Are the Orthodox right?

[Vonsalza]

It does not appear that the apostles voted on majority rules as to who would, in the end, recieve the bishopric.

There’s been a lot of discussion in the last 500 years over what the “casting of lots” means, but we certainly don’t see Peter selecting Mattias - as per the current development in Catholic ecclesiology. If such a thing is supposed to be able to markedly develop - I genuinely don’t know.

Local bishops have been chosen in various ways throughout history.

Sure, I’m happy to concede that. But even in scripture it is much less centralized - one of the reasons I think it was Paul was telling folks to be choosy about who receives the laying-on-hands.

The annointing by something akin to a solitary Pontificus Rex was a later and, to some, an unacceptable development.

Therefore, apostolic succession was perfectly protected, even though the selection of the bishop was a less than ideal process.

I can see that - especially with how the Roman bishop was to be chosen over the centuries. Election, fiat, donation, maybe even sale.

The notion that someone would have to accept the words of someone like Rodrigo de Borgia as though spoken from the lips of God Himself - especially in light of the weak early support for the papacy as opposed the the entire Church in Rome - well…

It just takes more faith than I am capable of producing.

 

[theCardinalbird]

The notion that someone would have to accept the words of someone like Rodrigo de Borgia as though spoken from the lips of God Himself

Hold the phone. What are you talking about? Did Borgia exercise his papal infallibility? Or are you thinking the Pope is impeccable?

 

[theCardinalbird]

especially in light of the weak early support for the papacy as opposed the the entire Church in Rome - well…

Ya that’s not true. We got many Church Fathers and scripture to prove the papacy or universal jurisdiction of the Pope. Even the early Pope dealing with disputes from Corinth which is exercising his authority in another local bishops area is attested by history.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

“Peter” divided away from Orthodoxy.

Christ forewarned us of it when he told Peter “you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns” shortly after calling him “Satan”.

Seriously?

Absolutely. I take it you are unfamiliar with expressions of Christianity other than Catholicism?

That is taking what Jesus said out of context.

No, it’s not. It’s just not a Catholic-friendly view of the matter, which causes you to bristle a bit. And I do understand.

Why did he charge Peter, who you say fell from Orthodoxy, to feed his sheep?

Peter, in the person, hadn’t. “Peter”, as in the papacy, has per the Orthodox view.

As they did in Isaiah 22, the keys passed.

To feed his lambs?

All apostles fed their sheep - even Thomas, who fulfilled his ministry completely beyond contact from Peter.

Why was Peter given the power of the Holy Ghost?

All apostles (even Christians) have this power, unless there’s something specific you’re referring to?

Why was he part of the Council of Jerusalem?

He was an apostle of course! And no less their temporal leader.

Your assertions that Peter divided away from Orthodoxy…

By “Peter”, I meant the concept of papacy. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.

In fact, even scripture shows Peter doing great things for the early Church, especially in Acts.

The Orthodox love Acts. It models that major decisions in the Church are undertaken by council - not fiat.

 

[theCardinalbird]

By “Peter”, I meant the concept of papacy. Apologies if that wasn’t clear.

What is the concept of the Papacy in your eyes Vonsalza?

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

especially in light of the weak early support for the papacy as opposed the the entire Church in Rome - well…

Ya that’s not true.

It’s only true if you make the error of equating early references to “Church of/in Rome” as meaning “the pope”.

In my experience, the only historians that do this readily tend to be Catholic, unfortunately.

 

[theCardinalbird]

It’s only true if you make the error of equating “Church of/in Rome” as meaning “the pope”.

In my experience, the only historians that do this readily tend to be Catholic, unfortunately.

In my experience the Church Fathers mention Peter not just Church of Rome:

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" ( Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [ A.D. 252 ]).

The Lord says to Peter: "I say to you," he says, "that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church" . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], 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 [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] 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 [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? ( The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [ A.D. 251 ]).

Optatus

In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" ( The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367 ]).

The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.)

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the

true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be

the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His

truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

There is plenty more

 

[theCardinalbird]

The Orthodox love Acts. It models that major decisions in the Church are undertaken by council - not fiat.

Yet the Council of Jerusalem’s decision was determined by Peter’s teaching. I mean look at what happened. Are you sure it was uncatholic?

• The bishops met TO EXAMINE the matter. They DEBATED.
• Then, Peter – after listening to the debate – gave HIS TEACHING (vox Petros).
• After this, the Council FALLS SILENT (a la, the Tome of Leo).
• Then, Paul and Barnabas were permitted to tell about their first missionary journey so as to back up Peter’s teaching with signs from the Holy Spirit (e.g. as in the Immaculate Conception dogma backed up by the miracles at Lourdes).
• And, thereafter, James gives a ruling. And, THIS is the only thing that seems unCatholic to some.

So, why does James speak? We think there are three reasons:

1. He’s the bishop of Jerusalem. Peter was just a visitor.
2. What he says, he …like Paul and Barnabas …ties into Peter’s declaration: “Brothers, listen to me. SYMEON has described how God…” etc.
3. And, most importantly, because James was the leader of the Church’s “Jewish wing.” Remember, in verse 1 and 2 how Acts 15 describes:

"Some who had come DOWN FROM JUDAEA were instructing the brothers, ‘Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved.’

They were coming FROM JAMES! They were HIS disciples! Therefore, he renders judgment on the matter for his Jewish party, not as a superior or equal of Peter at all. And, this is MOST clear in verse 19, where it says:

“It is my judgment, therefore, that WE ought to STOP TROUBLING THE GENTILES.”

Who was “troubling” the Gentiles? Not Paul and Barnabas. Not Peter and his disciples, who Baptised the first Gentiles without circumcision. So, who? ONLY the Jewish Christians under James. Therefore, it is NOT the whole Church, but only the “Jewish party” that James is giving a “judgment” to.

So again, the Council of Jerusalem was not an Ecumenical Council by Byzantine Orthodox definition. Rather, it was COMPLETELY based on the Petrine teaching office: the magisterium of the Church.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

we might be using fluffy language these days,

So in other words, the two lung theory is “fluffy language” and not to be taken seriously?

The Eastern lung of the Church are Eastern Catholics. They are already in place and working. It’s no theory it’s fact. The Church has 2 lungs NOW.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

You obviously missed the point about “not in writing”, and “oral tradition”.

slaps forehead

We have Christ’s words on the topic… because they’re written, Steve.

Jesus mentions an oral Jewish tradition. It was NOT written down in any OT book, nor NT book. Jesus referred to an oral tradition.

Schism is condemned. As Paul taught, Such division doesn’t come from Jesus but SATAN. [Rom 16:17-21]

I eagerly await your submission to Orthodoxy.

schism is a willful act of the will to divide from the Church Jesus established on Peter. ALL are to be united to Peter and those who are united with Peter. Orthodoxy has been in schism from that for 1000 years. I will never go into schism. That is an act of my will.

In the Roman Catholic Church, the pope appoints the bishops. But I bet you already knew that while you waffle here between “development" and "tradition” on your priesthood.

Re: development, and tradition

The Orthodox churches are a development. They are a tradition developed by schismatics.

AND

Who called for the replacement of Judas as bishop? Peter the first pope.

The Orthodox have no problem with Peter sitting at the head of the table.

Bad example. They don’t sit at the same table.

his Retractations is where he presents that Peter’s faith is the “Rock of the Church”.

Context :

“I mentioned somewhere with reference to the apostle Peter that ‘the Church is founded upon him as upon a rock.’ This meaning is also sung by many lips in the lines of blessed Ambrose, where, speaking of the domestic cock, he says: ‘When it crows, he, the rock of the Church, absolves from sin.’ But I realize that I have since frequently explained the words of our Lord: ‘Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church’, to the effect that they should be understood as referring to him Peter confessed when he said: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God’, and as meaning that Peter having been named after this rock, figured the person of the Church, which is built upon this rock and has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven. For what was said to him was not ‘Thou art rock’, but ‘Thou art Peter’. But the rock was Christ, having confessed whom(even as the whole Church confesses) Simon was named Peter. Which of these interpretations is more likely to be correct, let the reader choose.”

• Augustine says one is to choose between the interpretations as to which one is more likely to be correct. not that both interpretations are correct.
• Based on his writings, we see his position.

 

[Vonsalza]

My wife caught me replying yesterday and quipped “Oh, are you still on that Catholic forum trying to convince Catholics that their religion is wrong?”

I replied “Of course not, dear”.

As such, I’ve made my attempt. This floor is yours, as it should be.

 

[steve-b]

My wife caught me replying yesterday and quipped “Oh, are you still on that Catholic forum trying to convince Catholics that their religion is wrong?”

I replied “Of course not, dear”.

As such, I’ve made my attempt.

Ya know, She was right.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh, to be sure, my wife isn’t Catholic. She just thinks that trying to argue with folks about their religion is a perfect way to waste your time.

Arguments are logical. Religious attachments are not. Not primarily, anyway.

 

[steve-b]

Oh, to be sure, my wife isn’t Catholic. She just thinks that trying to argue with folks about their religion is a perfect way to waste your time.

Arguments are logical. Religious attachments are not. Not primarily, anyway.

I’d just say

• we should be able to defend our faith and know why we believe what we believe
• Arguments Conversations are logical.
• Religious attachments should be completely defensible. Otherwise one is hitched to the wrong wagon

 

[Vonsalza]

steve-b:

I’d just say

• Arguments Conversations are logical.

Nah. An argument is an expression of logic, by definition.

• Religious attachments should be completely defensible. Otherwise one is hitched to the wrong wagon

100% agreed.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

I’d just say

• Arguments Conversations are logical.

Nah. An argument is an expression of logic, by definition.

As an observation

Arguments usually devolve into loss of charity by definition. Logic then, usually goes out the window

 

[TexasLoneStar]

Ex-Eastern Orthodox (GoArch jurisdiction) here.

No.

 

[theCardinalbird]

Ex-Eastern Orthodox (GoArch jurisdiction) here.

No.

Hey, if you don’t mind me asking. what made you leave the Eastern Orthodox Church?