www.byzcath.org Forums General Discussions Town Hall Petrine Views

No, it really wasn't. It was promulgated as normative...

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/p...-vi_apc_19690403_missale-romanum_en.html

towards the bottom, it is pretty clear the intent is the new missal is to be the norm; it can't be a "source of unity" otherwise.

The English version was promulgated in 74... until the Sacramentary was approved, the prior one (1965) was the one used. The 1969 in Lingua Latina could be used with episcopal permission in the interim, and I'm certain some did, and I was too young to remember enough to tell the difference in detail... except for some tell-tale bits.

Like being at a "silent mass" on a holy day, with only the servers responding to the priest, in latin, and the maniple being worn, and a second priest vested as deacon. Since I was born in '69, any Latin Mass with the Maniple and silence of the congregation would have to have been in the interim era. Later, I would serve at the Dominican Latin Mass... before the indult of the TLM (neé EF).

http://www.traditionalmass.org/articles/article.php?id=19&catname=8

Gives a detailed look, as well, at the process. Be warned, however, the end conclusion is sedevaticanist. (The final conclusion goes too far.)

Including to his successor, the Patriarch of Antioch.

You also have the problem of Pope St. Gregory idetifying Alexandria as a "Petrine See."

So even if your "high petrine" distinction held for St. Peter himself, you still have the problem linking it, and exclusively, with Rome. That Rome made no claims to universal jurisdiction on a petrine basis until the third century leaves a gapping hole in your theory.

No, the OOC does not define itself by communion with Alexandria, even less than the EOC defines itself by communion with Constantinople. The Patriach of Antioch (OO) and the Catholicos of Armenia are OO, but preside over their Churches without any reference to Alexandria.

The Fathers speak much of the bishops all as successors of St. Peter, and certain bishops (Pope of Rome, Pope of Alexandria, Patriarch of Antioch), but nothing on this distinction you are introducing.

Nicea I recognized Antioch's jurisdiction over the Diocese of the East, Alexandria's over Egypt and Rome's over the West. Discrepacies between the civil and ecclesiastical administration of Libya occasioned the promulgation of canon 6, recognizing the situation, explicitely comparing the Pope of Alexandria and Patriarch of Antioch to the authority the Archbishop of Rome had over the West. So the Catholic rejoinder is that Rome had been exercising jurisdiction over the West (where it was the only Apostolic see), as Alexandria had over Egypt, and Antioch had over Asia. Btw, Corinth, to which St. Clement wrote, was under Rome untill after the last Ecumeical Council.

You bring up St. Cyprian: you do know that he appealed to the Eastern bishops to discipline the Pope of Rome, no?

Btw, I've yet to see corroboration of Mar Soros' cited authority.

I'll skip your eisogesis.

in prison. Nor is Patmos all that much closer than Rome by ship, Corinths forte. Corinth also had been refounded as a Roman colony, under the capitals control.

in the land of the Romans (at a time when that still meant the city). And he never mentions a pope of Rome, not even in that letter to the Romans.

The source is clear that all the synods sent letters rebuking Pope St. Victor. It doesn't say anything about them being under his direction.

I can go into the analysis of the text, oft twisted, but rather point out that Rome's position came from Christians, both Orthodox and heretic, coming there and hence hammering out dogma. In other words, the Church's did not receive their light from Rome's sun, but the prism of Rome focused the rays of the other Churches.

Given St. Cyrpian's open conflict with Rome, and his seekig aid from the East to discipline the bishop of Rome, I am always astonished why apologists for the Vatican continue to bring him up.

According to your canons, if someone is elected pope without "an episcopal character," he is ordained a bishop. If he is a bishop, nothing is done.

As for "greater responsibility," consult Lumen Gentium, which I know I have quoted ad nauseum to you on several occasions.

Dear brother Isa,

I have no problem linking it, because I never claimed it, and neither has the Catholic Church. Straw man. "Not 100 people hate the Catholic Church for what she is, but what they think she is."

In another website, an anti-papal apologist blithely discounted early patristic proof from statements by Popes of Rome. Yet here, you make the papal claim a basis for your rejoinder. You guys have got to get your stories straight.

In truth, you're merely engaging in another weak rhetorical fallacy called proving too little. You try to restrict the patristic evidence to only what the Popes claimed, and in your mind, I guess that proves something. The fact is, papal statements only account for part of what the Fathers taught on the matter. In the second century, Tertullian and St. Irenaeus testified to the pre-eminence of Rome due to its apostolic foundation from St. Peter (and St. Paul, per Irenaeus). And St. Cyprian himself assigned the primacy of Rome based on its Petrine foundation in his rhetoric against heretics - before he disagreed with Rome, that is. So there's no gaping hole.

You are also engaging in anachronism and another straw man. You want us to prove that the idea of "universal jurisdiction" can be found in the sub- and post-apostolic age. But in fact, the very idea of "jurisdiction" itself was an invention of the First Ecumenical Council in the fourth century. There was/is, nevetheless, a pastorship established by Christ for his entire household, which cannot be diminished or cancelled by men, even by an ecumenical council. We use the language of "jurisdiction" today, and in this, the Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Catholics are equally guilty, so please don't try to call the kettle black, Mr. pot.

Blessings

As the Commission earlier spoken of explained, bishops are the successors of St. Peter only insofar as they maintain the same Faith. I don't know of any who claim that all bishops are the successors of St. Peter's person. Perhaps you can give us two or three examples (if that is what you are claiming)? The only ones who could claim actual successorship of St. Peter's person was Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Of these three, the bishop of Rome was head, as testified by the Acts and actions of the Ecumenical Councils (if not their canons).

Apostolic Canon 34/35 makes this distinction, or do you seriously think that the concept embodied by that Canon is not based on the model of the Apostolic college with St. Peter as their head.

Blessings

Yes. In the context of caeseropapism, Nicea canonized the novel idea of separate jurisdictions for the administration of the Church. But this did not and does not diminish, cancel, nor supplant the divine consitution of the universal Church as a visible body with a visible head, who is its greatest servant, as our Lord exhorted.

I don't know what the latter bit of data has to do with the matter of Pope St. Clement. Surely you don't think that the idea of territorial jurisdictions was extant at such an early date of Church history, do you? That's rather anachronistic.

Wow! That statement is just as exaggerated as some of the claims made by Absolutist Petrine advocates. Actually, I believe St. Cyprian was simply trying to garner support for his position. But in the hands of an anti-papal controversialist, such a mere fact is spun to supposedly convince us that bishops in the East had authority over bishops in the West, and that St. Cyprian himself advocated this position. That takes the cake of novel arguments against the papacy.

Not my forte.

Blessings

The Truth is pretty hard to fight, brother.


You make it seem like he was cut off from the world in a little cell. In fact, he was exiled to the island, could move about freely on the island, and was able to keep contact with Christians (remember the Book of Revelation?).


I suggest you re-study your geography. By sea, Rome is almost 4 times farther away from Corinth than Patmos is.

And your point? A plain anachronism, trying to impose upon the apostolic Church the caeseropapist rationale for the status of a See that did not develop until a few centuries hence, rather than the religious rationale of apostolic foundation.

Can you please point out to us where exactly the letter says that Rome presides in "the land of the Romans, which means the city?" Is this the same Ignatius who wrote that the Church in Rome has "never envied any one; you have taught others?" Is this the same Ignatius who wrote "Now I desire that those things be confirmed which in your instructions you enjoin on others?" Is this the same Ignatius who wrote, "Remember in your prayers the Church in Syria, which now has God for its shepherd instead of me. Jesus Christ alone will oversee it, as well as your love?" After all this, we're suppose to believe that the Church in Rome "presides in love" only in relation to the city of Rome? Sorry. I have no interest in that bridge you're trying to sell.

Eusebius' account of St. Polycrates' letter to Pope St. Victor reveals explicitly that it was Pope St. Victor who exhorted the Churches in Asia to gather to discuss the controversy. Do you seriously suppose that the entire Church just spontaneously decided to discuss the Easter controversy?

You propose merely an anti-papal interpretation of the text, and not at all the direct reading. The spin you have placed on the text is plainly obvious from the fact that you claim that Rome merely reflected the light of other Churches. In truth, the very purpose of the chapter is to detail the preservation of Tradition through apostolic succession. So the light came not from outside Rome, which Rome merely reflected, but came from Rome itself, having preserved the Tradition handed down to her from her founders, "the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul."

I am even more astonished that certain non-Catholics constantly appeal to those who were in error to support their anti-papal view (especially when those same figures were pro-papal when they agreed with Rome). I've even encountered non-Catholic apostolic Christians appeal to the Arians themselves in support of their anti-papal views. Strange -- and telling -- to say the least.

It appears your answer is evasive. Do you have an actual response to the points I made?

Blessings

Not sure of your point here. Can you please clarify?

Yes, I find it makes me sick to my stomach as well when people take little snippets of Catholic documents and then pretend that they have somehow formed a valid argument against the Catholic Church.

Blessings

.

And that's not much of an answer--while prooftexting is, shall we say, something more commonly found among Protestants than the Orthodox.



You both miss the point--no surprise there: Corinth petitions Rome because Corinth perceived itself as a suffragan Church of Rome, having been founded by St. Paul, who together with St. Peter, was regarded as one of the founders of the Roman Church. Let's not forget that the patronal feast of the Church of Rome is the Feast of Saints Peter and Paul--albeit the Roman liturgy for that feast has so vestigialized the role of Paul that they had to give him his own separate feast; no so for us, however.

The real point is Corinth appealed to its mother Church; Ephesus was not the mother Church of Corinth, so why go there. Finally, the appeal was to the Church of Rome, not to the Bishop of Rome (which office, in the sense of a sole monarchical episcopate may not even have existed around AD 96. When Clement uses the first person plural, he may very well be referring to a council of episkopoi, and not to his exalted self. His role may have been more akin to that of the Praetor inter Peregrinus than Princeps.

.

Flounder, flounder, flounder. It is apparent that you want to make an historical argument without actually reading the history. Try that with someone who hasn't read Roman history.


Again, both of you are wrong. There are two critical points here. The first is the primacy belongs to the Church of Rome, and not to the person of its bishop. The second is this primacy is one of (a) presiding; and (b) caritas. Thus, a personalized primacy and a primacy of jurisdiction (to say nothing of an imperial primacy) is not found in the writings of St. Ignatious. Instead, he sees the fullness (katholike) of the Church in the local bishop celebrating the Eucharist with his presbyters, deacons and faithful in communion with other bishops.


Eusebius writes a little late in the day. From Irenaeus' perspective, Victor's actions appeared to be high-handed and inappropriate, and there is no mention of holding synods to discuss the matter; rather, Pope Victor said, "My way or the highway", and the Holy Spirit, in its wisdom, saw fit to call Pope Victor home before matters came to a head.


Sorry, Markdum, but he's got you there. Irenaeus is emphasizing Apostolic Succession as the safeguard against heresy (the name of the piece is, after all, "Against the Heretics"), and he holds up the Church of Rome as the exemplar of a Church whose apostolic succession (double succession, in fact) has kept it from falling into error. You speak of an "anti-papal interpretation", but yours is nothing if not a papalist apologetic reading based on special pleading. As I said, you usually work backwards from your belief in an expansive Petrine primacy and cherry pick your evidence to fit.


Another weak argument, especially as you are not averse to referencing sources later condemned when they suit your purpose. In any case, Cyprian may have been wrong about reconciliation of the lapsed, but he was absolutely right about the keys having been passed to Peter on behalf of all the Apostles, who share equally in the Apostolic Charism, and through them to the bishops, who share equally in the Episcopal Charism.


One might make the same inquiry of you. Your argument is circular: The Church teaches the infallible papacy is apostolically ordained therefore only evidence in support of that position is valid. You are interested in making a point, not arriving at the truth.

Very simply put, in the Church grace is conveyed sacramentally. The grace of apostolically established ministries is conveyed through the sacrament of ordination. There is a sacrament of ordination for a deacon, a presbyter, and a bishop. There is no sacrament of ordination for an archbishop, a metropolitan--or a pope. All of these are honorifics, not sacerdotal ministries, and no further grace conveys to a person who receives them.

Thus, all bishops, having received the same sacrament of ordination, are equal in grace; none is greater than the others, though some have been given a greater dignity or status.

Furthermore, it is clear, since the newly elected Pope must be installed as Bishop of Rome, that the dignity is inherent in the Church of Rome; i.e., the Pope is Pope because of the status of the Church of Rome, and not vice versa.

Therefore, the Pope is, and must be, first and foremost, the Bishop of Rome, and he cannot habitually delegate that role to an Apostolic Vicar (as is generally the case in modern times); second, he is Patriarch of the West (and he can no more surrender that title than he can that of Bishop of Rome); and only last (and least) is he the "ecumenical pontiff". Yet, since the Middle Ages, and increasingly in the modern era, this is all stood on its head: the Pope's universal role has priority, and the other two roles have become vestigial at best. Hence, the Latin Church has collapsed the three roles of the Pope into one, and in the process has lost the conception of primacy at the local and regional levels. Recapturing the proper balance of roles within the person of the Pope is an essential precondition for the restoration of balance within the Latin Church, and thence to the restoration of full communion with the Churches of the East.

Dear brother StuartK,

Why do I need to answer? I asserted a position with reasons, brother Isa simply stated “eisegesis” with no reasons. What do you expect me to answer to, pray tell?

Interesting interpretation. Ironic that as an historian, you use the term “suffragan” as if such a thing existed in the ecclesiological life of the Church during that period. Further, there was a Church on the same island with Pauline foundation with a bishop and regarded as a civic metropolis – Athens. If Corinth would have considered itself “suffragan” of any Church, it would have been Athens. Sorry, but your statements are hardly credible. The fact is, there were many bishops (or Churches, if you so choose) much closer to Corinth to whom they could have appealed. So why appeal all the way to Rome? You haven’t answered that question, I’m afraid.


You have no basis for claiming that the Church of Rome was the mother Church of Corinth in the sense that it was a “suffragan” of Rome.

I don’t know. I did not even mention Ephesus in relation to Pope St. Clement. I did mention St. John and Patmos, though. As you’re trying to refute my statements, it would be good if you can actually address them.


That’s a weird response. As if the “Church of Rome” could do anything without its bishop.


That’s fine. But I do not adhere to the Absolutist Petrine view, but the High Petrine view, as described early on in this thread. Once again, I must ask that you actually address my statements in your attempts to refute them.

I can agree with that, but if this is so, then Pope St. Clement was obviously the coryphaeus of the group.

I don’t know why you insist on applying these civic terms to the Church. Church government was/is based on service, not power. The Church did not begin to accommodate the political system until the 4th century. I sense an underlying anachronism in several of your answers.

And you accuse me of evasion? Do you want to give the reasons for your statements? Sorry, but your claim to being a Roman historian has not protected you from several fallacies already, so your appeal to authority is not convincing.

Again, you make the error of thinking that a Church can be considered apart from its bishop.

Agreed.

Who said it was? You seem fond of knocking down straw men.

OK. So we’ll just discount the most imminent ecclesiastical historian of the period because his account doesn’t “fit in” to your interpretation of history.

You must be on “straw man” mode, brother. You basically repeat what I stated, and then somehow conclude that I gave a “papalist apologetic?” Maybe I wasn’t clear, and some of my statements require clarification, but can you please point out for us, using direct quotes from me, and not your interpretations, how your statements here are different from mine?

Oh, you mean like when you discounted the testimony of Eusebius?

Can you please point out when I did this? It would help the discussion if you actually gave the reasons for your claims, as noted earlier.

Agreed, but though he may have been right in that matter, it was nevertheless an incomplete belief. Or perhaps it’s not that his belief on the matter was incomplete (since he certainly had no problem appealing to the primacy of Rome when battling the heretics), but rather that he merely forgot when he found himself disagreeing with Rome.

Just to clarify, evasion and circular argumentation are two different fallacies. You haven’t given any proof that I have done either.

Again, would you mind giving an actual example instead of just making accusations?

I give reasons and facts to back up my statements, not mere empty claims and accusations. I think anyone will agree that it is the latter who are guilty of being not interested in “arriving at the truth.”

Blessings,
Marduk