Both Catholics and Evangelicals have lost their moorings

[NMHS]

This was one of the better post I have seen in awhile, and two very knowledgeable individuals. Thanks for the civil and interesting dialogue. I will be reading for quite some time. Thanks,

 

[Ignatius33]

Hi Ignatius33. Thanks for your response. It is a tribute to your thoroughness that I have not been able to respond quickly, as you have provided me with much to consider.

Individual fathers made mistakes and were condemned by others for them. Hippolytus argues against purgatory in Against Plato, He says that departed believers are in Abraham’s bosom, which is “a locality full of light … enjoying always the contemplation of the blessings which are in their view… There, there is neither fierce heat, nor cold, nor thorn; but the face of the fathers and the righteous is seen to be always smiling, as they wait for the rest and eternal revival in heaven which succeed this location.”

Thanks for this quote, I appreciate it. I like having all the “pro” and “con” quotes from the CFs. I’ll return to this “pro/con” distinction in a few minutes.

JesusforMadrid wrote:
To take a step back, I think our civilised discussion shows really two very different views of church history. You argue forcefully that the modern RC church has recognised in its modern papal declarations of dogma and doctrine a deeper understanding of doctrines that were always there. You give the example of the Trinity. The church always recognised the infallibility of Rome.

My response:
By this statement, I take it that you mean that the Church “always consciously recognized the infallibility of Rome.” I never said that, nor does the Catholic Church. As I’ve said all along, the infallibility of the Pope is implicit in the deposit of faith, meaning it is a necessary result of (1) the indefectibility of the Church and (2) the primacy of Peter, which was passed on to his successors, the bishops of Rome. This is a far cry from saying that the entire early Church explicitly or consciously understood papal infallibility.

JesusforMadrid wrote:
My reading of Church history leads me to a different conclusion and that is that the Early Church was rather different than the modern RC church. The Early Church did embrace–basically everyone and everywhere–certain doctrines such as the Trinity, so these can be considered infallible doctrine. In governance, the Early Church was conciliar, not dictatorial and authoritarian.

My response:
Not so. I’m not saying the bishop of Rome functioned or functions as a “dictator,” but he is certainly not a mere symbolic “first among equals.” (By the way, he is also referred to as the “Servant of Servants.”) Aside from the Bible or Tradition (which I both believe firmly support the RC view over the East on this decisive point), pure logic compels an understanding that the Church must have a leader (that is, a physical leader here on earth; of course, Christ, enthroned at the right hand of the Father, is the ultimate leader and cornerstone of the Church). Every institution, whether political, economic or religious, needs a leader to thrive or even survive (look as the shattered East today; there is no unity whatsoever and, aside from the Evangelical converts here and there, it can hardly be called “thriving”). It’s just common sense.

And not to completely rehash the evidence in favor of the Roman primacy in the early Church, but I think it is essential to re-emphasize two points. First, the bishop of Rome, in some form or other, ratified each of the first seven ecumenical councils (the only councils considered valid by the EO Church). The bishop of Rome saw it as his prerogative or mandate to do so. Nobody in East questioned this mandate or suggested that the Pope’s ratification was irrelevant.

Second, as I previously mentioned, the appeals process was always one-sided: the East often appealed to the West as a matter of last resort. In contrast, the West never appealed to the East (and every Eastern See, from Alexandria to Antioch to Constantinople, had numerous heretical bishops during the first millennium; Rome never has). In the following post, I’ll offer just a few specific examples of this one-sided appeals process, taken from Gibbons’ “Faith of Our Fathers.”

to be continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

1. In the first century, the Church in Corinth appealed to Rome and St. Clement, the third successor to St. Peter, who in turn exercised authority by writing a letter of admonition to the Corinthian Church. Inasmuch as the Apostle John was still alive and most likely living in Ephesus at the time (which was geographically closer to Corinth), Clement’s use of authority is all the more telling.
2. In 190 AD, the question regarding the proper date of Easter became an issue in some Eastern Churches, and the question was put to Pope St. Victor I. He considered (and may have initially) excommunicating those Churches that celebrated Easter on a date different from that of the rest of the Church. Although a number of bishops (e.g. St. Irenaeus) exhorted Victor not to excommunicate entire Churches on a matter that was not de fide, nobody questioned Victor’s power to issue such a sweeping excommunication.
3. In the mid-third century, reading St. Cyprian’s appeals to Pope St. Cornelius and Pope St. Stephen on the issue of re-baptism, it is quite clear that St. Cyprian (and the entire African episcopate) regarded Rome as having authority over them.
4. Also in the middle of the third century, Pope St. Dionysius heard that the bishop of Alexandria erred on certain matters of faith and demanded an explanation. The patriarch of Alexandria, in obedience to his superior, humbly vindicated his own orthodoxy.
5. In the fourth century, St. Athanasius, the de-posed bishop of Alexandria, appealed to Pope St. Julius, who reinstated Athanasius, reversing the sentence of an Eastern Council. Pope Julius wrote: “[The] judgment [concerning Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. It behooved all of you to write to us, so that the justice of it might be seen as emanating from all. For they were bishops who suffered; and they were not ordinary Churches which suffered, but were those which the Apostles themselves had governed. And above all, why was nothing written to us about the Church of the Alexandrians? Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us, and then for a just decision to be passed from this place? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there * notice of it ought to have been written to the Church here. But now, after they have done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him . Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. I beseech you, bear with me willingly: what I write about this is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter to Bishops of the Eusebian faction at Antioch [341 AD]
6. In the fourth century, St. Basil the Great likewise appealed to Pope St. Damasus during the Arian persecution, writing that Pope St. Damasus’ intervention was the “only possible solution to our difficulties” and making clear that his appeal was “by no means” a “novel request” (Letter 70).
7. In the early fifth century, St. John Chrysostom, bishop of Constantinople, appealed to Pope St. Innocent I for a redress of grievances inflicted on him by several Eastern prelates.
8. Before the Council of Ephesus, St. Cyril of Alexandria, bishop of Alexandria, appealed to Pope St. Celestine to render a decision on the orthodoxy of Nestorius, the bishop of Constantinople.
9. Nestorius, likewise, appealed to Pope St. Celestine. In response, Celestine authorized Cyril to assure to himself “the authority of our See [Rome] and using our stead and place” to excommunicate Nestorius if he didn’t recant.
10. In the mid-fifth century, St. Hilary, Archbishop of Arles, deposed the bishop of Besancon. Both bishops appealed to Rome. Pope St. Leo the Great considered the matter and restored the deposed bishop, overturning the Archbishop’s decision.

to be continued…*

 

[Ignatius33]

1. Theodoret, bishop Cyr, was condemned at the pseudo-council of Ephesus in 449 and appealed to Pope St. Leo, writing: “I await the decision of your Apostolic See, and I supplicate your Holiness to succor me, who invokes your righteousness and just tribunal; and to order me to hasten to you, and to explain to you my teaching, which follows the steps of the Apostles . . . I beseech you not to scorn my application. Do not slight my gray hairs . . . Above all, I entreat you to teach me whether to put up with this unjust deposition or not; for I await your sentence. If you bid me rest in what has been determined against me, I will rest, and will trouble no man more. I will look for the righteous judgment of our God and Savior. To me, as Almighty God is my Judge, honor and glory are no object, but only the scandal that has been caused; for many of the simpler sort, especially those whom I have rescued from diverse heresies, considering the See which has condemned me, suspect that I perhaps really am a heretic, being incapable themselves of distinguishing accuracy of doctrine” (Epistle 113). In response, Pope Leo declared the deposition invalid and Theodoret was restored to his See.
2. Later, John, an abbot in Constantinople, appealed to Pope St. Gregory the Great from a decision of the bishop of Constantinople. Pope Gregory reversed the patriarch.
3. In 859, Photius (the very bishop, a genius to be sure, to whom Orthodox apologists often resort when they argue against the West, particularly with regard to the Filioque) appealed to Pope Nicholas I, asking the Pope to confirm his election as patriarch of Constantinople. To give some background, Ignatius, the Patriarch of Constantinople (by all accounts a holy man) had previously refused to give Holy Communion to Caesar Bardas (on account of his public sins), causing Bardas great embarrassment. True to form in the caesaro-papist regime under which the East labored for centuries on end, Ignatius was forced to resign due to pressure from Bardas. In Ignatius’ place, Photius was raised to the Patriarchate. But Ignatius changed his mind and wanted his See back. Resort was had to the bishop of Rome. Ultimately, Pope Nicholas sided with Ignatius. As a result, Photius, predictably embittered, wrote his famous polemical anti-Roman works. It should be noted that after Ignatius died and Photius once again became patriarch of Constantinople, he ended his years in communion with Rome.

These are just a few examples of the one-sided appeals process in the early Church. Based on the data, it is simply irrefutable as a matter of historical fact that the bishop of Rome exercised a supremacy over the entire Church. The bishops of Rome assumed it (as their prerogative, as the heir to St. Peter) and the East recognized it (although such recognition became increasingly more begrudgingly over time and, subsequently, was ultimately rejected, resulting in the schism that persists to this day).

 

[Ignatius33]

JesusforMadrid:

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I considered not responding anymore at all, since it’s been so long and since I’ve said basically all I can say on this topic. But allow me another post.

I can see that, since discovering Apostolic Tradition, you are being drawn to the East (that is, an Eastern Church not in communion with Rome). This fascinates me because I was drawn to the West upon discovering Tradition, and my reading of the CFs (and the Bible) concerning the primacy of Peter/Rome and my firm conviction in the absolute essentialness of a unified Church (which I see fulfilled in one Christian tradition only – the RC Church) made my conversion to Catholicism a foregone conclusion.

A number of your posts have brought out a very significant point touching on the differences between East and West which, if you’ll permit me, I’d like to address in some detail. As I see it, the bottom-line issue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox polemicists is the Orthodox suspicion of the use of logic in theology (I think you earlier indicated a skepticism to “scholasticism”). The Orthodox are very wary of logic – and rightly so, because it is against them. Strict definitions, syllogisms, etc., to them are legalistic, cold, lifeless, anti-mystical, and so on. They do not see the beauty of the Roman side: logic and warmth, mysticism, life, freedom, etc. are all held together in a coherent whole. They introduce a false dichotomy.

For example, regarding the development of doctrine, as I have defined it (or, I should say, as the Church has defined it), it seems to me certain that clear reasoning proves some kind of development to be true. Not to get too abstract, but philosophers distinguish between a “sentence token” and a “proposition.” A sentence token is a physical thing that is used to communicate ideas. (Despite the name, it can include many sentences.) So if I write a paragraph on paper, the physical aggregate of ink, etc., is a sentence token. The bits and bytes that encode this very post could also plausibly be called sentence tokens. The configuration of air molecules that comprise the sound waves that encode a spoken message would also be a sentence token.

A proposition is a carrier of meaning. Unlike sentence tokens, propositions are not ambiguous. The same sentence tokens can mean one thing in one context, and another in another context. But propositions can’t. Further, distinct sentence tokens can mean the same thing, but distinct propositions are always distinct in meaning. Finally, propositions are not physical objects in the world like sentence tokens are. (Bear with me here, I do have a point!!)

Sentence tokens and propositions are related in that a person who generates a sentence token with communicative intent is employing that token to mean something. The information which is encoded in the sentence token – roughly, the meaning of the sentence token – is the proposition.

Once you see this, you can apply it to the deposit of faith. The apostles, prophets, etc. supply us with a collection of sentence tokens. These sentence tokens have proposition content – i.e., they carry specific meanings. We say revelation is propositional for this reasoning – i.e., God has communicated propositions to us by means of sentence tokens. (The current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has said expressly that divine revelation is propositional.) Now sentences are always ambiguous at least to some extent. The sentence token “My brother is a good story-teller” can mean, for instance:

(1) My brother narrates stories in a captivating way.

Or,

(2) My brother is a convincing liar.

(1) and (2) are propositions here. The original statement (in quotes) is the sentence token. Philosophers usually put sentence tokens in quotation marks and make propositions italic without quotes (but not always), just to distinguish them.

to be continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

Since the apostles delivered a collection of sentence tokens to us, it follows by strict necessity that these tokens carry some ambiguity. Some of them will be more ambiguous than others, to be sure, but all of them, in the nature of the case, will be somewhat ambiguous. The doctrinal history of the Church can be seen as the process of disambiguating these apostolic sentence tokens.

Now no one is going to say every single Christian, when he reads or hears an apostolic sentence token, will always knows its propositional content. The same goes for the post-apostolic Church. The early communities have no divine guarantee that they will perfectly understand the meaning of the sentence tokens. Every sensible person has to admit this, unless he is willing to make every Christian infallible.

Now apply this to the CFs. Consider the following principle:

(3) If a particular apostolic sentence token, s, means p (where p is a proposition), then necessarily every CF will agree that s means p.

Put like that, (3) sounds kind of silly, doesn’t it? But you seem to be assuming something very much like (3) is the case. Or at least you seemed to have assumed this originally, at the beginning of this thread when you quoted St. Vincent.

However, nothing in Scripture or Tradition tells us that every CF is guaranteed to be able to interpret the deposit of faith perfectly – which is really what (3) is saying. Now, consider another principle:

(4) If every CF agreed that s means p, then s means p.
I think (4) is very credible. (Though I might modify it to say if all CFs agree s means p then it is probable that s means p.) I think people confuse (3) and (4). But these principles are as distinct as night and day.

At bottom, Jesus left us the Church (which I believe to be the bishops in union with the Pope) to disentangle and make clear the deposit of faith over the continuum of time. The Church did so in the 4th century when it dogmatically defined the Trinity and clarified the NT canon. The Church did so in the 5th century when it declared Mary to be the Theotokos and dogmatically defined the two natures of Christ. The Church did so in the 13th century when it dogmatically defined transubstantiation, to debunk erroneous ideas being peddled by individual Christians. The Church did so in the 19th century, when it defined Mary’s Immaculate Conception and papal infallibility. This Church – which I believe to be the RC Church with all my heart, strength and mind – is the “pillar and foundation of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15).

These are just some additional thoughts for you.

 

[Madaglan]

Regarding the Filioque (I would appreciate any correction since you guys are clearly much better educated than me. Ignatius33, are you a theologian? LOL): I’ve read somewhere (I think a website called CatholicPrelate?) that the Council of Toledo, a regional council in 451, introduced the filioque in response to some heretical views in Spanish territory. What’s strange then, is it like the filioque didn’t bother the EO for hundreds of years, at least not enough to excommunicate those who used it, and yet Photius in 861 “found” that the filioque, the use of unleavened bread, shaving of beards in the West are major flaws (heresies?) that justify the breaking of communion. It sounds like looking for excuses to me, even if they reject the Pope as having the final say. From Catholic perspective, I’ve learned that one of the Popes (8th century? 9th century?) said that the filioque was not heretical, but he advised to avoid its use simply to avoid getting into fights with the Eastern Churches. From EO perspective, since they reject the Pope as final authority, they may not care much that the Popes found the filioque acceptable and not heretic. They (EO) will tell that the Council of Nicaea decided that the Creed is final, therefore a later Pope inserting the filioque condradicts what an earlier Ecumenical Council decided and what was also recognized by the earlier Pope attending that Council (the Council of Nicaea). I’ve heard this EO argument more than once. However the interesting thing is that the Council of Constantinople (381?), some 40 years after the Council of Nicaea, came up with yet another creed, the Creed of Constantinople. Thus, the EO seem inconsistent in their accusations of Catholics violating the ban on messing with the creed. I learned that the Catholic position is, the ban referred only to inventing a new creed inconsistent with that of Nicaea. We Catholics believe that adding the word “filioque” is not inconsistent with the original Creed of Nicaea, it rather further clarifies it. When the attendees of the Council of Constantinople composed their creed, they must have interpreted the ban in the same way, and must have felt that they did nothing wrong composing the Creed of Constantinople, which was not inconsistent with the Creed of Nicaea, it only further clarified it.

I will mention that today, my Russian EO Old Calendarist acquaintances are not in communion with New Calendar EO Churches such as the Greek and Antiochian, for the following reasons: the Calendar, the use of pews (Russians don’t have pews), and the use of musical instruments by certain EO jurisdictions (although I’m not sure whether the Greeks and Antiochians use them). I guess these things are “Tradition” rather then dogma, but for them, they are serious enough to warrant the breaking of communion. This shows the terribly fractured nature of the EO Churches, after having rejected communion with Rome. Constantinople is routinely called Second Rome by them, and Moscow as Third Rome. In their interpretation, Rome fell into heresy, thus had to be replaced with Second Rome. Second Rome is a thorny issue for the Russians, they accuse the Ecumenical Patriarch (EP) of trying to become a “Pope of the East”. They say there should be no such thing, since all Patriarchs are equal. However they call themselves “Third Rome”, and admit that they are looking to become the leaders of World Orthodoxy, since they have the largest membership (90 million), while the EP today is left with no more than 4000-5000 members. Consider also the fights about whom gives autocephaly to whom. Moscow does not want the Ukrainian and Estonian EO Churches to become autocephalous, but the EP already recognized them as autocephalous Churches. Moreover, the EP insists that him and only him alone has the authority to grant autocephaly. There’s another EO Church (I don’t remember which one) that the EP does not want to become autocephalous, but Moscow granted them autocephaly. Of course the EP is not happy with this. And at the Catholic-Orthodox theological conference of Ravenna, Moscow left the room as a sign of protest because the representatives of the Estonian EOC, recognized by Constantinople but not by Moscow, were present. There’s also a saga in Ukraine. The EOC of Ukraine is split in two fractions: there’s a Metropolitan loyal to Moscow, and there’s a Patriarch recognized by the EP but Moscow considers this Patriarch as illegitimate. I guess I wanted to say all this to illustrate, the EO Churches are torn apart by various disagreements, they really lack unity no matter how much they insist that they agree in everything. Of course to us Catholics, the never ending fragmentation of the EO (and Protestant) Churches is a cautionary tale of what happens to those who reject Peter. They will end up driving 120 miles to their “flavor” of EOC for Divine Liturgy, even when other EO Churches are present in the city.

If you add the “filioque” to the Greek version of the Nicene-Constantinople Creed, it becomes heretical.

The Council of Toledo was in 589.

There are Russian, Greek and other Old Calendarist Churches. There are also Churches that use the New Calendar that are in communion with those that use the Old Calendar. All Orthodox Churches celebrate Pascha the same day, even if they follow a different calendar. The major issue is Ecumenism.

You speak of the “fractured” nature of the Orthodox Churches, yet the vast majority of them have remained in communion with one another these past 1000 years without the Pope of Rome. They share the same Faith (cannot be said of all the Protestants). The major areas of disagreement amongst the Orthodox bishops concern jurisdiction, not doctrine.

Many Catholics in the U.S. drive similarly long distances for their TLM (FSSP, SSPX, etc.), so I don’t get your point.

 

[Madaglan]

JesusforMadrid:

Sorry for taking so long to get back to you. I considered not responding anymore at all, since it’s been so long and since I’ve said basically all I can say on this topic. But allow me another post.

I can see that, since discovering Apostolic Tradition, you are being drawn to the East (that is, an Eastern Church not in communion with Rome). This fascinates me because I was drawn to the West upon discovering Tradition, and my reading of the CFs (and the Bible) concerning the primacy of Peter/Rome and my firm conviction in the absolute essentialness of a unified Church (which I see fulfilled in one Christian tradition only – the RC Church) made my conversion to Catholicism a foregone conclusion.

A number of your posts have brought out a very significant point touching on the differences between East and West which, if you’ll permit me, I’d like to address in some detail. As I see it, the bottom-line issue between Roman Catholics and Orthodox polemicists is the Orthodox suspicion of the use of logic in theology (I think you earlier indicated a skepticism to “scholasticism”). The Orthodox are very wary of logic – and rightly so, because it is against them. Strict definitions, syllogisms, etc., to them are legalistic, cold, lifeless, anti-mystical, and so on. They do not see the beauty of the Roman side: logic and warmth, mysticism, life, freedom, etc. are all held together in a coherent whole. They introduce a false dichotomy.

For example, regarding the development of doctrine, as I have defined it (or, I should say, as the Church has defined it), it seems to me certain that clear reasoning proves some kind of development to be true. Not to get too abstract, but philosophers distinguish between a “sentence token” and a “proposition.” A sentence token is a physical thing that is used to communicate ideas. (Despite the name, it can include many sentences.) So if I write a paragraph on paper, the physical aggregate of ink, etc., is a sentence token. The bits and bytes that encode this very post could also plausibly be called sentence tokens. The configuration of air molecules that comprise the sound waves that encode a spoken message would also be a sentence token.

A proposition is a carrier of meaning. Unlike sentence tokens, propositions are not ambiguous. The same sentence tokens can mean one thing in one context, and another in another context. But propositions can’t. Further, distinct sentence tokens can mean the same thing, but distinct propositions are always distinct in meaning. Finally, propositions are not physical objects in the world like sentence tokens are. (Bear with me here, I do have a point!!)

Sentence tokens and propositions are related in that a person who generates a sentence token with communicative intent is employing that token to mean something. The information which is encoded in the sentence token – roughly, the meaning of the sentence token – is the proposition.

Once you see this, you can apply it to the deposit of faith. The apostles, prophets, etc. supply us with a collection of sentence tokens. These sentence tokens have proposition content – i.e., they carry specific meanings. We say revelation is propositional for this reasoning – i.e., God has communicated propositions to us by means of sentence tokens. (The current Holy Father, Pope Benedict XVI, has said expressly that divine revelation is propositional.) Now sentences are always ambiguous at least to some extent. The sentence token “My brother is a good story-teller” can mean, for instance:

(1) My brother narrates stories in a captivating way.

Or,

(2) My brother is a convincing liar.

(1) and (2) are propositions here. The original statement (in quotes) is the sentence token. Philosophers usually put sentence tokens in quotation marks and make propositions italic without quotes (but not always), just to distinguish them.

to be continued…

Logic against the Orthodox? Pretty hefty charge against the Orthodox, especially considering the Eastern Catholics share in the vast majority of spiritual traditions. One can be logical and yet not rationalistic.

In Orthodoxy, a Christian comes to know and experience God through the healed nous of the soul. The disordered passions of the soul are barriers to theosis, and the Christian engages in the ascetical life to order these passions and become like God. Personal Revelation and experience of the uncreated energies of God is the heart of the Orthodox life. Human reason has its legitimate uses (e.g. in defending the Faith against pagans, heretics, etc.), but it’s not the primary means by which a Christian acquires the Holy Spirit, combats the demons, knows God, becomes deified.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

1. St. Optatus observed that in “Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter” and explained that the true Church must always possess the chair of Peter and orthodox doctrine, which clearly entails that Rome could never abandon the orthodox faith (The Schism of the Donatists [367 AD]).
2. St. Epiphanius endorsed the Roman primacy (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies [375 AD]).
3. St. Basil the Great: “Nearly all the East is being agitated, right honorable father [Pope Damasus], by a terrible storm and tempest. The old heresy, sown by Arius the enemy of truth, has now boldly and unblushingly reappeared . . . I have looked upon the visit of your mercifulness as the only possible solution to our difficulties . . . I have been constrained to beseech you by letter and to be moved to help us . . . In this I am by no means making any novel request, but am only asking what has been customary in the case of men who, before our own day, were blessed and dear to God, and conspicuously in your own case” (Letter 70 [ca. 379 AD]).
4. St. Gregory Nazianzen wrote that Peter was the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 (Oration 26 [ca. 379 AD]).
5. St. Gregory of Nyssa wrote that Jesus built the Church on Peter (Oration on St. Stephen [ca. 395 AD]).
6. St. Jerome: “I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but Your Blessedness, that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails . . . Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to [Rome]” (Letter to Pope Damasus [379 AD]).
7. Pope St. Damasus: “The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of the other Churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior [in Matthew 16:18-19] . . . The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (The Decree of Damasus [382 AD]).
8. Ambrosiaster: “Whereas the whole world is God’s, yet is the Church said to be His house, of which [Pope] Damasus is at this day the ruler” (Commentary on the Epistle of First Timothy [366-384 AD]).
9. Pope Siricius: “We – or rather, the blessed apostle Peter in us, who, as we trust, protects and keeps us in everything as the heirs of his government – bear the burdens of all these that are burdened” (385 AD).
10. St. John Chrysostom wrote that Christ entrusted His “sheep” (i.e., Christians) “to Peter and his successors” (The Priesthood [ca. 386 AD]).
11. St. Ambrose: “They [the Novatians] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven even in the Church” (Penance [388 AD]).
12. St. Augustine: “[On this matter of the Pelagians] two Councils [at Carthage and Milevis] have already been sent to the Apostolic See *; and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end [due to the authority of Rome]; would that the error too might sometime be at an end!” (Sermons [inter 391 – 430 AD]).
13. Pope St. Innocent: “In seeking the things of God, . . . following the examples of ancient tradition, . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the Apostle himself from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have merged . . .They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See, so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the total authority of this See” (Letter to the Council of Carthage [417 AD]).
14. St. Cyril of Alexandria wrote to Pope Celestine asking him to make a ruling on the orthodoxy of Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople: “God requires us to be vigilant in these matters and the ancient customs of the Churches persuades that we should communicate with your Holiness [in Rome]. We do not openly and publicly break off communion with [Nestorius] before communicating these things to your Piety. Deign therefore to declare what seems to you right; and whether one must remain still in communion with him, or ought it to be proclaimed publicly that no one communicated with one who professes to teach such errors?” (Letter to Pope Celestine [ca. 431 AD]).
15. In response, Pope Celestine urged Cyril to act with Rome’s authority in condemning Nestorius “assuring to yourself the authority of our See [Rome] and using our stead and place, you will execute this sentence with the utmost severity” (Letter [ca. 431 AD]).
16. Nestorius, deposed at the Council of Ephesus, later wrote bitterly: “Who was judge? Cyril. Who was accuser? Cyril. Who was Bishop of Rome? Cyril. Cyril was everything.” In his eyes, Cyril had arrogated to himself the authority and prerogatives of the Pope himself.

to be continued…*

The only thing about listing a litany of pro-papacy quotes is that, like in the case of #27 and many of the other quotes you placed here, of course popes are going to be pro-papacy! A bunch of popes are going to say that the conciliar model is garbage and that the bishop of Rome is the chief of all the churches. Would we expect them to do otherwise?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

By the mercy of God I submit to His authority both on earth and in heaven. However, the Church was and, I think, should be concilliar, not a monarchy, as Rome to me appears. When that authority is abused, which it would be were innappropriate innovations added, it no longer becomes legitimate. I suspect you would agree. Hence, our only dispute is that nature of appropriate innovations.

I stand with both the Eastern and Protestant churches in raising a big red flag about some of those innovations, as I have mentioned above (papal infallibility, indulgences, etc.).

One (of many) stumbling blocks that I’ve had has a Roman Catholic that has kept me grappling with my faith in Roman Catholicism is the conciliar vs. monarchical model of church governance. For one thing, we can see in the early church, the NT church, that the terms “episkopos” and “presbyteros” were used interchangeably. Peter calls himself the latter at times and Paul and some others use both, etc. We read about the use of tongues, prophesying, charismatic preaching, and other non-liturgical phenomenon in the NT. And we see James really exercising power as the leader of Jerusalem, Paul being very forceful in theology like in Galatians, etc. and other times Peter is strong. We don’t see an infallible ex cathedra teaching chair.

We see Peter as a missionary preacher and the founder of Antioch and co-founder at Rome. Not only Rome, but he played a role in several churches.

We also see Polycarp, Ignatius of Antioch, and the Didache describing the leadership and vision of the church slightly differently. One has the threefold ministry, one only two, the other using slightly different terminology.

We see a collegiate atmosphere in the early centuries with each bishop being equal, like senators for Christ. The Emperor presided over Nicaea and other councils, not the pope. In fact, the pope didn’t even personally attend several of these crucial counsels, sending legates in his stead.

I have a superb book, “The Primacy of Peter” by the late Orthodox priest and scholar, John Meyendorff. He and several other Orthodox theologians brilliantly lay out this book showing their view of Peter and they have quite a different perspective, one that is far from the Catholic outlook.

It’s hard to reconcile councils, ecumenical ones, with Constantine the Great, a political secular leader at the helm, and what comes out of it?..the Nicene Creed that we read at every Mass! There was no papacy that created this or had the final say.

There are also many instances of guys like Cyprian not being thrilled with Rome’s edicts or decisions. The filioque did, in fact, alienate the East along with Roman Catholic trashing of Constantinople after the return from the crusades along with the Pope placing Latin bishops in their jurisdictions in what Orthodox perceived as overstepping their bounds.

What has fascinated me also is how the Orthodox have never written down every belief they have and have not hammered out a catechism and yet their beliefs and structure, their theology and liturgy have changed precious little. Their worship is full of awe, beauty, and a taste of the ancient. The Roman Church has, between canon law, rubrics, and the catechism, not left one stone unturned, spelling out everything from A to Z in extremely thorough detail, and yet the Roman Church looks markedly different in the last 1,000 years.

I struggle with these things for sure. I can’t subscribe totally to infallibility and that the current papal model existed in the first centuries. I also struggle with teachings like the Assumption of Mary, with is infallible, because the Church can boldly proclaim Mary assumed as well as the existence of purgatory but, when asked, they can give details to neither? They can’t say if Mary was bodily deceased upon her assumption or alive? What happens during purgatory? Nobody will say, just a cleansing fire or something of that nature? Why the certitude on something with no details provided by God?

I’m totally open to all these beliefs but I still struggle with these ideas and can understand JesusforMadrid’s points (most of them).

 

[Ignatius33]

The only thing about listing a litany of pro-papacy quotes is that, like in the case of #27 and many of the other quotes you placed here, of course popes are going to be pro-papacy! A bunch of popes are going to say that the conciliar model is garbage and that the bishop of Rome is the chief of all the churches. Would we expect them to do otherwise?

Yes, but where are the responses from the East calling these Popes out and putting them in their place if they were unjustly arrogating authority to themselves? They don’t exist! And their silence is deafening. Instead, we see all the great lights of the East – Athanasius, Basil, John Chrysostom, Cyril, Photius – appealing to the bishop of Rome. In any event, I made sure to not simply quote the Popes, but to include both “East-coast” and “West-coast” bishops.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

I have a superb book, “The Primacy of Peter” by the late Orthodox priest and scholar, John Meyendorff. He and several other Orthodox theologians brilliantly lay out this book showing their view of Peter and they have quite a different perspective, one that is far from the Catholic outlook.

Thanks for your comments. I am still grappling with Ignatius’ view of history and would like to complement his view with some alternative ones. I haven’t read this book, but will buy it. I have, however, read the Chair of St. Peter, by William La Due, which, though written by a Roman Catholic, shows that the Early Church was very different from the modern RC today in terms of governance.amazon.com/Chair-Saint-Peter-History-Papacy/dp/1570753350]

This is a very interesting debate indeed.

 

[Ignatius33]

I hate to come across as being overly polemical, but RCs get batted around like a ping pong ball by EOs on the issue of the Roman primacy, so I have to stick up for my faith a little here by pointing out three undisputed (at least in my view) facts.

1. EO apologists have no problem shouting from the rooftops that the bishop of Rome improperly arrogated to himself the supremacy over the Church and that the Catholic Church misinterpreted Matthew 16 in the process. Yet, when this supposed usurpation was taking place in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries, their Eastern forefathers said nary a word. To the contrary, they participated (unwittingly, I suppose) in this alleged usurpation.
2. Today’s Eastern patriarchs wouldn’t consult the bishop of Rome for advice on which museums or eateries to visit while vacationing in Rome (perhaps this is an overstatement, but you get my point). Yet, their Eastern forefathers consulted and appealed to the bishop of Rome on the most critical matters of Church business – orthodox doctrine and the deposition of bishops.
3. Photius was the first Eastern patriarch, that I know of, to forcefully challenge Rome’s claim to the primacy. He did so in the 9th century(!) and only after the bishop of Rome had sided against him on his claim to be patriarch of Constantinople (a claim that was completely baseless – unless the civil authorities have supreme authority over the Church – and premised on gross fabrications on Photius’ part), rendering his motives and objectivity suspect, to say the least. Yet, who do EO apologists look to, more than anyone else, in their cause against the Roman primacy? Photius. Not Athanasius. Not Basil. Not Chrysostom. Not Cyril (all four of whom are Doctors of the Catholic Church, incidentally).

So, I have to ask, which Church has “changed” its model or “looks different” in the past millennium?

 

[Madaglan]

I hate to come across as being overly polemical, but RCs get batted around like a ping pong ball by EOs on the issue of the Roman primacy, so I have to stick up for my faith a little here by pointing out three undisputed (at least in my view) facts.

1. EO apologists have no problem shouting from the rooftops that the bishop of Rome improperly arrogated to himself the supremacy over the Church and that the Catholic Church misinterpreted Matthew 16 in the process. Yet, when this supposed usurpation was taking place in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th centuries, their Eastern forefathers said nary a word. To the contrary, they participated (unwittingly, I suppose) in this alleged usurpation.
2. Today’s Eastern patriarchs wouldn’t consult the bishop of Rome for advice on which museums or eateries to visit while vacationing in Rome (perhaps this is an overstatement, but you get my point). Yet, their Eastern forefathers consulted and appealed to the bishop of Rome on the most critical matters of Church business – orthodox doctrine and the deposition of bishops.
3. Photius was the first Eastern patriarch, that I know of, to forcefully challenge Rome’s claim to the primacy. He did so in the 9th century(!) and only after the bishop of Rome had sided against him on his claim to be patriarch of Constantinople (a claim that was completely baseless – unless the civil authorities have supreme authority over the Church – and premised on gross fabrications on Photius’ part), rendering his motives and objectivity suspect, to say the least. Yet, who do EO apologists look to, more than anyone else, in their cause against the Roman primacy? Photius. Not Athanasius. Not Basil. Not Chrysostom. Not Cyril (all four of whom are Doctors of the Catholic Church, incidentally).

So, I have to ask, which Church has “changed” its model or “looks different” in the past millennium?

Concerning your points:

1. The Orthodox are not shouting. The doctrines of papal supremacy and immediate universal jurisdiction were developments. The Popes were not yet constantly asserting supreme authority over the Church.

St. Cyprian of Carthage’s letters to Pope Stephen and the response of the eastern churches to Pope Victor are two examples of responses to the Pope of Rome. .

1. The Bishop of Rome was Patriarch of the West and had the primacy in the Pentarchy. Especially when a heresy was ravaging the sees of the East, it made good sense to consult the orthodox Patriarch of Rome.
2. Orthodox do not reject Roman Primacy; they do, however, reject Roman Supremacy. The Primacy of Peter does well in explaining the difference.

Cardinal Avery Dulles, SJ, named five models of the Church, and the Orthodox Church, believe it or not, has all five! They just have a different understanding of each.

 

[banjo]

Thanks for your comments. I am still grappling with Ignatius’ view of history and would like to complement his view with some alternative ones. I haven’t read this book, but will buy it. I have, however, read the Chair of St. Peter, by William La Due, which, though written by a Roman Catholic, shows that the Early Church was very different from the modern RC today in terms of governance.amazon.com/Chair-Saint-Peter-History-Papacy/dp/1570753350]

This is a very interesting debate indeed.

Since the door has been opened on this point, I recommend The Early Papacy:to the Synod of Chaldecon in 451; Adrian Fortescue; Ignatius Press. Following is a quote from the book which I think is germane to this thread; at the same time I hasten to encourage all not to judge the entire work from this small excerpt.

“All these methods of taking some early documents, whether the Bible or the Fathers, and making them your standard, mean simply a riot of private judgment on each point of religion. People disagree and will continue to disagree about the interpretation of ancient documents, of early Fathers, even more than of the books in the Bible.”

 

[banjo]

Rome has shown its ability to change radically on some positions–take its view of salvation for non Catholics and non-Christians pre and post Vatican II.

“In its letter to Archbishop Cushing on the Boston heresy case (the protocol to which Pope Pius XII had so carefully attended), the Sacred Congregation of the Holy Office noted that “the Church has always preached and will never cease to preach. . . that infallible statement by which we are taught that there is no salvation outside the Church.” The protocol goes on to say, however, that (T)his dogma must be understood in that sense in which the Church herself understands it. For, it was not to private judgments that Our Saviour gave for explanation those things that are contained in the deposit of faith, but to the teaching authority of the Church (Suprema haec sacra, in The American Ecclesiastical Review, 1952, vol. 127, pp. 308-15).”

This quote is from an article by: Michael J. Mazza is director of catechetics for the Diocese of Sioux Falls, South Dakota and a frequent contributor to Fidelity.
© Fidelity, 206 Marquette Avenue, South Bend, IN 46617.

 

[banjo]

I struggle with these things for sure. I can’t subscribe totally to infallibility and that the current papal model existed in the first centuries. I also struggle with teachings like the Assumption of Mary, with is infallible, because the Church can boldly proclaim Mary assumed as well as the existence of purgatory but, when asked, they can give details to neither? They can’t say if Mary was bodily deceased upon her assumption or alive? What happens during purgatory? Nobody will say, just a cleansing fire or something of that nature? Why the certitude on something with no details provided by God?

I’m totally open to all these beliefs but I still struggle with these ideas and can understand JesusforMadrid’s points (most of them).

I recommend to you also the little book (109 pages including the appendices) The Early Papacy:to the Synod of Chalcedon in 451 Adrian Fortescue; Ignatius Press. It might help answer some or all of your questions.

 

[Ignatius33]

Regarding the Filioque (I would appreciate any correction since you guys are clearly much better educated than me. Ignatius33, are you a theologian? LOL): .

I wish! Actually, maybe I don’t wish because most Catholic scholars and theologians today unfortunately seem to be religious liberals. I don’t get it. Hopefully Scott Hahn can turn things around in this area, motivating intellectuals who are actually loyal to the Magisterium to write. I’m just an idiot who likes to read and discuss, like most people on here.

 

[Ignatius33]

Since the door has been opened on this point, I recommend The Early Papacy:to the Synod of Chaldecon in 451; Adrian Fortescue; Ignatius Press. Following is a quote from the book which I think is germane to this thread; at the same time I hasten to encourage all not to judge the entire work from this small excerpt.

“All these methods of taking some early documents, whether the Bible or the Fathers, and making them your standard, mean simply a riot of private judgment on each point of religion. People disagree and will continue to disagree about the interpretation of ancient documents, of early Fathers, even more than of the books in the Bible.”

This is a nice quotation – it kind of articulates a point I have been trying to make here. The Bible is full of sentence tokens, and the CFs are full of both sentence tokens and propositional readings of sentence tokens, although they are not perfectly in harmony with one another on any given question. This is precisely why Christ left us a Church, as an infallible guide, to sort out which propositions are true and which aren’t. It is the Church that has the final say regarding the objectively correct or orthodox propositions that are to be gleaned from the myriad sentence tokens left to us by Jesus and the Apostles. The Church did so in the 4th century when it defined the Trinity and in the 5th century when it defined the two natures of Christ, for example. Once the Church definitively defined a matter of faith, the issue was settled for all time.

Turning once again to the Roman primacy, Adrian Fortescue is basically correct when he says that two intelligent people can read the CFs and look at the historical data of the early Church and rationally come to different conclusions, i.e., that Rome is merely a first among equals (the EO or Protestant view) or that Rome was granted an actual supremacy (the RC view). The question is, whose responsibility is it to sift the data and decipher which view is the correct one? Individual theologians or patristics scholars? (there are brilliant ones on either side of the debate to be sure.) No. It is up to the Church herself – the “pillar and foundation of truth,” led by the Holy Spirit “to all truth” – to decide. The Church decided this question in favor of the RC view in 1870.

This is why I feel so confident in my position on the primacy – it is the position of the Catholic Church, the same Church that settled other matters of faith in the first millennium.

I would also add that, aside from the fact that the East was completely silent in the 4th and 5th centuries when the popes were supposedly arrogating power to themselves that didn’t belong to them (a very strong argument in my view), there are two lesser arguments in favor of Rome:

First, bias cuts both ways. Granting for the sake of argument the popes were biased by self-interest, so were the eastern churches. Hence Constantinople kept trying to arrogate to herself powers over the apostolic patriarchates even though she was not even founded by an Apostle! This is not inherently wrong, but it shows that Constantinople had her own interests. Not content with being superior to Alexandria, she then boldly tried to make herself at least as important, or more important, than Rome. Although the history is somewhat controversial, not a single historian today would say Constantinople was unbiased. Everyone knows that with only one patriarch in the West and four in the East, the East would be biased in favor of ‘conciliarism’ since that gave the East more power. And as the other patriarchs eventually became the deputies and puppets of Constantinople, the bias would likewise increase.

Second, it is not just popes who make pro-papal claims. Many times, eastern Christians did. If it is answered that they too were biased (e.g., Cyril in appealing to Celestine against Nestorius; and Nestorius himself likewise appealing to Celestine), then it sounds like the Orthodox or Protestant apologist is engaging in special pleading. I mean, the East is not biased when it’s conciliar, but is biased when it’s papal? What gives? Why not become a postmodern historian and say we can’t trust any Church history because of bias? That would be more consistent than picking and choosing arbitrarily.

 

[Ignatius33]

Later additions to doctrine, such as the immaculate conception, did not enjoy universal support from the ECFs, in my opinion. So when Rome reaches back and justifies an innovation by citing a few Early Church fathers, without the support of a wide and historically deep community of believers, it reaches a result that is not orthodox. This is an ex post justification, like looking back to the “penumbra” of the Early Church.

And this worries me.

JesusforMadrid,

I’d like to return to the topic of Mary’s Immaculate Conception, if you’re still interested. You still seem to think that the RC Church dangerously relies on CF outliers in holding to this doctrine (though I have to disagree with your characterization of Augustine as an outlier or “penumbra”). Using the sentence token vs proposition framework, I’d like to try to make the case (albeit, an abridged one) for the RC position that the Immaculate Conception is formally implicit in the deposit of faith.

First, there are a number of sentence tokens, in both Scripture and Tradition, that potentially bear on the Immaculate Conception:

1. Mary was the “New Eve” (Apostolic Tradition)
2. Mary was “all holy” (Apostolic Tradition)
3. Mary was “full of grace” (Lk. 1:28)
4. Enmity between Satan and “the woman,” i.e., Mary (Gn. 3:15; Jn. 19:26-27; Rev. 12)
5. Mary would be “pierced by a sword” (Lk. 2:35)
6. Mary rejoiced in “God her savior” (Lk. 1:46)
7. “All have sinned” (Rom. 3:23)
8. Death came to “all” through Adam, “inasmuch as all sinned” (Rom. 5:12) (On another thread here, Protestants relied on this verse to argue that the Bible “makes clear” that Mary could not have been sinless and “obviously” debunks the Immaculate Conception, as if doctors like Augustine, Aquinas and Duns Scotus – or the Church itself, for that matter – had never read this verse before.)

Second, some CFs wrote, as propositional matter, that Mary sinned at least once:

1. Origen attributed the sin of doubt to Mary. Most of the Eastern fathers who denied Mary’s sinlessness are indebted to Origen, and often follow him uncritically in this opinion.
2. St. Basil appears to have followed Origen in this opinion.
3. Ditto for St. Gregory of Nyssa.
4. Ditto for St. Cyril of Alexandria.
5. St. John Chrysostom, independently of the aforementioned four CFs, interprets the scene at the wedding feast of Cana as an instance where Jesus rebukes his mother for the sin of vainglory.

On the other hand, a number of CFs maintained (or at least intimated) the proposition that Mary was sinless. To name a few:

1. St. Hippolytus referred to Mary as the tabernacle exempt from defilement and corruption.
2. St. Ephraim sang: “You alone and your Mother are more beautiful than any others; for there is no blemish in you, nor any stains upon your Mother. Who of my children can compare in beauty to these?” (The Nisibene Hymns [ca. 361 AD]) and further described Mary as “most holy, all-pure, all-immaculate, all-stainless, all-undefiled, all-incorrupt, all-inviolate spotless robe of Him Who clothes Himself with light as with a garment . . . flower unfading, purple woven by God, alone most immaculate” (Precationes ad Deiparam).
3. St. Athanasius: “O noble Virgin, truly you are greater than any other greatness. For who is your equal in greatness, o dwelling place of God the Word? To whom among all creatures shall I compare you, O Virgin? You are greater than them all. O [Ark of the New] Covenant, clothed with purity instead of gold! You are the Ark in which is found the golden vessel containing the true manna, that is, the flesh in which divinity resides. Should I compare you to the fertile earth and its fruits? You surpass them . . . If I say that heaven is exalted, yet it does not equal you” (quoted in L. Gambero, Mary and the Fathers of the Church [1999]).
4. St. Ambrose: “Come, then, and search out Your sheep, not through Your servants or hired men, but do it Yourself. Lift me up bodily and in the flesh, which is fallen in Adam. Lift me up not from Sara but from Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free from every stain of sin” (Commentary on Psalm 118 [inter 387-388 AD]).
5. St. Augustine: “We must except the holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honor to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin” (On Nature and Grace 42 [415 AD]).

continued…