Cyprian Was Wrong on Rebaptism

[Varsanufios]

Well.Y agree with Jean-Serge.And y am recomending to you to read a book of St Nicodim Hageorit's about baticizm.

[Evfimy]

I'm getting conflicting information in my research. Phillip Schaff said Pope Hadrian did accept Trullo. And it appears Nicea (325) did not necessarily accept the canons of Arles into it.

My initial point was that some popes and fathers did not accept Cyprian's view regarding rebaptism.

[Jean-Serge]

Well do not forget the Popes are not infallible and can make mistakes...

Maybe this is a good articlefor you. I hope it will help your research on this subject.

[Evfimy]

Well do not forget the Popes are not infallible and can make mistakes...

Saint Cyprian wasn't infallible either. Pope Stephen had more authority then Cyprian. Pope Stephen was a bishop of the Apostolic See. If you know anything about the first 800 years of the Church, the popes exercised supreme authority over the entire Christian world because the see of Rome was founded by Peter. And the father's understood the see of Rome to have primacy by divine right -- according to the Gospel (Matt.16:18-19, etc).

[Jean-Serge]

If you know anything about the first 800 years of the Church, the popes exercised supreme authority over the entire Christian world because the see of Rome was founded by Peter. And the father's understood the see of Rome to have primacy by divine right -- according to the Gospel (Matt.16:18-19, etc).

What do you mean by supreme authority?

You seem to have a catholic understanding of this sentence, that is not confirmed by the Fathers of the church...Well, would you minde giving us the exact quotations from the Fathers? If you are logical, then become catholic!! Wladimir Guettée dealt with this subject in "The heretical papacy" and the "The schismatical papacy." Maybe they are available in English... He reviews all the teachings of the Fathers about this sentence of the Gospel and shows it was never perceived as a primacy of the apostle Peter inherited later by Rome...

Rome was a court of appeal, but the diocese of Rome was reduced to Rome and his region. The churches of Gaul,Spain Ireland and so one were autocephalous...

Moreover the pope Honorius was condemned by an ecumenical council from supporting monothelism, which shows that the pope have never been regarded as infallible...

[joasia]

Evfimy,

Here's a helpful website with many articles and writings of the Holy Fathers:

http://www.geocities.com/jej89/orthodoxlinks.html

Also, specifically, the entire book of Abbe Guettee's(Vladimir Guettee) indepth study of the papacy from the first to nineth century. He gives great insight with letters that were written between the bishop of Rome and Constantinople. He had access to the original documents since he was commissioned to write a glowing documentary of the history of the See of Rome. The more he read, the more he saw how wrong it went.

http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/or ... ml#guettee

[Evfimy]

What do you mean by supreme authority?

You seem to have a catholic understanding of this sentence, that is not confirmed by the Fathers of the church...

Oh really? Are you sure about that? Lets take a look at a few examples.

Christians, to the incarcerated Pope St. Urban [222-230]:

[they] "asked for a blessing from the supreme bishop..."[A.S. 17:11].

Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus, to Pope Leo:

"Your see is adorned with numerous superiorities....Yours has received from God an affluence of goods: it is the greatest and most illustrious, ...it presides over the universe, it is teeming with inhabitants...." [PG 83: 1313].

Valentinian [450] emperor of the west to Theodosius, emperor of the east:

"...to preserve intact the dignity of the veneration [due] in our time as well to the blessed apostle Peter, so that the most blessed bishop of Rome, to whom antiquity conferred the principality of the priesthood over all, have the faculty of judging with regard to the faith and the bishops." [Inter epp.S. Leonis, 55. PL 54:859].

The same Pope Leo stated:

"I am mindful that I preside over the Church in the name of him whose confession was glorified by the Lord Jesus Christ..." [Ep. 61.PL 54:874-6].

At the Council of Chalcedon:

From the Roman Legate, Paschasinus:

"We have in our hands orders from the most blessed and apostolic pope of the city of Rome, which is head of all the churches..."[ACO II, Vol. 3, Pt. 1, 40].

From Tertullian:

"I hear that an edict has even been put forth, and a peremptory one that that. The supreme pontiff, that is, the bishop of bishops, declares, 'I forgive the crimes of adultery and fornication to those who have done penance." [Ch. 1. PL 2:980].

A Roman synod of 43 bishops held in the year 485 wrote to the orthodox clergy and archimandrites of Constantinople the following:

"From the beginning, the faith of your holiness has been proven to the Apostolic See, which rules over all." [CSEL 35:158-9].

He later refered to the pope as "head of all." [CSEL 35:158-9].

From a synod held in March 13, 495, the pope held this synod to absolve one Misenus who fell into complicity with Eutychian heretics.. Misenus signed a solemn retraction, "in the sight of God and the Blessed Peter the apostle, and his vicar, Pope Gelasius. Noting that the Apostolic See, by delegation of Christ the Lord, held the principality of the entire Church. [CSEL 35:487].

St. (Pope) Gelasius wrote to the bishops of Dardania in 495 and stated:

"The first see both confirms every synod by its authority and guards by its continuous rule, by reason, namely, of its supremecy, which, received by the apostle Peter by the mouth of the Lord, the Church however seconding it, it both has always held, and retains..." [Thiel, 400].

Further down he stated:

"neither is it lawful for anyone to pass judgement on its [Romes] judgments, seeing that the canons have willed that appeals to it may be made from any part of the world, but that from it nobody be permitted to appeal." [ibid].

Gelasius successor, Anastasius [496-498] stated referring to the Roman church:

"may the see of the most blessed Peter retain the principality assigned to it by the Lord God in the universal Church." [Thiel, 616].

I'm going to have to stop right now. There are so many. I would be up all night if I continued. I believe there are about 91 quotes from Saint John Chrysostom alone on the Roman primacy.

Well, would you minde giving us the exact quotations from the Fathers?

Sure. What exactly are you looking for? Do you wan me to show you that the Fathers understood the Roman primacy to be by divine right? This is easy to do.

If you are logical, then become catholic!

Yeah it would be logical wouldn't it?

! Wladimir Guettée dealt with this subject in "The heretical papacy" and the "The schismatical papacy."

I constantly hear Orthodox people refer me to Guettee. I am familiar with his book. He supressed a lot of information in his treatment of the first 800 years of the Church.

Maybe they are available in English... He reviews all the teachings of the Fathers about this sentence of the Gospel and shows it was never perceived as a primacy of the apostle Peter inherited later by Rome...

He was either lying or just plain ignorant.

Moreover the pope Honorius was condemned by an ecumenical council from supporting monothelism, which shows that the pope have never been regarded as infallible

First, he was condemned for negligence. He didn't really officially embrace it. Second, there are three criteria for infallibility; none of which he employed. Third, several personages in Church history spoke well of Honorius.