|
0 members (),
421
guests, and
142
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,535
Posts417,726
Members6,188
| |
Most Online4,112
Mar 25th, 2025
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Pope Leo IX proclaimed the Donation of Constantine as the Gospel Truth, and demanded we accept it as such. I had read the communication of Pope Leo IX to the Patriarch of Constantinople several years ago. I got the impression that Pope Leo mentioned the Donation not as a theological point, but merely as a piece of (what he thought was an) historic piece of information. This had to be the case since the Donation had nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch. The Donation, even for Popes who appealed to it, was always recognized to refer only to the Western portion of the old Roman Empire, not the Eastern portion, so it is rather illogical for naysayers of the Papacy to cite the Donation as any kind of basis for a theological claim. I mean, if it was theological, it should have universal relevance, not limited to the West (to which the Donation is plainly limited). LOL, Yes that moderate Petrine view, or whatever it is you call it. Moderate Petrine view? The discussion has nothing to do with the three Petrine views I have proposed, but about a fact of history that the Donation had no theological weight whatsoever, but only a politico-ecclesiastical relevance. Those theologians who actually existed made a lot of use of the Donation thereafter to prop up Ultramontanist claims, as it was used in "Pax in Terra Hominibus." What theologians? Can you name one or two? I make no claim for their logic. Like the Donation, I reject the whole as a fraud. You claim that the Donation has had a theological relevance in the Latin Catholic Church. I believe it is your claim that is fraudulent (as well). Btw, I wasn't aware you read Latin. I don't know of a translation of the letter in question. Look it up on the I-net. The question wasn't on the jurisdiction of New Rome. It was to assert a universal and immediate jurisdiction of Old Rome. I make no claim for the logic of its argument. Mmmm. I've yet to see a Catholic source claim that the Donation was used to make the theological claim of universal jurisdiction. However, I've seen a lot of non-Catholic and anti-Catholic sources claim that it does. You seem to have access to these sources. Can you please give us one or two Catholic theologians - better yet, one or two Popes - who assert or have asserted that the Donation in any way established the idea of universal jurisdiction for the papacy? Looking forward to see if you can justify your claim. He also fought a crusade against the married clergy and in enforcing the mandated celibacy for all the way down to subdeacon. Even Steven AFAIK. I recall that Pope Leo made his comments only after The Easterns first made disparaging comments about the Western practice of celibacy. His crusade was against his own clergy. AFAIK, he was battling certain abuses, such as concubinage among clergy and marriage after ordination. Was there something else for you to "cry wolf" over? For us, like anything else he said or did, didn't matter as long as we were outside his reach, or if he confessed the Orthodox Faith. Apparently, however, it is OK for Easterns (during that time) to stick their nose in the business of the Westerns and criticize the Western discipline of celibacy. Double standard? And it was more than words, forcibly separating clergy from their wives. AFAIK, there were certain decrees about separating clergy from wives who they married AFTER ordination. What is wrong with that? Are you opposed to your own Trullan canons? As we know from watching the Borgias, mistresses went on. And the sins of a few condemn all? I thought that barbarous way of thinking only existed in the middle ages. Disparaging, like "let no made put asunder," or "remove not the boundary marker which your Fathers have set up"? More like accusations that the Latin Church hated Marriage, which is still echoed by today's non-Catholic polemicists. I'll add Pope Benedict VIII added the filioque to the Creed in the Roman Latin Mass at the demand of Emperor Henry This is not a matter of theological error, but of theological misunderstanding. No heresy or heterodoxy on this point (though I think Anselm(?) and Beccus (?) used some rather strange, if not heterodox, language regarding the matter). It is theological error and heresy, Only when the Creed is said in Greek and understood according to the Greek use of ekporeusai -- but it is not said or understood according to the Greek in the Latin Church, is it? One thing it unquestionably was was overturning that Roman Tradition that had been in conformity with the Universal practice of the Church and the Sacred Canons thereon, done to please the secular ruler. No, it wasn't a universal practice since most of the West by the time had been using filioque for several hundred years already. Rome was only the Johnny-come-lately. Btw, the Ultramontanists won at Vatican I, notwithstanding all the niceties to the contrary. Vatican II in Lumen Gentium et alia made that clear. Yes, the ultramontanists, as distinct from the NEO-ultramontantists (the latter being the Absolutist Petrine adovcates). A distinction whose existence I've seen only evidenced in your posts, here and elsewhere. [/quote] If you had any knowledge of Vatican 1 at all, you would know that the NEO-ultramontanists were the ones who supported the political pretensions of the papacy (inspired by the Donation of Constantine), not the Ultramontanists. The Neo-ultramontantist, for example, argued for the inclusion of the deposing power of the Pope among his "infallible" prerogatives (among their other pretensions). Fortunately, the Neo-ultramontanists failed in their attempts. The distinction between Neo-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view) and Ultramontanism (the Hight Petrine view) is historical, if you bother to read about the Catholic Church from sources that are not anti-Catholic. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Read it, and was convinced of his points for a long time --- UNTIL I read Dom Cuthbert Chapman's seminal work on Vatican 1, which informs about what really went on behind the scenes. Oh? Did he speak ex cathedra? No. I assume your non-Catholic sources don't speak ex cathedra either. Given his misunderstanding of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, don't know how much you should trust him on Vatican I. Wrong name, Sorry. It's Dom Cuthbert BUTLER, not Chapman. I always get those two names confused since they both use the title "Dom." Can't say I've read anything from Chapman, though I've read his name many times. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Pope Leo IX proclaimed the Donation of Constantine as the Gospel Truth, and demanded we accept it as such. I had read the communication of Pope Leo IX to the Patriarch of Constantinople several years ago. I got the impression that Pope Leo mentioned the Donation not as a theological point, but merely as a piece of (what he thought was an) historic piece of information. This had to be the case since the Donation had nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Constantinopolitan Patriarch. The Donation, even for Popes who appealed to it, was always recognized to refer only to the Western portion of the old Roman Empire, not the Eastern portion, so it is rather illogical for naysayers of the Papacy to cite the Donation as any kind of basis for a theological claim. I mean, if it was theological, it should have universal relevance, not limited to the West (to which the Donation is plainly limited). LOL, Yes that moderate Petrine view, or whatever it is you call it. Moderate Petrine view? The discussion has nothing to do with the three Petrine views I have proposed, but about a fact of history that the Donation had no theological weight whatsoever, but only a politico-ecclesiastical relevance. Of course it had no real theological weight whatsoever, but that hasn't stopped your supreme pontiff from making use of it, like the other False Decretals. Of course it has nothing to do with your three Petrine views. Nothing older than a decade at most does. Those theologians who actually existed made a lot of use of the Donation thereafter to prop up Ultramontanist claims, as it was used in "Pax in Terra Hominibus." What theologians? Can you name one or two? "The Catholic Encyclopedia" names quite a few besides your supreme pontiff Leo IX: ... Æneas, Bishop of Paris, refers to it in defence of the Roman primacy (Adversus Græcos, c. ccix, op. cit., CXXI, 758); Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims, mentions the donation of Rome to the pope by Constantine the Great according to the "Constitutum" (De ordine palatii, c. xiii, op. cit., CXXV, 998). The document obtained wider circulation by its incorporation with the False Decretals (840-850, or more specifically between 847 and 852; Hinschius, Decretales Pseudo-Isidorianæ, Leipzig, 1863, p. 249)... The first pope who used it in an official act and relied upon, was Leo IX; in a letter of 1054 to Michael Cærularius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he cites the "Donatio" to show that the Holy See possessed both an earthly and a heavenly imperium, the royal priesthood. Thenceforth the "Donatio" acquires more importance and is more frequently used as evidence in the ecclesiastical and political conflicts between the papacy and the secular power. Anselm of Lucca and Cardinal Deusdedit inserted it in their collections of canons. Gratian, it is true, excluded it from his "Decretum", but it was soon added to it as "Palea". The ecclesiastical writers in defence of the papacy during the conflicts of the early part of the twelfth century quoted it as authoritative (Hugo of Fleury, De regiâ potestate et ecclesiasticâ dignitate, II; Placidus of Nonantula, De honore ecclesiæ, cc. lvii, xci, cli; Disputatio vel defensio Paschalis papæ, Honorius Augustodunensis, De summâ gloriæ, c. xvii; cf. Mon. Germ. Hist., Libelli de lite, II, 456, 591, 614, 635; III, 71). St. Peter Damian also relied on it in his writings against the antipope Cadalous of Parma (Disceptatio synodalis, in Libelli de lite, I, 88)... Later popes (Innocent III, Gregory IX, Innocent IV) took its authority for granted (Innocent III, Sermo de sancto Silvestro, in P.L., CCXVII, 481 sqq.; Raynaldus, Annales, ad an. 1236, n. 24; Potthast, Regesta, no. 11,848), and ecclesiastical writers often adduced its evidence in favour of the papacy. The medieval adversaries of the popes, on the other hand, never denied the validity of this appeal to the pretended donation of Constantine, but endeavoured to show that the legal deductions drawn from it were founded on false interpretations... I make no claim for their logic. Like the Donation, I reject the whole as a fraud. You claim that the Donation has had a theological relevance in the Latin Catholic Church. I believe it is your claim that is fraudulent (as well). Then you believe wrong, as I am merely repeating what your supreme pontiff claimed. He and his Latins claimed that it had a theological relevance in the Catholic Church-hence his claims to EP Michael and Arbp. Leo of Ohrid. Your Latins committed the fraud, not I. Btw, I wasn't aware you read Latin. I don't know of a translation of the letter in question. Look it up on the I-net. I thought as much. The only translation I know of is the unfinished one I started with the Dutch youth at orthodoxchristianity.net. Perhaps you can provide a quote then to show how "Pope Leo mentioned the Donation not as a theological point, but merely as a piece of (what he thought was an) historic piece of information." The question wasn't on the jurisdiction of New Rome. It was to assert a universal and immediate jurisdiction of Old Rome. I make no claim for the logic of its argument. Mmmm. I've yet to see a Catholic source claim that the Donation was used to make the theological claim of universal jurisdiction. However, I've seen a lot of non-Catholic and anti-Catholic sources claim that it does. You seem to have access to these sources. Can you please give us one or two Catholic theologians - better yet, one or two Popes - who assert or have asserted that the Donation in any way established the idea of universal jurisdiction for the papacy? Looking forward to see if you can justify your claim. You don't have access to "The Catholic Encyclopedia"? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/The Catholic EP Michael Cerularius and Abp. Leo, and everyone after them, spurned these claims. But as your sources, the letter of your supreme pontiff Leo IX already mentioned, and your supreme pontiff Innocent III, as "the Catholic Encyclopedia," quoted above, indicates. You should read more. He also fought a crusade against the married clergy and in enforcing the mandated celibacy for all the way down to subdeacon. Even Steven AFAIK. I recall that Pope Leo made his comments only after The Easterns first made disparaging comments about the Western practice of celibacy. His crusade was against his own clergy. AFAIK, he was battling certain abuses, such as concubinage among clergy and marriage after ordination. Was there something else for you to "cry wolf" over? The separating of those married before ordination, and I cry Antichrist over that (I Timothy 4:3). And yes, he was fighting for that. Marriage before ordination hardly constitutes an abuse: after all, St. Peter did so himself. For us, like anything else he said or did, didn't matter as long as we were outside his reach, or if he confessed the Orthodox Faith. Apparently, however, it is OK for Easterns (during that time) to stick their nose in the business of the Westerns and criticize the Western discipline of celibacy. Double standard? Yep. Upholding Apostolic practice and condemning heretical innovation are not on the same standard. And the West stuck their noses in that loong before. Ever since the First Ecumenical Council, and especially after the struggle in Bulgaria. And it was more than words, forcibly separating clergy from their wives. AFAIK, there were certain decrees about separating clergy from wives who they married AFTER ordination. What is wrong with that? Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9. And no, it included those married BEFORE ordination. Are you opposed to your own Trullan canons? You mean the Church's own Trullan canons? I don't have any of my own. Which one you thinking of? As we know from watching the Borgias, mistresses went on. And the sins of a few condemn all? I thought that barbarous way of thinking only existed in the middle ages. Hypocrisy wasn't invented in the modern age. And it was FAR from a few. And it is the institutionalization of concubinage or just plain fornication as alternative to marriage that condemns all. Disparaging, like "let no made put asunder," or "remove not the boundary marker which your Fathers have set up"? More like accusations that the Latin Church hated Marriage, which is still echoed by today's non-Catholic polemicists stated quite up front by Catholic apologists, using the Latin church's own sources. I'll add Pope Benedict VIII added the filioque to the Creed in the Roman Latin Mass at the demand of Emperor Henry This is not a matter of theological error, but of theological misunderstanding. No heresy or heterodoxy on this point (though I think Anselm(?) and Beccus (?) used some rather strange, if not heterodox, language regarding the matter). It is theological error and heresy, Only when the Creed is said in Greek and understood according to the Greek use of ekporeusai -- but it is not said or understood according to the Greek in the Latin Church, is it? the exposition of it in Latin reveals it as heresy. The Latin Romanian Orthodox Church (which has its bishop in Old Rome) knows it as heresy. Hence, it doesn't use it. The "Romanian Church United With Rome, Greek-Catholic," having submitted to the Vatican, adopted its heresy, and use it. The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council (not at the time in communion with Old Rome) understood the matter according to the Greek of the Gospel. How the corrupters of the Creed understood it does not bear any weight. One thing it unquestionably was was overturning that Roman Tradition that had been in conformity with the Universal practice of the Church and the Sacred Canons thereon, done to please the secular ruler. No, it wasn't a universal practice since most of the West by the time had been using filioque for several hundred years already. Rome was only the Johnny-come-lately. as the Emperor hadn't gotten to impose it until then at Rome. Btw, the Ultramontanists won at Vatican I, notwithstanding all the niceties to the contrary. Vatican II in Lumen Gentium et alia made that clear. Yes, the ultramontanists, as distinct from the NEO-ultramontantists (the latter being the Absolutist Petrine adovcates). A distinction whose existence I've seen only evidenced in your posts, here and elsewhere. If you had any knowledge of Vatican 1 at all, you would know that the NEO-ultramontanists were the ones who supported the political pretensions of the papacy (inspired by the Donation of Constantine), not the Ultramontanists. The Neo-ultramontantist, for example, argued for the inclusion of the deposing power of the Pope among his "infallible" prerogatives (among their other pretensions). Fortunately, the Neo-ultramontanists failed in their attempts. The distinction between Neo-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view) and Ultramontanism (the Hight Petrine view) is historical, if you bother to read about the Catholic Church from sources that are not anti-Catholic. But the records of Vatican I, the ones I read, are the ones to read about it. Not being bound by them, nor having to vindicate Ultramontanism in any form, I am free to look at them and see what they say. And how they were used since then.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
Read it, and was convinced of his points for a long time --- UNTIL I read Dom Cuthbert Chapman's seminal work on Vatican 1, which informs about what really went on behind the scenes. Oh? Did he speak ex cathedra? No. I assume your non-Catholic sources don't speak ex cathedra either. My Catholic source do not claim to speak ex cathedra. Only Ultramontanists make that claim. Given his misunderstanding of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, don't know how much you should trust him on Vatican I. Wrong name, Sorry. It's Dom Cuthbert BUTLER, not Chapman. I always get those two names confused since they both use the title "Dom." Can't say I've read anything from Chapman, though I've read his name many times. Blessings, Marduk I'll have to refresh my memory on Butler.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Pope Leo IX proclaimed the Donation of Constantine as the Gospel Truth, and demanded we accept it as such. Moderate Petrine view? The discussion has nothing to do with the three Petrine views I have proposed, but about a fact of history that the Donation had no theological weight whatsoever, but only a politico-ecclesiastical relevance. Of course it had no real theological weight whatsoever, but that hasn't stopped your supreme pontiff from making use of it, like the other False Decretals. Don't avoid the issue. The Popes who used it did so in their struggle against the encroachment of the SECULAR powers into Church affairs, but not in a struggle against the episcopacy. You have yet to show that a single Pope used the Donation in a theological manner against the episcopacy. That's what we're talking about. Of course it has nothing to do with your three Petrine views. Nothing older than a decade at most does. Then why did you claim it does - "moderate Petrine view?" Please get your claims straight. Those theologians who actually existed made a lot of use of the Donation thereafter to prop up Ultramontanist claims, as it was used in "Pax in Terra Hominibus." What theologians? Can you name one or two? "The Catholic Encyclopedia" names quite a few besides your supreme pontiff Leo IX: All in a battle against the SECULAR powers. Nothing you've given shows it was used as some sort of theological pretense to try to strip bishops of their natural divine rights. I make no claim for their logic. Like the Donation, I reject the whole as a fraud. You claim that the Donation has had a theological relevance in the Latin Catholic Church. I believe it is your claim that is fraudulent (as well). Then you believe wrong, as I am merely repeating what your supreme pontiff claimed. He and his Latins claimed that it had a theological relevance in the Catholic Church-hence his claims to EP Michael and Arbp. Leo of Ohrid. Your Latins committed the fraud, not I. All we've been talking about in this thread is the relationship of the Pope to the bishops. It is fraudulent to claim that the Donation was ever used by any Pope against a bishop, much less a bishop of the East. You have no foundation to your claim that it was intended by Pope Leo IX as "Gospel Truth." IIRC, in his letter to Cerularius, he cited the Donation to demonstrate his authority in the West ( which is the greatest extent of the Donation's claim- a fact you cannot dispute), in the context of showing that even though the Pope had this authority in the West, he never arrogated to himself (1) the thought of impugning the Greek Liturgies as Cerularius had himself done against the Latin Mass in Constantinople, and (2) the title of "Ecumenical Patriarch," as Cerularius had himself done. Again, your claim that the Donation was cited by Pope Leo IX to indicate some sort of "Gospel truth" is fraudulent. Btw, I wasn't aware you read Latin. I don't know of a translation of the letter in question. Look it up on the I-net. Perhaps you can provide a quote then to show how "Pope Leo mentioned the Donation not as a theological point, but merely as a piece of (what he thought was an) historic piece of information." Will get back to you on that one. No time for in-depth research at the moment, as I read the translation over 4 years ago. It was on one of those Medieval documents website, IIRC. The question wasn't on the jurisdiction of New Rome. It was to assert a universal and immediate jurisdiction of Old Rome. I make no claim for the logic of its argument. Mmmm. I've yet to see a Catholic source claim that the Donation was used to make the theological claim of universal jurisdiction. However, I've seen a lot of non-Catholic and anti-Catholic sources claim that it does. You seem to have access to these sources. Can you please give us one or two Catholic theologians - better yet, one or two Popes - who assert or have asserted that the Donation in any way established the idea of universal jurisdiction for the papacy? Looking forward to see if you can justify your claim. You don't have access to "The Catholic Encyclopedia"? http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/The Catholic EP Michael Cerularius and Abp. Leo, and everyone after them, spurned these claims. But as your sources, the letter of your supreme pontiff Leo IX already mentioned, and your supreme pontiff Innocent III, as "the Catholic Encyclopedia," quoted above, indicates. You should read more.[/quote] I've read them - however, the issue is not reading them, but the exaggerated misinterpretations foisted on them by non-Catholics. Even the old Catholic Encyclopedia indicates that the Donation was used in the papacy's battle against the SECULAR power, not against the episcopacy. AFAIK, he was battling certain abuses, such as concubinage among clergy and marriage after ordination. Was there something else for you to "cry wolf" over? The separating of those married before ordination, and I cry Antichrist over that (I Timothy 4:3). And yes, he was fighting for that. Marriage before ordination hardly constitutes an abuse: after all, St. Peter did so himself. Can you give a quote from a primary source (i.e., Pope Leo himself) that proves his decrees were against priests married BEFORE ordination? I have read that this issue (of priests married BEFORE ordination) did not concern the Latin Church until the 13th or 14th century, when decrees were made favoring Marriage (i.e., the sacrament of marriage was to be maintained and became an impediment to ordination in the Latin Church). For us, like anything else he said or did, didn't matter as long as we were outside his reach, or if he confessed the Orthodox Faith. Apparently, however, it is OK for Easterns (during that time) to stick their nose in the business of the Westerns and criticize the Western discipline of celibacy. Double standard? . Upholding Apostolic practice and condemning heretical innovation are not on the same standard. So it is OK for the Easterns to stick their nose into the business of another local Church when it concerns their local disciplines, but reprehensible if the Westerns do so to the Easterns or Orientals? Your admission of hypocrisy is honest, if rather disarming. And the West stuck their noses in that loong before. So are you saying the Eastern Church is somehow excused from following the Lord's Golden Rule? Ever since the First Ecumenical Council Without the Western Church, it would not have been an "Ecumenical" Council. What are you crying wolf about now? and especially after the struggle in Bulgaria. That area had a tangled history between Latins and Greeks, which you cannot deny. In any case, don't try to avoid the issue again. Claims of territorial jurisdiction is a different issue from that of one local Church attempting to impose its own traditions onto that of another local Church. And it was more than words, forcibly separating clergy from their wives. AFAIK, there were certain decrees about separating clergy from wives who they married AFTER ordination. What is wrong with that? Matthew 19:6, Mark 10:9. And no, it included those married BEFORE ordination. Proof from primary sources please. Are you opposed to your own Trullan canons? You mean the Church's own Trullan canons? I don't have any of my own. Which one you thinking of? Sorry, but I'm Oriental, not Eastern. The Trullan Canons were an Eastern work. Besides, the Westerns never accepted the Trullan Canons as having Ecumenical status, so you cannot claim them in toto as "the Church's." As we know from watching the Borgias, mistresses went on. And the sins of a few condemn all? I thought that barbarous way of thinking only existed in the middle ages. Hypocrisy wasn't invented in the modern age. And it was FAR from a few. And it is the institutionalization of concubinage or just plain fornication as alternative to marriage that condemns all. So now it is the papacy that institutionalized concubinage. Your claims are getting more fantastic as time progresses. Disparaging, like "let no made put asunder," or "remove not the boundary marker which your Fathers have set up"? More like accusations that the Latin Church hated Marriage, which is still echoed by today's non-Catholic polemicists stated quite up front by Catholic apologists, using the Latin church's own sources. Not sure of your point. It is theological error and heresy, Only when the Creed is said in Greek and understood according to the Greek use of ekporeusai -- but it is not said or understood according to the Greek in the Latin Church, is it? the exposition of it in Latin reveals it as heresy. The Latin Romanian Orthodox Church (which has its bishop in Old Rome) knows it as heresy. Hence, it doesn't use it. The "Romanian Church United With Rome, Greek-Catholic," having submitted to the Vatican, adopted its heresy, and use it. So to believe that the Holy Spirit is consubstantial to the Father and the Son (which is how the Latins have always understood filioque) is a heresy according to you? Btw, I thought Romanian was a Latin-based language, not Latin itself. Meanings and definitions change, and how Romanians (influenced by Greek theology) understand filioque may not be how genuine Latins (according to Latin theology) understand filioque. The Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council (not at the time in communion with Old Rome) How could an "Ecumenical Council" be considered "Ecumenical" if it was not in communion with Rome? understood the matter according to the Greek of the Gospel. How the corrupters of the Creed understood it does not bear any weight. The Credal line at issue was intended by the Fathers to defend the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Whether according to the Greek or Latin usage, this original intention of the Fathers of Constantinople was never corrupted. One thing it unquestionably was was overturning that Roman Tradition that had been in conformity with the Universal practice of the Church and the Sacred Canons thereon, done to please the secular ruler. No, it wasn't a universal practice since most of the West by the time had been using filioque for several hundred years already. Rome was only the Johnny-come-lately. as the Emperor hadn't gotten to impose it until then at Rome. Did the Emperor have anything to do with it before the 8th century? But filioque was already used in Latin Churches before then - so your theory fails. If you had any knowledge of Vatican 1 at all, you would know that the NEO-ultramontanists were the ones who supported the political pretensions of the papacy (inspired by the Donation of Constantine), not the Ultramontanists. The Neo-ultramontantist, for example, argued for the inclusion of the deposing power of the Pope among his "infallible" prerogatives (among their other pretensions). Fortunately, the Neo-ultramontanists failed in their attempts. The distinction between Neo-ultramontanism (the Absolutist Petrine view) and Ultramontanism (the Hight Petrine view) is historical, if you bother to read about the Catholic Church from sources that are not anti-Catholic. But the records of Vatican I, the ones I read, are the ones to read about it. Not being bound by them, nor having to vindicate Ultramontanism in any form, I am free to look at them and see what they say. And how they were used since then. You are not free to spread the lie that NEO-ultramontantism won out at Vatican 1 by your lack of distinction between that and the moderate Ultramontanism of the Fathers. Blessings, Marduk
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,309 Likes: 3 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
'Khristos af-don'f! All we've been talking about in this thread is the relationship of the Pope to the bishops. It is fraudulent to claim that the Donation was ever used by any Pope against a bishop, much less a bishop of the East. You have no foundation to your claim that it was intended by Pope Leo IX as "Gospel Truth." IIRC, in his letter to Cerularius, he cited the Donation to demonstrate his authority in the West (which is the greatest extent of the Donation's claim-a fact you cannot dispute) Right now I am fighting a cold, and so am not in the mood to pick this to pieces. Lord willing, I'll do that later. In the meantime, though, I think I should address your lack of familiarity of the contents of the "Donation." To wit: In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, the Father, namely, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine in Christ Jesus, the Lord I God our Saviour, one of that same holy Trinity,-faithful merciful, supreme, beneficent, Alamannic, Gothic, Sarmatic, Germanic, Britannic, Hunic, pious, fortunate, victor and triumpher, always august: to the most holy and blessed father of fathers Sylvester, bishop of the city of and to all his successors the pontiffs , who are about to sit upon Rome and pope, the chair of St. Peter until the end of time - also to all the most reverend and of God beloved catholic bishops, subjected by this our imperial decree throughout the whole world to this same holy, Roman church...And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople [a dead give away, btw, of the "Donation"'s fraudulence: Constantinople was not founded yet, let alone a chief see, at the time] and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the -whole world. And he who for the time being shall be pontiff of that holy Roman church shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world; and, according to his judgment, everything which is to be provided for the service of God or the stability of the faith of the Christians is to be administered....Meanwhile we wish all the people, of all the races and nations throughout the whole world, to know: that we have constructed within our Lateran palace [i.e. St. John of the Lateran, the cathedral of the bishop of Rome], to the same Saviour our Lord God Jesus Christ, a church with a baptistry from the foundations. And know that we have carried on our own shoulders from its foundations, twelve baskets weighted with earth, according to the number of the holy apostles. Which holy church we command to be spoken of, cherished, venerated and preached of, as the head and summit of all the churches in the whole world-as we have commanded through our other imperial decrees. We have also constructed the churches of St. Peter [i.e. St. Peter's in the Vatican, the metachion of Constantinople] and St. Paul [i.e. St. Paul outside the Walls, metachion of Alexandria], chiefs of the apostles,...and have enriched them with different objects; and, through our sacred imperial decrees, we have granted them our gift of land in the East as well as in the West; and even on the northern and southern coast;-namely in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa and Italy and the various islands: under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered by the hand of our most blessed father the pontiff Sylvester and his successors...We decree, moreover, that all these things which, through this our imperial charter and through other godlike commands, we have established and confirmed, shall remain uninjured and unshaken until the end of the world. Wherefore, before the living God, who commanded us to reign, and in the face of his terrible judgment, we conjure, through this our imperial decree, all the emperors our successors, and all our nobles, the satraps also and the most glorious senate, and all the people in the , the whole world now and in all times previously subject to our rule: that no one of them, in any way allow himself to oppose or disregard, or in any way seize, these things which, by our imperial sanction, have been conceded to the holy Roman church and to all its pontiffs. If anyone, moreover,-which we do not believe - prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject and bound over to eternal damnation; and shall feel that the holy chiefs of the apostles of God, Peter and Paul, will be opposed to him in the present and in the future life. And, being burned in the nethermost hell, he shall perish with the devil and all the impious... This is what your supreme pontiff Leo IX was trying to pass off in his letter, which you should (re?)read. Btw, it is interesting that the claims of Roman supremacy preceded the creation of the "Petrine office," neither of which exist (or existed) in Orthodox theology. As for Vatican I, I learned that from Patriarch Gregory's head hitting the marble floor, amplified by your supreme pontiff's papal slipper.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33 |
As for Vatican I, I learned that from Patriarch Gregory's head hitting the marble floor, amplified by your supreme pontiff's papal slipper. This canard is more a forgery than the "Donation."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 78
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2012
Posts: 78 |
As for Vatican I, I learned that from Patriarch Gregory's head hitting the marble floor, amplified by your supreme pontiff's papal slipper. This canard is more a forgery than the "Donation." So then there is a grain of truth to the Donation? What might that be?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 978 |
So then there is a grain of truth to the Donation? What might that be? That there was in fact a Emperor named Constantine. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33 |
As for Vatican I, I learned that from Patriarch Gregory's head hitting the marble floor, amplified by your supreme pontiff's papal slipper. This canard is more a forgery than the "Donation." So then there is a grain of truth to the Donation? What might that be? That only a grain of truth is asked to differentiate speaks more to the veracity of the canard. Goodness, read the document, there are numerous grains, enough that it was considered authentic for some time -- plausible. It is a kind of pseudepigrapha. The canard is simple slander.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 2,399 Likes: 33 |
BTW, there is a donation of Constantine that is significant, authentic and usually overlooked: ... the Lateran Palace was eventually given to the Bishop of Rome by Constantine. The actual date of the gift is unknown but scholars believe it had to have been during the pontificate of Pope Miltiades, in time to host a synod of bishops in 313 that was convened to challenge the Donatist schism, declaring Donatism as heresy. The palace basilica was converted and extended, becoming the residence of Pope St. Silvester I,[3] eventually becoming the cathedral of Rome, the seat of the popes as bishops of Rome.
..
The official dedication of the Basilica and the adjacent Lateran Palace was presided over by Pope Sylvester I in 324, declaring both to be Domus Dei or "House of God." In its interior, the Papal Throne was placed, making it the Cathedral of the Bishop of Rome. In reflection of the basilica's claim to primacy in the world as "mother church", the words Sacrosancta Lateranensis ecclesia omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput (meaning "Most Holy Lateran Church, of all the churches in the city and the world, the mother and head") are incised in the front wall between the main entrance doors. [ en.wikipedia.org]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 839 |
As for Vatican I, I learned that from Patriarch Gregory's head hitting the marble floor, amplified by your supreme pontiff's papal slipper. This canard is more a forgery than the "Donation." So then there is a grain of truth to the Donation? What might that be? That only a grain of truth is asked to differentiate speaks more to the veracity of the canard. Goodness, read the document, there are numerous grains, enough that it was considered authentic for some time -- plausible. It is a kind of pseudepigrapha. No, it's a fraud, consciously committed. And it contained enough grains on its face-referring to Constantinople, for instance, when it didn't existed-that it should have been dismissed pronto. It proved too useful, though. The canard is simple slander. You mean, against the child-napper? https://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/346969/Re:%20Melkites%20at%20Vatican%20I
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,132 |
Thank you for the quote of the Donation, which actually amply supports what I have been saying. No Pope in his right mind would ever admit that it was the SECULAR power that granted to the papacy its prerogatives, which is exactly what the Donation claims to do. No Pope - and no NEO-ultramontanist - would EVER appeal to the Donation on this particular point you are claiming. The whole idea refutes the very rhetoric you are proposing. To repeat - at best, any Pope (or medieval Latin Catholic source) who has ever appealed to the Donation only did so to establish the TEMPORAL prerogatives of the papacy against the encroachments of the SECULAR power into Church affairs. No Latin source has ever appealed to the Donation to establish the THEOLOGICAL prerogatives of the papacy, for to do so would be to admit (as the Donation claims) that such theological prerogatives were granted to it by the SECULAR power. The Donation was mentioned by Pope Leo IX exactly as I proposed in my last post. I hope to find that translation I read a long time ago to evince the exact context of Pope Leo's citation of the Donation. I can tell you right now (though you don't have to believe me) that it was never to establish jurisdiction over the Church of Constantinople. One thing that distinctly stuck in my mind when reading that letter of Pope Leo IX to Patriarch Cerularius was the fact that Pope Leo objected to Patriarch Cerularius' closing of the Latin Churches in Constantinople not on the grounds that the Patriarch had no authority over the Latin parishes, but on the much humbler rationale that the Pope himself had never disrespected the Divine Liturgy of the Greeks in his own territory. Blessings, Marduk 'Khristos af-don'f! All we've been talking about in this thread is the relationship of the Pope to the bishops. It is fraudulent to claim that the Donation was ever used by any Pope against a bishop, much less a bishop of the East. You have no foundation to your claim that it was intended by Pope Leo IX as "Gospel Truth." IIRC, in his letter to Cerularius, he cited the Donation to demonstrate his authority in the West (which is the greatest extent of the Donation's claim-a fact you cannot dispute) Right now I am fighting a cold, and so am not in the mood to pick this to pieces. Lord willing, I'll do that later. In the meantime, though, I think I should address your lack of familiarity of the contents of the "Donation." To wit: In the name of the holy and indivisible Trinity, the Father, namely, and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The emperor Caesar Flavius Constantine in Christ Jesus, the Lord I God our Saviour, one of that same holy Trinity,-faithful merciful, supreme, beneficent, Alamannic, Gothic, Sarmatic, Germanic, Britannic, Hunic, pious, fortunate, victor and triumpher, always august: to the most holy and blessed father of fathers Sylvester, bishop of the city of and to all his successors the pontiffs , who are about to sit upon Rome and pope, the chair of St. Peter until the end of time - also to all the most reverend and of God beloved catholic bishops, subjected by this our imperial decree throughout the whole world to this same holy, Roman church...And we ordain and decree that he shall have the supremacy as well over the four chief seats Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople [a dead give away, btw, of the "Donation"'s fraudulence: Constantinople was not founded yet, let alone a chief see, at the time] and Jerusalem, as also over all the churches of God in the -whole world. And he who for the time being shall be pontiff of that holy Roman church shall be more exalted than, and chief over, all the priests of the whole world; and, according to his judgment, everything which is to be provided for the service of God or the stability of the faith of the Christians is to be administered....Meanwhile we wish all the people, of all the races and nations throughout the whole world, to know: that we have constructed within our Lateran palace [i.e. St. John of the Lateran, the cathedral of the bishop of Rome], to the same Saviour our Lord God Jesus Christ, a church with a baptistry from the foundations. And know that we have carried on our own shoulders from its foundations, twelve baskets weighted with earth, according to the number of the holy apostles. Which holy church we command to be spoken of, cherished, venerated and preached of, as the head and summit of all the churches in the whole world-as we have commanded through our other imperial decrees. We have also constructed the churches of St. Peter [i.e. St. Peter's in the Vatican, the metachion of Constantinople] and St. Paul [i.e. St. Paul outside the Walls, metachion of Alexandria], chiefs of the apostles,...and have enriched them with different objects; and, through our sacred imperial decrees, we have granted them our gift of land in the East as well as in the West; and even on the northern and southern coast;-namely in Judea, Greece, Asia, Thrace, Africa and Italy and the various islands: under this condition indeed, that all shall be administered by the hand of our most blessed father the pontiff Sylvester and his successors...We decree, moreover, that all these things which, through this our imperial charter and through other godlike commands, we have established and confirmed, shall remain uninjured and unshaken until the end of the world. Wherefore, before the living God, who commanded us to reign, and in the face of his terrible judgment, we conjure, through this our imperial decree, all the emperors our successors, and all our nobles, the satraps also and the most glorious senate, and all the people in the , the whole world now and in all times previously subject to our rule: that no one of them, in any way allow himself to oppose or disregard, or in any way seize, these things which, by our imperial sanction, have been conceded to the holy Roman church and to all its pontiffs. If anyone, moreover,-which we do not believe - prove a scorner or despiser in this matter, he shall be subject and bound over to eternal damnation; and shall feel that the holy chiefs of the apostles of God, Peter and Paul, will be opposed to him in the present and in the future life. And, being burned in the nethermost hell, he shall perish with the devil and all the impious... This is what your supreme pontiff Leo IX was trying to pass off in his letter, which you should (re?)read. Btw, it is interesting that the claims of Roman supremacy preceded the creation of the "Petrine office," neither of which exist (or existed) in Orthodox theology. As for Vatican I, I learned that from Patriarch Gregory's head hitting the marble floor, amplified by your supreme pontiff's papal slipper.
|
|
|
|
|
