Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism.. - Page 44

anthony022071 · #**646** May 1, '12, 6:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Anothony022071,

Again I don't agree, if it's proving a primacy of honour for Leo then yes, universal jurisdiction? No.

The bishops of the council acknowledged that Pope Leo guided and ruled them.

"It is you who through your legates [i.e., his apostolic delegates Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, Lucentius of Ascoli, Frs. Boniface and Basil, and Julian bishop of Cos – EBB] have guided and ruled the whole gathering of the fathers, as the head rules the members, by showing them the true meaning of the dogma [of the hypostatic union]."
(synod of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo. Ep. xcviii, PL. liv, 951. Mansi vi, 147-148)

They also called Pope Leo their head and chief.

"...You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter and to all you impart the blessings of that faith. And so we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of the truth. ... For if where two or three are gathered together in his name, he has said that he is in the midst of them, must he not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests who preferred to their country and their ease the spread of knowledge about him? Of all these you were the chief, as head to members, showing your goodwill in matters of organization. ..."

Quote:

What is most interesting of course; "Nor did Anatolius and the other bishops receive it, until they had deliberated, and found that Leo’s letter agreed with the preceding councils." (1) The official letter of a Bishop of Rome, was subject to the decision and authority of a council.. Schaff goes on to detail this here: http://m.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.ii.html

That was from Jacque-Benigne Bousset,a 17th century Catholic apologist. Of course the council first examined Pope Leo's letter before approving it. That was the ordinary thing to do. It is not an argument against the authority of Pope Leo over the council,nor is it an argument that a council must approve a doctrine defined by the pope in order for it to be valid. Some councils were heretical,but no pope taught heresy.

Quote:

As such the dropping of the canon is I think to be seen not from the standpoint of "Rome has spoken, the case....", rather that the first amongst equals objected, and as the previous source I linked noted; to maintain unity in the church, they lacked the notion that Leo's tome to them was infallible as an ex cathedral statement, they tested it and subjected it to conciliar authority.

The Eastern bishops never used the phrase "first among equals". It doesn't even make sense. If someone is first among others as in "most important",then the others are not his equals.

+ St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 98-117 A.D.):
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High and... which presides in the chief place of the Roman territory, a church worthy of God, worthy of honor... presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father's name: her do I therefore salute... who imperturbably enjoy the full measure of God's grace and have every foreign stain filtered out of them."
(Letter to the Romans, preface)

+ Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 175-189 A.D.):
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [propter potentiorem principalitatem] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.”
(Adversus Haereses 3:3:2)

Pope Leo the Great:

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others . . . the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head."
(Letter to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, c.446 A.D., 14:11; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, p. 270)

Quote:

I see the city of Rome as a major influence on the gradual development of the papal office, giving it particular support as the centre of secular authority..

Before the Edict of Toleration,the church of Rome was illegal and persecuted. Shortly after the Edict,Rome ceased to be the capitol of the empire. It was sacked by barbarians and was reduced to the level of a squalid provincial town. That the church of Rome was supported by some of the emporors does not mean that it had its primacy over the whole Church from the secular government. Its primacy was from its foundation by Peter.

Lincoln7 · #**647** May 2, '12, 2:32 am

anthony022071, thanks for some good historical discussion!

Quote:

That was from Jacque-Benigne Bousset,a 17th century Catholic apologist. Of course the council first examined Pope Leo's letter before approving it. That was the ordinary thing to do. It is not an argument against the authority of Pope Leo over the council,nor is it an argument that a council must approve a doctrine defined by the pope in order for it to be valid. Some councils were heretical,but no pope taught heresy.

To me it simply demonstrates that the council had no knowledge of an infallible papacy and his tome was viewed just as fallible as anything else that a bishop could produce. So they examined it. Not that I disagree with his tome!! The quote you provide first in your response gives Leo praise for its orthodoxy and clarity on this matter, but I'm weary of thus seeing them as supporting the notion of the modern papacy, which I see as a gradual development over ages. I think we will agree to disagree over the Honorius affair..

Quote:

The Eastern bishops never used the phrase "first among equals". It doesn't even make sense. If someone is first among others as in "most important",then the others are not his equals.

First place of honour amongst equals is what I mean by it.

Quote:

+ St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 98-117 A.D.):
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High and... which presides in the chief place of the Roman territory, a church worthy of God, worthy of honor... presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father's name: her do I therefore salute... who imperturbably enjoy the full measure of God's grace and have every foreign stain filtered out of them."
(Letter to the Romans, preface)

Without its context it can be used as papal supporting, but with it I see a very different meaning behind this. Furthermore there appears to be some translation differences here.. See here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...s-current.html
I will get back to you when I've done some more study of Ireneaus and the passage cited. Sme goes for Leo, I would expect the bishop of Rome to support the view of himself having a primacy of authority, I just don't see it as by any means a universal belief by others.

Regards

Lincs.

Lincoln7 · #**648** May 2, '12, 3:13 am

Quote:

Before the Edict of Toleration,the church of Rome was illegal and persecuted. Shortly after the Edict,Rome ceased to be the capitol of the empire. It was sacked by barbarians and was reduced to the level of a squalid provincial town. That the church of Rome was supported by some of the emporors does not mean that it had its primacy over the whole Church from the secular government. Its primacy was from its foundation by Peter.

Forgive me I didn't make it clear what I meant. I was referring to things such as the donation of Constantine.

Regards

Lincs.

GaryTaylor · #**649** May 2, '12, 7:16 am

All the letters of Ignatius of Antioch can be viewed. Ignatius for certain brings forth much of a dilemma in light of conversation and belief here in several areas.

One is the Virgin Mary; "Hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord, three mysteries to be cried aloud, the which were wrought in the silence of God" (Eph. 19)

Two is the Eucharist/Living Presence; "medicine of immortality and the antidote against death." "the heretics abstain from Eucharist because they do not allow that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ"

Three is Apostolic Succession; for he describes the fullest kind of divine authority to these Catholic Churchs, and recognises as valid "no church", institution, or worship without their sanction. All of whom are in communion thus the Bishops.

Thus we have not just Catholic and Rome but several areas deviated from the proposed Theology.

When you say I see a different meaning, its to state correctly you have another "opinion" which is founded on exactly what?

CopticChristian · #**650** May 2, '12, 7:43 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

anthony022071, thanks for some good historical discussion!

To me it simply demonstrates that the council had no knowledge of an infallible papacy and his tome was viewed just as fallible as anything else that a bishop could produce. So they examined it. Not that I disagree with his tome!! The quote you provide first in your response gives Leo praise for its orthodoxy and clarity on this matter, but I'm weary of thus seeing them as supporting the notion of the modern papacy, which I see as a gradual development over ages. I think we will agree to disagree over the Honorius affair..

First place of honour amongst equals is what I mean by it.

Without its context it can be used as papal supporting, but with it I see a very different meaning behind this. Furthermore there appears to be some translation differences here.. See here: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspo...s-current.html
I will get back to you when I've done some more study of Ireneaus and the passage cited. Sme goes for Leo, I would expect the bishop of Rome to support the view of himself having a primacy of authority, I just don't see it as by any means a universal belief by others.Regards

Lincs.

Lincs,

There is something to be said for those that accept this belief and those that do not. Those that accept the belief also accept the Eucharist as the body and blood, Baptismal Regeneration and other such issues. It is not a belief unto itself but within the context of a practiced belief that did not just appear out of nowhere. You may want to consider that in your perspective.

Lincoln7 · #**651** May 2, '12, 8:28 am

Gary,

Quote:

One is the Virgin Mary; "Hidden from the prince of this world were the virginity of Mary and her child-bearing and likewise also the death of the Lord, three mysteries to be cried aloud, the which were wrought in the silence of God" (Eph. 19)

I see a lot of truth here, but it hardly supports modern catholic mariology.

Quote:

Two is the Eucharist/Living Presence; "medicine of immortality and the antidote against death." "the heretics abstain from Eucharist because they do not allow that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ"

When looking at Ignatius in context, with his anti Doecitist polemic, the statement in question can sound a lot different.. Reading back transubstantiation into him isn't fair play. Dr. White has a video series on this, the first of which is here: http://m.youtube.com/index?desktop_u...?v=G7OgLavv-w4

Quote:

Three is Apostolic Succession; for he describes the fullest kind of divine authority to these Catholic Churchs, and recognises as valid "no church", institution, or worship without their sanction. All of whom are in communion thus the Bishops.

It is of note that Ignatius, who stresses the office of bishop a great deal in his writings, makes no mention in his letter to the Roman church of any bishop there, as we've already seen, Rome had a Presbyterian style council of multiple and equal elders..

Quote:

When you say I see a different meaning, its to state correctly you have another "opinion" which is founded on exactly what?

Evidence based on contextual study of the text, with respect as always Gary.

Kind regards

Lincs.

Lincoln7 · #**652** May 2, '12, 8:31 am

CopticChristian,

Quote:

There is something to be said for those that accept this belief and those that do not. Those that accept the belief also accept the Eucharist as the body and blood, Baptismal Regeneration and other such issues. It is not a belief unto itself but within the context of a practiced belief that did not just appear out of nowhere. You may want to consider that in your perspective.

A broad statement, which I naturally disagree with as being supported.

Regards

Lincs.

Skeptic92 · #**653** May 2, '12, 10:26 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by anthony022071

The bishops of the council acknowledged that Pope Leo guided and ruled them.

"It is you who through your legates [i.e., his apostolic delegates Paschasinus of Lilybaeum, Lucentius of Ascoli, Frs. Boniface and Basil, and Julian bishop of Cos – EBB] have guided and ruled the whole gathering of the fathers, as the head rules the members, by showing them the true meaning of the dogma [of the hypostatic union]."
(synod of Chalcedon to Pope St. Leo. Ep. xcviii, PL. liv, 951. Mansi vi, 147-148)

They also called Pope Leo their head and chief.

"...You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter and to all you impart the blessings of that faith. And so we too, wisely taking you as our guide in all that is good, have shown to the sons of the Church their inheritance of the truth. ... For if where two or three are gathered together in his name, he has said that he is in the midst of them, must he not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests who preferred to their country and their ease the spread of knowledge about him? Of all these you were the chief, as head to members, showing your goodwill in matters of organization. ..."

That was from Jacque-Benigne Bousset,a 17th century Catholic apologist. Of course the council first examined Pope Leo's letter before approving it. That was the ordinary thing to do. It is not an argument against the authority of Pope Leo over the council,nor is it an argument that a council must approve a doctrine defined by the pope in order for it to be valid. Some councils were heretical,but no pope taught heresy.

The Eastern bishops never used the phrase "first among equals". It doesn't even make sense. If someone is first among others as in "most important",then the others are not his equals.

+ St. Ignatius of Antioch (ca. 98-117 A.D.):
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church that has found mercy in the transcendent Majesty of the Most High and... which presides in the chief place of the Roman territory, a church worthy of God, worthy of honor... presiding in love, maintaining the law of Christ, and bearer of the Father's name: her do I therefore salute... who imperturbably enjoy the full measure of God's grace and have every foreign stain filtered out of them."
(Letter to the Romans, preface)

+ Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. 175-189 A.D.):
"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority [propter potentiorem principalitatem] – that is, the faithful everywhere – inasmuch as the Apostolic Tradition has been preserved continuously by those who are everywhere.”
(Adversus Haereses 3:3:2)

Pope Leo the Great:

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed Apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others . . . the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head."
(Letter to Bishop Anastasius of Thessalonica, c.446 A.D., 14:11; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, p. 270)

Before the Edict of Toleration,the church of Rome was illegal and persecuted. Shortly after the Edict,Rome ceased to be the capitol of the empire. It was sacked by barbarians and was reduced to the level of a squalid provincial town. That the church of Rome was supported by some of the emporors does not mean that it had its primacy over the whole Church from the secular government. Its primacy was from its foundation by Peter.

Be careful going down the Primacy of Honour vs Primacy of Authority road, it is a long and twisted road that will have you both throwing writings from the Church Fathers at each other.both positions CAN be supported fairly easily with the writings of the Fathers and the first 7 Councils, neither can claim to be the ONLY one with groundings in the Early Church as it appears both positions were held.

What it boils down to is what it means for St Peter to be giving the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, not the Kepha & Petros/Petra debate. but alas, greater men then I are trying to reconcile the Eastern and Western Church, let us pray that they are able to reunite us in our entirety. So that the 5 Apostolic Patriarchs (Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch & Constantinople) are once again in union.

KathleenGee · #**654** May 2, '12, 11:57 am

Through the 'keys of heaven', the papacy renders the living revelation of the Church today, Christ's will that is publicly declared not just to Catholics but to all of mankind.

The papacy is the sign of unity of all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.

There is a phrase by S. Catherine of Siena...'the keys to the Blood of Christ'.......headship...it doesn't mean having jurisdiction over every local church.

There has been incredible demonization, really, of the primacy of Peter that with posts supporting this primacy, the responses appear more emotional than ecclesial or intellectual.

Nicea325 · #**655** May 2, '12, 1:49 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Forgive me I didn't make it clear what I meant. I was referring to things such as the donation of Constantine.

Regards

Lincs.

Donation of Constantine is a fraud.

God Bless

Lincoln7 · #**656** May 2, '12, 1:53 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nicea325

Donation of Constantine is a fraud.

God Bless

Indeed it is, I meant that it was used by the papacy to support its claims at one stage, that's what I was trying to convey when I said it was using secular authority to boost itself.

Regards

Lincs.

Nicea325 · #**657** May 2, '12, 2:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Indeed it is, I meant that it was used by the papacy to support its claims at one stage, that's what I was trying to convey when I said it was using secular authority to boost itself.

Regards

Lincs.

Indeed.

GaryTaylor · #**658** May 2, '12, 2:51 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

I see a lot of truth here, but it hardly supports modern catholic mariology..

Link this Marion tradition is this old. I found the Theotokos comment interesting. Mother of the Lord, from Jewish respect, in other words God. All the tradition is founded in history. Oral much. As Ignatius states a great mystery in silence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

When looking at Ignatius in context, with his anti Doecitist polemic, the statement in question can sound a lot different.. Reading back transubstantiation into him isn't fair play. Dr. White has a video series

Transubstantiation not in question. "they abstain from Eucharist because they do not allow that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ" Biblical

Whom he is talking to is all the 7-churchs. Presbyter of Rome is nothing new. Tough period with evil in Babylon.

Same issues exist in the Apostolic Churchs today with honor as have been. Still discussing other slight theological differences. The Eucharist and Marion are not hugh issues. Communion still the ultimate goal. The Popes authority etc.

Lincoln7 · #**659** May 2, '12, 3:24 pm

Hi Gary,

Quote:

Link this Marion tradition is this old. I found the Theotokos comment interesting. Mother of the Lord, from Jewish respect, in other words God. All the tradition is founded in history. Oral much. As Ignatius states a great mystery in silence.

Indeed it is, I don't debate half of it

Theotokos is a perfectly acceptable and indeed needed term for the Lords mother, because it conveys who he is. I don't debate this. But more modern dogmas and possible future ones is where I begin to disagree as having a basis in tradition or as supported by scripture.

Quote:

Transubstantiation not in question. "they abstain from Eucharist because they do not allow that the Eucharist is the flesh of Christ" Biblical

One quote missing from its context does not support transubstantiation. It's clear Ignatius held a view of the Eucharist, not neccessarily transubstantiation, why not Luthers sacramental union? Or Calvins spiritual presence. Reading back any of these into Ignatius is rather hard.. In context with all his anti Doecitist polemic, attacking them for their denial of the humanity of Jesus, of him possessing a physical body, the quote sounds very different, see the video series I linked to earlier on YouTube.

Quote:

Whom he is talking to is all the 7-churchs. Presbyter of Rome is nothing new. Tough period with evil in Babylon.

But in his letter to the Romans he is talking specifically to the roman Christians, and mentions no bishop, odd considering his numerous passages on their importance.

Kind regards Gary

Lincs.

Nicea325 · #**660** May 2, '12, 4:13 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lincoln7

Hi Gary,

Indeed it is, I don't debate half of it

Theotokos is a perfectly acceptable and indeed needed term for the Lords mother, because it conveys who he is. I don't debate this. But more modern dogmas and possible future ones is where I begin to disagree as having a basis in tradition or as supported by scripture.

One quote missing from its context does not support transubstantiation. It's clear Ignatius held a view of the Eucharist, not neccessarily transubstantiation, why not Luthers sacramental union? Or Calvins spiritual presence. Reading back any of these into Ignatius is rather hard.. In context with all his anti Doecitist polemic, attacking them for their denial of the humanity of Jesus, of him possessing a physical body, the quote sounds very different, see the video series I linked to earlier on YouTube.

But in his letter to the Romans he is talking specifically to the roman Christians, and mentions no bishop, odd considering his numerous passages on their importance.

Kind regards Gary

Lincs.

Why would Paul feel compelled to need to mention the bishop?