Authority of the Church?

[JonNC]

On this point the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are in agreement. Where the disagreement between the two comes in is where the Catholic Church teaches that the ultimate final authority is vested in the singular person of the Pope. The Orthodox believe the mind of the Spirit is expressed through the consensus of bishops in council, particularly in ecumenical councils. No one person is entrusted with final authority over the whole Church.

This might sound like a stupid question, as nearly 1,000 years have past since the schism, but is this a reconcilable difference?

Jon

 

[jmcrae]

In other words, the Church is right about this point or that point of doctrine because the Church is always right, and no further verification from historical sources is needed.

Well - in the sense of not continually seeking after it, but after assuring yourself on the issues that most interest you, you can take it on faith that the Church is also right about everything else, and get back to your daily duties, whatever they may be.

After all, we were not put on this earth to read books all day long, nor to debate about doctrine all day long, but to do our daily work, to take care of our families, and to love God.

PS: It’s nice to see you again, Michael.

 

[Bwsherman]

On this point the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are in agreement. Where the disagreement between the two comes in is where the Catholic Church teaches that the ultimate final authority is vested in the singular person of the Pope. The Orthodox believe the mind of the Spirit is expressed through the consensus of bishops in council, particularly in ecumenical councils. No one person is entrusted with final authority over the whole Church.

As a Catholic, I disagree with this notion. Nevertheless, I would be interested to hear what you have to say about this: What was the responsibility of the prime minister in the Davidic Kingdom, if it was not to speak on behalf of the King? Thanks and God bless!

 

[mpartyka]

This might sound like a stupid question, as nearly 1,000 years have past since the schism, but is this a reconcilable difference?

Highly doubtful. The papacy, papal infallibility, and the three infallible dogmas which are accepted to be ex cathedra (Immaculate Conception, Assumption of Mary, and transubstatiation), along with the filoque, are all big sticking points with Orthodoxy that remain to this day.

And then there’s the fact that Catholic and Orthodox interpretations of Christianity have very different “feels” to them – in my opinion, anyway. They are perceivably different, though it’s difficult to explain exactly how.

–Mike

P.S.: Hi, Judith! Nice to “hear” from you again.

 

[mpartyka]

What was the responsibility of the prime minister in the Davidic Kingdom, if it was not to speak on behalf of the King?

I’m not here to argue for or against the papacy, really, so I’d prefer not to get drawn into a debate over it. A Catholic co-worker gave me Fr. Fortescue’s book, and I found those particular sections intriguing and wanted to see how both Catholics and Orthodox (on a different forum) would respond. (Unfortunately, one of the Orthodox forum members recognized the quotes, so there went that experiment…)

–Mike

 

[Bwsherman]

I’m not here to argue for or against the papacy, really, so I’d prefer not to get drawn into a debate over it. A Catholic co-worker gave me Fr. Fortescue’s book, and I found those particular sections intriguing and wanted to see how both Catholics and Orthodox (on a different forum) would respond. (Unfortunately, one of the Orthodox forum members recognized the quotes, so there went that experiment…)

–Mike

I was not attempting to start an argument. I was merely responding to the statement you made about no one person being entrusted with authority over the whole Church. This seemed to be a very definitive belief and so I was trying to understand what your perspective on my question was.

 

[mpartyka]

I was merely responding to the statement you made about no one person being entrusted with authority over the whole Church. This seemed to be a very definitive belief and so I was trying to understand what your perspective on my question was.

Well, I understand the concept of having a “vicar” or “prime minister” or other such position: this person acts in the stead of the actual ruler, using the ruler’s authority and (presumably) doing the ruler’s will. And I may have misspoke when I said that the Orthodox don’t believe in one person’s governing and guiding the whole Church, for they do believe in such a person – but that person is the Holy Spirit, not any particular bishop. From the Orthodox point of view, it is the Holy Spirit who serves as the Vicar of Christ.

–Mike

 

[Bwsherman]

Well, I understand the concept of having a “vicar” or “prime minister” or other such position: this person acts in the stead of the actual ruler, using the ruler’s authority and (presumably) doing the ruler’s will. And I may have misspoke when I said that the Orthodox don’t believe in one person’s governing and guiding the whole Church, for they do believe in such a person – but that person is the Holy Spirit, not any particular bishop. From the Orthodox point of view, it is the Holy Spirit who serves as the Vicar of Christ.

–Mike

Mike,

Thanks for the quick response. Let me stress again that I am not attempting to argue, but trying to understand differing perspectives on issues. I respect your position and I guess what I am not understanding then is what did Christ mean in Matthew 16:18-19 and especially in light of Is. 22:16-24?
Maybe I am getting a bit off the opening topic, but this definitely falls under the title of the thread.

 

[mpartyka]

I respect your position and I guess what I am not understanding then is what did Christ mean in Matthew 16:18-19 and especially in light of Is. 22:16-24?

Well, to use the words of Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Church:

The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art 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 thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt 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 hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye 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.

Given this, I would think the real question is, “Did whatever Christ meant in Matt. 16:18-19 apply to Peter alone?”

 

[jmcrae]

Well, to use the words of Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Church:

Given this, I would think the real question is, “Did whatever Christ meant in Matt. 16:18-19 apply to Peter alone?”

If Peter was the centrepoint of unity in the early Church (as it seems is being taught by St. Cyprian, here), then would it not be a schismatic act to separate oneself from Peter’s successor, regardless of whatever one may think of his claims to authority?

 

[mpartyka]

If Peter was the centrepoint of unity in the early Church (as it seems is being taught by St. Cyprian, here), then would it not be a schismatic act to separate oneself from Peter’s successor, regardless of whatever one may think of his claims to authority?

What if it’s the successor of Peter who separates himself from his fellow bishops? Would they be somehow responsible for his schismatic act? Remember, the Orthodox Church doesn’t view itself as having broken with Rome. Rather, it sees Rome as having broken with them.

 

[Bwsherman]

Well, to use the words of Cyprian’s On the Unity of the Church:

Given this, I would think the real question is, “Did whatever Christ meant in Matt. 16:18-19 apply to Peter alone?”

I think you must know that I believe that it does apply to St. Peter alone. Consequently, because Christ only spoke these words to St. Peter or rather the writers of the Gospel under the guidance of the Divine Paraclete only tell us that St. Peter alone was given this task, then it is reasonable to assume that this intended to apply only to St. Peter.

 

[jmcrae]

What if it’s the successor of Peter who separates himself from his fellow bishops? Would they be somehow responsible for his schismatic act? Remember, the Orthodox Church doesn’t view itself as having broken with Rome. Rather, it sees Rome as having broken with them.

How does the unifying element “separate itself” from the whole?

If “to be in the Church” is, as St. Irenaeus said, to be with the Bishop of Rome, then to not be with the Bishop of Rome is to be away from the Church - no? Since he himself is the mark, or the sign, of unity, according to St. Cyprian, and also according to St. Irenaeus.

 

[mpartyka]

How does the unifying element “separate itself” from the whole? If “to be in the Church” is, as St. Irenaeus said, to be with the Bishop of Rome, then to not be with the Bishop of Rome is to be away from the Church - no? Since he himself is the mark, or the sign, of unity, according to St. Cyprian, and also according to St. Irenaeus.

The question that I think needs to be answered here is whether St. Cyprian’s belief that the office of Bishop of Rome constituted a mark of unity also implies a belief on his part that the Bishop of Rome was therefore infallible in matters of faith and doctrine. Upon reading St. Cyprian’s letters, one will see quite clearly that this is not the case.

…since you have desired that what [Pope] Stephen our brother replied to my letters should be brought to your knowledge, I have sent you a copy of his reply; on the reading of which, you will more and more observe his error in endeavouring to maintain the cause of heretics against Christians, and against the Church of God…Does he give glory to God, who does not hold the unity and truth that arise from the divine law, but maintains heresies against the Church? Does he give glory to God, who, a friend of heretics and an enemy to Christians, thinks that the priests of God, who support the truth of Christ and the unity of the Church, are to be excommunicated?..But it happens, by a love of presumption and of obstinacy, that one would rather maintain his own evil and false position, than agree in the right and true which belongs to another…while he upholds [heretics] against the Church, he impugns the sacrament of the divine tradition. – Letters 73:1,8,10-11

St. Cyprian’s fellow bishop Firmilian was of a like mind:

But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles, any one may know…And yet on this account there is no departure at all from the peace and unity of the Catholic Church, such as Stephen has now dared to make, breaking the peace against you, which his predecessors have always kept with you in mutual love and honour, even herein defaming Peter and Paul the blessed apostles…I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen,…he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid…the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against heretics, when he concedes to them…who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?..And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles. – Letters 74:6,17,19

Firmilian goes on to call Pope Stephen “worse than all heretics” and lambasts him:

…you do not perceive that their souls will be required at your hands when the day of judgment shall come, for having denied to the thirsting the drink of the Church, and having been the occasion of death to those that were desirious of living. And, after all this, you are indignant! Consider with what want of judgment you dare to blame those who strive for the truth against falsehood. For who ought more justly to be indignant against the other?—whether he who supports God’s enemies, or he who, in opposition to him who supports God’s enemies, unites with us on behalf of the truth of the Church?—except that it is plain that the ignorant are also excited and angry, because by the want of counsel and discourse they are easily turned to wrath; so that of none more than of you does divine Scripture say, “A wrathful man stirreth up strifes, and a furious man heapeth up sins.” For what strifes and dissensions have you stirred up throughout the churches of the whole world! Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all; and not even the precepts of an apostle have been able to mould you to the rule of truth and peace… – Letters 74:24

Firmilian concludes his tirade against Pope Stephen as follows:

…to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord…This is to have…cut himself off from the unity of love, and to make himself a stranger in all respects from his brethren, and to rebel against the sacrament and the faith with the madness of contumacious discord! With such a man can there be one Spirit and one body, in whom perchance there is not even one mind, so slippery, and shifting, and uncertain is it? – Letters 74:25

Does any of this sound as though St. Cyprian and the bishop Firmilian were in any way inclined to think Pope Stephen infallible concering the argument at hand? Obviously the matter was one concerning the faith of the Church, so there’s no reason to think that papal infallibility wouldn’t come into play here. Go back and read the letters for yourselves, and then ask yourselves, “Did these two bishops of the early Church think even for a moment that Pope Stephen was somehow their superior officer?” And if not, why not? Did they simply not know of papal infallibility? Could it be that this is because papal infallibility was not a universally-recognized dogma in the early Church?

You’d be surprised to know who else in the early Church had apparently never heard of papal infallibility, especially considering the struggles they faced at the time. Athanasius? His concern in supplicating the West was gaining numerical superiority over the Arians. He never once made an appeal to papal infallibility. Augustine? His focus was the presence of the Church worldwide. Never in his anti-Donatist writings does he mention Roman primacy or papal infallibility.

Wouldn’t you think that, given the need to subdue heresy, it would be in the writings of these illustrious combatants that Roman primacy and papal infallibility would find their most brilliant illustrations? Wouldn’t it be logical to expect that these men would at least once proclaim communion with Rome as the criterion of truth? And yet…silence.

In fact, I’ve seen only one passage in all of Augustine’s writings – it’s in his commentary on 1 John somewhere – in which communion with one particular church is cited as evidence toward establishing one’s catholicity: “Let no man doubt concerning the Church, that it is ‘throughout all nations’: let no man doubt that it began at Jerusalem, and hath filled all nations…If ye be Catholic Christians, communicate with that Church from which the Gospel is spread abroad over the whole earth: communicate with that Jerusalem…” This is something Augustine never, to my knowledge, said about Rome.

I’m still reading the Fathers, by the way. I’m currently slogging through the writings of the 4th and 5th centuries. What I can say so far about my studies is that, yes, here and there I have seen hints of the modern Catholic interpretation of papal supremacy, but in no way can I say that I see it firmly established throughout the Church as a known quantity. The Roman pontiff certainly enjoyed a primacy of sorts for being the sole Patriarch of the West and the bishop of the seat of empire, but I have yet to detect any consensus in the Fathers concerning papal infallibility or universal sovereignty.

–Mike

 

[mpartyka]

P.S.: I’m going on vacation now and won’t be back till Tuesday, so I won’t be able to address any responses to my last post until then. Have fun while I’m gone!

–Mike

 

[jmcrae]

Does any of this sound as though St. Cyprian and the bishop Firmilian were in any way inclined to think Pope Stephen infallible concering the argument at hand?

This is not the issue at hand.

It is equally obvious that, although they had criticisms of Pope Stephen at this time, they still remained organizationally united with him, because of his role as figurehead of unity - even while they thought he was wrong.

Which shows that one does not have to believe that the Pope is right about everything (or even anything), to believe that one must remain in organizational unity with him - these Saints did precisely this.

Which brings me back to my question - if organizational unity with the Pope is required, then are not those who separate themselves from him (regardless of the quality of their reasons) putting themselves into a state of schism against the Church itself?

 

[onetimeposter]

I’m starting to see my Roman Catholic Church in a new light.

I have come across this passage from Alister McGrath’s ’ Christianity’s Dangerous Idea’.

" Those who were searching for the consolation of heaven or the forgiveness of sins could not secure these benefits without the intervention and interposition of the institution of the church, and its authorized ministers. Salvation had been institutionalized."

So, I would have to say that I am beginning to see things differently, so I would have to say that I am leaning towards not agreeing with the OP’s post.

 

[Robert_in_SD]

On this point the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church are in agreement. Where the disagreement between the two comes in is where the Catholic Church teaches that the ultimate final authority is vested in the singular person of the Pope. The Orthodox believe the mind of the Spirit is expressed through the consensus of bishops in council, particularly in ecumenical councils. No one person is entrusted with final authority over the whole Church.

I agree that this is the source of the dispute. However, Jesus did not give the “keys” to the Apostles. He gave them to Peter… He gave them to one person, whom He named as “Rock.” Heaven is not a democracy ruled by consent of the governed, nor is the Kingdom of God - nor should they be.

That’s not to say that the Pope should not listen to the voices of the faithful. But in the end, Catholics believe it is the Petrine office that holds the teaching authority given to the Church, not the councils of bishops acting apart from (or contrary to) that office.

It is a shame that the Catholic/Orthodox dispute cannot be resolved some way. I know enough to know that the schism cannot be blamed on one side or the other. Pride was present in the East and the West. Perhaps in God’s own time a reunion will occur. :grouphug:

Peace
-Robert

 

[Robert_in_SD]

What if it’s the successor of Peter who separates himself from his fellow bishops? Would they be somehow responsible for his schismatic act? Remember, the Orthodox Church doesn’t view itself as having broken with Rome. Rather, it sees Rome as having broken with them.

But aren’t they also separate from each other… Russian from Greek, etc.? Would did they not remain unified after the schism, if it was Rome that caused the East/West split? Forgive me if I sound naive. This is not my area of expertise.

Peace,
-Robert

 

[jmcrae]

I’m starting to see my Roman Catholic Church in a new light.

I have come across this passage from Alister McGrath’s ’ Christianity’s Dangerous Idea’.

" Those who were searching for the consolation of heaven or the forgiveness of sins could not secure these benefits without the intervention and interposition of the institution of the church, and its authorized ministers. Salvation had been institutionalized."

So, I would have to say that I am beginning to see things differently, so I would have to say that I am leaning towards not agreeing with the OP’s post.

I think that the idea that we can all be experts on our spiritual lives, when it is clear that we can’t be experts on our physical or psychological lives (or else we wouldn’t bother with doctors and mental health professionals) seems a little too self-sufficient, to me. We can’t do everything by ourselves, so the Church provides us with help.

People don’t see why they “have to” see a priest when they have sinned, but they don’t object when they “have to” see a doctor when they’ve hurt themselves or gotten sick, and they don’t object when they “have to” see a mental health professional if they are depressed, or coping with a huge amount of stress.

To me, it just seems like the Church is there to help us. I don’t think it’s fair to expect people to work everything out by themselves in their spiritual lives (which we can’t see and we can’t really be objective) when we don’t expect people to heal themselves when they’re sick and we don’t expect people to cope with stress or depression all by themselves. Is it because we can see these problems, and know how serious they are, that we encourage people to get help for them? But the effects of sin on the soul aren’t visible, so it’s easy to pretend that everything is okay, and that you don’t “really” need a priest.