Catholic and Orthodox reunion

[Randy_Carson]

And what about the little headway Catholics have made in certain countries? What does that do for your argument?

What I’m saying, Randy, is that you are criticizing the Orthodox for not accomplishing in 40-50 years what the Roman Catholic Church has not accomplished in 2000. This is according to your own standard and logic, so if you have a problem with my reply, please take it up with yourself and leave me out of it.

Okay. Last time I will address this issue because my point has already been made.

The Orthodox claim to be the one, True Church, and they deny that same claim by Catholics. Fair enough. Why belong to a Church if you don’t believe in it, right?

(Let me add parenthetically that I do understand that both Churches have valid everything and long, honorable histories, apostolic origins, etc., etc. So, assertions of my xenophobia are wildly exxagerated.)

However, since there are two claimants to being the one, True Church, we have to attempt to evaluate the claims. Now, I have in various threads posted many arguments by many people who have reached the conclusion that Rome has the better claim. Naturally, that is not being terribly well received in this sub-forum. In response, others have given their best arguments in favor of the Eastern Church along with their conversion stories. And we’ve all had a chance to ask questions, poke holes, etc. Isn’t that what an apologetics forum is for?

Now, one argument might go like this (and I’m not being precise here - just typing quickly): The true church built by Jesus should bear fruit. Put another way, the Church built by Jesus would fulfill the Great Commission. Therefore, we can ask, What is the fruit of the respective claimant’s labors in fulfilling the Great Commission?

Is that reasonable? Well, those on the short end of that measuring stick say, “NO!”, and their objection is understandable. But is it reasonable? Would Jesus build a Church that would fail to bring in the great harvest? Wouldn’t that imply that the gates of hell had prevailed?

Two girl scouts set out to win the top prize for selling the most boxes of cookies. One goes door to door while the other sits in front of a grocery store on Saturday morning talking to shoppers as they come and go. Both do well, but one sells more cookies than the other. It might to reasonable to conclude that there was a reason that she was the top seller.

Two churches set out to make disciples of all nations. One converts 1.2 billion people on almost every continent. The other converts 300 million in a more tightly confined area. It might be reasonable to conclude that there is a reason why one Church is more successful than the other. Conversely, the small harvest of fruit seems to suggest that the other Church cannot possibly be the one True Church.

And that’s just ONE argument of many that could be made. The preponderance of the evidence is truly overwhelming to the objective observer. Unfortunately, I’m not making my presentation to the most objective of audiences. I get that. Really.

Now, my personal opinion is that both Catholics and Orthodox (as well as Protestants and Baptists ) are all Christians and members of the one Body of Christ - just as both of the girl scouts were members of one troop and they were simply selling in different markets.

One Lord. One Faith. One Baptism. One Flock. One Shepherd. One God and Father of us all.

Jesus promised to build one Church, and that Church has a name. It is the name given to it by its earliest members beginning in Antioch, and it is not the Orthodox Church. It is the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch and other ECF’s record that this is so. It’s a matter of historical record.

So, all believers are members of one Body, the Catholic Church, whether they know it or like it or not. In heaven, this will be obvious.

+++

I look forward to your comments, rebuttals and questions concerning my sanity, but I may not respond. We’ll see how it goes.

 

[Nine_Two]

By your own measure, Randy. The Catholic Church hasn’t fulfilled the Great Commission, and by your logic must therefore be wrong.

Indeed, since no Christian group has ever fulfilled it, they must all be wrong, and Christianity (and every other religion) is therefore false.

If you follow your own logic you are now an Atheist.

 

[RyanBlack]

Jesus promised to build one Church, and that Church has a name. It is the name given to it by its earliest members beginning in Antioch, and it is not the Orthodox Church. It is the Catholic Church. Ignatius of Antioch and other ECF’s record that this is so. It’s a matter of historical record.

This argument really doesn’t work, accept with “proving” something to people who already believe it. The Orthodox will counter that they are the Catholic Church (by the way, they consider themselves to be catholic-after all, they use the term catholic in the creed) of St. Ignatius of Antioch of other ECFs. So saying it’s a matter of historical record really isn’t so straightforward as you try to make it sound.

 

[RyanBlack]

However, since there are two claimants to being the one, True Church, we have to attempt to evaluate the claims. Now, I have in various threads posted many arguments by many people who have reached the conclusion that Rome has the better claim. Naturally, that is not being terribly well received in this sub-forum. In response, others have given their best arguments in favor of the Eastern Church along with their conversion stories. And we’ve all had a chance to ask questions, poke holes, etc. Isn’t that what an apologetics forum is for?

Now, one argument might go like this (and I’m not being precise here - just typing quickly): The true church built by Jesus should bear fruit. Put another way, the Church built by Jesus would fulfill the Great Commission. Therefore, we can ask, What is the fruit of the respective claimant’s labors in fulfilling the Great Commission?

Is that reasonable? Well, those on the short end of that measuring stick say, “NO!”, and their objection is understandable. But is it reasonable? Would Jesus build a Church that would fail to bring in the great harvest? Wouldn’t that imply that the gates of hell had prevailed?

And that’s just ONE argument of many that could be made. The preponderance of the evidence is truly overwhelming to the objective observer. Unfortunately, I’m not making my presentation to the most objective of audiences. I get that. Really.

Number of adherents is not the only way to measure the fruits of fulfilling the Great Commission. How many of the billion-plus Catholics have no real commitment whatsoever to the faith? Of course, this question can be asked of any group. But honestly, much of the numerical success of Catholicism might very well have happened with the Orthodox also, had it not been for the fact that for so much of their history, most of them lived under the yoke of Islam. Also, history is not done. There was a time when the Assyrian Church was larger than Catholic Church. There could come a time in the future when there is some Christian group that is larger than the Catholic Church. It really proves nothing, as far as identifying who makes up the true Church. You’re going to persuade extremely few, if any, with this argument. Especially when people can always respond with proof-texting passages that could be read to suggest that there’s no good reason whatsoever to look to large numbers of members as proof of God’s blessing.

 

[Tomdstone]

The true church built by Jesus should bear fruit. Put another way, the Church built by Jesus would fulfill the Great Commission. Therefore, we can ask, What is the fruit of the respective claimant’s labors in fulfilling the Great Commission?
Is that reasonable?

I am not sure that your argument will convince everyone, because there are going to be people who will say that some of the fruit of the Roman Catholic Church has not been all that great. They will point to the Fourth Crusade, the Inquisition, Pope Alexander VI, the burnings at the stake of heretics, and other problems of the present era. For example, the most pro-abortion Congressman in the history of the United States was a Roman Catholic priest Father Drinan, who earned a 100% pro abortion record. AFAIK, Father Drinan was never excommunicated from the Roman Catholic Church. And there are other modern day problems in the Roman Catholic Church, that everyone knows about.

 

[frjohnmorris]

So, first you acknowledge that the Orthodox have made little headway in English-speaking countries (which proves my point), then you attempt some explanation of why that is true followed by an “and you also” argument against Catholicism (which is silly since Catholicism is four times the size of Orthodoxy, but whatever) and you conclude with an ad hominem?

The size of the Catholic Church does not prove that it is right. In America most people are Protestants, but that does not prove the validity of Protestantism. The largest parish in America is led by Joel Osteen. That certainly does not prove that he is right. It just proves that he can draw a crowd by telling them what they want to hear and by putting on a good show.
The Catholic Church spread more than the Orthodox because most Orthodox have lived under Muslim or Communist persecution during most of modern history. Another major reason for the spread of Catholicism was European imperialism. The nations that engaged in colonialism, which was a major factor in spreading Catholicism and Protestantism were not Orthodox. No Orthodox countries had colonies in Asia, Africa of America. So your argument does not deserve serious consideration.
Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Aramis]

Our Lord’s triple questions to St. Peter were forgiveness for his triple denial of Christ and nothing more. It certainly did not appoint Peter to an office which he never exercised. Historically, the Bishop of Rome never exercised universal jurisdiction over the ancient undivided Church, had the power to unilaterally make doctrinal pronouncements, interfere in the internal affairs of the other Patriarchates, or veto the decisions of an Ecumenical Council.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Time line does not support that assertion. Never has, never will. Peter was present in the upper room when the keys were given - and the tripple charge is at least a week after that, probably 2-3 weeks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

:nope:

I wrote:

Two churches set out to make disciples of all nations. One converts 1.2 billion people on almost every continent. The other converts 300 million in a more tightly confined area.

If the smaller Church has 300 million members, then obviously, they have been evangelizing, and Jharek’s comments are absurd.

Jharek has “ignored” me, so he will not see this response, but apparently, he was not really listening to what I was actually saying anyway.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholic Church spread more than the Orthodox because most Orthodox have lived under Muslim or Communist persecution during most of modern history. Another major reason for the spread of Catholicism was European imperialism. The nations that engaged in colonialism, which was a major factor in spreading Catholicism and Protestantism were not Orthodox. No Orthodox countries had colonies in Asia, Africa of America.

Thank you, Fr. John.

This is exactly what I have been saying.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Time line does not support that assertion. Never has, never will. Peter was present in the upper room when the keys were given - and the tripple charge is at least a week after that, probably 2-3 weeks.

The historical facts do not support your conclusion. St. Peter never acted as anything like a modern Pope over the Apostles. No Bishop of Rome was every recognized by the ancient pre-schism Church as having anything like the authority possessed by modern Popes. A primacy of honor as first among equals is all that the Bishops of Rome had over the ancient undivided Church. The ancient Popes had no authority outside of their own Diocese and even took centuries to extend their power over the rest of the West. You cannot support your assumptions with hard historical facts. You can quote ancient Roman Bishops making all sorts of excessive claims, but they fell on deaf ears even in most of the West. Historically the Popes based their claims not on the Scriptures, the Fathers or the Ecumenical Councils, but on forged documents called the Donation of Constantine and the False Decretals.
Why is it that Roman Catholics are so dedicated to the office of the papacy? I really do not understand the devotion to papal authority that marks Roman Catholicism. It cannot be justified by a study of church history.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Tomdstone]

Aren’t there 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today, which is 0.4 billion more than the number of Catholics? Muslims have been around 600 fewer years than Catholics, and yet they have grown faster?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Aren’t there 1.6 billion Muslims in the world today, which is 0.4 billion more than the number of Catholics? Muslims have been around 600 fewer years than Catholics, and yet they have grown faster?

How many of them had a choice?

And how many of them would choose differently if we were allowed to preach in their countries?

 

[Tomdstone]

I was agreeing with your point.

 

[Tomdstone]

How many of them had a choice?

1.599 billion?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Time line does not support that assertion. Never has, never will. Peter was present in the upper room when the keys were given - and the tripple charge is at least a week after that, probably 2-3 weeks.

But the fathers, many of them considered by your Church to be Doctors, do make that exact assertion, that Christ by his threefold questioning of Peter was wiping away his threefold denial. I thought that the Tridentine Creed instructed that all Catholics were supposed to adhere to the opinion of the fathers in their exegesis of the scriptures, but then perhaps this old article of the Catholic faith (even the Orthodox, after all, would affirm that this is a tenet of the Catholic faith as we know it ourselves) has been superseded by something that I am unaware of.

 

[Nine_Two]

This thread seems to have come full circle. The arguments are the same as they were 10 or 15 pages ago (I haven’t checked, don’t quote me on that), and nobody has budged.

This wouldn’t be so bad if the arguments in question weren’t so obviously terrible.

 

[LionHeart777]

But for Peter to be an Apostle and the first among them is exactly what a first among equals is, and that is exactly what St. Augustine and the Venerable Bede point to when they mention that Christ’s commission to feed his sheep applies to all of the Apostles, but was given to Peter in order to show forth the unity of the Church. This as a matter of fact is identical to Pope St. Leo’s understanding of the keys in Matthew 16:18, that the keys were given to Peter not uniquely, but first, so that the unity of the Church should be preserved (and of course, we should all be reminded of St. Cyprian who seemed to think the same). In fact for Peter to be more than a first among equals would necessitate that he be more than an Apostle, just as the Bishop is himself a priest, but is also more than a priest. But the Fathers speak of the Apostles’ equality with St. Peter, except for St. Peter’s being first among them, which implies not that Peter was more than an Apostle, but rather that he was, just as St. Augustine taught, an Apostle and the first among them. Indeed, it seems to me to be a bit short-sighted to omit the witness of these other exegeses (two of whom are are accounted as Doctors by your Church) when interpreting St. John Chrysostom (who, let it be admitted, is the only one of the three posted recognized both as a Doctor and a saint).

It in fact does violence to St. John’s interpretation of this passage to understand Christ’s words as being spoken uniquely to Peter alone. For St. John clearly points out that Christ spoke to Peter because he was the first of the apostles. How nonsensical then, would it be for St. John to have asserted that Christ gave Peter the command to preside over his brethren because Peter was the first among the apostles? Furthermore, if one reads St. John in this fashion, then he posits that St. John therefore contradicts two other Doctors, something most impious, for it cannot be that Christ’s words applied to all of the Apostles if Christ’s words involved handing down some Petrine office to Peter. Instead it must be that St. John, in paraphrasing Christ’s words, means that Christ is reinstating Peter (in consonance with the other great exegetes who taught the same) to his previous position in the Apostolic choir, and through speaking to him as a representative of the whole speaks the same to the other apostles. Nowhere, in fact, in this text then does St. John Chrysostom interpret Christ’s words to mean the reception of a unique Petrine office (for Peter was already recognized as the president, first among equals, and representative of the Apostolic choir before his threefold denial).

Cavaradosi,

I do not see the citation you gave by Sts. Bede and Augustine as contradicting those by the three writers I gave at all; nor that of the Catholic Church as reflected in Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus”. This is what I believe Wandile pointed out too.

For example,

When in a 1997 Bulletin of a Synod of American Bishops addresses the Pope:

“We are grateful, Holy Father, for the various processes and procedures of the Synod which have allowed us the graced time to listen to one another, to hear the stories and the cries of peoples in different moments of our various histories, and to understand more fully the pastoral challenges faced by us, the shepherds of today, called ‘to feed the lambs and the sheep’ (John 21:15-17) of our Risen Savior’s flock.”

Source: vatican.va/news_services/press/sinodo/documents/bollettino_17_speciale-america-1997/02_inglese/b31_02.html

They are in no way denying, what Vatican I’s “Pastor Aeternus” says: “And it was to Peter alone that Jesus, after his resurrection, confided the jurisdiction of Supreme Pastor and ruler of his whole fold, saying: Feed my lambs, feed my sheep [44].”

Source: fisheaters.com/pastoraeternus.html

It is untenable that these Bishops deny the interpretation of John 21:15-17 given in “Pastor Aeternus”, yet they apply John 21:15-17 to themselves also as Pastors. So when Sts. Bede and Augustine apply this verse to Pastors other than the Bishop of Rome, it does not mean that they deny the interpretations given by the writers I gave (I will readdress St. John Chrysosotom), which are consistent with the one given by “Pastor Aeternus”. As the Catholic Church teaches: “According to an ancient tradition, one can distinguish between two senses of Scripture: the literal and the spiritual, the latter being subdivided into the allegorical, moral and anagogical senses. The profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church.” (CCC Par. 115) Whether or not the broader interpretation of Jn 21:15-17 used to apply in a sense to all Pastors in the Church falls under the spiritual or the literal sense, I do not know; but it is quite clear that the interpretation given by “Pastor Aeternus” falls under the literal sense.

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Continued…

Having said this, I do not see St. Chrysostom’s exegesis (nor the sense in which I take his words) as contradicting Sts. Augustine and Bede. What is happening in John 21:15-17 is the fulfillment of what Christ promised in (Mt. 16:18-19) (Source: haydock1859.tripod.com/id114.html)

I will cite the passage again:

St. John Chrysostom:

“’He says unto him, Feed My sheep.’

And why, having passed by the others, does He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus puts into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He brings not forward the denial, nor reproaches him with what had taken place, but says, ‘If you love Me, preside over your brethren, and the warm love which you ever manifested, and in which you rejoiced, show thou now; and the life which you said you would lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.’” (Homily 88)

Source: newadvent.org/fathers/240188.htm

You remarked:

“For St. John clearly points out that Christ spoke to Peter because he was the first of the apostles. How nonsensical then, would it be for St. John to have asserted that Christ gave Peter the command to preside over his brethren because Peter was the first among the apostles?”

First, St. John Chrysostom has the benefit of hindsight (and he references also Gal 1:18 here.) Second, like I said, John 21:15-17 is the fulfillment of what Christ promised in (Mt. 16:18-19). Still, I am not quite catching on here, for neither St. John Chrysostom nor I am making this argument. Neither am I saying that that’s St. Chrysostom’s argument, nor does the sense in which I take his words inevitably lead to this. It is clear that according to St. Chrysostom, “…Jesus puts into his * hands the chief authority among the brethren…”

Continued…*

 

[LionHeart777]

That St. Chrysostom sees something bestowed upon St. Peter unique to him alone over and above the other Apostles is born our by his exegesis of Acts Ch. 1. Fr. Dom John Chapman writes:

It is in the Acts of the Apostles that the primacy of St. Peter is seen in exercise. St. Chrysostom’s commentary on the first chapter is very remarkable. I give his words according to the Oxford translation, which renders the “short text” from good manuscripts:

"‘And in those days,’ it says, 'Peter stood up in the midst of the disciples and said: Both as being ardent, and as having been put in trust by Christ of the flock, and as having precedence of honor, he always begins the discourse. (The number of names together were about a hundred and twenty). ‘Men and brethren,’ he says, 'this Scripture must have been fulfilled, which the Holy Ghost spake before, etc. Why did he not ask Christ to give him some one in the room of Judas? It is better as it is. For, in the first place, they were engaged in other things; secondly, of Christ’s presence among them the greatest proof that could be given was this: as He had chosen when He was among them, so did He now being absent. Now this was no small matter for their consolation. But observe how Peter does everything with the common consent, nothing imperiously [Greek from long text]. And he does not speak thus without a meaning. [Long text adds: ‘And he did not simply say, “Instead of Judas, we choose such a one.”’] “But observe how he consoles them concerning what had passed. In fact, what had happened had caused them no small consternation.” (Library of the Fathers, Homilies of St. J. Chrys on the Acts, Oxford 1852, hom 3, page 37; Migne, vol IX, 33[23])

That St. Peter might have been expected to appoint a new apostle without betaking himself to lot, or consulting the brethren, is what strikes St. Chrysostom.
“Wherefore at the beginning he said: ‘Men and brethren, it behoves us to choose from among you.’ He defers the decision to the whole body, thereby making the elected objects of reverence, and himself keeping clear of all invidiousness with regard to the rest…‘Must one be ordained to be a witness,’ that their college [Greek] might not be left mutilated. Then why did it not rest with Peter to make the election himself? What was the motive? This: that he might not seem to bestow it of favor. And, besides, he was not yet endowed with the Spirit. ‘And they appointed two, Joseph, called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias.’ Not he appointed them, but it was he that introduced the proposition to that effect, at the same time pointing out that even this was not his own, but from old time by prophecy, so that he acted as expositor not preceptor.” (ibid Oxford, page 40, Migne, 35-6[25])

“Again consider the moderation of James. He it was who received the bishopric of Jerusalem, and here he says nothing. Mark, also, the great moderation of the other apostles, how they concede the throne to him [James] and no longer dispute with each other.” (ibid Oxford, page 42, Migne, 36[26])

“Here is forethought for providing a teacher; here was the first who was ordained a teacher. He did not say: ‘We are sufficient.’ So far was he beyond all vain glory, and he looked to one thing alone. And yet he had the same power to ordain as they all collectively. [3] But well might these things be done in this fashion, through the noble spirit of the man, and in regard that prelacy [Greek] then was not an affair of dignity, but of provident care for the governed. This neither made the elected to become elated, for it was to dangers that they were called, nor those not elected to make a grievance of it, as if they were disgraced. But things are not done in that fashion now; nay, quite the contrary. For observe they were a hundred and twenty, and he asks for one out of the whole body; with good right, as having been put in charge of them [Benedictine text has different Greek here]; for to him Christ had said: ‘And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren’.” (Oxford, page 42, Migne, 37[26])

Thus, if we prefer the Benedictine text, we have a rhetorical question with its answer: “Could Peter not have appointed Matthias himself? Of course he could.” If we prefer the short text, we have a plain statement, “And yet he had the same power to appoint as they all collectively.”

I know no more emphatic testimony to the supreme jurisdiction of St. Peter in any writer, ancient or modern, than the view taken in this homily of the election of St. Matthias, for I know of no act of jurisdiction in the Church more tremendous than the appointment of an apostle.

Further, I will venture to say that perhaps St. John Chrysostom goes too far. Would it not be more natural to think that Christ only can make an apostle, and that it was because the eleven knew this, that they did not venture to elect one, but chose two, asking for a direct intervention of the Divine Head of the Church in so great a matter?

And, I ask, will anyone venture, after considering the last sentence of the passage quoted, to maintain that the apostles were excluded from the “brethren” over whom Peter was told to rule? [Greek given]

Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm (Blue mine, and some emphasis removed in the cut & paste)

Continued…

 

[LionHeart777]

Back to our original citation from St. John Chrysostom on Jn 21:15-17 (which I believe Fr. Chapman refers back to at the very end of the aforementioned citation), The Catholic Encyclopedia comments:

“Even certain Protestant commentators frankly own that Christ undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter. But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (‘In Joan.’ 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter in the Apostolic commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture … …to suggest that St. Peter had forfeited his Apostolic commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection he received the same Apostolic powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants regarding this text.”

Source: Joyce, George. “The Pope.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 12. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 26 Oct. 2013 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm.

Sorry for that lengthy citation from Dom Chapman and for the lengthy posts

[Edit:]

I’ll cite of my commentaries on Jn 21:15-17 real quick to make a final point:

“15-17. The traditional interpretation, that the Lord’s threefold question demanding a threefold profession of love is to correspond to Peter’s threefold denial, is doubtless correct. Do you love me more than these? : The question is artfully phrased, and Peter proves equal to the test. Previously he had been serenely confident of himself…now he will assume nothing to himself nor will he pretend to compare his love with any other’s, but he humbly asserts what the Lord already knows concerning his love. Two different words are used for ‘love’ in this passage, but in Jn they have been used consistently as synonyms; similarly, probably no distinction is intended in the use of the words ‘lambs’ and ‘sheep.’ Feed my sheep: Christ concedes his own office of Shepherd to Peter (10:4, 27; cf. Acts 20:28; I Pt 2:25, 5:2-4).”

Brown, Raymond E. , S.S., et. Al, “The Jerome Biblical Commentary” , Prentice Hall, Inc. Eaglewood Cliffs, N.J. : 1968. Pg. 465.

Thus the recognition “that the Lord’s threefold question demanding a threefold profession of love is to correspond to Peter’s threefold denial” is not inconsistent with the interpretation that “Christ concedes his own office of Shepherd to Peter”

I’ll give you the last word as I didn’t care to carry on for very long and don’t care to.

-Nick