Former Catholic: Eastern Orthodox

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Are you claiming that the Mass is ephemeral?[/quote]The word "Mass" comes from the Latin "Missa", meaning the missal the priest uses to offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. The [i]sacrifice[/i] of the Mass is eternal. The ritual ceremonies we use to offer that sacrifice, however, are not eternal. They are human attempts to echoe the Heavenly Liturgy which we participate in by faith. Human ceremonies can never satisfy man, because man made them, and they bear the seeds of his own finite nature. The Liturgical rites of the Church help us ascend to God. But as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. Liturgical rites lead us to God. But Liturgical rites are not ends in themselves. If we rely on ritual ceremonies to the point where we cannot enter into the divine life of God without them, then we have fallen into a very dangerous spiritual error. We have exchanged the beauty of the creator for the beauty of the creature. Sometimes going to mass is very much an aesthetic pleasure. At other times, though the same aesthetic elements are present, they do not move a person as they once did. Why? Because they are ephemeral rites. We must be able to enter into the Eucharistic mystery no matter what, smells and bells or not.

[quote]In times past, Masses were celebrated accompanied by orchestral music, in the glow of countless candles and wafting incense, today, following the dictum, "Get rid of all signs of triumphalism!" the celebrant stands before a bare altar, saying his prayers and addressing the faithful through a microphone. We have now simply eliminated an essential part of the liturgy: that of worshipping God. To worship is an obligation of man than can never change.[/quote]

This is a very romanticized view of Liturgical history. The Roman rite, in particular, has always been very low key. The old Catholic Encyclopedia, written in 1913 (long before the Second Vatican Council), notes:

[quote]"So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical."[/quote]Note that "the original Roman Rite was very plain, simple, practical". This is a far cry from your romanticized version. Catholic Liturgical scholar Dom Cabral writes in 1934:

[quote]"At the time we are now considering (SEVENTH CENTURY) there were neither crosses nor candles, neither tabernacle or retable; nor were there any of these things till the ninth, or even the eleventh, century. But the "ciborium," a kind of dome, or dais, usually supported by four columns, was in use from the fourth century onwards, and sometimes at Rome it was made of precious metal. The marbles, mosaics, chandeliers, and candelabras, the lamps hanging from the vaulted roof and other ornaments in use from the time of Constantine, show us that the Church has come out of the catacombs, and that to primitive austerity has succeeded the desire to surround Divine worship with splendour, upheld by the generosity of Christians."[/quote]

The more grandeur elements that originally developed in the Roman Rite were Gallican transports.

St. Justin Martyr indicates the order of Mass during his time:

[quote]On the day we call the day of the sun, all who dwell in the city or country gather in the same place. The memoirs of the apostles and the writings of the prophets are read, as much as time permits.

When the reader has finished, he who presides over those gathered admonishes and challenges them to imitate these beautiful things.

Then we all rise together and offer prayers* for ourselves . . .and for all others, wherever they may be, so that we may be found righteous by our life and actions, and faithful to the commandments, so as to obtain eternal salvation.

When the prayers are concluded we exchange the kiss.

Then someone brings bread and a cup of water and wine mixed together to him who presides over the brethren.

He takes them and offers praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit and for a considerable time he gives thanks (in Greek: eucharistian) that we have been judged worthy of these gifts.

When he has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all present give voice to an acclamation by saying: 'Amen.'

When he who presides has given thanks and the people have responded, those whom we call deacons give to those present the "eucharisted" bread, wine and water and take them to those who are absent.[/quote]That sounds like the modern Roman Rite, almost to a tee.

The fact is, the Pauline rite of Mass is very much a blend of early Roman simplicity with later Roman grandeur. It does not rid of the substance of the ceremonial elements of the Tridentine rite, but it also strikes the balance of practicality evident in the original Roman rite. Catholics who attend the Mass of Paul VI are just as "traditional" as Catholics who attend the Mass of Pius V.

It is indeed unfortunate that many of the Church's ministers on the local level have profaned the Sacred Liturgy, and spurned the directives of the Church. But this is an entirely separate question than the nature of the Pauline rite itself.

[quote]A priest should have every right to celebrate a fully licit Mass.[/quote]

A licit mass is one said with ecclesiastical authority. You may have in mind a valid Mass. No, a priest does not have a right to use any valid Liturgical form he wishes. He doesn't have a right to use the Missal of Pius V anymore than he has a right to use the Missals of the early Church. If he wishes to use an older form of the Roman rite, then he will beseech the proper authorities, and respect their wishes.

[ICXCNIKA]

But every provision is not being made for people to celebrate the rites which they are attached to. And I clearly doubt that the liturgical service in the days of St. Justin Martyr were like that of the Novus Ordo. From my perspective, the organization of the Mass in the Novus Ordo is very improvised, unlike previous rites which I have encountered.

And as to Jeff's statement, First I do not see myself as 'giving up the faith'. I kept my faith, and found something which fulfills me spiritually. Second, I know if I go back to the Roman Church I will be faced with the same asinine individuals who are increasingly attempting to make the Roman Catholic Church look more like the United Church of Christ (except with a more morally conservative bent). I cannot find any historical evidence pertaining to Peter's infallible command over the Apostles. I would suggest that you go and read the Acts of the Apostles where Peter demonstrated one of his undeniably virtuous characteristics - that of admitting that he was wrong on occassion. Thankfully, it was St. Paul who won the debates with St. Peter concerning the baptism and chrismation of Gentiles. If the entire Apostolic Church fell in line with St. Peter, I and many others would probably not be having this discussion in this forum.

The monarchy which you have created yourself does not equip the Pontiff with that luxury; afterall such a statement could render the whole 'guidance of the Holy Spirit without error' void. The way I see it Jeff, if the Roman Pontiffs are the undeniable "keeper of the keys" so to speak, they should be able to provide liturgical services for all of their flock, rather than allowing modernists to gorge at a liturgical buffet of innovation, leaving no provision for those who prefer traditional liturgy.

Edited April 12, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]But every provision is not being made for people to celebrate the rites which they are attached to.[/quote]

Correct, because you have a right to the Mass, not a right to a specific rite of the Mass (pun intended ). The Missal of Paul VI is the lawful form of the Roman Rite currently in use. Those Latin Catholics who wish to worship according to an older form of the Roman Rite are seeking an exception to law. The Bishops are free to grant or deny their appeal, based on their own Apostolic discretion.

[quote]And I clearly doubt that the liturgical service in the days of St. Justin Martyr were like that of the Novus Ordo. From my perspective, the organization of the Mass in the Novus Ordo is very improvised, unlike previous rites which I have encountered.[/quote]

The Mass of Paul VI is not at all "improvised". Like all the other liturgical rites of the Church, it has specific Liturgical directives. There are elements of it which have multiple options (such as the four Eucharistic Canons), but these elements are not "improvised". The early Liturgies of the Church, on the other hand, were completely improvised. Again, I cite the old 1913 Catholic Encyclopedia:

[quote]In the Apostolic Fathers the picture of the early Christian Liturgy becomes clearer; we have in them a definite and to some extent homogeneous ritual. But this must be understood. There was certainly no set form of prayers and ceremonies such as we see in our present Missals and Euchologia; still less was anything written down and read from a book. The celebrating bishop spoke freely, his prayers being to some extent improvised. And yet this improvising was bound by certain rules. In the first place, no one who speaks continually on the same subjects says new things each time, Modern sermons and modern extempore prayers show how easily a speaker falls into set forms, how constantly he repeats what come to be, at least for him, fixed formulæ. Moreover, the dialogue form of prayer that we find in use in the earliest monuments necessarily supposes some constant arrangement. The people answer and echo what the celebrant and the deacons say with suitable exclamations. They could not do so unless they heard more or less the same prayers each time. They heard from the altar such phrases as: "The Lord be with you", or "Lift up your hearts", and it was because they recognized these forms, had heard them often before, that they could answer at once in the way expected.[/quote]

[quote] will be faced with the same asinine individuals who are increasingly attempting to make the Roman Catholic Church look more like the United Church of Christ (except with a more morally conservative bent).[/quote]

You know nothing of disorder in the Church. St. Ambrose describes the times of St. Athanasius, noting that "the world woke up to find itself Arian". We have it pretty good these days, to say the least.

[quote]cannot find any historical evidence pertaining to Peter's infallible command over the Apostles.[/quote]

Since you refer to the Acts of the Apostles, I will cite St. John Chrysostom's commentary on the election of Judas's successor:

[quote]"Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him [Peter], and no longer dispute with each other....[Peter says, 'Men and bretheren...' in Acts 1:15-16]. Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, 'We are sufficient'. So far was [Peter] beyond all vainglory, and he looked to one thing alone. [i]And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively[/i]. But well might these things be done in this fasion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed."[/quote]

Note well that Peter "had the same power to ordain [the successor of Judas] as they all collectively". He had the power in himself, that the Apostles had together. But, St. Chrysostom notes that Peter did not choose to act alone, but to act in unison with his fellow Apostles. This is Catholic doctrine in action. The Pope has supreme authority in the Church, as did St. Peter, but he chooses to act in unison with his brother Bishops, because the Lord established the college with authority as a whole as well.

Pope Leo the Great, as well, asserts his supreme authority in the fifth century:

[quote]"From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler"[/quote]

[quote]The way I see it Jeff, if the Roman Pontiffs are the undeniable "keeper of the keys" so to speak, they should be able to provide liturgical services for all of their flock, rather than allowing modernists to gorge at a liturgical buffet of innovation, leaving no provision for those who prefer traditional liturgy.[/quote]

The Lord established a college of Bishops for a reason. Each Bishop is responsible for his own See. The authority of the Roman Pontiff does not rule out the authority, and duty, of the individual Bishops to sheperd the flock given to them. The Roman Pontiff cannot micromanage every See. That is why they have Bishops.

[Guest JeffCR07]

[quote name='ICXCNIKA' date='Apr 12 2005, 12:58 PM'] But every provision is not being made for people to celebrate the rites which they are attached to. And I clearly doubt that the liturgical service in the days of St. Justin Martyr were like that of the Novus Ordo. From my perspective, the organization of the Mass in the Novus Ordo is very improvised, unlike previous rites which I have encountered.

And as to Jeff's statement, First I do not see myself as 'giving up the faith'. I kept my faith, and found something which fulfills me spiritually. Second, I know if I go back to the Roman Church I will be faced with the same asinine individuals who are increasingly attempting to make the Roman Catholic Church look more like the United Church of Christ (except with a more morally conservative bent). I cannot find any historical evidence pertaining to Peter's infallible command over the Apostles. I would suggest that you go and read the Acts of the Apostles where Peter demonstrated one of his undeniably virtuous characteristics - that of admitting that he was wrong on occassion. Thankfully, it was St. Paul who won the debates with St. Peter concerning the baptism and chrismation of Gentiles. If the entire Apostolic Church fell in line with St. Peter, I and many others would probably not be having this discussion in this forum.

The monarchy which you have created yourself does not equip the Pontiff with that luxury; afterall such a statement could render the whole 'guidance of the Holy Spirit without error' void. The way I see it Jeff, if the Roman Pontiffs are the undeniable "keeper of the keys" so to speak, they should be able to provide liturgical services for all of their flock, rather than allowing modernists to gorge at a liturgical buffet of innovation, leaving no provision for those who prefer traditional liturgy. [/quote]
ICXCNIKA, it seems to me that you have not read the early Church Fathers, or, if you have, you have chosen to ignore that which does not fit your personal theology. I noticed that you have not responded to the above quote by St. Maximus the Confessor.

[ICXCNIKA]

[quote name='JeffCR07' date='Apr 12 2005, 01:26 PM'] ICXCNIKA, it seems to me that you have not read the early Church Fathers, or, if you have, you have chosen to ignore that which does not fit your personal theology. I noticed that you have not responded to the above quote by St. Maximus the Confessor. [/quote]
The fact is I have read the Fathers of the Church and specifically the pre-schismatic Popes. None of them held the power which Pontiffs do today. These were all innovations placed forth after the Great Schism when Rome broke off from the Church. I would also like a reference to the quote coming from St. Maximus. I cannot seem to find it in any of my saying of St. Maximus the Confessor published by Regina Press.

As far as an Orthodox opinion on Roman Ecclesiology:

his idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster. Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.

Orthodoxy teaches that every bishop, "the living icon of Christ," and his flock constitute the Church in a certain place; or, as St. Ignatius the God-bearer says, the Church of Christ is in the bishop, his priests and deacons, with the people, surrounding the Eucharist in the true faith. All bishops and their flocks so constituted, together composing the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

In other words, there can be no Church without a bishop, no bishop without the Eucharist, and no bishop or Eucharist without the true faith, the Apostolic Faith, "the faith once delivered to the saints." (Jude 3) "The Church is in the bishop and the bishop in the Church," wrote St. Cyprian of Carthage.

Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles.

Also, there can be no Church without the Eucharist, the Sacrament of unity, because the Church is formed through it. The Body and Blood of Christ unites the Faithful to God: This fellowship or koinonia is the whole purpose of Christianity. At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.

-From Fr. Michael Azkoul's "Difference between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism."

Edited April 12, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]I would also like a reference to the quote coming from St. Maximus. I cannot seem to find it in any of my saying of St. Maximus the Confessor published by Regina Press.[/quote]

It is his letter to Peter, governor of Syria and Palestine.

[quote]his idea of the Church implies that the local parish has two heads: the Pope and the local bishop. But a body with two visible heads is a monster.[/quote]

The local Church is a microcosm of the universal Church. The concept of a "body" cannot be taken too far. Does the Body of Christ go to the bathroom? Does it shave its beard?

[quote] Also, the local bishop seems stripped of his apostolic authority if the Pope may contradict his orders. Indeed, he cannot become a bishop unless the Pope allows it.[/quote]

No, he is not stripped of his Apostolic authority. He simply has the Apostolic authority given to him, which is under the greater pastoral authority of the Bishop of Rome. Such has always been the faith of the Church.

[quote]The fact is I have read the Fathers of the Church and specifically the pre-schismatic Popes. None of them held the power which Pontiffs do today. These were all innovations placed forth after the Great Schism when Rome broke off from the Church.[/quote]

St. Leo the Great, writing in the fifth century, flatly contradicts this assertion, as cited above:

[quote]"From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler"[/quote]

And elsewhere, Leo the Great writes:

[quote]"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...Through them [the Bishops with greater responsibility] the care of the universal Church would converge on the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head."[/quote]

St. Leo the Great was quite emphatic in expounding the Church's faith in the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. He was simply echoing the constant faith of the Church, as evidenced by St. Irenaeus in the second century:

[quote]"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] 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 [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority..." (Against Heresies)[/quote]

[quote]Put another way, there is no Church where there is no bishop, and there is no bishop where there is no succession of bishops from the Apostles (apostolic succession); and there can be no succession from the bishops without the faith of the Apostles.[/quote]

We agree with this. Which is why we distinguish between the Orthodox "Churches" and the Protestant "Communities".

[quote] At the same time, there can be no Eucharist - and no other Mysteries - without a bishop who teaches the true faith to the baptized.[/quote]

This we disagree with. The validity of the Sacraments are ensured by the form and intent of the minister, not his personal faith. This controversy was resolved a long time ago in the time of the Donatist heretics.

Edited April 12, 2005 by Eremite

[dspen2005]

there is nothing inherently wrong with the Missa Normativa. In fact, when celebrated and prayer according to the strict rubrics of the GIRM, and Sancrosanctum Concilium, the Mass can be just as spiritually elevating and glorious as the TLM. From reading your short bio, it seemed as if the basis of your conversion to the Orthodox Faith was because of the Mass. You made a short reference to papal supremacy -- which is discussed and defended both Biblically and by the Early Church Fathers..... (a reference will follow this posting) -- still, is there something else that effected this response?

[dspen2005]

Writing in 251 A.D., St. Cyprian of Carthage noted:

And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"

Fathers of the Church throughout the early centuries of the Church might be cited for hours, but what no one can provide is the testimony of even one of them denying this primacy. Even when their were disputed matters, such as involved St. Cyprian of Carthage and the pope, he still insisted on the primacy, writing in 255 or 256 A.D.:

Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6).

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Read the Early Fathers and get their take on the Chair of St. Peter. I'd post some, but I don't have time...

[ICXCNIKA]

So then, my dear Catholic friends...explain this to me as if I were a four year old. If Peter had any kind of supremacy over the Church, then tell me why in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles was St. James the Brother of Our Lord, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the President of the Council? And why didn't Peter's decision concerning Gentiles in the Church come into fruition? I am sure as heck glad that it didn't, otherwise I would be restricted from baptism and chrismation in the Church.

Please do not take this into any offense, but I simply would like to see the evidence. Heaven knows, that I pray fervently for the two churches to be reunited, and I am in a way looking across the Tiber so to speak, longing to return back to my roots. But, in all honestly, the Roman Catholic Church is a morass of liturgical abuse and semper reformata.

[ICXCNIKA]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Apr 12 2005, 10:03 AM'] Regarding Papal Primacy, I would point you to St. Maximus the Confessor (not to mention the Fathers themselves), who is honored by Catholics and Orthodox alike:
[/quote]
Primacy--Yes. Universal Jurisdiction, no. Primacy of Honor, yes. Rome lost that honor when she broke away from the East. Now Constantinople has been offered that honor in her place.

n summary, Orthodoxy does not reject Roman primacy as such, but simply a particular way of understanding that primacy. Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25‑27).

Before the schism, in times of ecclesiastical discord and theological controversies, appeals for peaceful resolutions and mediation were made to the pope from all parts of the Christian world. For instance, in the course of the iconoclast controversy, St Theodore the Studite (759‑829) urged the emperor to consult the pope: "If there is anything in the patriarch's reply about which you feel doubt or disbelief... you may ask the chief elder in Rome for clarification, as has been the practice from the beginning according to inherited tradition." From an Orthodox perspective, however, it is important to emphasize that these appeals to the bishop of Rome are not to be understood in juridical terms. The case was not closed when Rome had spoken, and the Byzantines felt free on occasion to reject a Roman ruling.

In a reintegrated Christendom, when the pope takes his place once more as primus inter pares within the Orthodox Catholic communion, the bishop of Rome will have the initiative to summon a synod of the whole Church. The bishop of Rome will, of course, preside over such a synod and his office may coordinate the life and the witness of the Orthodox Catholic church and in times of need be its spokesman. The role of acting as the voice of the Church is not, however, to be restricted to any hierarchical order within the Church, still less to a single see. In principle, any bishop, priest or layman may be called by the Holy Spirit to proclaim the true faith.

Peter never claimed dominion over the other Apostles--he was simply so charismatic, that he led the pack. James was, indeed, the president of the Church in Jerusalem in the early days. Plus--Peter was Bishop of Antioch, before he went to Rome to be martyred--so the Patriarchs of Antioch are equally his successors.

So let's get it straight guys. The theological stuff is camouflage--the central issue is political--in other words control.

Edited April 13, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]Primacy--Yes. Universal Jurisdiction, no. Primacy of Honor, yes. Rome lost that honor when she broke away from the East. Now Constantinople has been offered that honor in her place.[/quote]

This does not square with the Patristic witness. Pope St. Leo the Great is very clear that the Apostles were all equal in honor, but there was a distinction in authority among them, and St. Peter ruled all the other Apostles.

[quote]He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service[/quote]

Earthly authority is not opposed to humble service. The Bishop of Rome serves the Church by exercising his authority. Denying the universal jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome is an attack on the constant teaching of the Fathers of the Church. It cannot be accepted.

[quote]Peter never claimed dominion over the other Apostles[/quote]

The Fathers of the Church, among them St. John Chrysostom, claim otherwise. We can wax poetic all we want about our own theologies. The real question is: What did the Fathers say? I have provided quite a bit of evidence in this thread indicating what the Fathers did in fact believe. That is the only basis for this discussion.

[quote]Plus--Peter was Bishop of Antioch, before he went to Rome to be martyred--so the Patriarchs of Antioch are equally his successors.[/quote]

The Fathers of the Church never accepted such a thesis. Rome was always the center of authority. St. Irenaeus never said "Every Church must agree with the the Church of Antioch, on account of its preeminent authority". He said Rome. Again, this all comes down to what the Fathers say. Nothing else matters.

[quote]The theological stuff is camouflage--the central issue is political--in other words control.[/quote]

You haven't addressed a single Patrisic witness I have presented, and then you claim it's all political?

[quote]If Peter had any kind of supremacy over the Church, then tell me why in the Epistles and Acts of the Apostles was St. James the Brother of Our Lord, the Patriarch of Jerusalem, the President of the Council?[/quote]

Who was the first to speak at the Council, while everyone was debating?

[quote]And why didn't Peter's decision concerning Gentiles in the Church come into fruition?[/quote]

Huh? If you are referring to Peter's scandalous actions, for which he was rebuked by St. Paul, these were nothing more than scandalous actions. As Catholic history makes abundantly clear, Popes are not immune from scandalous actions.

[quote]but I simply would like to see the evidence[/quote]

With all due respect, I have provided a lot of evidence in this thread, and you have not dealt with any of it.

[quote]Heaven knows, that I pray fervently for the two churches to be reunited, and I am in a way looking across the Tiber so to speak, longing to return back to my roots.[/quote]

Well, I can certainly join in you that prayer.

[quote]But, in all honestly, the Roman Catholic Church is a morass of liturgical abuse and semper reformata.[/quote]

Welcome to the realities of history. The gates of hell will never prevail. That doesn't mean they won't come calling.

[ICXCNIKA]

[quote name='Eremite' date='Apr 13 2005, 08:05 AM']
This does not square with the Patristic witness. Pope St. Leo the Great is very clear that the Apostles were all equal in honor, but there was a distinction in authority among them, and St. Peter ruled all the other Apostles.
[/quote]
Then pray tell, why isn't Christianity a religion for Jews, then? Peter may have had primacy over the Apostles, but he didn't have jurisdiction over them. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion (well, perhaps if you are of Jewish ethnic background).

"you haven't responded to any of it"

All your quotes deal with PRIMACY. NOT SUPREMACY. It does not prove that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over all the Christian world, which is what the post-schismatic Latin Church is trying to pander. If this is difficult to understand, I would suggest that you consult a dictionary.

Edited April 13, 2005 by ICXCNIKA

[Guest Eremite]

ICXCNIKA,

I have no idea what you are talking about. Religion for the Jews? You're going to have to clarify your point.

[Guest Eremite]

[quote]All your quotes deal with PRIMACY. NOT SUPREMACY. It does not prove that the Pope had universal jurisdiction over all the Christian world, which is what the post-schismatic Latin Church is trying to pander. If this is difficult to understand, I would suggest that you consult a dictionary. [/quote]

Ok. Let's review the witnesses I have provided.

[quote]For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church [of Rome], on account of its preeminent authority..." (St. Irenaeus, Second Century)[/quote]

If every Church "should agree" with Rome, then that means Rome has supreme authority in the Church. St. Irenaeus doesn't say "every Church should consider what Rome says, but are free to do their own thing". No. He says it is "a matter of necessity" that every Church agrees with Rome.

[quote]"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...Through them [the Bishops with greater responsibility] the care of the universal Church would converge on the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head." (Pope Leo the Great, Fifth Century)[/quote]

Here, Pope Leo says that there was a distinction of authority among the Apostles (not a distinction of honor), and goes on to say "NOTHING should ever be at odds with this head", the head being "the one See of Peter", that is, Rome. If nothing should ever be at odds with Rome, then that means Rome has supreme authority in the Church to decide things. Otherwise, there could be things at odds with it. But Leo admits of no such right.

[quote]"From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church. Thus, although among the people of God there are many priests and many pastors, it is really Peter who rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler" (Pope Leo the Great, Fifth Century)[/quote]

Note well that Pope Leo the Great says that Peter "rules" not only the nations, not only the Fathers of the Church, but Peter rules "over all the other Apostles". He "rules" them. This is a supremacy in jurisdiction, not a primacy of honor.

[quote]"Again, consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the Bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark also the great moderation of the other Apostles, how they concede the throne to him [Peter], and no longer dispute with each other....[Peter says, 'Men and bretheren...' in Acts 1:15-16]. Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who ordained a teacher. He did not say, 'We are sufficient'. So far was [Peter] beyond all vainglory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. But well might these things be done in this fasion, through the noble spirit of the man, and because prelacy then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed." (St. John Chrysostom)[/quote]

Here, St. John Chrysostom says that Peter had the authority to select a successor of Judas himself, the same authority that the Apostles had "collectively". The Apostolic (and Episcopal) colleges have supreme authority COLLECTIVELY. As St. John Chrysostom notes, however, Peter (and his successors in Rome) have this same authority in themselves. They have supreme authority.

[quote]"For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed pope of the most holy Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic see, which from the incarnate Son of God Himself, and also by all holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions, has received universal and supreme dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over all the holy Churches of God which are in the whole world -- for with it the Word who is above the celestial powers binds and looses in heaven also. For if he thinks he must satisfy others, and fails to implore the most blessed Roman pope, he is acting like a man who, when accused of murder or some other crime, does not hasten to prove his innocence to the judge appointed by the law, but only uselessly and without profit does his best to demonstrate his innocence to private individuals, who have no power to acquit him." (St. Maximus the Confessor, Letter to Peter, Seventh Century)[/quote]

Here, St. Maximus indicates that the Bishop of Rome has "universal and SUPREME dominion, authority and power of binding and loosing over ALL the holy Churches of God". He cannot be more explicit.

I also provided this website which records other Eastern witnessess to the supreme authority of Peter and his successors.

[url="http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/ecclesia/patriarchs.htm"]http://web.globalserve.net/~bumblebee/eccl.../patriarchs.htm[/url]

I think I have provided more than enough evidence to support my case. Beyond what I have provided, you will have to see a published volume. Once more, I would reccommend "Upon This Rock" by Steve Ray.

As an aside, I will let this be my last post, because I don't want any animosity to develop between us. I have great respect for Eastern Orthodox Christians, and while I cannot concur with some of their beliefs, I rejoice in the closeness of doctrinal and spiritual unity that we do in fact share.

God bless.

Edited April 13, 2005 by Eremite