(Click picture to go back to Table of Contents)
Welcome
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Enjoy... But remember
"Don't give in to winning the argument
and losing one of your eternal crowns..."
God bless you...
Yet Another Glowing Example of Mere Assertions. 
Reconciliation, Towards Unity: JOINT STATEMENT BY POPE, ORTHODOX PRELATE (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
PAPAL APOLOGY TO GREEK ORTHODOX (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
"Enemy" Churches Praying Together: Pope and Orthodox Archbishop Christodoulos of Athens (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Read What Christodoulos Says to John Paul II (Christopher Yip)
Reflections on the Sack of Constantinople in 1204 and Lesser-Known Byzantine Atrocities (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Greek Atrocities Against the Latins (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
Tit for tat eh? (Christopher Yip)
Pope Innocent III - The Crusades and His "AGENDA" ??? (Matthew Tan Yew Hock)
|
TYH: One cannot help but to conclude that an anti-Catholic like Mr. Yip is never able to give fair comment, not only on Catholic news services, and not only on Catholic teachings, but also on historical events connected with the Catholic Church and the Pope.
ME: OK, so again, we hope to see some evidence to that charge. TYH: Again and again, it has been proven to him that the Ecumenical Councils recognised the primacy of juridiction of the Pope, where the Pope was the head of the Church just as Peter was the Chief of the Apostles. If fact, the Pope had the final say over Ecumencial Councils, with the power to ratify or revoke any Council decrees. The Pope also had real power to install and depose Bishops, including the Bishops of the East, and to reinstate unjustly dethroned Bishops. ME: And we ask - where is that proof? Instead, we have the following FACTS of history. Now, would appreciate if anti-Protestant Mr Tan would kindly REFUTE them ONE by ONE for all to read. 1st Assertion: Ecumenical Councils recognised the primacy of juridiction of the Pope... the Pope had the final say over Ecumencial Councils, with the power to ratify or revoke any Council decrees. NOT ACCORDING TO THE RECORDS. The Seven Ecumenical Councils were all called together 1. at the commandment and will of Princes; 2. without any knowledge of the matter on the part of the Pope in one case at least (1st Constantinople); 3. without any consultation with him in the case of I Nice, so far as we know; and 4. contrary to his expressed desire in at least the case of Chalcedon, when he only gave a reluctant consent after the Emperor Marcian had already convoked the synod. These are the facts as can be seen in the EC's records. From this it is historically evident that Ecumenical Councils can be summoned without either the knowledge or consent of the See of Rome. 2nd Assertion: Power to install and depose ... bishops of the East It's tiring to repeat the evidence when my opponent doesn't bother to refute them, just continue to assert. I am going to try again here for the sake of the readers. Readers, my opponent makes the assertion without proof, here, I am going to refute him with historical facts and please watch his response. 1. NOT ACCORDING TO THE CANONS OF THE EARLY CHURCH AND ECUMENICAL COUNCILS 35th Apostolic Canon (dated from 2nd to 5th centuries) http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-178.htm#P10977_2125668 Canon XXXV. (XXXVI.) LET NOT A BISHOP (Chris: The Roman Pope, for example) DARE TO ORDAIN BEYOND HIS OWN LIMITS (Chris: The West), IN CITIES AND PLACES NOT SUBJECT TO HIM (Chris: Like the East). But if he be convicted of doing so, WITHOUTH THE CONSENT OF THOSE PERSONS WHO HAVE AUTHORITY OVER SUCH CITIES AND PLACES (Chris: Like the Bishop of Constantinople), let him be DEPOSED, and THOSE ALSO whom he has ordained. And how do we know Rome doesn't have authority over the cities of the East? Rome did try to go beyond her juridical limits, hence, the following canon was promulgated by the Nicene Ecumenical Council. 6th Nicene Canon (AD 325) http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-15.htm#P681_155628 Canon VI. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail. 28th Chalcedonian Canon (AD 451) http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-14/Npnf2-14-105.htm#P5349_1101598 Canon XXVIII. Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him. 2. NOT ACCORDING TO THE FATHERS OF THE EAST. Roman Catholic historian Michael Winter candidly admits that Chrysostom’s views, especially his interpretation of the rock of Matthew 16, were antithetical to those of Rome and greatly influenced the Eastern fathers who followed him. He states that such Eastern fathers as Theodore of Mopsuestia, Palladius of Helenopolis, Theodore of Ancyra, Basil of Seleucia and Nilus of Ancyra held to an opinion that was unfavourable to the superiority of Peter, an opinion that was widespread in the East in the first half of the fifth century: "The antipathy to Rome which finds its echo even in the works of St. John Chrysostom became more pronounced as the Eastern Church came more and more under the control of the emperor and effected eventually their estimate of St. Peter. Although they were not influenced by the Eusebian idea that the ‘rock’ of the church was Christ, the lesser Antiocheans betray an unwillingness to admit that Peter was the rock. Theodore of Mopsuestia, who died a quarter of a century after Chrysostom, declared that the rock on which the church was built was Peter’s confession of faith. The same opinion is repeated by Palladius of Helenopolis in his Dialogues on the life of St. John Chrysostom. Without any elaboration he states that the rock in Matthew 16 is Peter’s confession. The complete absence of reasons or arguments in support of the contention is an indication of how widely the view was accepted at that date. Such an opinion was, in fact, held also by Theodore of Ancyra, Basil of Seleucia, and Nilus of Ancyra, in the first half of the fifth century...The opinion unfavourable to the superiority of St. Peter gained a considerable following in the East under the influence of the school of Antioch (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), p. 73). 3. NOT ACCORDING TO THE ECUMENICAL PATRIARCHATE OF CONSTANTINOPLE http://www.patriarchate.org/book/FIVE_SEES.html "According to the Roman Catholic concept of the Church, the pope, himself one of the five patriarchs (the word "pope" means simply in Greek, "father" or "papas") holds not only titular primacy as primus inter pares (first among equals) over all the patriarchs (a claim always recognized, incidentally, by Byzantine Constantinople), but, from the view of authority and jurisdiction, the right even to intervene and to act as supreme judge in the internal affairs of all other churches. Opposed to this latter theory is the Eastern concept of the "Pentarchy." That is, instead of a papal "monarchy" governing the entire Church, there exists a supreme body of five heads, the patriarchs above named, each of whom exercises jurisdiction over his own ecclesiastical area and who meets together with the other patriarchs in ecumenical councils to regulate matters of dogma and church discipline. This pentarchic theory was firmly established by the time of the Byzantine Emperor Justinian in the mid-sixth century, as is clearly reflected in his nomocanones (combined civil-ecclesiastical law codes)." 4. NOT ACCORDING TO ROMAN CATHOLIC HISTORIANS "The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good... In according Rome a ‘primacy of honour’, the East avoided basing this primacy on the succession and the still living presence of the apostle Peter. (Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982), pp. 26-27) Pierre Batiffol likewise affirms the fact that the Eastern Church, historically, has never embraced the ecclesiology of Roman primacy: "I believe that the East had a very poor conception of the Roman primacy. The East did not see in it what Rome herself saw and what the West saw in Rome, that is to say, a continuation of the primacy of St. Peter. The bishop of Rome was more than the successor of Peter on his cathedra, he was Peter perpetuated, invested with Peter’s responsibility and power. The East has never understood this perpetuity. St. Basil ignored it, as did St. Gregory Nazianzen and St. John Chrysostom. In the writings of the great Eastern Fathers, the authority of the Bishop of Rome is an authority of singular grandeur, but in these writings it is not considered so by divine right (Cited by Yves Congar, After Nine Hundred Years (New York: Fordham University, 1959), pp. 61-62). We await anti-Protestant Mr Tan's rebuttal to this fourfold evidence. 3rd Assertion: to reinstate unjustly dethroned Bishops. As an example, I believe anti-Protestant Mr Tan will offer the case of Paul and Athanasius and their appeal to Pope Julian. I have rebutted with a page from Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church: http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/Agora-Pub/get/expressions/98/4/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1.html WE AWAIT A MEANINGFUL RESPONSE FROM ANTI-PROTESTANT MR TAN DEALING SPECIFICALLY WITH THE ABOVE. TYH: Also, is anti-Catholic Mr. Yip trying to give us his private definition of "infallibility" again, and not the definition of Vatican I and II ? Lamentable distortion of Catholic doctrine ! Infallible does not mean impeccable; it does not mean sinless and holy and righteous. Mr. Yip is playing game here. I would say Mr. Yip is playing with "hell" fire. ME: There is ABSOLUTELY NO EXCUSE for anti-Protestant Mr Tan to misrepresent me on this point because on June 5, this was written: http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/Agora-Pub/get/expressions/125/1/1/1/3/1/1/1.html Title: True for the Apostles but different for the Popes ... Anti-Protestant Mr Tan: The sins of Peter and the Apostles do not invalidate the infallibility of their teachings. Similarly, the sins of the sons and daughters of the Catholic Church do not invalidate the doctrine of infallibility. Anti-Catholic Mr. Yip looking for yet another straw man to hack. ME: Am I? Of course Papal Infallibility is different from papal impeccability. No one says that the pope is sinless because of his claim to be infallible. These are certainly two different things. Also, even if a murderer or thief says that the sun rises from the East and sets in the West, he speaks the truth even though he is a murderer or thief. The case with the Crusades and the sack of Constantinople is different. The Apostles did not use their authority to sanction any such atrocities. They did not say that it was alright to slaughter women and children in the name of God. In other words, the Apostles did not sin in the name of their authority. Is that the case with the crusades? Nope. This was in response to his post: http://www.antioch.com.sg/cgi-bin/Agora-Pub/get/expressions/125/1/1/1/3/1/1.html The sins of the apostles do not invalidate the infallibility of their message which is exactly the same point here. Yet another example of anti-Protestant Mr Tan's failure to properly represent the truth. TYH: We see here perhaps Mr. Yip is making his assertion that he is justified before God by "faith alone" - no matter what he does, what he says, and what he writes. Mr. Yip is "once-justified, forever justified". ME: Thank you for this glowing example of that kind of distortion of sola fide that anti-Protestant Mr Tan himself asked for. My opponent asked rhetorically in another post where and when did RC apologists misrepresent and distort Reformed doctrines, well, here is the example. He defines sola fide as antinomianism - regardless of what one does, says, or writes, one is forever justified. So sola fide, according to his definition, means you can MURDER someone, BEAR FALSE WITNESS through SLANDER or LIBEL without qualms yet are saved. Do I need to say more? To say more would simply detract from the glory of his example. TYH: The article just posted by anti-Catholic Mr. Yip is good for illustration. He relied on the following two sources for his wayward charges: http:\\www.ccel.org\C C E L\S\SCHAFF\HISTORY\5_CH07.HTM http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm In neither of the two documents cited can one ever arrive at the absurd conclusion that "The sacking was not just some aberration of the crusaders, a fluke of history. It was on Innocent III's agenda to subject Constantinople to Latin ecclesiastical rule." Innocent III's "ON AGENDA". "Not a fluke of history". This implies that the Pope premeditated the Sake of Constantinople, planned for it, and ordered it to be carried out. Please, let Mr. Yip substantiate his accusation. Or retract, or clarify what he meant here. ME: Was it on Innocent III's agenda to subject Constantinople to Latin ecclesiastical rule? Philip Schaff said: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/5_ch07.htm (the earlier url was erroneous) "Innocent III., on ascending the papal throne, threw himself with all the energy of his nature into the effort of reviving the crusading spirit. He issued letter after letter433 to the sovereigns of England, France, Hungary, and Sicily.434 He also wrote to the Byzantine emperor, urging him to resist the Saracens and SUBJECT THE GREEK CHURCH TO ITS MOTHER, ROME.435" Is this a figment of Schaff's imagination? Footnote 435 is important. It shows that the source of this information is found in Migne's "Innocent III Letters", page 214. TYH: All can be gathered from the two said documentations is that, after the Sake of the city, the Pope proceeded to bring Constantinople under Rome's jurisdiction - a reunion of the East and West under one shepherd, the Pope - which was what any Pope would do. The Popes of the Ecumenical Councils of Lyon and Florence, as well as of the first seven Ecumenical Councils did exactly that. ME: How beautiful - a "reunion of the East and West"! After the sack, the Greek sought help from Rome and Rome MADE IT A CONDITION that they be subject to Rome's jurisdiction. A "reunion"? MOre like BLACKMAIL. http://www.patriarchate.org/book/Third_Period.html "In the third period of patriarchal history, from 1261 to 1453, but increasingly after the late fourteenth century, the last but greatest enemy of the Byzantines, the Ottoman Turks of Asia, advanced closer and closer to Constantinople... The danger from the advancing Turks soon became so pressing that in order to secure military aid, the Emperors were forced to turn to the greatest source of power in the West, the Papacy. But THE POPES OF ROME WOULD OFFER NO AID UNLESS THE GREEKS ACCEPTED THE POPES AS THE HEAD OF THEIR CHURCH, in other words, unless they converted to Roman Catholicism with its beliefs and practices. The Byzantine common people of course violently objected to this, as did the monks, nuns, almost all of the middle class, and the larger part of the upper class... The Patriarch himself, followed by the vast bulk of the Greek populace, therefore refused to compromise his Orthodox beliefs by accepting papal jurisdiction as well as belief in the filioque and the azyma in order, presumably, to save the Empire." And quite true that the Popes did "exactly that", that is, they have constantly tried to subject the entire Christendom to their jurisdiction but thank God for Ecumenical Councils which specifically rebuffed them through their canons, and for Church Fathers such as Augustine, Cyprian, Gregory, etc. who also rejected them on the basis of sound exegesis of Scriptures. I have already given the details in the first half of this post. No Church Father or Ecumenical Council recognised Rome's primacy of universal jurisdiction. Primacy of HONOUR, yes but not of JURISDICTION. Cyprian's words summarise this well: "It remains that we severally declare our opinion on this same subject, judging no one, nor depriving any one of his right of communion, if he differ from us. For no one setteth himself up as a Bishop of Bishops (Chris: clearly referring to Rome, particularly Pope Stephen), or by tyrannical terror forceth his Colleagues to a necessity of obeying (Chris: specifically the issue of heretic rebaptism); inasmuch as every Bishop, in the free use of his liberty and power, has the right of forming his own judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he can himself judge another. But we must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who ALONE has the POWER of both SETTING US IN THE GOVERNMENT OF HIS CHURCH, and of JUDGING OF OUR ACTS THEREIN" (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), The Epistles of St. Cyprian, The Judgments of Eighty-Seven Bishops in the Council of Carthage on the Question of Baptizing Heretics, pp. 286-287). TYH: Without the Popes, the Eastern Church was never able to convoke any Ecumenical Councils. Without the Popes, the Protestants were never able to convoke any Ecumenical Councils -- not even their own kind of Ecumencial Councils. This is the TRUTH. ME: This statement makes no sense. What is an Ecumenical Council? Isn't it one in which the ENTIRE Church of Jesus Christ is represented or if not represented, at least ACCEPTED by all? If so, NO DENOMINATION can claim, after the 7th EC, to be able to convoke an Ecumenical Council. The Roman Catholic Church went on to convene 14 more councils WITHOUT the rest of Christendom - and those can be considered ECUMENICAL Council? It is as ecumenical as the "Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople" - a title used by the Eastern Orthodox Church with reference to itself. Does it make them truly ecumenical? The Eastern Orthodox Church, unlike Rome, is honest and frank enough to admit that any council they convene cannot possibly be ecumenical after the 7EC: http://www.goarch.org/access/Companion_to_Orthodox_Church/dogmatic_tradition.html e) Later Councils The Orthodox Church considers itself to be the Church of Christ. From this point of view, any general and major councils even after the separation between Eastern and Western Christianity [1054] may still be considered and called "ecumenical councils." However, in deference to the "ecumenical problem" and as a matter of pastoral prudence and strategy, the Church has not given the name "ecumenical" to Councils that do not represent the "undivided Church" of the Byzantine Empire. (The Dogmatic Tradition of the Orthodox Church, Rt. Rev. Maximos Aghiorgoussis, Th.D., Bishop of Pittsburgh) Also, in the first part of this post, I have given evidence that many ECs were convened either without the approval or even knowledge of the pope, so it is plainly untrue that without the pope, no EC can be convened. --------- What can we conclude from anti-Protestant Mr Tan's post? Once you step out of the smoke and look back, you realise that he was merely blowing smoke in your eyes. Tsk. Tsk. Christopher
|
to:
Back to Antioch's Home Page