St. John Chrysostom and communion with Rome

[Dollinger]

Originally Posted by Jehannette

It seems as if you are trying to “prove a negative”. Did he ever say, explicitly, that he was not in communion with the Pope?

He didnt need to say he was not in communion with Rome for the fact that he was not in communion with Rome to be true.

Just like Jesus didnt say "I am God" but is God nonetheless. Really silly.

[Jehannette]

Originally Posted by Dollinger

He didnt need to say he was not in communion with Rome for the fact that he was not in communion with Rome to be true.

Just like Jesus didnt say "I am God" but is God nonetheless. Really silly.

Abraham your father rejoiced that he might see my day: he saw it, and was glad. The Jews therefore said to him: Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say to you, before Abraham was made, I am. They took up stones therefore to cast at him. But Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple. (John 8:56-58)

[Dollinger]

Where does he exactly say "I am God" here? He does not. Anyway, as i said, it was a silly request.

[Jehannette]

Originally Posted by Dollinger

Where does he exactly say "I am God" here? He does not. Anyway, as i said, it was a silly request.

Why do you think that "the Jews" were trying to stone him?

[Dollinger]

Originally Posted by Jehannette

Why do you think that "the Jews" were trying to stone him?

It is irelevant he didnt exactly and explicitly say "I am God" with those exact words.

[Jehannette]

Originally Posted by Dollinger

It is irelevant he didnt exactly and explicitly say "I am God" with those exact words.

What are you, a lawyer? The Jews who were there that day understood what our Lord was saying. Likewise, individuals alive during St. John Chrysostom's day understood that he was in full communion with Rome, or at least that such was his public profession, if only implicitly. The "burden of proof" is on you to show that St. John was not in full communion with Rome, either by appealing to his writings, speeches, sermons, and/or others who knew him. To prove your case, you'd need to provide an explicit source and all that the Wikipedia article presents is innuendo.

[Dollinger]

Originally Posted by Jehannette

What are you, a lawyer? The Jews who were there that day understood what our Lord was saying. Likewise, individuals alive during St. John Chrysostom's day understood that he was in full communion with Rome, or at least that such was his public profession, if only implicitly. The "burden of proof" is on you to show that St. John was not in full communion with Rome, either by appealing to his writings, speeches, sermons, and/or others who knew him. To prove your case, you'd need to provide an explicit source and all that the Wikipedia article presents is innuendo.

"Chrysostom was ordained by a bishop who was out of communion with Rome. In fact, for the better part of his ministerial life, Chrysostom was, technically speaking, out of communion with Rome. Therefore, he was ordained (as most Roman Catholics would argue if consistent) by someone outside the communion of Rome, also claiming to be part of the Catholic Church. Chrysostom was baptized (AD 369) and ordained to the diaconate (AD 380) by Meletius who at the time was out of communion with Rome, and Chrysostom was ordained to the priesthood (AD 386) by Flavian, whom Rome refused to recognize as bishop, and had been de facto excommunicated some years before the ordination of Chrysostom. According to the standard of Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum, both Meletius and Flavian were "outside the edifice," "separated from the fold," and "exiled from the Kingdom" inasmuch as they were not in communion with the Roman pontiff, who acknowledged only Paulinus as the rightful occupant of the Antiochene see.

By receiving baptism and ordination at their hands, Chrysostom was declaring that he recognized them as the proper bishops in succession from and under the jurisdiction of the see of Antioch. While preaching at his tomb, Chrysostom referenced Meletius as a saint, and said of Flavian that he was not only the successor of Peter, but also the rightful heir of Peter to the see of Antioch. Chrysostom could not have been clearer in his repudiation of Paulinus whom Rome had declared to be the bishop of Antioch. (See his Homily II in Migne PG 52:86).

In similar fashion, when contrary to the canons Paulinus consecrated Evagrius to be his successor upon his death in AD 389, Chrysostom actively declined to recognize him as such, and emphatically warned the people of Antioch against joining the body which recognized Evagrius as bishop.

Moreover, Chrysostom makes reference to this in a sermon delivered in AD 395...

Chrysostom:

I speak not of you that are present, but of those who are deserting from us. The act is adultery. And if ye bear not to hear these things of them, neither should ye of us. There must be breach of the law either on the one side or the other. If then thou hast these suspicions concerning me, I am ready to retire from my office, and resign it to whomsoever ye may choose. Only let the Church be one. But if I have been lawfully made and consecrated, entreat those who have contrary to the law mounted the episcopal throne to resign it.
NPNF1: Vol. XIII, Homilies on Ephesians, Homily 11, next to the last paragraph.

It wasn't until after his consecration in AD 398 to the see of Constantinople by Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, that Chrysostom entered into communion with Rome.

Now, most Roman Catholic apologists are not familiar with this information regarding the circumstances of Chrysostom's baptism and ordinations, but his "orders" as such are denied as proper according to the requirements of Leo XIII's Satis Cognitum. I think this alone proves that there were in Chrysostom's day other groups claiming to be every bit as much "Catholic," but nonetheless out of communion with Rome."
http://turretinfan.blogspot.fr/2011/...vatican-i.html

"§ 73. The Meletian Schism at Antioch.




Hieronymus: Chron. ad ann. 864. Chrysostomus: Homilia in S. Patrem nostrum Meletium, archiepiscopum magnae Antiochiae (delivered a.d. 386 or 387, in Montfaucon’s ed. of Chrysost. Opera, tom. ii. p. 518–523). Sozomen: H. E. iv. 28; vii. 10, 11. Theodor.: H. E. V. 3, 35. Socrates: H. E. iii. 9; v. 9, 17. Comp. Walch: Ketzerhistorie, part iv. p. 410 sqq.




The Meletian schism at Antioch684684 Not to be confounded with the Meletian schism at Alexandria, which arose in the previous period. Comp. vol. i. § 115 (p. 451). was interwoven with the Arian controversies, and lasted through more than half a century.

In 361 the majority of the Antiochian church elected as bishop Meletius, who had formerly been an Arian, and was ordained by this party, but after his election professed the Nicene orthodoxy. He was a man of rich persuasive eloquence, and of a sweet and amiable disposition, which endeared him to the Catholics and Arians. But his doctrinal indecision offended the extremists of both parties. When he professed the Nicene faith, the Arians deposed him in council, sent him into exile, and transferred his bishopric to Euzoius, who had formerly been banished with Arius.685685 Sozom. H. E. iv. c. 28.. The Catholics disowned Euzoius, but split among themselves; the majority adhered to the exiled Meletius, while the old and more strictly orthodox party, who had hitherto been known as the Eustathians, and with whom Athanasius communicated, would not recognize a bishop of Arian consecration, though Catholic in belief, and elected Paulinus, a presbyter of high character, who was ordained counter-bishop by Lucifer of Calaris.686686 This Lucifer was an orthodox fanatic, who afterward himself fell into conflict with Athanasius in Alexandria, and formed a sect of his own, the Luciferians, On rigid principles of church purity. Comp. Socr. iii. 9; Sozom. iii. 15; and Walch, Ketzerhist. iii. 338 sqq

The doctrinal difference between the Meletians and the old Nicenes consisted chiefly in this: that the latter acknowledged three hypostases in the divine trinity, the former only three prosopa; the one laying the stress on the triplicity of the divine essence, the other on its unity.

The orthodox orientals declared for Meletius, the occidentals and Egyptians for Paulinus, as legitimate bishop of Antioch. Meletius, on returning from exile under the protection of Gratian, proposed to Paulinus that they should unite their flocks, and that the survivor of them should superintend the church alone; but Paulinus declined, since the canons forbade him to take as a colleague one who had been ordained by Arians.687687 Theodoret, H. E. lib. iii. 3. He highly applauds the magnanimous proposal of Meletius. Then the military authorities put Meletius in possession of the cathedral, which had been in the hands of Euzoius. Meletius presided, as senior bishop, in the second ecumenical council (381), but died a few days after the opening of it—a saint outside the communion of Rome. His funeral was imposing: lights were borne before the embalmed corpse, and psalms sung in divers languages, and these honors were repeated in all the cities through which it passed on its transportation to Antioch, beside the grave of St. Babylas.688688 Sozom. vii. c. 10. The historian says that the singing of psalms on such occasions was quite contrary to Roman custom. The Antiochians engraved his likeness on their rings, their cups, and the walls of their bedrooms. So St. Chrysostom informs us in his eloquent eulogy on Meletius.689689 Chrysostomsays in the beginning of this oration, that five years had elapsed since Meletius had gone to Jesus. He died in 381, consequently the oration must have been pronounced in 386 or 387. Flavian was elected his successor, although Paulinus was still alive. This gave rise to fresh troubles, and excited the indignation of the bishop of Rome. Chrysostom labored for the reconciliation of Rome and Alexandria to Flavian. But the party of Paulinus, after his death in 389, elected Evarius as successor († 392), and the schism continued down to the year 413 or 415, when the bishop Alexander succeeded in reconciling the old orthodox remnant with the successor of Meletius. The two parties celebrated their union by a splendid festival, and proceeded together in one majestic stream to the church.690690 Theodoret, H. E. l. v. c. 35. Dr. J. R. Kurtz, in his large work on Church History (Handbuch der Kirchengesch. vol. i. part ii. § 181, p. 129) erroneously speaks of a resignation of Alexander, by which he, from love of peace, induced his congregation to acknowledge the Meletian bishop Flavian. But Flavian had died several years before (in 404), and Alexander was himself the second successor of Flavian, the profligate Porphyrius intervening. Theodoret knows nothing of a resignation. Kurtz must be used with considerable caution, as he is frequently inaccurate, and relies too much on secondary authorities.

Thus a long and tedious schism was brought to a close, and the church of Antioch was permitted at last to enjoy that peace which the Athanasian synod of Alexandria in 362 had desired for it in vain"
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc3.iii.ix.vi.html

[Dollinger]

"This exile was the immediate cause of a long and deplorable schism between the Catholics of Antioch, henceforth divided into Meletians and Eustathians. The churches remaining in the hands of the Arians, Paulinus governed the Eustathians, while Flavius and Diodorus were the chiefs of the Meletian flock. In every family one child bore the name of Meletius, whose portrait was engraved on rings, reliefs, cups, and the walls of apartments. Meletius went into exile in the early part of the year 361. A few months later Emperor Constans died suddenly, and one of the first measures of his successor Julian was to revoke his predecessor's decrees of banishment. Meletius quite probably returned at once to Antioch, but his position was a difficult one in presence of the Eustathians. The Council of Alexandria (362) tried to re-establish harmony and put an end to the schism, but failed. Both parties were steadfast in their claims, while the vehemence and injudiciousness of the orthodox mediator increased the dissension, and ruined all prospects of peace. Though the election of Meletius was beyond contestation, the hot-headed Lucifer Cagliari yielded to the solicitations of the opposing faction, and instead of temporizing and awaiting Meletius's approaching return from exile, assisted by two confessors he hastily consecrated as Bishop of Antioch the Eustathian leader, Paulinus. This unwise measure was a great calamity, for it definitively established the schism. Meletius and his adherents were not responsible, and it is a peculiar injustice of history that this division should be known as the Meletian schism when the Eustathians or Paulinians were alone answerable for it. Meletius's return soon followed, also the arrival of Eusebius of Vercelli, but he could accomplish nothing under the circumstances. The persecution of Emperor Julian, whose chief residence was Antioch, brought new vexations. Both factions of the orthodox party were equally harassed and tormented, and both bore bravely their trials.

Even at Rome and in the West, Basil and Meletius were to meet with disappointment. While they wrought persistently to restore peace, a new Antiochene community, declaring itself connected with Rome and Athanasius, increased the number of dissidents, aggravated the rivalry, and renewed the disputes. There were now three Antiochene churches that formally adopted the Nicene Creed. The generous scheme of Basil for appeasement and union had ended unfortunately, and to make matters worse, Evagrius, the chief promoter of the attempted reconciliation, once more joined the party of Paulinus. This important conversion won over to the intruders St. Jerome and Pope Damasus; the very next year, and without any declaration concerning the schism, the pope showed a decided preference for Paulinus, recognized him as bishop, greeted him as brother, and considered him papal legate in the East.

After many disheartening failures, there was finally a glimpse of hope. Two legates sent to Rome, Dorotheus and Sanctissimus, returned in the spring of 377, bringing with them cordial declarations which St. Basil instantly proceeded to publish everywhere. These declarations pronounced anathemas against Arius and the heresy of Apollinaris then spreading at Antioch, condemnations all the more timely, as theological excitement was then at its highest in Antioch, and was gradually reaching Palestine. St. Jerome entered into the conflict, perhaps without having a thorough knowledge of the situation. Rejecting Meletius, Vitalian, and Paulinus, he made a direct appeal to Pope Damasus in a letter still famous, but which the pope did not answer. Discontented, Jerome returned to Antioch, let himself be ordained presbyter by Paulinus, and became the echo of Paulinist imputations against Meletius and his following. In 378 Dorotheus and Sanctissimus returned from Rome, bearers of a formal condemnation of the errors pointed out by the Orientals; this decree definitively united the two halves of the Christian world. It seemed as though St. Basil was but waiting for this object of all his efforts, for he died 1 Jan., 379.

In 379 Meletius held a council of 150 bishops in order to assure the triumph of orthodoxy in the East, and published a profession of faith which was to meet the approval of the Council of Constantinople (382). The end of the schism was near at hand. Since the two factions which divided the Antiochene Church were orthodox there remained but to unite them actually, a difficult move, but easy when the death of either bishop made it possible for the survivor to exercise full authority without hurting pride or discipline. This solution Meletius recognized as early as 381, but his friendly and peace- making proposals were rejected by Paulinus who refused to come to any agreement or settlement. Meanwhile, a great council of Eastern bishops was convoked at Constantinople to appoint a bishop for the imperial city and to settle other ecclesiastical affairs.

In the absence of the Bishop of Alexandria, the presidency rightfully fell to the Bishop of Antioch, whom the Emperor Theodosius received with marked deference, nor was the imperial favour unprofitable to Meletius in his quality of president of the assembly. It began by electing Gregory of Nazianzus Bishop of Constantinople, and to the great satisfaction of the orthodox it was Meletius who enthroned him."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10161b.htm
Sources
ALLARD, Julien l'Apostat (Paris, 1903); HEFELE, Histoire des conciles, ed. LECLERCQ, ii, 1; LOOFS in Realencyk. für prot. Theol. und Kirche, s.v.; CAVALLERA, Le schisme d'Antioche au IV et V siècle (Paris, 1905).
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1911. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

"Chrysostom as lector and monk
It was a very decisive turning-point in the life of Chrysostom when he met one day (about 367) the bishop Meletius. The earnest, mild, and winning character of this man captivated Chrysostom in such a measure that he soon began to withdraw from classical and profane studies and to devote himself to an ascetic and religious life. He studied Holy Scripture and frequented the sermons of Meletius. About three years later he received Holy Baptism and was ordained lector.

Chrysostom as deacon and priest at Antioch
As the sources of the life of Chrysostom give an incomplete chronology, we can but approximately determine the dates for this Antiochene period. Very probably in the beginning of 381 Meletius made him deacon, just before his own departure to Constantinople, where he died as president of the Second Ecumenical Council. The successor of Meletius was Flavian (concerning whose succession see F. Cavallera, "Le Schime d'Antioche", Paris, 1905). Ties of sympathy and friendship connected Chrysostom with his new bishop."

This nex bishop was flavian, not in communion with Rome.

It goes on:

"St. Chrysostom as bishop of Constantinople
In the ordinary course of things Chrysostom might have become the successor of Flavian at Antioch. But on 27 September 397, Nectarius, Bishop of Constantinople, died. There was a general rivalry in the capital, openly or in secret, for the vacant see. After some months it was known, to the great disappointment of the competitors, that Emperor Areadius, at the suggestion of his minister Eutropius, had sent to the Prefect of Antioch to call John Chrysostom out of the town without the knowledge of the people, and to send him straight to Constantinople. In this sudden way Chrysostom was hurried to the capital, and ordained Bishop of Constantinople on 26 February, 398, in the presence of a great assembly of bishops, by Theophilus, Patriarch of Alexandria, who had been obliged to renounce the idea of securing the appointment of Isidore, his own candidate. The change for Chrysostom was as great as it was unexpected. His new position was not an easy one, placed as he was in the midst of an upstart metropolis, half Western, half Oriental, in the neighbourhood of a court in which luxury and intrigue always played the most prominent parts, and at the head of the clergy composed of most heterogeneous elements, and even (if not canonically, at least practically) at the head of the whole Byzantine episcopate. The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome. Constantinople itself soon began to feel the impulse of a new ecclesiastical life. "
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm
Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.


So, st Chrysostom helped to bring reunion between Flavian and Rome. But before that, he was under Flavian jurisdiction. Wich means that until he was made bishop of Constantinople, he was NOT united with Rome.

But i know you dont want to get confused with facts from your own encyclopedia, approved by your hierarchy.

[Jehannette]

All that you have "showed" is, perhaps, that there was around the time of St. John Chrysostom a situation that shared some similarities with that of the SSPX today. However, can you show any quotes from St. John that were in any way, shape, or form similar to those uttered by Archbishop Lefebvre? I doubt it. Perhaps St. John had some disagreements with the reigning Pontiff of his day but you've nowhere produced the "smoking gun" which said that he denied the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, a claim which Archbishop Lefebvre himself never made!

[ConstantineTG]

Originally Posted by Jehannette

All that you have "showed" is, perhaps, that there was around the time of St. John Chrysostom a situation that shared some similarities with that of the SSPX today. However, can show any quotes from St. John that were in any way, shape, or form similar to those uttered by Archbishop Lefebvre? I doubt it. Perhaps St. John had some disagreements with the reigning Pontiff of his day but you've nowhere produced the "smoking gun" which said that he denied the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff, a claim which Archbishop Lefebvre himself never made!

Nothing in the early Church would be similar to what we have with the SSPX today. Remember the SSPX exists in a Post-Vatican I Church where Papal Supremacy is a dogma. To do what the SSPX does today is defying the Church and cause for excommunication. The Popes had been merciful that they have not been fully cast out yet and is even working on bringing them back into the fold. This paradigm did not exist in the First Millennium. Often arguments cause a break in communion between particular Churches back then and they resume communion after they resolve their issue. Unlike today when many proclamations of the Church has states the need to be in communion with the Pope and obey the Pope and give the Pope the final earthly authority. St. John Chrysostom did not defy any Church law back then to be where he was. The SSPX clearly defied Church law to be where they are.

[Jehannette]

Originally Posted by Dollinger

The first act of the new bishop was to bring about a reconciliation between Flavian and Rome.

If he did not believe that communion with Rome was important, why did he bother to seek reconciliation?

[LionHeart777]

I think bringing up St. John Chrysostom in regards to his views of being in comunion w/ Rome as tantamount to being in the Catholic Church is peripheral in that I think you bring the OP may have brought this up as a way to disprove the Roman claim. If that is the case, the real issue is: is the claim true.

That question is not going to be answered by citing any views that St. John Chrysostom may or may not have held. First of all, all those who are opposing the Roman claim have offered in here is conjecture (mostly via Protestant sources and Wikipedia--yes this is ad hominem but so is the criticism against the Catholic Encyclopedia on the basis that it is approved by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.) And this conjecture is about his early ministry, since we know that in the end, he was in Communion w/ Rome. If those opposing the Roman view can say that his not being in full communion w/ Rome is evidence that he didn't believe it was necessary (this in his early ministry) then we can say, using the same logic, that he did believe it was necessary (at least later in his life) as he, in his later ministry and as Bishop, came into full communion w/ Rome. This is even if we accept the argument being put forth ( I do not.)

But regardless, even if for arguments' sake we accept what is being put forth, that doesn't mean that that is the correct position to take. Lamentably, Alexandria broke away from Rome by not accepting Chalcedon if I am not mistaken, and this was in the Patristic era. Here you have a whole Church and not just an individual Church Father (in his earlier ministry, allegedly.) Does this mean that the those who broke away were correct?

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by Jehannette

If he did not believe that communion with Rome was important, why did he bother to seek reconciliation?

After its head succumbed to political pressure from the communist regime in the 1920s, the Russian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate found itself out of communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia until 2007.

The reconciliation of the two sides cannot, however, be taken to indicate that the ROC-MP is the centre of unity for Eastern Orthodoxy and ROCOR was seeking to return into the good graces (no pun intended) of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church after nine decades of schism.

[Jehannette]

Originally Posted by Trebor135

After its head succumbed to political pressure from the communist regime in the 1920s, the Russian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate found itself out of communion with the Russian Orthodox Church Outside Russia until 2007.

The reconciliation of the two sides cannot, however, be taken to indicate that the ROC-MP is the centre of unity for Eastern Orthodoxy and ROCOR was seeking to return into the good graces (no pun intended) of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church after nine decades of schism.

The OP is simply an "argument from silence." St. John Chrysostom was one Church father who never saw it fit to "correct" the other fathers of the Church:

http://www.catholic.com/search/content/primacy

So, unless you can demonstrate that none of the Fathers believed in Papal Primacy, the silence of St. John is hardly, IMO, an "argument" against it. Ultimately, he came into full communion with Rome; that's what is important and that is what is not in dispute.

[Trebor135]

Originally Posted by LionHeart777

I think bringing up St. John Chrysostom in regards to his views of being in comunion w/ Rome as tantamount to being in the Catholic Church is peripheral in that I think you bring the OP may have brought this up as a way to disprove the Roman claim.

I brought it up to hear what Catholics had to say in response.

If that is the case, the real issue is: is the claim true.

What claim?

That question is not going to be answered by citing any views that St. John Chrysostom may or may not have held.

Why not? His views and actions, and those of other hierarches, might clarify what the mind of the fourth-century Church was on the papacy as the principle of unity or the most respected of the three Petrine sees.

First of all, all those who are opposing the Roman claim have offered in here is conjecture

How?

(mostly via Protestant sources and Wikipedia--yes this is ad hominem but so is the criticism against the Catholic Encyclopedia on the basis that it is approved by the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.)

What Dolinger meant was that even the Catholic Encyclopedia testifies to St. John Chrysostom being out of communion with Rome for a long time. Such an admission is almost as noteworthy as a Reformed Encyclopedia acknowledging that St. Augustine believed in salvation by faith and works, the grace-bestowing character of seven sacraments, and the Mass as a sacrifice.

And this conjecture is about his early ministry, since we know that in the end, he was in Communion w/ Rome.

(1) The ROC-MP and ROCOR were separated for ninety years, but in the end reconciled with one another. (2) Therefore, communion with the Moscow in Eastern Orthodoxy is akin (by being vitally necessary) to communion with Rome in Latin Catholicism.

But no. (2) does not follow by necessity from (1)--it's a non sequitor.

If those opposing the Roman view can say that his not being in full communion w/ Rome is evidence that he didn't believe it was necessary (this in his early ministry) then we can say, using the same logic, that he did believe it was necessary (at least later in his life) as he, in his later ministry and as Bishop, came into full communion w/ Rome. This is even if we accept the argument being put forth ( I do not.)

See above. St. John Chrysostom more likely deemed schism between any sees to be a wound always worth healing.

But regardless, even if for arguments' sake we accept what is being put forth, that doesn't mean that that is the correct position to take.

You haven't demonstrated that the fourth-century Church believed in the bishopric of Rome as the centre of unity.

Lamentably, Alexandria broke away from Rome by not accepting Chalcedon if I am not mistaken, and this was in the Patristic era. Here you have a whole Church and not just an individual Church Father (in his earlier ministry, allegedly.) Does this mean that the those who broke away were correct?

No, you're right. But those responsible for Alexandria breaking away from the Church are not considered saints by Rome today, whereas St. John Chrysostom most assuredly is venerated as such.