Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: OLD REGGIE
"The decree I posted was directly from one your boiler plate "proofs". See #279. Perhaps, unlike you, I took the time to do some checking."

Unfortunately for you, you didn't check deep enough. The Popes did not always confirm every Canon from every Council, especially the ones where Bishops in the Eastern Church were trying to extend the authority of Peter's throne to Constantinople. In another early Council, the Council of Chalcedon, (451 AD), Canon # 28 was never confirmed by the Holy See because it appeared derogatory to Papal primacy.

This contention over primacy from the East is precisely why so many of the contemporary Saints and bishops from the East confessed Rome to hold the primacy, they were clearly helping to settle the dispute. You have seen the many quotes I posted earlier.

I posted many powerful pieces of evidence to Rome's primacy, not just the one you decided to respond to. I will take this to mean you have no answer for them.

pax Christi

355 posted on 11/26/2003 3:13:09 PM PST by TheCrusader
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 328 | View Replies ]


To: TheCrusader; SoothingDave
Unfortunately for you, you didn't check deep enough. The Popes did not always confirm every Canon from every Council, especially the ones where Bishops in the Eastern Church were trying to extend the authority of Peter's throne to Constantinople. In another early Council, the Council of Chalcedon, (451 AD), Canon # 28 was never confirmed by the Holy See because it appeared derogatory to Papal primacy.

This contention over primacy from the East is precisely why so many of the contemporary Saints and bishops from the East confessed Rome to hold the primacy, they were clearly helping to settle the dispute. You have seen the many quotes I posted earlier.

I posted many powerful pieces of evidence to Rome's primacy, not just the one you decided to respond to. I will take this to mean you have no answer for them.


I repeat, it was you who posted the "proof" I questioned. If you wish to disavow it now be my guest.

In all seriousness I am afraid we are working with differing definitions of "primacy" and, as such, we will never be able to agree.

I accept that the Bishop of Rome, at some later time, enjoyed a "Primacy of Honor" amongst all Bishops.

I deny that the Pope was ever granted a temporal primacy, though there were some who claimed such.

Pope Gregory I went so far as to deny "universality" for the Pope or any Patriarch. He claimed equality and nothing else.

Now eight years ago, in the time of my predecessor of holy memory Pelagius, our brother and fellow-bishop John in the city of Constantinople, seeking occasion from another cause, held a synod in which he attempted to call himself Universal Bishop. Which as soon as my said predecessor knew, he despatched letters annulling by the authority of the holy apostle Peter the acts of the said synod ... .

¶ For ... this name of Universality was offered by the holy synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the Apostolic See which by the providence of God I serve. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title; since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this, far be it from the mind of a Christian, that any one should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honour of his brethren....

Gregory the Great

I would appreciate if you could state what you mean by "Primacy". Who knows, we might actually agree.

406 posted on 11/28/2003 11:07:20 AM PST by OLD REGGIE ((I am a cult of one! UNITARJEWMIAN) Maybe a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 355 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson