set over the Church, so that wherever Peter is, there is the Church.
St. Ignatius referring to "local" Bishops, and not Peter alone, wrote, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
The Augustine quotation says nothing against this. Augustine stated that the Church is built on Peter.
Not so; Augustine said the Church is built upon Jesus Christ, "not" Peter.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf106.vii.xxviii.html
Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. “Therefore,” he saith, “Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock” which thou hast confessed, upon this Rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;” that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, “will I build My Church.” I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon thee.
_____________________________
St. Athanasios the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 10:41:58 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
I understand your wanting to keep it as simple as possible, I will wait my turn.
1 Corinthians 14:33 and 40 I really appreciate this a lot. So much has been said, and it makes it very hard to keep up. And aside from this, we all have a real life outside these forums with responsibilities to be more concerned with.
If all of us can keep the questions short and simple, it makes it easier, at least for me, to give an answer. In the past, I have purposely picked and chose certain parts of other posters very long reading to respond. It was too much, and I did not have the time to really sit down to go over every paragraph, and sentence and word; and to give an answer for everyone of them, even though, it was expected of me to do so anyway.
Again, I really appreciate you being thoughtful. And the passages you quoted are very appropriate.
_____________________________
St. Athanasios the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/7/2010 11:21:02 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
as St. Macarius says-- that he alone was given the keys, etc
quote:
Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.
Pope Urban Firstquote:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.viii.v.v.html
Furthermore, as to the fact that in the churches of the bishops there are found elevated seats set up and prepared like a throne, they show by these that the power of inspection and of judging, and the authority to loose and bind, are given to them by the Lord. Whence the Saviour Himself says in the Gospel, “Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And elsewhere: “Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose soever sins ye remit, are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.”
Cyprian
quote:
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: “I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell 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 in heaven.” Thence, 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; when the Church is established in the bishop and the clergy, and all who stand fast in the faith.
_____________________________
St. Athanasios the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/8/2010 12:23:52 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
St. Ignatius referring to "local" Bishops, and not Peter alone, wrote, "Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
Certainly. And he also called Rome "the Church which holds the presidency"
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/8/2010 12:33:13 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Not so; Augustine said the Church is built upon Jesus Christ, "not" Peter.
The quotation you gave doesn't say that. The general patristic view was that the Church is built on Peter.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
In fact, Augustine said the Rock against which the gates of Hell will not prevail is the Church of Rome.
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/8/2010 12:45:27 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/8/2010 12:47:23 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
This is very strange since I just posted quotes from these very same persons opposing it.
where was that? The Cyprian quotation you gave testified to the authority of Bishops, in union with the Papacy. The Cyprian quotation I gave testified that the Chair of Peter was founded on Peter.
Cyprian also called the Church at Rome "the principal Church, in which priestly unity takes its source". (As we saw, Amrbose echoes this.)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/8/2010 12:49:16 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Walterquez,
If you want to focus this discussion, we could see how many fathers say explictly that the Church is built on Peter.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/8/2010 1:09:07 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Walterquez,
Just glancing over some documentation, so far I have these explicitly saying that the Church is built on Peter:
Aphraahates, Basil, Chrysostom, Hillary, Gregory of Nyssa, Ambrose, Cyprian, Epiphanius, Ephraim, Eusebius, Origin.
There are many others, but this is a start. So if you want proof of any of these, let me know.
Peace in Jesus,
pat
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/8/2010 1:27:14 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1742
Status: offline
|
I read them differently.
As it has been said before, the East does not deny the "primacy" of the Bishop of Rome. And this is how we understand when the Fathers speak of Rome; not "supremacy". And there are several posts from the Fathers, including Popes, speaking about this. They talk about "primacy", not "supremacy".
_____________________________
St. Athanasios the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/8/2010 3:07:58 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 2195
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
I bumped this, because I would like a response. I am investigating the requirments from my end. I believe the answer reflects a lot about how the two Churches view each other.
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
I know this is tacking in a different direction, but it would help me to understand the differences more...
Okay, fine then. I am ready to renounce Rome and head East. What does the Eastern Orthodox require of a Roman Catholic to come into full communion with the Eastern Church?
Baptism should be valid. Participation in the Eucharist...ahh, maybe enough common understanding to validly say "amen" to this in the Eastern Church, understanding the primacy of "not Rome"....Confirmation...maybe has to be re-done...???
What about it? What Sacraments that may have been received or been prepared for in the Latin Church might or might not be valid in the Eastern Church? Why or why not?
When you get the chance...
_____________________________
Do we honestly believe that the firefighter, who gave up his life on Sept. 11, 2001 on his 10th trip back into WTC Tower 1, saving civilians...is eternally separated from God, just because he never set foot in a Church, or cracked open a Bible?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/8/2010 6:16:48 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1742
Status: offline
|
Doghouse, I am not an expert, must less a Bishop. What is required I would think depends on the individual. Two people can come from the same place, yet, may have different requirements, because of their individual condition. Talking extremes here; a Baptist could more readily be accepted than a Roman Catholic; and this is not because Baptists are better than the RCC. But, because of their present condition, the Baptist could be in a much better place, thus, more easily accepted.
Everything being equal, it would be the other way around.
Unless I am mistaken, the seven Sacraments are accepted by the Orthodox Church.
Also, the Orthodox Church is not legalistic, it is Pastoral; so a lot depends on you. All I can suggest to you is to speak to an Orthodox priest near you who can give you a much better answer than I can.
_____________________________
St. Athanasios the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/8/2010 6:19:51 PM
|
|
|
Dred
Posts: 282
Joined: 10/11/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
I bumped this, because I would like a response. I am investigating the requirments from my end. I believe the answer reflects a lot about how the two Churches view each other.
ORIGINAL: Doghouse
I know this is tacking in a different direction, but it would help me to understand the differences more...
Okay, fine then. I am ready to renounce Rome and head East. What does the Eastern Orthodox require of a Roman Catholic to come into full communion with the Eastern Church?
Baptism should be valid. Participation in the Eucharist...ahh, maybe enough common understanding to validly say "amen" to this in the Eastern Church, understanding the primacy of "not Rome"....Confirmation...maybe has to be re-done...???
What about it? What Sacraments that may have been received or been prepared for in the Latin Church might or might not be valid in the Eastern Church? Why or why not?
When you get the chance...
I have only a little knowledge so far as this goes; someone here may have more. I think that when a Roman Catholic comes into the church, the process is usually streamlined a bit compared with the reception of Protestants. I don't know that this says anything more negative about the state of a Protestant, but Protestants vary so much and it is hard to get a handle on just what you are dealing with.
Baptisms are normally accepted from any Trinitarian churches. Normally, the standard is that the baptism was in the name of the "Father, and the Son and of the Holy Spirit." In the "confirmation" area--I'm not sure, but I think this is generally "streamlined" a bit for Catholics. We recently had a Catholic come into our little congregation. His catechumenate was very brief and his chrismation (corresponding to confirmation) was less detailed. He was anointed with oil on the forehead only, while I was anointed all over the place when I came from Protestantism. It could be that the brevity of his catechumenate had something to do with him being the husband of a Greek Orthodox woman for the last few decades, but perhaps being Catholic had something to do with it. I don't know.
The only other thing I know along these lines is that Roman Catholic clergy are usually not re-ordained when entering the church. I'm not sure exactly what this means, but it could have something to do with the title of this thread. I'll try to remember to ask my priest about some of this. This sort of thing can vary at the discretion of the Bishop.
I went away for a three day weekend and this thread (and others) had moved on so far I couldn't find time to read it all. Well, I'm sure things are getting on fine without me.
_____________________________
"He was born among us for the cure of the disease of sin." --Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/9/2010 12:23:06 AM
|
|
|
Acolyte4236
Posts: 5
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline
|
Patricius,
I granted that Augustine taught the Filioque, but I do not grant that all the Latin Fathers did. Tertullian didn’t, but he’s not a Father anyhow. Ambrose and plenty of other Father’s didn’t. And please don’t pick out a spoof text of Ambrose supposedly teaching it since most scholars don’t think those texts speak to hypostatic origination but rather are in reference to the economia.
If you need proof of the subordination of the Spirit, go read Congar’s works on the Spirit and see for yourself. Stating that you don’t see how they could have subordinated the Spirit isn’t proof that they didn’t or is a reason to think Congar and other Catholic theologians are wrong in their assessment. And stating that the Son and the Spirit are dependent on the Father wouldn’t of itself preclude a pneumatical subordination.
To ask how the phrase should have been translated into Latin in the face of the fact that the Latin was inadequate is just to establish the point that the theological concept the Filioque expresses goes beyond the meaning of the Greek creed. Even to this day, the Copts say the Creed in Greek rather than Pharonic.
If the Latins didn’t understand the implications of the Creed, then this seems to undermine papal claims. Second, it depends on what we mean when we speak of the Latin Church. Do you mean the Franks or the church at Rome since Rome opposed the Filioque for centuries while the Franks were heretical on that score and other theological matters such as icons.
By asserting something contrary to the Creed, they implicitly denied the Creeds' original meaning. If originally Procession can only be said of the Spirit from the Father then saying that it is true of the Son also is a denial of the creed's meaning.
You write that the East was “blind” to the eternal mediation of the Procession of the Spirit, but asserting this is not proof of this. Second, the East has always held to the hypostatic mediation as is evidenced in the citation from Maximus, while distinguishing it from hypostatic origination. So the claim is false.
As for Aquinas on procession through or from meaning the same, I shouldn’t have to point this out. Summa Theologica, Prima Pars Q. 36, art. 3, responsio,
"Therefore, because the Son receives from the Father that the Holy Ghost proceeds from Him, it can be said that the Father spirates the Holy Ghost through the Son, or that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father through the Son, which has the same meaning.”
The same is true of the Latin representatives at Florence. All you need to do is pick up Gill’s work (who is Catholic btw) on the council to see this.
Maximus though distinguishes between from and through. Hence Florence is in contradiction to Maximus, which is a major reason why Mark of Ephesus would not sign.
Florence did say that the Spirit proceeds from both (not “through” both ironically) as from one principle. The question is, what constitutes the one principle? A hypostatic property or a natural property? Second, this was not part of the original teaching, but a reaction to save the teaching from heretical consequences after the fact. Hence it can’t demonstrate the truth of the teaching.
but at best its consisency. But lots of heresies are internally consistent.
You write that everything the Son is and does comes from the Father alone, but this is ambiguous since the Son is begotten and the Father does not have the property of being begotten. Nor does the Father have the property of being willed or willing to become incarnate. As John of Damascus said, the Father alone is cause.
If the Cappadocians taught it then why does Rome in the paper I refer you to indicate that they didn’t? And why does the Catholic source I cited previously concede that those passages historically given to prove that they are, are interpolations?
You ask how I account for the citations from Basil, Nyssa and Damscus. But no scholar that I know of thinks that John of Damascus teaches it. In fact, John explicitly denies it in his exposition on the Orthodox Faith in a practically famous passage..
“Of the Holy Ghost, we both say that He is from the Father, and call Him the Spirit of the Father; while we nowise say that He is from the Son, but only call Him the Spirit of the Son.” 1.8
As for the passages in Gregory of Nyssa, these also do not teach the Filioque. What they do teach is an eternal relationship, but the Orthodox already hold that without holding to the Filioque. Why assume that all eternal relationships are ones of hypostatic origination? What Gregory asserts is a certain order or taxis within the Trinity. This is why Fr. Behr wrote that while the Spirit’s being is not caused by the Son, “Gregory clearly affirmed the Son’s mediation in the procession of the Spirit…” The Nicene Faith, Vol. 2, 434. Added to this is the fact that Gregory never speaks of the Spirit as from the Father and the Son as from a single principle and he never speaks of the Son’s mediation in terms of causation. This is why the three passages cited at Gallegos’ pages do not support the Filioque doctrine. proinai and ekpouresis just aren't the same things.
You side stepped the material I put forward from Chrysostom. Simply citing other material doesn’t refute my point. And it doesn’t do so since you’d need to show how to affirm both sets of citation.
As for the other passages from Chrysostom that you allude to, I am familiar with them and all of them are discussed in the literature. Needless to say, it isn’t as simple as you are making it out to be. Take the one regarding Judas in his homilies on Acts (3) it seems clear that Peter acts on the basis of the “common consent” and “defers the decision to the whole body” rather than apart from it as Vatican 1 posits. It is also true that there are corrupt manuscripts of this work as well that do not have the pro-papal reading and they are much later in date than those that do have it.
I don’t think I need to go through all of this since the pro and con arguments are already in the literature (say Rivington and Denny for starters). There is nothing new in the citations you are offering.
As for all of the language of “head” “primacy” and such, we do not dispute that such language is used, but if you are going to use it to support the Vat 1 definition, then you need to show that it means what Vat 1 says it means. Even western post-schism canonists disagreed on what those terms meant in the middle ages. So you can’t simply assume that those terms mean what you take them to. You need to prove from the language and the context that they do in fact mean what you think they do.
I don’t deny that Peters role in Acts 15 council was crucial, but an important contribution isn’t necessarily the same as the "Master" of the episcopate either. Chrysostom says that James presided in authority. So yes, I believe that.
I am not sure why you think Augustine’s Retractions seem weak to you. He indicates that either interpretation is acceptable. As for the “rock”, there are a variety of interpretations given as I’ve already noted. Noting that some of the Fathers speak of Peter’s confession actually doesn’t help your case. And as far as Peter’s Chair at Rome, this again depends on what they thought that amounted to, since even popes took Antioch and Alexandria to be Petrine Chairs.
As I’ve said now a few times, Vigilius issues what he says is an “irreformable” judgment that all the council has to abide by. The council’s response was to excommunicate him. So I am not clear on what you find hard to understand. The situation wasn’t just that he refused to sign a condemnation of the three chapters and then later chose to do so. It was that he claimed to settle the matter by his own “irreformable” judgment and then was excommunicated.
Can you explain how a council today could excommunicate a sitting Pope like the Fifth Council did?
I don’t need to show where he spoke ex cathedra for a few reasons. First if you just read the documents, he himself says his judgment was irreformable. Do you wish to argue that as Pope he was wrong? Second the conditions for an ex cathedra statement as rather anachronistic. Few if any ancient documents explicitly fit the criteria in an unambiguous way. In any case, why didn’t his Judicatum amount to an ex cathedra statement?
If you do not imply Western superiority but only reliability, then your position falls short of Catholic teaching. My car is reliable, but it may still fail to work on occasion. Rome’s claims far out run reliability.
I don’t think I need to go do your leg work for you regarding the interpolated passages of Maximus. They are well known in the literature for at least a century. If anyone reads any monograph on Maximus for the last 50 years its clear that a good bit of the material from the Opusculum in favor of papal claims are interpolations and treated as such by most scholars today, Catholic or otherwise. Just go read up on it yourself. This is the problem with going to web pages with lists of passages without any context or analysis of key terms or their manuscript evidence. This is why I’d rather read professionals than pop apologists who have no specialized training in the field.
Rome doesn’t think the Filioque is a matter of words. Rome didn’t think so when it labeled the Orthodox "heretics" on the level of Muslims and unbelievers fit for Crusader subjugation and slaughter. Second, Rome still doesn’t think it is merely semantic since if it did, it would rescind the addition and revoke the doctrine and just say what the other sees have always said.
You write that Cyril did believer that the Spirit is substantially from the Son, though of course Rome contradicts that if you take that to amount to procession. Let me cite you what Rome says regarding Cyril.
“Even if St Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ekporeusqai [ekporeusthai] the Son's relationship of origin from the Father, he never uses it for the relationship of the Spirit to the Son (Cf. Commentary on St John, X, 2, PG 74, 910D; Ep 55, PG 77, 316 D, etc.). Even for St Cyril, the term ekporeusiV as distinct from the term "proceed" (proienai) [proienai] can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.”
Cyril, per Rome, did not teach that the Son is a cause of the Spirit and only affirmed the consubstantiality of the Spirit with the Father and the Son.
Given that Didymus was heretical and explicitly condemned, one cannot use him alone or as a primary source.
Since the Joint Statement isn’t binding on the East or Rome I am not sure what value you think it has. Second, it doesn’t prove that Nazienzus taught the Filioque, but only hypostatic mediation, which is less than the Filioque doctrine.
What you note in the Uniate Liturgies is of limited value since it is not uniformly practiced by Rome and is a rather late practice, particularly an accommodation to the East. It doesn’t amount to a basis to interpret the Filioque as only teaching hypostatic mediation.
I grant that the Latins claim that there is one principle of causation in God, but that doesn’t prove that they are consistent. Calvinists claim that their theology doesn’t preclude human responsibility too, but that isn’t proof that it doesn’t.
As for Eugene’s bribes, Eugene paid for the supplies of those who were favorable towards union and promised them high ranking positions in the West if they would concede. He made Bessarion a Cardinal if memory serves. To those who weren’t, he explicitly ordered that they receive nothing. If that isn’t simonaical, I am not sure what would be.
The Joint Consultation is mistaken about the issue being the papacy for a simple reason. The early Frankish popes argued for the papacy on the basis of the Filioque. Since the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, and the pope is the vicar of Christ, the Spirit proceeds into the Church from the pope alone and not through the episcopate. This is why you can’t have one without the other.
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/05/14/like-a-horse-and-carriage/
The Protestant doctrine of the priesthood of all believers is just a pluralization of that argument. Since every Christian is a Son, then the judgment of every Christian is beyond being bound by any authority, that is, every man is his own pope. This is why both Protestants and Catholics profess the Filioque. It is indispensible to their theology, not only there, but in their respective doctrines of predestination.
The material from Palamas that you cite is neither here nor there. The Spirit as the bond of love is perfectly acceptable if we are talking about consubstantiality. The fact that Latin’s used it to speak of consubstantiality and a double procession just shows that they confuse the issues at hand. More to the point, it is well beyond dispute that Palamas denied the Filioque explicitly and thought it was “heresy.”
You write again, without proof that the East hasn’t had an ecumenical council since 2nd Nicea. Tell me, was the council of 869 or the council of 879 the 8th Ecumenical Council, especially in light of the fact that the Papacy revoked the council of 869 and anathematized it? Which one does Rome assert today as the 8th ecumenical council?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/9/2010 8:47:42 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
I don't really understand the idea that Ambrose didn't teach the Filioque.
I think that the Eastern and Western fathers all believed in the Filioque, which is why Basil says that the Spirit is joined to the Father through the Son.
I know that Maximus said that the Western fathers unanimously taught the Filioque.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/9/2010 8:49:55 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
I read them differently.
As it has been said before, the East does not deny the "primacy" of the Bishop of Rome. And this is how we understand when the Fathers speak of Rome; not "supremacy". And there are several posts from the Fathers, including Popes, speaking about this. They talk about "primacy", not "supremacy".
quote:
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)
Logged in as: patricius79
Users viewing this topic: patricius79, walterquez
I think we have to be careful of word disputes. Certainly Peter was singled out as the one on whom the Church is uniquely built.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
