Easterners, what do YOU believe about the Papacy?

[Diak]

But let's be clear: as I just explained above, both the Gregorian Paschalion and the Julian Paschalion fully follow the First Council of Nicaea.

Yes,the reckoning of Pascha is objective regardless of which calendar is in use, and another reason why every particular Church choose her own way. But as those advocating continued use of the Julian Calendar correctly maintain, the only calendar in ecclesiastical use at the time of the Council of Nicea when Pascha was reckoned was the Julian.

I'm not sure how we got off on the calendar considering the opening post...

[Fone Bone 2001]

Originally Posted by ByzCathCantor

At the end of the day, should that not be the objective (celebration of Pascha on a common, or "uniform" date)?

Despite all the argument on this subject, IMO it still seems inherently wrong that Christians do not celebrate the central feast of Christianity on the same day.

Sure. I agree. Unfortunately, more pressing matters than that divide us at the moment, so focusing on this matter is probably not a very good choice, practically speaking.

Besides, in areas of the world where Christians need to appear united, the various churches use each other's Paschalion anyway. For instance, certain Latin Catholic parishes in the Middle East do in fact use the Julian Easter; some eastern Catholics in the U.S. as well as the Orthodox Church of Finland use the Gregorian Easter.

Originally Posted by Hesychios

I think in retrospect it was a battle the fellow bishop of Rome didn't need to fight, he came to realize it and backed off.

I totally agree.

Originally Posted by Shiranui117

I thought the Council also included in its Epistle that the celebration of Easter should also never take place on the same day as the Passover, and that the Orthodox take this consideration into account, while the Western Christians have not? I remember Schaff stating that the Western Easter has at one time overlapped with the Passover, thus seemingly violate that directive of the Council. I'll work on finding that reference again.

I remember reading about that somewhere. I could be wrong, but I remember finding that there was no such rule officially, although it does so happen on a de facto level that in the Julian Paschalion Easter Sunday never overlaps with the Jewish Passover.

[ConstantineTG]

I received my book!



Will start reading soon

[marlo]

Mark of Ephesus was wrong on all points, the oldest of text contains the so-called interpolation, in fact even the books that the greeks have in the Council of Florence has the same "so-called" interpolated text, and when they came back home to their libraries, the same text was there in there manuscripts as well, it was just this generation that the greeks started to burn these books as they thought that it was an interpolation

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Ah, my bad, I jumped the gun. The part you had underlined in the old quote appears in all manuscripts (the part about pious tradition recounting that the Spirit is Second to the Son). The part that is in dispute is what comes after that. I knew what it was you were wanting to quote, but didn't actually check to make sure that you quoted it.



Mark of Ephesus was at some point in the council of Florence aware that some manuscripts in Constantinople had the interpolation. His claim was that 1) the oldest manuscripts did not have it, 2) a majority of the manuscripts did not include the clause, and 3) Basil used that passage in a rhetorical manner, conceding that even if what Eunomius believed was true, it still didn't lead to the necessity of a third nature (and that therefore even if the interpolation were genuine, it wouldn't imply that Basil himself believed in it). Modern scholarship on the matter seems to have sided most especially with Mark of Ephesus on point 3), that the clause in question might not be an interpolation at all but a direct quotation of Eunomius (explaining its absence from some manuscripts and presence in others), meaning that Basil was using it as a rhetorical concession to show that Eunomius' own beliefs did not logically lead to the conclusion that the Spirit must be of a third nature.

The interpolation does not make sense, because the truth of the matter is that the manuscript shown to them is 600 years old during the council of Florence, and it was in the greeks hands all this time, that means it in the presence of the greeks and in the tradition of the greeks as well.

Even their own Patriarch, the very humble and kind Bekkos, agreed with it that the text is truly authentic.

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

That interpretation would make sense, since it would be absurd for Basil to admit that the Spirit is third in dignity after he wrote two books trying to disprove the idea that the Son is second in dignity. It is also worth noting that the Eunomians seemed to teach that the Spirit was caused from the Son, which would also be consistent with the idea that the clause (which without any sort of reservation ascribes causality to the Son) is not Basil's writing, but Eunomius' writing.

[Credo ergo sum]

Why did the Catholic priest Migne place the interpolation in notes instead of in the main text?

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by marlo

Mark of Ephesus was wrong on all points, the oldest of text contains the so-called interpolation, in fact even the books that the greeks have in the Council of Florence has the same "so-called" interpolated text, and when they came back home to their libraries, the same text was there in there manuscripts as well, it was just this generation that the greeks started to burn these books as they thought that it was an interpolation



The interpolation does not make sense, because the truth of the matter is that the manuscript shown to them is 600 years old during the council of Florence, and it was in the greeks hands all this time, that means it in the presence of the greeks and in the tradition of the greeks as well.

Even their own Patriarch, the very humble and kind Bekkos, agreed with it that the text is truly authentic.

In other words, in trying to defend what seems to be your favorite Filioque proof-text, you ignore all contemporary scholarship (a great deal of which has been done by Catholics) on the matter which shows that the disputed passage is likely a quotation of Eunomius used by Basil as a rhetorical concession, and instead choose to base your faith on a decontextualized passage which might have been written by a heresiarch. Go read chapters 14 and 15 of book two of St. Gregory of Nyssa's Against Eunomius (both chapters devoted to defeating Eunomius' blasphemies against the Holy Spirit) and tell me that St. Basil, Gregory's older brother, really believed that the Spirit was second in dignity to the Son (one of Eunomius' many insane and heretical teachings).

And how could you use Bekkos to support your claim knowing that Bekkos was a strongly pro-union patriarch installed by the emperor after Lyons? Surely his insistence that the text is genuine means very little since while you deceptively call him one of our own, he was deposed after the repudiation of the union of Lyons. He is as much one of ours as Martin Luther or John Calvin was one of yours

[TrueLight]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

I received my book!
Will start reading soon

How far are into the book are you? Who recommended it to you?

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by TrueLight

How far are into the book are you? Who recommended it to you?

Halfway through the second essay. The first one is about St. Peter's role in the Church as seen from Scripture.

[mardukm]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Of course the argument is unsound, that was the point. "If Peter is the most authoritative apostle, as you believe, why didn't they write to Peter instead of writing to Paul who is less authoritative?" Do you not see how ridiculous this line of questioning is?

I think what is ridiculous was the attempt to shift the focus of the discussion to a matter that is not even an issue. No one asks why the Corinthians wrote to Paul instead of Peter. It's just a given that since Paul established the Corinthian Church, Paul should be writing to them. But it IS a legitimate question to ask why the Corinthian Church should write to a Church that St. Paul did not establish when they could have more readily appealed to the Church of Athens, the Metropolitan center of that Roman province of which Corinth was a part, and which had a line of succession immediately related to St. Paul.

And yet you ask us to answer the same type of ridiculous question, "why did they write to Clement and not John or the bishop of some other city?"

It's not a ridiculous question. Your comparison between Peter and Paul, on the one hand, and the Church of Rome and the Church of Athens, on the other, is way off base. We know the answer to why Paul was the one to write to Corinth – because he established that Church. For you to speculate that we do not know the reason why Paul wrote to Corinth is what is ultimately ludicrous. On the other hand, why the Church of Corinth should appeal to a Petrine Church instead of another more readily accessible Pauline Church (the Church of Athens) is a legitimate question to ask (not to mention that the Church of Athens was the metropolitan Church of the Roman province of which Corinth was a part). You don't like the obvious answer, so you are compelled to imagine these fantastic scenarios in a failed attempt to utilize an argumentum ad absurdum.

I am not actually making that argument Marduk. I am pointing out the flaw in the argument that you and others in this thread are using.

The flaw was your comparison between Peter and Paul, on the one hand, and the Church of Rome and the Church of Athens, on the other.

But ultimately your Roman Church has forgotten about that, since it only banks its claim on Peter.

Perhaps you are confusing the prestige of a Church with Apostolic Succession. In case you labor under some false impression – St. Paul did not begin the succession of bishops in Rome. The focus on Peter is the Apostolic Succession; the focus on Peter and Paul is with respect to the historic prestige of the Church of Rome.

No, I am showing you how ludicrous your speculation into the motives of the Corinthians is. Without being able to read their letter to Rome, we have no idea why they did what they did or what they thought of the authority of Rome. But it seems that God has given you the ability to read minds of those who have already reposed. I suppose there's no use in arguing with a mind-reader then.

Perhaps what is ludicrous is that instead of admitting the weakness of the Orthodox argument regarding the delineated jurisdiction of Rome, you try to shift the focus of the discussion by making a comparison that is not even valid.

By this, I can only assume you mean the passage near the end where they write: "If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us...." But what could this passage mean. Are they declaring that this epistle should be regarded as scripture? No, that seems unlikely. For if the bishop of Rome possesses this power, why has it never been exercised again?

I'm surprised that you are not aware that the Catholic Church teaches that the charism of inspiration ended with the death of the last Apostle? Infallibility is not inspiration - but I guess that just demonstrates the level of misunderstanding that non-Catholics have about the doctrine of infallibility.

And secondly, why do we not consider this epistle to be scripture if they possessed this power?

You presume they possessed a power that the Catholic Church never claims. That's a rhetorical error called “proving to much.”

But it seems that they write this because they have based their arguments on words taken from the God-breathed Scriptures and interpreted through the Church of Rome.

I would agree with that.

Or perhaps they even believed that their solution to the Corinthians' problem was inspired by God. But what then does this saying express except confidence that they are correct?

Are you injecting infallibility into this matter? I wouldn't go that far. I believe the issue with the Conrinthian Church was a matter of discipline, not doctrine (though there are other doctrinal matters covered in the Letter).

Blessings,
Marduk

[Cavaradossi]

Marduk, you should know that asking such a question is a specious method of argumentation. The question of why the Corinthians wrote to Rome, if the bishop of Rome was not considered to be the leading bishop of Christianity is specious argumentation because it presents a misleading false dilemma such that if my explanation (let's say I argue that they threw darts at a map) is not satisfactory, then your explanation will either be shown to be more plausible or true outright. But that does not logically follow: both explanations could very well be false. I do not need to give any explanation for why the Corinthians wrote to Rome in order to cast doubt upon the plausibility of your claim that the letter of Clement reflects a jurisdictional primacy of the Roman bishop.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Marduk, you should know that asking such a question is a specious method of argumentation. The question of why the Corinthians wrote to Rome, if the bishop Rome was not considered to be the leading bishop of Christianity is specious argumentation because it presents a misleading false dilemma such that if my explanation (let's say I argue that they threw darts at a map) is not satisfactory, then your explanation will either be shown to be more plausible or true outright. But that does not logically follow: both explanations could very well be false. I do not need to give any explanation for why the Corinthians wrote to Rome in order to cast doubt upon the plausibility of your claim that the letter of Clement reflects a jurisdictional primacy of the Roman bishop.

Is there a bishop of Corinth at this time? Maybe the clue is in that question.

[Cavaradossi]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Is there a bishop of Corinth at this time? Maybe the clue is in that question.

Or even a bishop of Rome. The actual epistle is signed in the name of the Roman Church. That being said, I think most are uncomfortable thinking of the implications of such an argument, since it would mean that the Reformers were essentially right to believe that the episcopacy was not a different office from the presbyters, which is why this argument is so rarely made. St. Jerome seems to have believed, however, that the presbyters and episcopoi were at one time the same office, so I guess even that idea has patristic support.

[LionHeart777]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG

Is there a bishop of Corinth at this time? Maybe the clue is in that question.

I think that the laity "ejected" all the clergy so I don't see how it would matter; there was a mutiny if I understand the situation correctly.

[Nine_Two]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Or even a bishop of Rome. The actual epistle is signed in the name of the Roman Church. That being said, I think most are uncomfortable thinking of the implications of such an argument, since it would mean that the Reformers were essentially right to believe that the episcopacy was not a different office from the presbyters, which is why this argument is so rarely made. St. Jerome seems to have believed, however, that the presbyters and episcopoi were at one time the same office, so I guess even that idea has patristic support.

I always assumed that answer was taken for granted.

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Cavaradossi

Or even a bishop of Rome. The actual epistle is signed in the name of the Roman Church. That being said, I think most are uncomfortable thinking of the implications of such an argument, since it would mean that the Reformers were essentially right to believe that the episcopacy was not a different office from the presbyters, which is why this argument is so rarely made. St. Jerome seems to have believed, however, that the presbyters and episcopoi were at one time the same office, so I guess even that idea has patristic support.

From what I have learned, they are separate although the presbyters initially didn't have the priestly functions they have today.

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

I think that the laity "ejected" all the clergy so I don't see how it would matter; there was a mutiny if I understand the situation correctly.

It would matter because they would appeal to Rome because they have no bishop of their own and not because the Roman bishop was above their own bishop.