|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/1/2010 5:48:26 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 2195
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
Regarding some of the differences between the EO and the RCC, and thinking about West vs. East culture:
How are some of the differences, including filioque, similar to the difference one might get in solving a geometry problem using Cartesian coordinates, or Polar coordinates?
The write-up of the solution will look completely different. Different relationships will have to be established in this process. One may be preferential over the other, depending on the nature or aspects of the problem to be solved.
Same answer - but in a different frame of reference, depending on the requirements of the person solving the problem?
Why isn't "fililoque" in the spellchecker...?
_____________________________
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 - 9/1/2010 7:57:11 PM
|
|
|
Acolyte4236
Posts: 5
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline
|
Patricius,
By way of response, I agree that nobody’s hierarchs are sinless, but can the pope commit the sin of heresy or does God “rope in” his will such that this is not possible?
It is true that Emperors pressured various councils and bishops, but it is also true that when they did so such councils were ipso facto invalid, which is why some of the Arian synods and the iconoclasts synods were illegitimate. This is one of the main reasons spelled out in the 7th council.
It is true that the bishops of Rome at times played pivotal roles in staving off heresies, but that is true for lots of different patriarchial sees such as Alexandria and Jerusalem for example. The latter opposed even Rome in the monothelite controversy when Pope Honorius sided with Sergius of Constantinople in advocating Monothelitism and Monoenergism.
It is true that there are various patristic citations used to support the claims of Vatican 1, but what we need to know and what needs to be demonstrated is how said authors used such terms as “head” “chief” and “primacy” since those words can vary in meaning across language and time, and they did.
Now the period you list for Theodore is mistaken. Theodore is prior to Photius and Theodore is dealing with the iconoclast heresy. Second, the question in reading Theodore is whether he thinks Rome has a primacy in and among the other bishops or he has a chrism over and above theirs qua bishop. That is, does monarchy subordinate collegiality or does it exist in collegiality? Vat 1 takes for the former stance which is why the Pope’s exercise of extraordinary magisterium in making ex cathedra statements does not require the consent or the advice of the bishops.
That said, Theodore also says things like “About the pope, what concern of ours is it that he acts this way or that?” Epistle to Basil, PG 99. 1001A.
Now while there is no manuscript evidence to suggest as much, some Catholic scholars doubt its authenticity. But of course, a number of the citations at the “Fisheaters” page are also known to be either interpolations or are disputed in the scholarship as being authentic. Yet they still are put up there without any caveat to the reader. Spoof texting then is dangerous thing. One has to be careful and analyze each citation in its context.
No one disputes that Rome had a primacy, but rather what constituted that primacy and whether it could be lost or not is what is in dispute. So practically all of the material with the language of “head” “primacy” etc. really doesn’t move the ball down the field in favor of Rome until one demonstrates that it means what Rome claims it does.
It is true that Orthodox scholarship confirms strong evidence for the primacy of Rome, but they do not think it amounts to the primacy as layed out in Vat 1. Using scholars like Meyendorff to say otherwise is misleading.
As to the claim that the popes were decisive in various councils, in some cases this is true and some cases it is not. Take the Fifth council, which excommunicated Pope Vigilius until he changed his mind. And that was in the face of his claimed "irreformable" judgment as he called it. The council didn't flinch and the pope did. The council there was clearly superior to the Pope. To say that the decisions of any council are inadequate without the pope is not only ambiguous, but raises more problems for the Catholic position than it solves.
First, on a conciliar model, all the apostolic sees need to ratify an ecumenical council. This was the main reason why the iconoclast council of Hiera was rejected since it lacked patriarchial participation and ratification. So the fact that Rome had to sign off on it is no more significant per se than the fact that Jerusalem had to as well. The fact that this is taught in and by the 7th council seems to cut against the papal theory, since none of the patriarchial sees are dispensible, yet Rome claims that they are.
Second, if the claim that councils are inadequate without papal ratification were true, then we’d have a really big problem since there was no legitimate pope to ratify the council of Constance to settle the Great Western schism when three claimaints to the papacy were running around. the council was ratified only after it elected anothr pope (the fourth candidate). If councils are inadequate, then the council of Constance was as well and hence there is no legitimate pope for the last 600 plus years. And if their settlement of who is a valid pope isn’t a supremely important issue, what could be higher? And if there is nothing more important than it seems that a council is quite adequate to settle any range of theological issues, without a pope.
As to Schmeman’s quote, it is important to cite experts in their field of expertise. Fr. Schmeman was an expert in liturgical theology, not the question that is on the table. Second, there is nothing in that quote that implies or entails the view of the papacy as outlined in Vatican 1. Lots of western conciliarists in the middle ages would and did say the same. (See Brian Tierny’s, The Foundations of Conciliar Theory)
The analogy to local priests relative to ecumenical councils is not apt. Priests are necessary for the daily functioning of the church whereas a council is not.
As for “Eucharistic Ecclesiology” removing the priest from under the bishops authority, you’d need to show in terms of a logical argument how that is done. That would be a neat trick since the account posits the presbyter as the representative of the bishop at the local level. Hence the bishop presides in the local priest, which is why the bishops cloth is on the altar and his throne is in every church.
I simply deny that it is impossible to articulate the necessary and sufficient conditions of an ecumenical council without the papacy. It may be true that ecumenicity has consisted in all bishops agreeing, but western and eastern conciliarists never claimed as much. Hence this criticism misses the mark and so is a straw man. As for it always meaning “that the popes recognize it” if this is in the sense that the popes are of themselves apart from the episcopate the head of the chuch and such that there confirmation is a sufficient condition, I simply deny that it has “always” been so.
Simply asserting that doctrinal development took place as if it were an obvious fact doesn’t amount to a proof that it is so. Second, it also seems to miss what the concept of doctrinal development amounts to. That idea is the thesis that theological content is hidden and implicit in older terms and texts and is drawn out through a dialectical process, either by reason or a vital power. Plenty of Catholics opposed Newman's theory of doctrinal development when it came out due to the influence of Idealism as well as it implying that earlier ages didn't hold to the same faith.
It is true that no one used the terms of “ecumenical” councils in the first two hundred fifty years, but that doesn’t imply that the conciliar model wasn’t taught and endorsed. In fact, the NT itself presents a council as the authoritative means for achieving an authoritative judgment and not that of Peter over and above all of the apostles. (Acts 15) If you wish to concede to Jehovah’s Witnesses that the full deity of the Son wasn’t taught prior to the use of homoousia, I can’t stop you, but I won’t give such ground. Terms and ideas are not co-extensive.
As to defining doctrine and specifically the hypostatic union, Chalcedon defined it in terms of limiting how to think about it. It didn’t define it in terms of conceptual content. Hence there it is not an example of the development of doctrine since there is no conceptual material to develop or extend from the terms. And the reason is simple. The key terms are apophatic-unmixed, unconfused, etc. They are negations. Not this, not that, but what it is,God knows.
As to Leo’s Tome, I’d recommend Gray’s The Defense of Chalcedon in the East, and John McGuckin’s, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the Christological Controversy. Both works clearly show that Leo’s Tome had to be evaluated for its Orthodoxy in comparison with Cyril’s theology. Cyril and not Leo was the touchstone for the council. This is why the synod set up a special committee to examine Leo’s Tome to make sure it was Orthodox.
As for Agatho, no one disputes that Rome was the primary see, being founded by both Peter and Paul, having a double deposit, which is the oldest tradition of Rome’s primacy. The question again is what the key terms amount to, and not whether they were used. We also have language from the Fathers of Jerusalem being the “Mother of all Churches.”
Primus inter pares isn’t without jurisdictional application as is the case with the Ecumenical Patriarchate even today. It isn’t a mere title. It is primacy in the episcopate, and not primacy that subordinates it.
As to your points on my citations of Archbishop Stylianos,
1. It was a short article in a collection of articles and so wasn’t devoted to that. It was devoted to laying out the theology of the Orthodox relative to primacy and papal claims. If you wish to look at an opposing view of say Ephesus, there is other literature to which you can look, but faulting an article for not answering questions it wasn’t aiming it isn’t fair or relevant.
2. The article implies no such thing regarding non-submission to bishops or councils. The “windowless monad” is not in relation to us, but in relation to the pope after he cut himself off from the church. This is the implication of the article directly. Having an ultimate authority doesn't imply having only one person occupy a position of ultimate authority. It doesn't in the Trinity and so it doesn't in the Church.
3. The Catholic position rather postulates an intrinsic opposition between the episcopate and the Petrine chrism, which is why one must be subordinate to the other. Oppposition in Catholic theology is necessary for distinction, which is why the persons of the Trinity are distinguished by “relations of opposition.” You do not assume a conflict between a priest and a bishop because one is lower than the other. Hence bishops qua bishops are lower than the pope qua pope.
4. As for the Formula of Hormisdas, the matter isn’t as clear cut as you present. Over half of the clergy that went back into communion with Rome never signed it or agreed to it. You can see more details here -> http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/02/16/some-notes-on-the-acacian-schism/
Some how Catholic apologetic websites leave that and other relevant facts out. I don't think they are duplicitous, but they usually don't read the literature on both sides.
6. The article doesn’t confuse the issue since the petrine chrism is of a different kind than that of the episcopate. Hence the comparison is apt. Your comparison with the Trinity isn’t apt since the bishops aren’t co-equal with the Pope qua pope and this is so because the Petrine chrism is not of the apostolic succession, which is why popes are not ordained as such by the laying on of hands by other popes. It is over and above apostolic succession.
As to the council of Florence, not all of the Eastern representatives signed the councils decision. And most of those that did were essentially bribed or under duress, either from the emperor or from the fear of the Muslim hordes at their door back home. This is why some of them were “rewarded” with various positions by Rome or cash payments afterwards. Buying votes isn’t exactly a good witness to papal primacy but borders on the gross sin of simony. Those that received no papal support never signed.
As to the Filioque, to say that the idea of dual causation has never been the western view isn’t exactly true. The Franks never framed it precisely enough and the denial of dual causation was only ruled out later. If the Father is the sole cause, then the Son is not of one principle in causing the eternal person of the Spirit. The problem turns on the Latin confusing hypostatic consubstantial mediation with hypostatic origination as layed out by Fr. Garrigous here -> http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/the-nub/
John of Damascus does say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, but he explicitly denies that the Son is a cause of the Spirit or that the Spirit is from the Son . Further, the Latins as is plain in say Aquinas, argue that hypostatic mediation just is hypostatic origination, which is what Florence means when it uses the “through” language. And this is because of the flattening of the eternal in the doctrine of God. If the action is eternal it has to be hypostatic, otherwise it is economical. On the contrary, the East holds that the eternal is more robust in that there is an energetic procession that is not hypostatic origination, but is eternal. It is an eternal manifestation, as Maximus says. Maximus hence explicitly denies in his letter to Marius that procession can be said of the Spirit from the Son. So Maximus doesn’t defend the Filioque. Here is the relevant text.
"For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Áἰôßá) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ἐêðüñåõóéò — but they explained that the latter comes (ðñïúÝíáé) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marin of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).
Proinai is through or shines forth, which Maximus distinguishes form ekpouresis, procession. The two are not the same, and the Filioque doctrine says they are. Hence Maximus' letter can't be proof of a defense of the Filioque since he denies what the doctrine entails.
Last I checked the decisions of the joint theological commission had the status of recommendations and were not taken to be binding on Rome or the East.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/1/2010 9:34:17 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Acolyte,
Some of your objections seem like very worthy ones. So I will take time to consider. If I can't answer them I see no other alternative but to become Eastern Orthodox.
Peace in Jesus Christ.
P.S. You were quite right that I got the date/chronology wrong as to Theodore.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 3:24:12 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: walterquez
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelmam
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Your husbands experience, notwithstandking, the percentage of RC's who have left to become Protestants is very very great. No doubt. But I'm not talking about the RCC. This is an Orthodox thread, remember? If Protestants, such as yourself, and other Roman Catholics want to discuss differences, I think it best you do that elsewhere than here. This is not the place for disputes/differences between Protestants and Catholics. Where do you get the idea that this is an "Orthodox thread"? I don't see that anywhere. In fact, the title is "The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession".
Besides, I don't think you get to say what this "place" is for, or to tell someone where it is "best" for them to go.
You're the one who posted to me and asked if I was speaking for "all Protestants". I answered you using RC statistics....sorry, I don't have the statistics on how many EOs have become Protestants. She is not entirely wrong. I was the one who started this thread, and I am Orthodox. So?....as far as I can see this is not an Orthodox thread. If you wanted it to be you should have included that in your title - you didn't.
quote:
Also, since the moderators have put this thread in the One Stop Catholic thread, she is kinda right. Since it is not otherwise noted, this thread is not restricted to your denomination since it is not "the" New Testament Church. Nor is your church the only one with "apostolic succession" opinions. If it's your personal desire to not have Protestants engage and to restrict this thread to RC vs EO - just say so. Although, you should have done so to begin with.
quote:
The Orthodox is Catholic, or more rightly; the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. All churches which teach the true Gospel are one, holy, catholic and apostolic.
quote:
If you can prove your group has an unbroken line of witnesses that began with Jesus, then Heavendweller is wrong; but, I doubt it. Your understanding of "apostolic succession" is, I believe, somewhat anemic. What mattered to the early church was adherence to the Lord Jesus and His Gospel. Apostolic succession, to the early church, was a way to argue that you possessed truth handed down from the Apostles.
Those who really had succession from the Apostles would have opposed changing the faith "once delivered".
The true "apostolic succession" is faithfulness to what they taught, to what they handed down - not by changing it by adding new doctrines. Apostolic succession to the early church was a proof of the preservation of truth within the churches.
It lacks credence to argue that apostolic succession has faithfully and accurately preserved apostolic "tradition" for two thousand years - especially throughout the massively corrupt Middle Ages. However, what was faithfully preserved was Scripture, to this God attests.
So, while the Apostles certainly chose elders in the new founded churches, they never "passed on" their apostolic authority or office. That would not be possible. One important qualification of the Apostles, although there were others, was that they were chosen directly by the Lord Jesus Christ, and the work of these twelve, together with the prophets of the twelve tribes of Israel, provide a foundation for the whole church of subsequent history through the Scriptures which we have from them.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 7:33:45 AM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 2195
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
"For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Áἰôßá) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ἐêðüñåõóéò — but they explained that the latter comes (ðñïúÝíáé) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marin of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).
I've noticed that I can't cut and paste Greek text into my posts, without it barking up the characters like the above.
What's up with that?
I have noticed some posters who manage to get Greek characters into their posts correctly. Do they have to type them in manually?
Kind of off topic, but...
_____________________________
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 - 9/2/2010 12:54:11 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Hi Acolyte,
I have some responses and questions. I will post them as I have time. I want to keep the issues of the Filioque separate from my posts about hte Papacy, in light of the Joint Statement on such.
My basic problem is this: wherever I find difficulties in Catholic doctrine, I find equally great issues with the Orthodox position as I understand it. I'm no scholar, but I have to discern history nonetheless.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
Second, the question in reading Theodore is whether he thinks Rome has a primacy in and among the other bishops or he has a chrism over and above theirs qua bishop. That is, does monarchy subordinate collegiality or does it exist in collegiality? Vat 1 takes for the former stance which is why the Pope’s exercise of extraordinary magisterium in making ex cathedra statements does not require the consent or the advice of the bishops.
My understanding is that the Popes seekscounsel and listens, like Peter in Acts 15. as to the "primacy in and among" vs. "over and above" seems a false dichotomy. It is not as though the Pope's decisions ex cathedra decisions have ever been hated by all bishops.
I know Theodore says very strong things in favor of Papal Supremacy. What about this quotation?:
I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves away from the Body of Christ, from the Supreme See, in which Christ placed the keys of the Faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouth of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the Consummation.... (Theodore Bk. II. Ep. 63).
http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
He also writes:
the Western Patriarch to be present, to whom is given authority over an ecumenical council[/i'
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:00:00 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
That said, Theodore also says things like “About the pope, what concern of ours is it that he acts this way or that?” Epistle to Basil, PG 99. 1001A.
That doesn't give me enough information. Theodore does say, Writing to Pope Leo III:
[Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)
He also says that from of old their only aid is the Papacy, which is the pure fount of orthodox from the beginning.
quote:
No one disputes that Rome had a primacy, but rather what constituted that primacy and whether it could be lost or not is what is in dispute.
If it can be lost, then why have the Orthodox not held any Ecumenical Councils since? my understanding is that Augustine says, e.g.
"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail"
Augustine,Psalm against the Party of Donatus,18(A.D. 393),in GCC,51
Likewise both Ambrose and Cyprian said tha tthe unity of the priesthood has its source in the Roman Church. E.g. the EO scholar Meyendorf write:
"...according to his doctrine there should have really been one single bishop at the head of the Universal Church....According to Cyprian, every bishop occupies Peter's throne (the Bishop of Rome among others) but the See of Peter is Peter's throne -par excellence-. The Bishop of Rome is the direct heir of Peter, whereas the others are heirs only indirectly, and sometimes only by the mediation of Rome. Hence Cyprian's insistence that the Church of Rome is the root and matrix of the Catholic Church. The subject is treated in so many of Cyprian's passages that there is no doubt: to him, the See of Rome was -ecclesia principalis unde unitas sacerdotalis exorta est- [the Principal Church from which the unity of the priesthood/episcopacy has its rise]." (page 98-99)
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/2/2010 6:59:16 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:02:14 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
So practically all of the material with the language of “head” “primacy” etc. really doesn’t move the ball down the field in favor of Rome until one demonstrates that it means what Rome claims it does.
well to me it is the agreement on Peter's Primacy, that the Church is built on Peter, that Peter is the "key bearer" that Rome is the Successor of Peter, and similar that are decisive. and how could a body rightly reject its "head"?
Chrysostom's statements at the Fisheater's site seem very strong. he also writes:
"Peter ... the foundation of the faith" (Hom. de decem mille talentis, Chapman 74).
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/web_chry.htm
and this is the consensus of the fathers. And the early Churchknew Peter was Succeeded by the Roman Bishops So how could the Church lose its foundation?
quote:
It is true that Orthodox scholarship confirms strong evidence for the primacy of Rome, but they do not think it amounts to the primacy as layed out in Vat 1. Using scholars like Meyendorff to say otherwise is misleading.
well, if the EO reject doctrinal development, then they must agree that the Bishop of Rome is still the "center of ecumenical agreement", as it was held to be unanimously in the early Church, according to those EO scholars, right?
(so the Orthodox would hvae to show the early Church taught that the role of the Bishopric of Rome could cease or be rejected)
after, all the idea of "primacy only of honor" is not explicitly stated in teh early Church. so it is clearly a development as Catholics understand the word "development", assuming "primacy of honor" is truly believed at all in the early Church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:07:58 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
As to the claim that the popes were decisive in various councils, in some cases this is true and some cases it is not. Take the Fifth council, which excommunicated Pope Vigilius until he changed his mind. And that was in the face of his claimed "irreformable" judgment as he called it. The council didn't flinch and the pope did. The council there was clearly superior to the Pope..
please give the documents relative to Vigilus and this council. Pope Vigilius did not meet the criteria for an infallible statement here. It does sound like they corrected the Pope, yes.. Paul does the same in Gal 2. But this does not show that they are superior to the Pope. Or if it does, I would need to hear more.
Judging by the statements of various fathers--including Theodore, whom I've quoted--, the East seems to have been aware that Rome has been the most reliable source, to put it mildly.
Plesae see the "Chart of Heretical Eastern Patriarchs" here:
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2007/03/response-to-orthodox-critiques-of.html
as Dave Armstrong notes at this link:
These historical facts may be briefly summarized as follows: All three of the great Eastern sees were under the jurisdiction of heretical patriarchs simultaneously during five different periods: 357-60 (Arian), 475-77, 482-96, and 512-17 (all Monophysite), and 640-42 (Monothelite): a total of 26 years, or 9% of the time from 357 to 642.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/2/2010 7:02:14 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:10:07 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
First, on a conciliar model, all the apostolic sees need to ratify an ecumenical council. This was the main reason why the iconoclast council of Hiera was rejected since it lacked patriarchial participation and ratification. So the fact that Rome had to sign off on it is no more significant per se than the fact that Jerusalem had to as well. The fact that this is taught in and by the 7th council seems to cut against the papal theory, since none of the patriarchial sees are dispensible, yet Rome claims that they are.
could you give me a link to this documentatin from the 7th Council? Also, wasn't Chalcedon rejected by Alexandria, e.g.?
My understadning, however is that II Nicaea is only binding to the degree it is accepted by the Pope, just as the Orthodox assert other standards which seem circular.
quote:
Second, if the claim that councils are inadequate without papal ratification were true, then we’d have a really big problem since there was no legitimate pope to ratify the council of Constance to settle the Great Western schism when three claimaints to the papacy were running around. the council was ratified only after it elected anothr pope (the fourth candidate). If councils are inadequate, then the council of Constance was as well and hence there is no legitimate pope for the last 600 plus years. And if their settlement of who is a valid pope isn’t a supremely important issue, what could be higher? And if there is nothing more important than it seems that a council is quite adequate to settle any range of theological issues, without a pope.
then why have there been no Ecumenical Councils since the 7th?
as to Constance, there was a Pope to ratify this decision, was there not. I mean you have Gregory 7th stepping down and turning things over to Constance, just like Popes today turn things over to the Cardinals.
if one believes that there always must be a Pope--as I think the East did believe--then it is logical to believe that Constance's election was valid bsaed on Gregory VII and the the subsequent approval of Popes, right?
This seems no more difficult than in assuming that we know which Councils are truly Ecumenical by Ecumenical Councils's statements.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:12:06 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
As to Schmeman’s quote, it is important to cite experts in their field of expertise. Fr. Schmeman was an expert in liturgical theology, not the question that is on the table. Second, there is nothing in that quote that implies or entails the view of the papacy as outlined in Vatican 1. Lots of western conciliarists in the middle ages would and did say the same. (See Brian Tierny’s, The Foundations of Conciliar Theory)
okay. then why does Meyendorff quote him in a rare book dealing specifically with Peter's Primacy/Papacy
quote:
The analogy to local priests relative to ecumenical councils is not apt. Priests are necessary for the daily functioning of the church whereas a council is not.
Bishops are necessary for the daily functioning of the Church.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:16:09 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
2. The article implies no such thing regarding non-submission to bishops or councils. The “windowless monad” is not in relation to us, but in relation to the pope after he cut himself off from the church. This is the implication of the article directly. Having an ultimate authority doesn't imply having only one person occupy a position of ultimate authority. It doesn't in the Trinity and so it doesn't in the Church.
"Eucharistic Ecclesiology" rejects the idea that the local church is part of the whole church, so logically it would not have to submit to a council--even if claiming even to be ecumencial--since it in itself is the fulness of the Church. But as to this article, it doesn't show that the Pope did cut himself off from the Church ,or that the Papacy means that one person alone occupies a position of ultimate authority. as the Vicar of Christ, the Pope is not alone but is with Christ, and with Peter, whose Successor he is, right?
quote:
having an ultimate authority doesn't imply having only one person occupy a position of ultimate authority. It doesn't in the Trinity and so it doesn't in the Church
unless this idea was stated from the beginning, it is a doctrinal development, right?
(remember: develoipment doesn't mean a change in belief, but a greater awareness of such)
quote]It is true that there are various patristic citations used to support the claims of Vatican 1, but what we need to know and what needs to be demonstrated is how said authors used such terms as “head” “chief” and “primacy” since those words can vary in meaning across language and time, and they did.[/quote
Yes, but they do seem to imply that nobody should ever separate themselves from said office.
and some of the testimonies are explicit, such as St. Max. of Const:
and being numbered in their company, she is subject to no writings or issues in synodical documents, on account of the eminence of her pontificate .....
http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/2/2010 1:36:41 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:18:10 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
3. The Catholic position rather postulates an intrinsic opposition between the episcopate and the Petrine chrism, which is why one must be subordinate to the other.
no.. I don't see that. that is like saying that if we are subordinate to Jesus Christ, then we are opposed to Him.
quote:
Oppposition in Catholic theology is necessary for distinction, which is why the persons of the Trinity are distinguished by “relations of opposition.”
that's pretty far out there. Obviously Aquinas and such did not mean the Persons are opposed, but use dthe word "opposed" simply in the sense of distincition.
As we saw on the previous pages, Gregory of Nyssa likewise says that the Spirit cannot be Personally distinguished without being mediated through the Son.
quote:
As to the council of Florence, not all of the Eastern representatives signed the councils decision. And most of those that did were essentially bribed or under duress, either from the emperor or from the fear of the Muslim hordes at their door back home. This is why some of them were “rewarded” with various positions by Rome or cash payments afterwards. Buying votes isn’t exactly a good witness to papal primacy but borders on the gross sin of simony. Those that received no papal support never signed.
Maybe so. What is the Catholic apologetic response to this? Have you looked into it?
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/2/2010 1:27:19 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:20:18 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
As to the Filioque, to say that the idea of dual causation has never been the western view isn’t exactly true. The Franks never framed it precisely enough and the denial of dual causation was only ruled out later. If the Father is the sole cause, then the Son is not of one principle in causing the eternal person of the Spirit. The problem turns on the Latin confusing hypostatic consubstantial mediation with hypostatic origination as layed out by Fr. Garrigous here -> http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2009/05/06/the-nub/
that doesn't make sense. one would have to say that the West--denying Augustine's teaching--held that the Son was NOT completely dependent on the Father for his hypostatic being.
quote:
John of Damascus does say that the Spirit proceeds through the Son, but he explicitly denies that the Son is a cause of the Spirit or that the Spirit is from the Son .
Certainly. He also says that the Father "produces the Spirit through the Word" But he cannot say "proceeds from the Son" or similar because of the implications of this word in greek as opposed to Latin. As a Catholic, I can agree with this, because we see the Son's role as being completely dependent on the Father who begets the Son.
It's important to understand that when the West said "proceeds from the father and the son" they had no direct knowledge of the Eastern emphasis on the Father as the sole cause of the Trinity. They believed it, but it was not in view, so they could not have been saying that the Eastern view was wronng.
quote:
Further, the Latins as is plain in say Aquinas, argue that hypostatic mediation just is hypostatic origination, which is what Florence means when it uses the “through” language.
No. both Traditions believe the Father alone is the sole origin and cause, and the role the Son is purely dependent on the Father.
BTW, what do you make of this quotation from Basil the Great?:
"Even if the Holy Spirit is third in diginity and order, why need he be third also in nature? For that he is second to the Son, having his being from him and receiving from him and announcing to us and being completely dependent on him, pious tradition recounts; but that his nature is third we are not taught by the Saints nor can we conclude logically from what has been said."
Basil, Against Eunomius,3, PG 29:653B(A.D. 365),in HS,44
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/filio.htm
(Likewise Basil says that the Spirit is joined to the Father through the Son, and similar).
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:29:06 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote]On the contrary, the East holds that the eternal is more robust in that there is an energetic procession that is not hypostatic origination, but is eternal. It is an eternal manifestation, as Maximus says. Maximus hence explicitly denies in his letter to Marius that procession can be said of the Spirit from the Son. So Maximus doesn’t defend the Filioque.[/quote]
That doesn't make sense to me, and the fact Maximus did defend the use of the Filioque. And the only reason this issue came up was because of semantics: the Pope chose the wrong Greek word. He was happy to correct this, right?
Maximus writes:
"For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Áἰôßá) of the Spirit"
So he clearly affirms that validity of the Latin fathres like Ambrose and Hilary---venertaed by the East, right?--who taught the Filioque, right?--as well as St. Cyril of Alex.?
Indeed the arguments against the Filioque seem both legalistically semantic and to have the problem that the Western Fathers taught the Filioqu before the schism, as well as three of the Greek, right?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:35:14 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
Proinai is through or shines forth, which Maximus distinguishes form ekpouresis, procession. The two are not the same, and the Filioque doctrine says they are.
No it doesn't. The West has never said that. The word for "processin" in Latin does not mean the same as in Greek. The West simply had a different emphasis which likewise is illuminating.
It is only confusing if one reads it as if Latin words mean the same as Greek, and assumes that it was mean to conflict with the East as opposed to simply being a different emphasis and insight.
quote:
Last I checked the decisions of the joint theological commission had the status of recommendations and were not taken to be binding on Rome or the East.
Of course they aren't. But Dred said that anything they said was essentially beyond dispute. ANd are you saying that you know better than that commission?
quote:
"For the procession they [the Romans] brought the witness of the Latin Fathers, as well, of course, as that of St Cyril of Alexandria in his sacred study on the Gospel of St John. On this basis they showed that they themselves do not make the Son Cause (Áἰôßá) of the Spirit. They know, indeed, that the Father is the sole cause of the Son and of the Spirit, of one by generation and of the other by ἐêðüñåõóéò — but they explained that the latter comes (ðñïúÝíáé) through the Son, and they showed in this way the unity and the immutability of the essence" (Letter to Marin of Cyprus, PG 91, 136 A-B).
I agree. You will find the same agreement in Mark Bonocore's treatment of this issue.
[
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/2/2010 1:49:12 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:40:14 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
back to Papacy:
quote:
It is true that the bishops of Rome at times played pivotal roles in staving off heresies, but that is true for lots of different patriarchial sees such as Alexandria and Jerusalem for example. The latter opposed even Rome in the monothelite controversy when Pope Honorius sided with Sergius of Constantinople in advocating Monothelitism and Monoenergism
If I remember right, St. Maximus defends the Pope in question in your post. This is one of the worst examples against the Papacy, and is not very strong, since Honorius's real failure was not to advocate Monothelitism but not define against it, whichis why Leo III did not accept the condemnatin as given by the Ecumenical Council.
http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9409fea2.asp
the decisions of Ecumenical Councils depend on Papal ratification, without which they cannot even be considred Ecumenical, nor shown to the be more authoritative that other Councils like Ephesus in 449.
Moreover, teh Patriarch of Jerusalem in questoin was Sophronius, who write:
"Transverse quickly all the world from one end to the other until you come to the Apostolic See (Rome), where are the foundations of the orthodox doctrine. Make clearly known to the most holy personages of that throne the questions agitated among us. Cease not to pray and to beg them until their apostolic and Divine wisdom shall have pronounced the victorious judgement and destroyed from the foundation ...the new heresy." (Sophronius,[quoted by Bishop Stephen of Dora to Pope Martin I at the Lateran Council], Mansi, x., 893)
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/pope_orthodox_church_fathers.htm
Acolyte wrote:
quote:
Now the period you list for Theodore is mistaken. Theodore is prior to Photius and Theodore is dealing with the iconoclast heresy
true. sorry. also, my understanding is that it was mainly the Papacy and Western Bishops that defended the correct belief as to Icons. Is that true?
quote:
Patricius, By way of response, I agree that nobody’s hierarchs are sinless, but can the pope commit the sin of heresy or does God “rope in” his will such that this is not possible
the Pope could be heretical in his opinion. but he would not be allowed to bind heretical doctrine because of the grace of Christ.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 1:47:28 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
That about summarizes some of the main questions and issues I have.
Peace in Jesus Christ,
pat
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 8:37:06 PM
|
|
|
Acolyte4236
Posts: 5
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline
|
Patricius
I agree that one can find difficulties in either view. That is important to notice and it is important to be honest about it. Whether a given view can show that apparent difficulties are merely apparent rather than real is another matter.
As for what the Roman view in fact is, I’d recommend looking at the actual documents. Pastor Aeternus is one such document, if not the primary document. Space and time do not permit me to give anything like a full analysis, but here is the crucial line.
Section 9 of chapter 4,
“…we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that when the Roman Pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA, that is, when, in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church, he possesses, by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his Church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the Church, irreformable.”
The Pope’s extraordinary magisterial power is not of the church in terms of consultation or consent. This is why the Pope is superior to an ecumenical council in Catholic theology. It is often true that the pope does consult with the cardinals prior to making an ex cathedra statement in modern times, but this is not necessary.
I agree that Theodore says plenty of things in favor of Rome’s primacy, but again, whether that amounts to the Catholic notion of supremacy is another matter. Factually, it just isn’t the case that Rome never succumbed to heresy as the Monothelite controversy shows. You can read the primary documents here.
http://books.google.com/books?id=_d0mx7Di1QkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Sophronius&hl=en&ei=BhiATJv8O5CgnQewm9ijAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Honorius’ position was identical to that of Sergius and Pyrrus, which is why every pope upon becoming pope up until the fourteenth century pronounced an anathema specifically on Honorius. Theodore should have known this since the 7th council specifically picks out Honorius for condemnation for his “monothelitism.”
Let’s assume the citation you give about authority over an ecumenical council is correct. Does this mean over in terms of presiding or over in terms or a superior authority? Second, what if Theodore was wrong? Fathers are not above making individual errors in theology. Augustine and Gregory of Nyssa both have some whoppers.
I’ll give you more of the citation from the epistle to Basil,
“About the pope, what concern of ours is it that he acts this way or that? For, you will pardon me, he is caught by his own wings, as the saying goes. For in saying that he was not concerned about the manifest sins of the priest (Joseph, economus of Ta Kathara monastery in former times), he jeered at and abused not some priest or another, but the head of the Church. It made us ashamed even to hear this. If this is really true, alas for the hierarchy! But please let us move our tongues discreetly against the heads(i.e. men in authority in the Church) and let us not declare our opinion so immoderately.” PG 99 1001A.
Most monographs that deal with Theodore or Nicephorus deal with this citation, so it is not as if it is unknown in the scholarly literature.
I can agree that Rome was the chief shepherd, but what does “chief” mean? Why assume it means what documents in the 19th century say it means, especially when the language in which many of these documents are written is Greek, not Latin. What is required is a demonstration that they in fact have the same meaning across centuries.
The only aid in this and a few other cases was Rome, but this wasn’t entirely true. It is also true that Theodore has some not so nice things to say about the Pope when the pope drags his feet in recognizing 2nd Nicea. Why would the pope do so? Because the papacy had made a political alliance with the Franks, who not only were iconoclasts but who had inserted the Filioque into the Creed, which the popes continued to oppose until the 11th century when the next pope was…a Frank.
Secondly, Rome wasn’t always on the right side of matters. Sometimes Rome claimed universal jurisdiction on false pretenses and got a lecture from other churches. One such case was when Rome claimed as much based on the canons of Nicea which they claimed gave them such a right (which would be contrary to Vat 1 since that says no council gave the pope such a right) only to turn out that Rome confused the canons of a local western synod, Sardica, with those of Nicea. The other churches which had the Greek text of the Nicene canons rebuffed Rome.
And Rome wasn’t the pure font with early popes like Callistus who either bordered on or advocated Modalism, whom Tertullian opposed. As I noted already, we could add the cases of Vigilius and Honorius to this list as well.
You ask why if it can be lost haven’t the Orthodox haven’t had any ecumenical councils since. Primacy could be lost for Rome and the other patriarchates could convene an ecumenical council. Secondly, official documents of the Orthodox Church claim to have had other ecumenical councils past the 7th, not the least of which was the 8th council in 879, which Rome agreed to for over a hundred years and then renounced after the Franks controlled the papacy. You can read the patriarchial encyclical here -> http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx
As as far as councils go, do you press this point because Vatican 2 has turned out so well?
The citations from Augustine, Chrysostom and such may seem strong on their own, but these are all well known. The problem is that sites like the one you are using present some of the information which qualifies that material or contradicts the Catholic reading of it. For example, Augustine also lists the chair of Jerusalem againsts the Donatists.
“What has the chair of the Roman Church done to you, in which Peter sat and in which Anastasius sits now? Or the chair of Jerusalem, in which James once sat and in which John sits now, with which we are united in Catholic unity and form which impious fury you have separated yourselves.” PL 43, 300.
Added to this is the fact that in his Retractions Augustine says that Matt 16 could refer to Peter or Peter’s confession and either one is acceptable.
As to primacy, let me give you an example. The usual term is principatus in most Latin texts. Take Gregory the Great’s usage as an example when he says of Paul that “he was made the head of the nations because he obtained the primacy of the whole church.” PL 79, 303-4. Clearly he doesn’t think that Paul had a universal jurisdiction over and above all the apostles. Primacy has a wider usage in the ancient world since the same term was used of the emperor, bishops and other persons without implying any kind of universal jurisdiction.
You ask how a body could reject its head, but all of the apostolic sees are called “heads.” Second, it depends on what the headship consisted of or if it was possible for a see to lose its place. How was it possible for Peter to deny Christ?
As for Chrysostom, I’d take a look at his remarks on Acts 15 for example. He directly contradicts the Catholic take on primacy there.
“After Peter Paul speaks, and none silences him: James waits patiently, not starts up (for the next word). Great the orderliness (of the proceedings). No word speaks John here, no word the other Apostles, but held their peace, for James was invested with the chief rule, and think it no hardship.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf111.vi.xxxiii.html
Now who had the “chief rule” in the Apostolic Council? Peter or James? Chrysostom says James.
As an antidote to Chapman, try Edward Denny’s treatment of that and practically every other citation. http://www.archive.org/details/papalismtreatise00dennrich
If you are going to be fair minded, you need to read literature on both sides rather than just copy paste citations from websites which take citations from their historical and linguistic context and present them in a naked fashion. I’ve read Chapman, Rivington and lots of other pro-Catholic works but I’ve also read stuff on the other side.
So I simply deny that when Chrysostom speaks of Peter in terms of the foundation of the faith he means it in the sense Rome gives it. I think an analysis will show Chrysostom means the faith that Peter expresses is what picks him out.
If your argument concerning doctrinal development were right, then Nestorius could have argued that he was still holding the see of Constantinople, but that is absurd. You are confusing a change relative to a see with the developmental process relative to concepts. The former is not the concept of doctrinal development. Doctrine didn’t develop when Dioscorus of Alexandria cut himself off from the Church.
Second, as I already pointed out, your reading of various Orthodox scholars is misleading. If your reading were correct, then either they are morons or they are dishonest since they still reject Rome’s claims. In either case, I shouldn’t listen to them. But they are neither and so your reading is wrong.
The Orthodox have shown that Rome could and did fall into heresy and/or was corrected by an ecumenical council, as I already pointed out. There is no apostolic see that individually has not fallen prey to some heresy or another.
A concept doesn’t have to be explicitly stated to be implicitly present. Admitting as much doesn’t entail or imply the 19th century concept of doctrinal development.
A good majority of the Fifth council’s material is on line at http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.ii.html
Here is a pertinent section of the decree of the council,
“And because it happened that the most religious Vigilius stopping in this royal city, was present at all the discussions with regard to the Three Chapters, and had often condemned them orally and in writing, nevertheless afterwards he gave his consent in writing to be present at the Council and examine together with us the Three Chapters, that a suitable definition of the right faith might be set forth by us all. Moreover the most pious Emperor, according to what had seemed good between us, exhorted both him and us to meet together, because it is comely that the priesthood should after common discussion impose a common faith. On this account we besought his reverence to fulfil his written promises; for it was not right that the scandal with regard to these Three Chapters should go any further, and the Church of God be disturbed thereby. And to this end we brought to his remembrance the great examples left us by the Apostles, and the traditions of the Fathers. For although the grace of the Holy Spirit abounded in each one of the Apostles, so that no one of them needed the counsel of another in the execution of his work, yet they were not willing to define on the question then raised touching the circumcision of the Gentiles, until being gathered together they had confirmed their own several sayings by the testimony of the divine Scriptures. And thus they arrived unanimously at this sentence, which they wrote to the Gentiles: “It has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, to lay upon you no other burden than these necessary things, that ye abstain from things offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication.” But also the Holy Fathers, who from time to time have met in the four holy councils, following the example of the ancients, have by a common discussion, disposed of by a fixed decree the heresies and questions which had sprung up, as it was certainly known, that by common discussion when the matter in dispute was presented by each side, the light of truth expels the darkness of falsehood. Nor is there any other way in which the truth can be made manifest when there are discussions concerning the faith, since each one needs the help of his neighbour, as we read in the Proverbs of Solomon: “A brother helping his brother shall be exalted like a walled city; and he shall be strong as a well-founded kingdom;” and again in Ecclesiastes he says: “Two are better than one; because they have a good reward for their labour.” So also the Lord himself says: “Verily I say unto you that if two of you shall agree upon earth as touching anything they shall seek for, they shall have it from my Father which is in heaven. For wheresoever two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.”
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xii.vi.html
Now according to the synod, there is “no other way” for a judgment to come about. And further, none of the apostles required any of the others in the execution of their work. That doesn’t sound like Vat 1 to me, especially in light of two facts. First, Vigilius proclaimed an “irreformable” judgment which the council rejected until he changed his mind, and second, the council excommunicated him.
First, the criteria layed out for what constitutes an ex cathedra statement are rather anachronistic. And second, Vigilius asserts his judgment is irreformable, what else would he need to add to make it ex cathedra?
As for Gal 2 this won’t work here for a few reasons. First, Catholics argue that Paul rebuked Peter with respect to a moral failure, and not doctrine. But the issue of the Fifth Council over which the Pope was excommunicated was doctrinal. Second, it would imply that councils can excommunicate a sitting pope for moral matters, but I seriously doubt this is possible today.
If Rome was the most reliable source, that is insufficient to prove the claims of Vat 1 since reliability can still allow for failure. My car can be reliable and still not start on a few occasions.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 10:04:10 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Greetings Acolyte4236,
Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ
Welcome to crosswalk and to this (The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession) thread which was started by walterquez.
If when you have the time, please, I invite you to listen to Ephesians 1
on this Biblegateway audio, why because it is good to hear again. Amen.
Ephesians 1
http://www.biblegateway.com/resources/audio/flash_play.php?aid=32&book=56&chapter=1
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/2/2010 11:54:19 PM
|
|
|
Acolyte4236
Posts: 5
Joined: 9/1/2010
Status: offline
|
Let us suppose that everything in Dave Armstrong’s chart is correct regarding Eastern apostolic sees. Does he wish to imply that the other apostles were defective in their teaching or ministry per se and this is why they were subject to heresy at this time or that? If not, then something else must be implied.
Of course the fact that various Eastern sees fell into heresy in whole or in part is neither here nor there in my estimation since I think Rome too fell into heresy in the 7th century and then again in the 11th.
As for the documentation of the 7th council you can go read Migne’s Patrologia Grecae in sessions 5 or 6 or it is documented in a number of sources on the 7th council, both Catholic and Orthodox. Chadwick for example talks about it in his East and West: The Making of a Rift in the Church for example. It is also in the works of Patriarch Nicephorus as well. Sure Chalcedon was rejected by Alexandria, but this was due to their representatives leaving the synod mid course, which makes their rejection per the canons, void, just as was the case with the pneumatamochoi bishops walking out of the 1st council of Constantinople when things didn’t go there way. The synod was still binding in the East even though they walked out in the middle of it.
First, 2nd Nicea wasn’t called by the pope, but the Patriarch and the emperor. If you think the Orthodox criteria are circular then you need to support that claim.
You ask why there haven’t been any ecumenical councils since the 7th. But why do you assume this is my position, when I haven’t said so? (I’ve in fact said the opposite.)
And in point of fact, councils aren’t regular occurrences but arise for special purposes. There is nothing written in the Scriptures or in the Fathers that requires ecumenical councils every so many centuries.
As to Constance, was Gregory the 7th the legitimate pope or not? Second, if the council made the decision without a sitting pope, then that makes my point that councils are adequate apart from the pope. Further, if subsequent popes ratified Constance and councils aren’t adequate and binding apart from a Pope, then this leaves the status of subsequent popes and their ratification of Constance in mid air.
So if we assume the entire papal theory then we can be sure that Constance doesn’t count as evidence against the papal theory even though we don’t have evidence to that effect? This is question begging.
Second, councils aren’t deemed ecclesiastically ecumenical in standing merely due to their own statements but to other criteria. How they are called. How they are conducted, who is present in person, legate or letter, etc. There are plenty of canonical and traditional requirements beyond a synods own statements about itself.
If memory serves, the citation of Schmemann isn’t from a rare book. But that doesn’t matter. Meyendorff doesn’t cite him since Meyendorff didn’t write the book, but is merely the editor of it. Schmemann wrote an article in the book and the book is hardly “rare.” Its less than 20 bucks on Amazon in paperback.
Bishops are necessary for the daily functioning of the Church, but the analogy you gave wasn’t to bishops per se, but to councils. Hence shifiting the example concedes the point and the shift isn’t relevant anyhow.
Eucharistic ecclesiology or what I called empirichoretic ecclesiology does not reject the idea that the local church is part of the whole church. It only does so where “part” is taken as a lesser constituative member which is incomplete without the whole. Parthood is here being taken in a specific metaphysical sense. Bp Ware writes,
“The various local eucharistic centers are related to each other, not as parts of a whole, but on the principle of mutual identity; each local Church is one with every other local Church, and all together they form a single world wide communion, because in each local Church there is celebrated the one, unique indivisible Eucharist.”
Communion and Intercommunion, 1980, p. 11.
Each Church would have to submit to a council since the judgment of the episcopate per se binds any and all members of the church.
You are right that the article didn’t show that the Pope did so. It was a short article in a collection of short articles. The article has a specific purpose. That doesn’t imply that the pope didn’t cut himself off from the church either. The article is relevant for sketching how the Orthodox understand the synergy of the members working together.
As for the idea being stated from the beginning, I don’t think it was. Some of the later material upon which Catholic apologists rely needs to be treated very carefully. A good portion of it is fruit of the poisonous tree. Take for example the claim that the see of Rome is judged by no one. That is known to be a fraud invented by a various faction in Rome during a period where there were rival candidates for the papacy. But it gets picked up as authentic and people run with it. There are a good number of such interpolations. Now when we take those away, and we take away all of the citations that use it or are dependent on it, the pot of evidence begins to shrink.
As for development of doctrine, I can grant that it doesn’t mean a material change in belief, but it does entail a formal change in belief. This is why people may or may not be condemned depending on where they lie in the time line relative to when Rome defined an issue.
Second, it seems to have the unwanted conclusion that we are more “aware” of the truth than the apostles.
Such key terms would only imply that no one under any circumstances should separate from said office if we take them in the Roman sense. Clearly the Fathers of the Fifth Council who excommunicated the Pope didn’t take them in that way. Is the Fifth Ecumenical Council wrong?
As to the citations of Maximus, you should be aware that a fair number of them that make their way onto Catholic websites are known to be frauds or most scholars, Catholics included, doubt their authenticity. The pot is in fact much smaller than it appears. Do you know which ones cited are interpolations or frauds?
Second, at the end of his life, when pressed to commune by the imperial officers with the Roman legates he refused, citing, among other texts Gal 1:1-8 at his trial and in his disputations with various clerics. And he did so because he recognized with the imperial officers that Rome had capitulated to Monothelitism with the other sees. This is why he refused to commune with the papal legates. This is not a controversial fact, but is admitted by both sides that Maximus refused to commune with the legates and unite with Rome to his dying day.
Now the only way out of this is to take an ecumenical council superior to that of Rome’s judgment and of a patriarchial ratification. This is Maximus’ position since he protests that patriarchial ratification apart from an ecumenical council is insufficient. This is why it is important to read the actual documents rather than rely on citations apart from their context.
Furthermore, the portion you cite leaves out key facts. Maximus basis the position of Rome on her founding by Peter and Paul, which is not the Papal theory. So your use of the material is misleading here.
The Catholic position postulates an intrinsic opposition in that all distinctions in Catholic theology are predicated on some kind of negation, difference or otherness. The Pope has something the bishops lack, which is why he is, in the words of Vatican 1, “over” them. He is greater, they are lesser. You are taking opposed in a moral sense, rather than the sense of metaphysical distinction. So no, it is not “pretty far out there.” See Francisco Suarez’ On the Various Kinds of Distinctions.
Hypostatic mediation is not the same as hypostatic origination so if you take Gregory to teach the former, then this will not prove the latter.
When you ask if I’ve seen the Catholic apologetic response to what I’ve claimed about Florence, I generally ignore the works of pop apologists on line who have no professional expertise in the areas of which they speak. I generally try to confine myself to works of Catholic academics. Second, I’ve read the primary documents and enough secondary literature on Florence from Catholic academics so I don’t think I’ve missed anything.
Sure what I’ve said makes sense. What was “the West”? Was the “west” some homogenous body? No. Did Augustine teach the Filioque as a doctrine or a mere speculation? Surely he puts it forward as the latter. It is not as if he wrote his work on the Trinity and it went out via email to all the western Churches. Rome in fact opposes the Filioque’s inclusion against the Franks for a number of centuries.
There are two problems with your comments about the Greek and the Latin of the Creed. First, the Creed is composed in Greek and not Latin so the meaning is fixed by the Greek text and not later Latin translations. Second, Procedere is ambiguous and it can pick out manifestation or procession. The Latins conflated these two senses, but the Greek is clearer and holds the original meaning. Third, Latin defenders of the Filioque argued that “through” simply meant the same thing as “from.” This was the line of argumentation of the Latin theologians at Florence.
To say that you see the Son as being dependent (its not a “role” but his hypostasis) on the Father doesn’t help because the Spirit is also hypostatically dependent on the Father. That dependence of itself doesn’t include the Son while excluding the Spirit. To do so is to subordinate the Spirit and toss out his co-equality.
The reason why the later Latins and Franks had no understanding of the Eastern teaching of the Father as the sole source is explained in the following ways. First, after the fall of Rome to the barbarians, things weren’t so hot in the West. Second, by the time you get to the alliance with the Franks, none of the Frankish theologians can read Greek. They are mostly familiar with Augustine and other western sources. Third, even in the earlier period, Latin lent itself to the theological confusion between hypostatic mediation and hypostatic origination as I pointed to in Fr. Garrigous (Catholic) article. The distinction is there in Hilary, but after that, confusion sets in and only gets worse with the Franks.
I agree that say Aquinas says he upholds the Father as the sole and primary source, but this doesn’t exclude him also explicitly arguing that ekpouresis and proinai mean the same thing, which he does. Aquinas’s position is that the Father is the primary cause while the Son participates or shares in the causing of the Spirit’s person. The question is whether the Son can be a secondary cause without making the causation of the Spirit from two principles, an uncaused cause and a caused cause.
Tossing out citations from the Cappadocians won’t get us anywhere. First because even Catholic scholars out of Rome concede that the Cappadocians didn’t teach the Filioque.
“This conception, however, must not be identified with the Filioque, since the Father and the Son do not form one principle like in that Western doctrine; the proper cause of the Spirit is the Father. Phrases founding Gregory’s writings which would allegedly imply that he favors the Filioque have proven to be interpolations. In stating that the Spirit comes from the Father through the Son, Gregory and his brother Basil actually manifest themselves as followers of Origen. It was Origen who interpreted John 1:3 as meaning that all things came into existence through the Word, including the Holy Spirit.” Lucian Turcescu, Gregory of Nyssa and the Concept of Divine Persons, Ocford, 2005, p. 68. See Manilo Simonetti, La crisi ariana nel IV secolo[Rome: Augustinianium, 1975], 449-451.
I’d recommend taking a look at Siecienski’s, The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy, 2010
I can’t help if the concept of an energetic procession doesn’t make sense to you. If you tell me why it doesn’t I might be able to clarify.
Maximus doesn’t defend the Filioque since he denies that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. This is why he denies ekpouresis (procession) relative to the Son. If the pope chose the wrong Greek word, this doesn’t instill confidence in the Pope’s ability to rightly understand the Creed, which is in Greek. In any case, Maximus denies that the Spirit proceeds from the Son but merely shines through him.
I think if look at the scholarly discussion of Cyril,. Ambrose and Hilary, it will become clear that they didn’t teach the Filioque either. Amrose is pretty clearly talking about the economia and not the theologia. Various Catholic academics concede this point with respect to say Cyril as well as the Vatican’s own clarification on the Filioque.
“Even if St Cyril of Alexandria happens at times to apply the verb ἐêðïñåýóèáé [ekpoeusthai] 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 ἐêðüñåõóéò [ekpouresis] as distinct from the term "proceed" (ðñïúÝíáé) [proienai] can only characterize a relationship of origin to the principle without principle of the Trinity: the Father.”
http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/PCCUFILQ.HTM
I am not sure what you mean by “legalistically semantic.” The arguments on both sides turn on fairly complex issues in philosophical theological, ancient languages and metaphysics of late antiquity and the medieval latin period.
I grant that Augustine taught the Filioque, but only as a speculation and not a doctrine of the church. Some popes did afterward depending on Augustine’s novelty. But that is neither here nor there since Augustine goofed in other areas too, as Rome concedes. They do not agree with everything Augustine said about original sin and the fate of unbaptized children for example. If some of the Latin fathers were wrong, then they were wrong. This is no more problematic than Gregory of Nyssa teaching the apokatastasis.
I grant that the term in Latin, procedure, doesn’t mean the same in Greek, it is more ambiguous. The Greek is more precise. The west came to a different emphasis, particularly subordinating the Spirit as even Catholic theologians like Yves Congar admit due to a terminological confusion. Then they elevated that confusion to a dogma necessary for salvation. It is not a mere difference in emphasis.
If the Latin words do not mean the same as the Greek then the Latin fails to pick out the original intent of the Greek creed. Better to dump it and just go back to the original teaching of the Creed.
Theological commissions are not beyond error and Rome takes itself to be free to correct it as do Catholic theologians not involved with it. Why should my position be different, especially if I am not bound by my own Church authorities to adhere to it? If I know better then I know better. I don’t have to be infallible to know so. I just have to have good arguments that I do in fact know better.
If you agree with the citation from Maximus, then you disagree with Aquinas and Florence since Florence says that procedure and ekpouresis mean the same and Maximus says they don’t, which is why Maximus’ text was a major piece of evidence in the Orthodox arsenal at Florence. What the earlier Latin’s meant as Maximus explains is not that the Spirit proceeds from the Son, but that he shines forth through him. But the Filioque doctrine says that the person of the Spirit does proceed from the Son. If Bonocore can’t see that, then he’s not reading the same text.
Maximus in his disputation with Pyrrus tries to defend the Pope, but as I noted above, he eventually gives up and refuses to commune with Rome or anyone else unless they profess, as he says explicitly, the right faith.
The Catholic Answers piece on Honorious is quite weak and shows a complete lack of familiarity with monothelitism. To say that Honorious was confused is actually groundedless if you read the documents, which you can do on line. http://books.google.com/books?id=_d0mx7Di1QkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Sophronius&hl=en&ei=wWqATKjYLI-onQeC6b3JAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Honorius was not tricked or didn’t fail to understand the issues. To argue that he merely argued against a conflict of good and bad human wills but not monothelitism is entirely specious since that just was monothelitism. There is no evidence from the texts that Honorius failed to understand Sergius. Read the letters yourself. Honorius’ doctrine is directly in line with the imperial Ekthesis. Spencer not only doesn’t know what Monophysitism was (he confuses it with Eutychianism) but seems utterly unfamiliar with Monotheltiism. The main problem the monothelites had was that if there were two wills, then the only way to distinguish them would be if they willed different things and so would imply that one willing would be good and the other sinful. Honirous’ language and reasoning perfectly follows classic monothelitist worries and arguments.
Second, it is true that the council condemns Honorius for negligence, but it also condemns him for “teaching” heresy. The seventh council explicitly condemns Honorius for “his monothelitism.” This is why Carroll’s gloss is pathetic, since the Popes upon becoming pope up till the middle ages condemned Honorius by name as a “heretic.” And further in light of the Fifth council, the situation is just the opposite since that council excommunicated a sitting pope showing that councils correct popes. Even if Carroll’s gloss were right, it would not be relevant. Just go read the literature on monotheltism yourself.
Now with the citation from Soprhonius, is this a Latin text or Greek? What is the earliest manuscript we have of it? Does it show signs of interpolation? Is this a second hand remark as your citations seems to imply? Do scholars generally take this as being authentic or no? This is why just tossing out citations is really worthless. You need to make an argument and cover all your bases.
The popes did defend icons, but the western bishops generally did not since they were Franks who were iconoclasts or at best iconophobic. Then Rome dragged its feet on recognizing 2nd Nicea since it didn’t wish to offend the Franks. Even when the Franks finally capitulated to icon veneration, they never clearly grasped the theology of the 7th council in terms of the divine energies in veneration or in the clear distinction between veneration and adoration. This is seen all the way up to Aquinas’ discussion of images where he argues for adoration.
If the pope can’t officially teach heretical doctrine, does the pope lack free will?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/3/2010 11:42:41 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Acolyte,
So much information has been put on the table that it is difficult to know where to begin.
I think it is best if I reflect further on your post and then respond later.
By the way, I should say again that my position is not contrary to the Orthodox but only to the anti-ecumenical sort of the Orthodox.
I don't even say that the Orthodox are in schism, unless they are so by a truly deliberate attitude of sin.
Peace,
pat
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/3/2010 11:54:44 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Acolyte,
Although your posts are more than I can handle, I still don't have enough to leave the Catholic Church (i.e. Papism).
I thought a good approach from this point would be-- since you appear to view the Filioque much more negatively than the Joint Consultation---to look only at that for a time.
If you are right, then in fact the West has indeed been in schism and its mainstreem theologians are heretics..
Thanks,
pat
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/3/2010 12:05:03 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/3/2010 12:11:15 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
grant that Augustine taught the Filioque, but only as a speculation and not a doctrine of the church. Some popes did afterward depending on Augustine’s novelty. But that is neither here nor there since Augustine goofed in other areas too, as Rome concedes. They do not agree with everything Augustine said about original sin and the fate of unbaptized children for example. If some of the Latin fathers were wrong, then they were wrong. This is no more problematic than Gregory of Nyssa teaching the apokatastasis.
Right. But it was not just Augustine but basically all of the Latin fathers, right?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 9/3/2010 12:13:02 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
I grant that the term in Latin, procedure, doesn’t mean the same in Greek, it is more ambiguous. The Greek is more precise. The west came to a different emphasis, particularly subordinating the Spirit as even Catholic theologians like Yves Congar admit due to a terminological confusion. Then they elevated that confusion to a dogma necessary for salvation. It is not a mere difference in emphasis .
I would need to see proof of that. I don't see how they could have subordinated the Spirit or the Son, since both were held to be entirely dependent on the Father, yet fully God in themselves.
|
|
|
|
 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
