My list of evidence pro-Orthodoxy

[Livenotonevil]

Bolder: No the former is not about the essence of God, but about the relations of the of the Divine Persons. If you think logically that statement is about the essence of God then prove it. In fact if just one characteristic or relation of the Father or another Divine Person pertained to the essence of God, then the other Persons would not truest be God.

I'm not sure how to prove something that is axiomatic. The relations of the Divine Persons is the essence of God. But if you look at the definition from the Council of Florence, it talks about how the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son as from one principle gets at the "nature" of the Trinity, which is to say that the discussion pertains to the essence of the Godhead. For example, "The Holy Spirit is eternally from Father and Son; He has his nature and subsistence at once (simul) from the Father and the Son. He proceeds eternally from both as from one principle and through one spiration. . . . And, since the Father has through generation given to the only-begotten Son everything that belongs to the Father, except being Father, the Son has also eternally from the Father, from whom he is eternally born, that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son."

The rest of the argument, which I think addresses all of your questions, is as follows: Something that can be said about one Divine Person can either be said of all Three or uniquely of one Person. Eternality, omnipotence, and so on are common of all Three Person. Unique to each Person are these traits: The Father's fatherhood; the Son's begotteness; and the Holy Spirit's procession. The filioque, though, says that the Father and the Son share a trait not shared by the Holy Spirit: the eternal procession of the Holy Spirit. That gives to the Father and the Son something that is neither common to all Three Persons nor unique to one. There is introduced into the Trinity, as a result, an imbalance that destroys the unity.

Again, everyone agrees that, in the Divine Economy, that is in the temporal mission of the Godhead, the Holy Spirit proceeds through the Son. But the argument about the filioque has to do with the essence of God in himself, not the Divine Economy. What we can know about the essence of God is limited to what God chooses to reveal to us about his essence. In this instance, Christ said that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. Therefore, the argument concludes, any statements that we can make about that are limited to Christ's revelation.

I think we are talking past each other or are in disagreement about a deeper issue than expected. If I understand you right then I am very surprised and wonder if you are representing Orthodoxy well. Then again you might be.

So in the West we believe God is simple. His essence is his existence. His mercy is his justice. Therefore, there can be no accidents in God. Furthermore, since the Father and the Son are both God, there can be no accidental difference between them (excluding the Incarnation). I know the Orthodox differ and think there are energies in God and that He is not absolutely simple. This may be why (not sure how, I am not too family with the Orthodox doctrine here) you think relations can pertain to the essence of God or to the essence of this or that Divine Person. If I understand you correctly, the Father's essence or nature is Divinity+Fatherhood while the Son's nature is Divinty+Sonship. Or Fatherhood and Sonship are accidents added to the Divine Essence. I don't think that is what you mean, but I don't know how else to interpret what you are saying.  If I am interpreting you right, then logically there are three Gods since there are three beings which differ essentially or accidentally (in the aristotelian sense of the words).

Upon further thought, by the essence of God do you just mean the inner relations of the Persons?

P.s I am just an armchair theologian and Trinitarian theology is complex.

The "Energies" of God are - in comparison to Thomism, from my limited understanding of it (that is, both Palamism and Thomism - I hope someone could correct me if I'm wrong), are comparable to the "created grace" which Thomas Aquinas puts forward, but rather than being a created object, the Energies of God are uncreated - they are God Himself. The function of the Holy Spirit is essentially, as of the Essence of God, the deliverer of these Energies, which is how we can understand God in His Divinity to us; for the Orthodox, the idea of the Beatific Vision is wrong because we will never understand the Essence of God, only His Energies - even in the afterlife as we infinitely grow closer to Him in Theosis (or Unification, as Roman Catholics call it). The Energies of God are God Himself, as is the Essence - but the Essence is incomprehensible.

[Tales]

Sir,

My point about the dirty laundry is that every church has it, will airing it out change a follower's mind?

To be blunt, "facts" are a dime a dozen.  You can selectively quote Church Fathers and I can selectively quote them saying the exact opposite.  You can say that Faith is the key instead of power granted to St. Peter, a Protestant can say that all you need is faith, and maybe I'll be snarky and say that Jesus commands us to hate our families and not bury our elders.  People also have the curious habit of changing their beliefs and ideas with time, so what one Church Father said when he was 50 is maybe different from what he says when he is 55 - who is to say which is the "real" fact?  To make matters worse, people often have the habit of using hyperbole, or using language loosely, especially depending upon whom the words are being spoken to.  Also the specific circumstances, the context surrounding the writing, is often not well transmitted over the years, let alone over the millennia.

You've seen it all once you've watched James White quote Church Fathers to support sola scriptura!

It's a fact that communism killed tens of millions.  Has that fact kept communists today thinking it is the solution to our ills?  The 20th century was the most atheistic ever, and the most deadly ever, has that fact made atheists realize that atheism is more murderous than is the theism they love to vilify?  No?  Didn't think so.

The scary reality is that people do not change their beliefs because of truth.  Beliefs change only after the believer has become dissatisfied with his belief.  A Protestant will not come home to the Church after clearly being shown the fraud that is sola scriptura - he will only come home after he has become too disturbed by the chaos of diversity in belief sola scriptura brings.  At that time magically all of the arguments against Protestantism he heard before will become truthful, whereas before they were easily swatted away with 2 Timothy.

Half the country believes that the president is a KGB mole.  If the history of today is so challenging to know, then what about the history of 2,000 years ago?  Do you really think with enough analysis you will divine the truth as to which Church is the authentic Church?  If so, why have billions not been able to for the past thousand years?

The Catholic / Orthodox split is tragic because both Churches are so close in belief and have respectable historical claims (unlike Protestants).  The reason why I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church is because I've seen the impracticality of the beliefs that authority can come from text alone or from some communal group of equally powered people.  The Protestant heresy I need not bother elaborate upon, but the error of the Orthodox must be addressed.

Without a singular primal authority, how will heresy be resolved?  Church A excommunicates Church B and B excommunicates A?  Great.  How does that teach anyone the truth?  Shall we crack open our Bibles to find out the truth?  That's what the Protestants do in vain.  Shall we turn to history for the truth?  I've already addressed that impossibility (we cannot even agree today on whether or not Trump is a secret KGB plant).  What if the Russian Orthodox choose to believe in the Immaculate Conception but not the Greeks - how can the truth be definitively known?  You can appeal to history but do you think we Catholics do not already have convincing historical and scriptural arguments for this?  Or perhaps the Pope just had too much to drink that day.

There is no solution that can put a definitive end to such matters other than to have one final authority.  This is why Jesus gave the keys to one man and founded one Church upon him.  That is also why the Father sent one man rather than a group of equals.  That is why God sent a living man rather than write down the Bible with his own finger like more Commandments.  One God, one Son, one Father, one Holy Ghost, one Church, and a bunch of patriarchs attached to their national governments.  No, I do not think so.  One Jesus, one Church, one St. Peter.

It is obvious that the schism is just a shameful drag out of Rome vs. Constantinople combined with the reality that West and East Europe have never gotten along, probably never will.  The Catholic / Orthodox split of Christ's One Church is just our human squabbles intruding into His Church.

Or maybe it truly is theological.  I just know I cannot sleep because the Filioque keeps me up all night.

You might want to consider why it is that the Orthodox churches almost exclusively remain in their national homelands whereas the Catholic (universal) Church is everywhere.  That might give insight.

[ermy_law]

I think we are talking past each other or are in disagreement about a deeper issue than expected. If I understand you right then I am very surprised and wonder if you are representing Orthodoxy well. Then again you might be.

So in the West we believe God is simple. His essence is his existence. His mercy is his justice. Therefore, there can be no accidents in God. Furthermore, since the Father and the Son are both God, there can be no accidental difference between them (excluding the Incarnation). I know the Orthodox differ and think there are energies in God and that He is not absolutely simple. This may be why (not sure how, I am not too family with the Orthodox doctrine here) you think relations can pertain to the essence of God or to the essence of this or that Divine Person. If I understand you correctly, the Father's essence or nature is Divinity+Fatherhood while the Son's nature is Divinty+Sonship. Or Fatherhood and Sonship are accidents added to the Divine Essence. I don't think that is what you mean, but I don't know how else to interpret what you are saying.  If I am interpreting you right, then logically there are three Gods since there are three beings which differ essentially or accidentally (in the aristotelian sense of the words).

Upon further thought, by the essence of God do you just mean the inner relations of the Persons?

P.s I am just an armchair theologian and Trinitarian theology is complex.

I think you are right that we are talking past each other. That is due, at least partly, to your insistence on using Aristotelian language to describe God, along with your ideas about what divine simplicity means. At its base the dispute on this topic comes down to a difference in how theology is done in the East and in the West, which is demonstrated by our discussion. In the East, apophaticism tends to drive theology, which means that, in this situation for example, what we can know about God in himself (whether you call that His Essence or His Nature) is limited to what he has revealed. We cannot use logic -- Aristotelian or otherwise -- to say more than what God himself has said.

God has revealed that He is eternally Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: that God is a Trinity is not "accidental," but pertains His very Nature. Even with regard to the Filiogue, the Catholic Church states that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son as from one principle. So this is a trait of God that pertains to the Nature of God Himself since it gets at the very existence of the Persons. From all eternity, then, you would have an imbalance in the Trinity such that the Father and the Son share an eternal trait not common to all the Persons and not unique to one. And so there is a lack of unity in the very nature of how the Persons exist (whose existence is the very Being of God).

To return to the original point of all of this, though, there is a real theological difference between Catholics and Orthodox with regard to the Filioque, however one resolves who is correct. The more pressing issue, in my opinion, is that the Catholic Church, in an effort to appeal to ecumenical fervor, has essentially watered-down its teaching on the filioque, although the "from one principle" doctrine remains in the current catechism as it was stated at the Council of Florence. It is the current trend in Catholicism to paper over the actual theological difference by arguing the "through the Son" idea, but that is not the Catholic doctrine.

[Quaremerepulisti]

You can selectively quote Church Fathers and I can selectively quote them saying the exact opposite...  People also have the curious habit of changing their beliefs and ideas with time, so what one Church Father said when he was 50 is maybe different from what he says when he is 55 - who is to say which is the "real" fact?  To make matters worse, people often have the habit of using hyperbole, or using language loosely, especially depending upon whom the words are being spoken to.  Also the specific circumstances, the context surrounding the writing, is often not well transmitted over the years, let alone over the millennia.

Not only that, the designation of someone as a "Church Father" is not even in itself a matter of "fact".  The naming is done after the fact by Churches who liked what they had to say.  It's no different, in essence, than Cuban Communists calling Che Guevara a  "freedom fighter" or Muslims calling suicide bombers "martyrs".  Claiming that the naming must be correct because it is done by the true Church is begging the question if that very naming is used as evidence of where the true Church is.

The scary reality is that people do not change their beliefs because of truth.  Beliefs change only after the believer has become dissatisfied with his belief.  A Protestant will not come home to the Church after clearly being shown the fraud that is sola scriptura - he will only come home after he has become too disturbed by the chaos of diversity in belief sola scriptura brings.  At that time magically all of the arguments against Protestantism he heard before will become truthful, whereas before they were easily swatted away with 2 Timothy.

Is what you really mean here that people do not change their beliefs due to (a priori) facts and rational argumentation, but only do to (a posteriori) consequences?  I mean, it is true that sola scriptura brings chaos of diversity in belief, so that a Protestant who becomes Catholic due to such chaos is changing his beliefs due to that truth.

The Catholic / Orthodox split is tragic because both Churches are so close in belief and have respectable historical claims (unlike Protestants).  The reason why I believe the Catholic Church is the one true Church is because I've seen the impracticality of the beliefs that authority can come from text alone or from some communal group of equally powered people.  The Protestant heresy I need not bother elaborate upon, but the error of the Orthodox must be addressed.

And such was the definitive argument for me.

Without a singular primal authority, how will heresy be resolved?  Church A excommunicates Church B and B excommunicates A?  Great.  How does that teach anyone the truth?  Shall we crack open our Bibles to find out the truth?  That's what the Protestants do in vain.  Shall we turn to history for the truth?  I've already addressed that impossibility (we cannot even agree today on whether or not Trump is a secret KGB plant).  What if the Russian Orthodox choose to believe in the Immaculate Conception but not the Greeks - how can the truth be definitively known?  You can appeal to history but do you think we Catholics do not already have convincing historical and scriptural arguments for this?  Or perhaps the Pope just had too much to drink that day.

There is no solution that can put a definitive end to such matters other than to have one final authority. 

But even this doesn't tell you whether it is Church A or Church B which has the final authority.  The reason why the Orthodox claim doesn't work is that they say, in essence, that both Church A and Church B has authority, yet one of them must be wrong, and there is no way to tell which, according to the Orthodox paradigm.

It is obvious that the schism is just a shameful drag out of Rome vs. Constantinople combined with the reality that West and East Europe have never gotten along, probably never will.  The Catholic / Orthodox split of Christ's One Church is just our human squabbles intruding into His Church.

True.  But let's be fair.  It's not honest to lay all the blame on the East.  The West has sometimes acted in a heavy-handed and imperialistic manner, and even at times towards those Churches in the East which have rejoined with Rome.

[james03]

I find it ironic seeing pro-Orthodox posts on this forum.  100% of the members don't like Bergoglio, and over half don't believe he is Pope due to the heresy of saying divorced people can get remarried.

Jesus did not lie when He said those who are divorced and remarry commit adultery.  The bible states that those who live in adultery go to hell.

[Livenotonevil]

"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned 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 are 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 he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)"

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num44.htm

Can you still be confident that you are in the Church? You left the Catholic Church. You deserted the chair of Peter. How does this not apply to you?

From Saint Cyprian to Pope Stephen:

"No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Chirst, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein' (CSEL 3, 1, 436).

"Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed."

Cyprian would later go on to hold a synod which condemned the Pope after his dispute with Pope Stephen about the re-baptism of heretics.

Also, there's a second version of this same quote that is also attributed to Cyprian:

"If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? "
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

It's debatable as to why these two quotes exist, but some think that this version of the Treatise was modified as to give off the wrong impression of what the "Cathedra Petri" or "Chair of Peter" really meant. I haven't heard another argument about these two versions of the Treatises.

Historically there has been some confusion on the interpretation of Cyprian's teaching because there are two versions of his treatise, The Unity of the Church. In the first Cyprian speaks of the chair of Peter in which he equates the true Church with that chair. He states that there is only one Church and one chair and a primacy given to Peter. In the second, the references to a Petrine primacy are softened to give greater emphasis to the theme of unity and co–equality of bishops. Most Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars now agree that Cyprian is the author of both versions. He wrote the second in order to offset a pro–Roman interpretation which was being attached to his words which he never intended. The episcopate is to him the principle of unity within the Church and representative of it. The 'chair of Peter' is a figurative expression which applies to every bishop in his own see, not just the bishops of Rome. The bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor but he does not have universal jurisdiction over the entire Church for Cyprian expressly states that all the apostles received the same authority and status as Peter and the Church is built upon all the bishops and not just Peter alone. Some object to these conclusions about Cyprian citing his statements about the chair of Peter. Roman Catholic apologists would lead us to believe that Cyprian's comments refer exclusively to the bishops of Rome and that they therefore possess special authority as the successors of Peter.

The Roman Catholic historian, Robert Eno, repudiates this point of view as a misrepresentation of Cyprian's view. As he points out Cyprian did not believe that the bishop of Rome possessed a higher authority than he or the other African bishops. They were all equals::

    Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter's cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: 'God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord's authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood' (Ep. 43.5).

    The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines.

    Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused.

    The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, '...a like power is given to all the Apostles' and '...No doubt the others were all that Peter was.' Yet Peter was given the power first: 'Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.' The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are 'glued together' [Ep. 66. 8].

    Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian's basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was 'the root' (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the 'root.' But in fact, in Cyprian's teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted '...them to discern the womb and root...of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it' (Ep. 48.3).

    It is clear that in Cyprian's mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60).

As Charles Gore has pointed out, Cyprian used the phrase, the Chair of Peter' in his Epistle 43, which Roman apologists often cite in defense of an exclusive Roman primacy, to refer to his own see of Carthage, not the see of Rome. This is confirmed as a general consensus of Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic historians. James McCue, writing for Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, in the work Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, affirms this interpretation of Cyprian's view in the following comments:

    According to Cyprian's interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Jesus first conferred upon Peter the authority with which he subsequently endowed all the apostles. This, according to Cyprian, was to make clear the unity of the power that was being conferred and of the church that was being established. Cyprian frequently speaks of Peter as the foundation of the church, and his meaning seems to be that it was in Peter that Jesus first established all the church–building powers and responsibilities that would subsequently also be given to the other apostles and to the bishops.

    Peter is the source of the church's unity only in an exemplary or symbolic way...Peter himself seems, in Cyprian's thought, to have had no authority over the other apostles, and consequently the church of Peter cannot reasonably claim to have any authority over the other churches (Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Edited by Paul Empie and Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 68-69).

This judgment is further affirmed by the Roman Catholic historian, Michael Winter:

    Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48).

This Roman Catholic historian insists that it is a misrepresentation of Cyprian's true teaching to assert that he is a father who supports the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. And he says that both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars are now agreed on this. Once again, Roman Catholic historians specifically repudiate what some Roman apologists often teach about Cyprian and his comments on the 'Chair of Peter'. Karlfried Froehlich states:

    Cyprian understood the biblical Peter as representative of the unified episcopate, not of the bishop of Rome...He understood him as symbolizing the unity of all bishops, the privileged officers of penance...For (Cyprian), the one Peter, the first to receive the penitential keys which all other bishops also exercise, was the biblical type of the one episcopate, which in turn guaranteed the unity of the church. The one Peter equaled the one body of bishops (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, p. 36, 13, n. 28 p. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).

John Meyendorff explains the meaning of Cyprian's use of the phrase 'chair of Peter' and sums up the Cyprianic ecclesiology which was normative for the East as a whole:

    The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the 'see of Peter' belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus 'through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.' Pseudo–Dionysius when he mentions the 'hierarchs'—i.e., the bishops of the early Church—refers immediately to the image of Peter....Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98).

    Cyprian's view of Peter's 'chair' (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as 'successor of Peter' in Carthage...For Cyprian, the 'chair of Peter', was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses 'the power of the keys' to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's, 1989), pp. 61, 152).

And finally, Reinhold Seeberg explains Cyprian's interpretation of Matthew 16 and his ecclesiology in these words:

    According to Matt. 16:18f., the church is founded upon the bishop and its direction devolves upon him: 'Hence through the changes of times and dynasties the ordination of bishops and the order of the church moves on, so that the church is constituted of bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these leaders' (Epistle 33.1)...The bishops constitute a college (collegium), the episcopate (episcopatus). The councils developed this conception. In them the bishops practically represented the unity of the church, as Cyprian now theoretically formulated it. Upon their unity rests the unity of the church...This unity is manifest in the fact that the Lord in the first instance bestowed apostolic authority upon Peter: 'Hence the other apostles were also, to a certain extent, what Peter was, endowed with an equal share of both honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, in order that the church of Christ may be shown to be one' (de un. eccl. 4)...In reality all the bishops—regarded dogmatically—stand upon the same level, and hence he maintained, in opposition to Stephanus of Rome, his right of independent opinion and action...(Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume I, p. 182-183).

The above quotations from world renowned Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox historians reveal a consensus of scholarly opinion on Cyprian's teaching effectively demonstrating the incompatibility of Cyprian's views with those espoused by Vatican I. This consensus also reveals the danger of taking the statements of Church fathers at face value without regard for the context of those statements or for seeking a proper interpretation of the meaning of the terms they use. It is easy to import preconceived meanings into their statements resulting in misrepresentation of their teaching.

The authors of Jesus Peter and the Keys are guilty of this very thing. They list quotations from Cyprian in total disregard of the true facts as they have been enumerated by the above historians giving the impression that Cyprian believed in papal primacy when in fact he did not. Their point of view and that of many of the Roman apologists of our day is thoroughly repudiated even by conservative Roman Catholic historians. Cyprian is an excellent example of a father who states that Peter is the rock but who does not mean this in a Roman Catholic sense. But without giving the proper historical context and understanding of his writings it would be quite easy to mislead the unintiated by investing Cyprian's words with the doctrinal development of a later age thereby misrepresenting his actual position.

From: http://www.uaocamerica.org/sources-of-orthodox-teachin/the-church-fathers-interpre.html

[Livenotonevil]

Without a singular primal authority, how will heresy be resolved?  Church A excommunicates Church B and B excommunicates A?  Great.  How does that teach anyone the truth?  Shall we crack open our Bibles to find out the truth?  That's what the Protestants do in vain.  Shall we turn to history for the truth?  I've already addressed that impossibility (we cannot even agree today on whether or not Trump is a secret KGB plant).  What if the Russian Orthodox choose to believe in the Immaculate Conception but not the Greeks - how can the truth be definitively known?  You can appeal to history but do you think we Catholics do not already have convincing historical and scriptural arguments for this?  Or perhaps the Pope just had too much to drink that day.

There is no solution that can put a definitive end to such matters other than to have one final authority. 

But even this doesn't tell you whether it is Church A or Church B which has the final authority.  The reason why the Orthodox claim doesn't work is that they say, in essence, that both Church A and Church B has authority, yet one of them must be wrong, and there is no way to tell which, according to the Orthodox paradigm.

This is why councils exist; Also, using the Pope as the final authority rather than councils is flawed, as demonstrated by the Western schism (i.e., which "Pope" do I listen to?)

[Livenotonevil]

I find it ironic seeing pro-Orthodox posts on this forum.  100% of the members don't like Bergoglio, and over half don't believe he is Pope due to the heresy of saying divorced people can get remarried.

Jesus did not lie when He said those who are divorced and remarry commit adultery.  The bible states that those who live in adultery go to hell.

That's not what Christ said, Christ said "those who divorce for any reason EXCEPT ADULTERY and remarry commit adultery."

Don't misquote our Lord.

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

[Tales]

Without a singular primal authority, how will heresy be resolved?  Church A excommunicates Church B and B excommunicates A?  Great.  How does that teach anyone the truth?  Shall we crack open our Bibles to find out the truth?  That's what the Protestants do in vain.  Shall we turn to history for the truth?  I've already addressed that impossibility (we cannot even agree today on whether or not Trump is a secret KGB plant).  What if the Russian Orthodox choose to believe in the Immaculate Conception but not the Greeks - how can the truth be definitively known?  You can appeal to history but do you think we Catholics do not already have convincing historical and scriptural arguments for this?  Or perhaps the Pope just had too much to drink that day.

There is no solution that can put a definitive end to such matters other than to have one final authority. 

But even this doesn't tell you whether it is Church A or Church B which has the final authority.  The reason why the Orthodox claim doesn't work is that they say, in essence, that both Church A and Church B has authority, yet one of them must be wrong, and there is no way to tell which, according to the Orthodox paradigm.

This is why councils exist; Also, using the Pope as the final authority rather than councils is flawed, as demonstrated by the Western schism (i.e., which "Pope" do I listen to?)

And in your hypothetical council, if called today between the Catholics and Orthodox as one Church, your theological differences would all be voted down because Catholics far outnumber Orthodox.  And those Orthodox who refuse to agree with the council's Catholic decision would then be declared obstinate heretics, excommunicated, and we'd be right back at where we began.  This is not a solution, as is evidenced by its 1,000 years of failure.  Would you like to call a council between East and West again so that we can excommunicate each other one more time, just for fun?

As for the Western Schism, that lasted a few years and had no theological impact on the laity.  A battle over who was pope was quickly resolved without theological complications. 

Meanwhile the Great Schism has lasted 1,000 years and spawn theological disunity.  The battle between whether authority is in the pope or in the councils remains unending and has ripped the Church apart.

[Tales]

I find it ironic seeing pro-Orthodox posts on this forum.  100% of the members don't like Bergoglio, and over half don't believe he is Pope due to the heresy of saying divorced people can get remarried.

Jesus did not lie when He said those who are divorced and remarry commit adultery.  The bible states that those who live in adultery go to hell.

That's not what Christ said, Christ said "those who divorce for any reason EXCEPT ADULTERY and remarry commit adultery."

Don't misquote our Lord.

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

Don't misquote our Lord?

Luke 16:18  Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.

Mark 10:9-12 Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate."  Then in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."

If there really were a loophole for adultery then anyone could commit adultery, repent, and then be free to get out of his marriage.  Or just treat his spouse so terribly as to probably drive her into adultery.

And besides, Jesus says that even lusting after another is adultery.  Since we all do this are we all hence divorced and free to remarry?

As for your blog post, you can post that, and I can post a million things showing Church Fathers / saints / popes / councils supporting the indissolubility of marriage.  What then?  This is just like Protestantism - if only I research it enough, learn enough Greek, read my Bible enough, study enough history, then finally I can figure out the truth as to what Jesus really meant!  Yes, I am sure that in all of God's infinite wisdom and love, he designed his means of salvation to be a gigantic academic puzzle to be riddled over by billions of people until the end of the earth.

OR, maybe, just maybe, He was sensible and left one authoritative Church with one authoritative pope in charge.

[Miriam_M]

I find it ironic seeing pro-Orthodox posts on this forum.  100% of the members don't like Bergoglio, and over half don't believe he is Pope due to the heresy of saying divorced people can get remarried.

Jesus did not lie when He said those who are divorced and remarry commit adultery.  The bible states that those who live in adultery go to hell.

That's not what Christ said, Christ said "those who divorce for any reason EXCEPT ADULTERY and remarry commit adultery."

Don't misquote our Lord.

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

Even if we were to accept your interpretation, the fact remains that adultery is not the most frequent reason for divorce.

[St.Justin]

"[After quoting Matthew 16:18f; John 21:15ff]...On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned 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 are 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 he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)"

http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/apologetics/num44.htm

Can you still be confident that you are in the Church? You left the Catholic Church. You deserted the chair of Peter. How does this not apply to you?

From Saint Cyprian to Pope Stephen:

"No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Chirst, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein' (CSEL 3, 1, 436).

"Even Peter, whom the Lord first chose and upon whom He built His Church, when Paul later disputed with him over circumcision, did not claim insolently any prerogative for himself, nor make any arrogant assumptions nor say that he had the primacy and ought to be obeyed."

Cyprian would later go on to hold a synod which condemned the Pope after his dispute with Pope Stephen about the re-baptism of heretics.

Also, there's a second version of this same quote that is also attributed to Cyprian:

"If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, I say unto you, that you are Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, Feed my sheep. And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, As the Father has sent me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins you remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins you retain, they shall be retained; yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her. Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God? "
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050701.htm

It's debatable as to why these two quotes exist, but some think that this version of the Treatise was modified as to give off the wrong impression of what the "Cathedra Petri" or "Chair of Peter" really meant. I haven't heard another argument about these two versions of the Treatises.

Historically there has been some confusion on the interpretation of Cyprian's teaching because there are two versions of his treatise, The Unity of the Church. In the first Cyprian speaks of the chair of Peter in which he equates the true Church with that chair. He states that there is only one Church and one chair and a primacy given to Peter. In the second, the references to a Petrine primacy are softened to give greater emphasis to the theme of unity and co–equality of bishops. Most Roman Catholic and Protestant scholars now agree that Cyprian is the author of both versions. He wrote the second in order to offset a pro–Roman interpretation which was being attached to his words which he never intended. The episcopate is to him the principle of unity within the Church and representative of it. The 'chair of Peter' is a figurative expression which applies to every bishop in his own see, not just the bishops of Rome. The bishop of Rome holds a primacy of honor but he does not have universal jurisdiction over the entire Church for Cyprian expressly states that all the apostles received the same authority and status as Peter and the Church is built upon all the bishops and not just Peter alone. Some object to these conclusions about Cyprian citing his statements about the chair of Peter. Roman Catholic apologists would lead us to believe that Cyprian's comments refer exclusively to the bishops of Rome and that they therefore possess special authority as the successors of Peter.

The Roman Catholic historian, Robert Eno, repudiates this point of view as a misrepresentation of Cyprian's view. As he points out Cyprian did not believe that the bishop of Rome possessed a higher authority than he or the other African bishops. They were all equals::

    Cyprian makes considerable use of the image of Peter's cathedra or chair. Note however that it is important in his theology of the local church: 'God is one and Christ is one: there is one Church and one chair founded, by the Lord's authority, upon Peter. It is not possible that another altar can be set up, or that a new priesthood can be appointed, over and above this one altar and this one priesthood' (Ep. 43.5).

    The cathedri Petri symbolism has been the source of much misunderstanding and dispute. Perhaps it can be understood more easily by looking at the special treatise he wrote to defend both his own position as sole lawful bishop of Carthage and that of Cornelius against Novatian, namely, the De unitate ecclesiae, or, as it was known in the Middle Ages, On the Simplicity of Prelates. The chapter of most interest is the fourth. Controversy has dogged this work because two versions of this chapter exist. Since the Reformation, acceptance of one version or the other has usually followed denominational lines.

    Much of this has subsided in recent decades especially with the work of Fr. Maurice Bevenot, an English Jesuit, who devoted most of his scholarly life to this text. He championed the suggestion of the English Benedictine, John Chapman, that what we are dealing with here are two versions of a text, both of which were authored by Cyprian. This view has gained wide acceptance in recent decades. Not only did Cyprian write both but his theology of the Church is unchanged from the first to the second. He made textual changes because his earlier version was being misused.

    The theology of the controverted passage sees in Peter the symbol of unity, not from his being given greater authority by Christ for, as he says in both versions, '...a like power is given to all the Apostles' and '...No doubt the others were all that Peter was.' Yet Peter was given the power first: 'Thus it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.' The Chair of Peter then belongs to each lawful bishop in his own see. Cyprian holds the Chair of Peter in Carthage and Cornelius in Rome over against Novatian the would–be usurper. You must hold to this unity if you are to remain in the Church. Cyprian wants unity in the local church around the lawful bishop and unity among the bishops of the world who are 'glued together' [Ep. 66. 8].

    Apart from his good relations and harmony with Bishop Cornelius over the matter of the lapsed, what was Cyprian's basic view of the role, not of Peter as symbol of unity, but of Rome in the contemporary Church? Given what we have said above, it is clear that he did not see the bishop of Rome as his superior, except by way of honor, even though the lawful bishop of Rome also held the chair of Peter in an historical sense (Ep. 52.2). Another term frequently used by the Africans in speaking of the Church was 'the root' (radix). Cyprian sometimes used the term in connection with Rome, leading some to assert that he regarded the Roman church as the 'root.' But in fact, in Cyprian's teaching, the Catholic Church as a whole is the root. So when he bade farewell to some Catholics travelling to Rome, he instructed them to be very careful about which group of Christians they contacted after their arrival in Rome. They must avoid schismatic groups like that of Novation. They should contact and join the Church presided over by Cornelius because it alone is the Catholic Church in Rome. In other words, Cyprian exhorted '...them to discern the womb and root...of the Catholic Church and to cleave to it' (Ep. 48.3).

    It is clear that in Cyprian's mind...one theological conclusion he does not draw is that the bishop of Rome has authority which is superior to that of the African bishops (Robert Eno, The Rise of the Papacy (Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1990), pp. 57-60).

As Charles Gore has pointed out, Cyprian used the phrase, the Chair of Peter' in his Epistle 43, which Roman apologists often cite in defense of an exclusive Roman primacy, to refer to his own see of Carthage, not the see of Rome. This is confirmed as a general consensus of Protestant, Orthodox and Roman Catholic historians. James McCue, writing for Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue, in the work Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, affirms this interpretation of Cyprian's view in the following comments:

    According to Cyprian's interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Jesus first conferred upon Peter the authority with which he subsequently endowed all the apostles. This, according to Cyprian, was to make clear the unity of the power that was being conferred and of the church that was being established. Cyprian frequently speaks of Peter as the foundation of the church, and his meaning seems to be that it was in Peter that Jesus first established all the church–building powers and responsibilities that would subsequently also be given to the other apostles and to the bishops.

    Peter is the source of the church's unity only in an exemplary or symbolic way...Peter himself seems, in Cyprian's thought, to have had no authority over the other apostles, and consequently the church of Peter cannot reasonably claim to have any authority over the other churches (Papal Primacy and the Universal Church, Edited by Paul Empie and Austin Murphy (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1974), Lutherans and Catholics in Dialogue V, pp. 68-69).

This judgment is further affirmed by the Roman Catholic historian, Michael Winter:

    Cyprian used the Petrine text of Matthew to defend episcopal authority, but many later theologians, influenced by the papal connexions of the text, have interpreted Cyprian in a propapal sense which was alien to his thought...Cyprian would have used Matthew 16 to defend the authority of any bishop, but since he happened to employ it for the sake of the Bishop of Rome, it created the impression that he understood it as referring to papal authority...Catholics as well as Protestants are now generally agreed that Cyprian did not attribute a superior authority to Peter (Michael Winter, St. Peter and the Popes (Baltimore: Helikon, 1960), pp. 47-48).

This Roman Catholic historian insists that it is a misrepresentation of Cyprian's true teaching to assert that he is a father who supports the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16. And he says that both Protestant and Roman Catholic scholars are now agreed on this. Once again, Roman Catholic historians specifically repudiate what some Roman apologists often teach about Cyprian and his comments on the 'Chair of Peter'. Karlfried Froehlich states:

    Cyprian understood the biblical Peter as representative of the unified episcopate, not of the bishop of Rome...He understood him as symbolizing the unity of all bishops, the privileged officers of penance...For (Cyprian), the one Peter, the first to receive the penitential keys which all other bishops also exercise, was the biblical type of the one episcopate, which in turn guaranteed the unity of the church. The one Peter equaled the one body of bishops (Karlfried Froehlich, Saint Peter, Papal Primacy, and the Exegetical Tradition, 1150-1300, p. 36, 13, n. 28 p. 13. Taken from The Religious Roles of the Papacy: Ideals and Realities, 1150-1300, ed. Christopher Ryan, Papers in Medieval Studies 8 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1989).

John Meyendorff explains the meaning of Cyprian's use of the phrase 'chair of Peter' and sums up the Cyprianic ecclesiology which was normative for the East as a whole:

    The early Christian concept, best expressed in the third century by Cyprian of Carthage, according to which the 'see of Peter' belongs, in each local church, to the bishop, remains the longstanding and obvious pattern for the Byzantines. Gregory of Nyssa, for example, can write that Jesus 'through Peter gave to the bishops the keys of heavenly honors.' Pseudo–Dionysius when he mentions the 'hierarchs'—i.e., the bishops of the early Church—refers immediately to the image of Peter....Peter succession is seen wherever the right faith is preserved, and, as such, it cannot be localized geographically or monopolized by a single church or individual (John Meyendorff, Byzantine Theology (New York: Fordham University, 1974), p. 98).

    Cyprian's view of Peter's 'chair' (cathedri Petri) was that it belonged not only to the bishop of Rome but to every bishop within each community. Thus Cyprian used not the argument of Roman primacy but that of his own authority as 'successor of Peter' in Carthage...For Cyprian, the 'chair of Peter', was a sacramental concept, necessarily present in each local church: Peter was the example and model of each local bishop, who, within his community, presides over the Eucharist and possesses 'the power of the keys' to remit sins. And since the model is unique, unique also is the episcopate (episcopatus unus est) shared, in equal fullness (in solidum) by all bishops (John Meyendorff, Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions (Crestwood: St. Vladimir's, 1989), pp. 61, 152).

And finally, Reinhold Seeberg explains Cyprian's interpretation of Matthew 16 and his ecclesiology in these words:

    According to Matt. 16:18f., the church is founded upon the bishop and its direction devolves upon him: 'Hence through the changes of times and dynasties the ordination of bishops and the order of the church moves on, so that the church is constituted of bishops, and every act of the church is controlled by these leaders' (Epistle 33.1)...The bishops constitute a college (collegium), the episcopate (episcopatus). The councils developed this conception. In them the bishops practically represented the unity of the church, as Cyprian now theoretically formulated it. Upon their unity rests the unity of the church...This unity is manifest in the fact that the Lord in the first instance bestowed apostolic authority upon Peter: 'Hence the other apostles were also, to a certain extent, what Peter was, endowed with an equal share of both honor and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity, in order that the church of Christ may be shown to be one' (de un. eccl. 4)...In reality all the bishops—regarded dogmatically—stand upon the same level, and hence he maintained, in opposition to Stephanus of Rome, his right of independent opinion and action...(Reinhold Seeberg, Text-Book of the History of Doctrines (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1952), Volume I, p. 182-183).

The above quotations from world renowned Roman Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox historians reveal a consensus of scholarly opinion on Cyprian's teaching effectively demonstrating the incompatibility of Cyprian's views with those espoused by Vatican I. This consensus also reveals the danger of taking the statements of Church fathers at face value without regard for the context of those statements or for seeking a proper interpretation of the meaning of the terms they use. It is easy to import preconceived meanings into their statements resulting in misrepresentation of their teaching.

The authors of Jesus Peter and the Keys are guilty of this very thing. They list quotations from Cyprian in total disregard of the true facts as they have been enumerated by the above historians giving the impression that Cyprian believed in papal primacy when in fact he did not. Their point of view and that of many of the Roman apologists of our day is thoroughly repudiated even by conservative Roman Catholic historians. Cyprian is an excellent example of a father who states that Peter is the rock but who does not mean this in a Roman Catholic sense. But without giving the proper historical context and understanding of his writings it would be quite easy to mislead the unintiated by investing Cyprian's words with the doctrinal development of a later age thereby misrepresenting his actual position.

From: http://www.uaocamerica.org/sources-of-orthodox-teachin/the-church-fathers-interpre.html

There must have been some preexisting situation (before 260 AD) that lead to this debate. I would suggest that The chair of Peter was always in Rome after St Peter arrived there. Even St Peter was appealed to at the first Council in Jerusalem. There must have been some reason that all of the Apostles reached out to St Peter to settle the argument. This is one of the Problems with Orthodoxy they have no need of nor they understand logic.

[Gardener]

I find it ironic seeing pro-Orthodox posts on this forum.  100% of the members don't like Bergoglio, and over half don't believe he is Pope due to the heresy of saying divorced people can get remarried.

Jesus did not lie when He said those who are divorced and remarry commit adultery.  The bible states that those who live in adultery go to hell.

That's not what Christ said, Christ said "those who divorce for any reason EXCEPT ADULTERY and remarry commit adultery."

Don't misquote our Lord.

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

I must assume you did not read my reply to the same claim here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=18457.msg421378#msg421378

For if you did, you would know, as I said there, that porneia is the word used, not moicheia. The latter is adultery, so considered; the former is not adultery as such, for we know this when they are used in other verses together with other sins (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Gal. 5:19), thus providing distinction between the two.

So, if anyone is misquoting, it's you. He did not say adultery. Further, I ask again if any of the bolded are the proper definition of porneia (fornication):

In accordance with Church Canon Law, an Ecclesiastical Divorce is granted only under certain circumstances In accordance with the 21 November 1973 encyclical of His Eminence, Archbishop Iakovos, a divorce is given and considered valid, when a marriage is entered into by force, blackmail or false reasons.

    one or both parties is guilty of adultery.
    one party is proven to be mad, insane or suffers from a social disease which was not disclosed to the spouse prior to the marriage.
   one party has conspired against the life of the spouse.
    one party is imprisoned for more than seven years.
    one party abandons the other for more than three years without approval.
    one partner should be absent from home without the other's approval, except in in stances when the latter is assured that such absence is due to psycho-neurotic illness.
    one partner forces the other to engage in illicit affairs with others.
    one partner does not fulfill the responsibilities of marriage, or when it is medically proven that one party is physically impotent or as the result of a social venereal disease.
    one partner is an addict, thereby creating undue economic hardship.

http://saintdemetrios.com/our-faith/divorce

No. Simply, the answer is no.

So we see in fact a Pharisaical approach which Christ Himself denounced clearly in Matthew 5 and 19 (amongst others) and is opposed by St. Paul in 1 Cor 7.

To claim otherwise is to do violence to the clear meaning of the words, especially as they are used elsewhere in the New Testament in a clear fashion and even together (thus contrasting against each other).

The Greek simply does not support such interpretation as adultery, because that word is used by St. Matthew elsewhere in Scripture. If he meant adultery as such, he would have used moicheia.

There is also a further consideration of the dissolution of the marriage debt's being given (marital act, bed/board) and not the actual bond.

Further, if a woman (or man) be found in immorality and are put away, it is of no trouble. But this does not give license to a second marriage. Rather, if the woman (or man) be not guilty of immorality, to put them away is itself a form of adultery (a vice contrary to marriage), and he says this contra the Pharisees who would look for any little thing.

In Lapide's commentary, he shows the wisdom of the interpretation after consideration of theologians and fathers who understood the concept in various ways. Otherwise, St. Paul would be restricting an ability in what Christ had clarified -- something St. Paul was unable to do. Mark and Luke do not include the so-called exception clause, and this is because the reality of the marital bond is permanent, whereas the marriage debt is not under certain circumstances (the Catholic Church recognizes this). This gets into the metaphysical reality of being and the ontological nature of marriage and what is owed vs what is not under various circumstances.

In short, a divorce for immorality would simply mean cutting one off from the marriage bed (and board), but marrying another is itself adultery. A divorce for false reasons would be itself against the innocent party a species of adultery, and marrying another would compound this into adultery as well.

The issue is hard to navigate, because Christ is doing several things:

1) addressing in the context of the Old Law, answering two questions posed by the Pharisees
2) clarifying the intention of God
3) engaging in some Hebrew word play which doesn't translate well (simple active verbs having some double meanings)
4) potentially explaining the concept in terms of invalid marriage/concubinage (i.e., common law spouse, not really married)

But, simply, He doesn't say adultery as there is a Greek word specifically for that and it's not used.

[Livenotonevil]

I must assume you did not read my reply to the same claim here: https://www.suscipedomine.com/forum/index.php?topic=18457.msg421378#msg421378

For if you did, you would know, as I said there, that porneia is the word used, not moicheia. The latter is adultery, so considered; the former is not adultery as such, for we know this when they are used in other verses together with other sins (Matt. 15:19; Mark 7:21; Gal. 5:19), thus providing distinction between the two.

So, if anyone is misquoting, it's you. He did not say adultery. Further, I ask again if any of the bolded are the proper definition of porneia (fornication):

No, I didn't, and I'll respond to you there.

In accordance with Church Canon Law, an Ecclesiastical Divorce is granted only under certain circumstances In accordance with the 21 November 1973 encyclical of His Eminence, Archbishop Iakovos, a divorce is given and considered valid, when a marriage is entered into by force, blackmail or false reasons.

    one or both parties is guilty of adultery.
    one party is proven to be mad, insane or suffers from a social disease which was not disclosed to the spouse prior to the marriage.
   one party has conspired against the life of the spouse.
    one party is imprisoned for more than seven years.
    one party abandons the other for more than three years without approval.
    one partner should be absent from home without the other's approval, except in in stances when the latter is assured that such absence is due to psycho-neurotic illness.
    one partner forces the other to engage in illicit affairs with others.
    one partner does not fulfill the responsibilities of marriage, or when it is medically proven that one party is physically impotent or as the result of a social venereal disease.
    one partner is an addict, thereby creating undue economic hardship.

http://saintdemetrios.com/our-faith/divorce

No. Simply, the answer is no.

So we see in fact a Pharisaical approach which Christ Himself denounced clearly in Matthew 5 and 19 (amongst others) and is opposed by St. Paul in 1 Cor 7.

To claim otherwise is to do violence to the clear meaning of the words, especially as they are used elsewhere in the New Testament in a clear fashion and even together (thus contrasting against each other).

The Greek simply does not support such interpretation as adultery, because that word is used by St. Matthew elsewhere in Scripture. If he meant adultery as such, he would have used moicheia.

http://www.stmarys-waco.org/documents/Grounds%20for%20Marriage%20Annulment%20in%20the%20Catholic%20Church.pdf

May I ask why these grounds are permissible for annulment, and how "holding a tribunal to determine that a marriage actually never took place at all" which can be invalidated by any of the above criteria in the link, by your own logic, are not contrary to what Christ said?

Any of the above listed premises for being able to be granted an annulment is sufficient it seems to determine that a "true marriage" never took place, and thus dissolve the marriage - and includes such conditions that are exclusive of adultery.

Furthermore, in the Eastern Orthodox Church - without going too densely into the matter - it is the Priest that gives the Sacrament, not the people themselves.

My argument is that annulments - which are granted all the time - are essentially "licit divorce" within Roman Catholicism, and are in fact worse than the limited amount of dissolutions of marriage within Orthodoxy.

May I ask how the "annulment process" coincides with Christ moreso than the Orthodox position of divorce - you know, something that isn't as promulgated and approved of, and is seen as immoral unless certain circumstances occur, contrary to Roman Catholic misrepresentation that the Orthodox Church hands out divorces like the United States does birth control?

There is also a further consideration of the dissolution of the marriage debt's being given (marital act, bed/board) and not the actual bond.

In Lapide's commentary, he shows the wisdom of the interpretation after consideration of theologians and fathers who understood the concept in various ways. Otherwise, St. Paul would be restricting an ability in what Christ had clarified -- something St. Paul was unable to do. Mark and Luke do not include the so-called exception clause, and this is because the reality of the marital bond is permanent, whereas the marriage debt is not under certain circumstances (the Catholic Church recognizes this). This gets into the metaphysical reality of being and the ontological nature of marriage and what is owed vs what is not under various circumstances.

This is the Sola Scriptura game, picking and choosing portions of the Bible as I see fit.

[Livenotonevil]

I find it ironic seeing pro-Orthodox posts on this forum.  100% of the members don't like Bergoglio, and over half don't believe he is Pope due to the heresy of saying divorced people can get remarried.

Jesus did not lie when He said those who are divorced and remarry commit adultery.  The bible states that those who live in adultery go to hell.

That's not what Christ said, Christ said "those who divorce for any reason EXCEPT ADULTERY and remarry commit adultery."

Don't misquote our Lord.

https://shamelessorthodoxy.com/2016/09/17/divorce-remarriage-in-the-latin-west-a-forgotten-history/

Even if we were to accept your interpretation, the fact remains that adultery is not the most frequent reason for divorce.

Which is why Orthodoxy only allows divorce in very limited circumstances.