Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

  • Thread starter Thread starter Randy_Carson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What fathers explicitly deny that it was St. Peter’s confession?
An argument from silence. You want me to search the Fathers for explicit passages where they clear up a misconception that I believe none of them had?
Other fathers do remark that St. Peter is also the rock. But this must be understood, as Pope St. Leo remarks in his fourth sermon, as pointing to the unity of the Church in Peter. For the keys of heaven and the power to bind and loose are shared by all pastors of the Church but were given to Peter in a unique way (the implication being that he received the power first) in order to commend the unity of the Church. St. Augustine agrees with this idea in his exegesis of John 21, remarking that Christ speaks to Peter alone not because the other Apostles were not meant to feed his sheep, but in order to commend the unity of the Apostles and the Church. The primacy of Peter, at least according to these exegetes is not in the giving of special prerogatives above what the Apostles themselves were also given, but in Christ giving these powers to him first in order to commend the unity of the Church.
All well and good until you recall that Jesus said, “Satan has asked to sift ALL of you (the Greek here is plural), but I have prayed for you (the Greek here is singular) that you may strengthen your brothers.” Consequently, the universal role of Peter was to strengthen the other apostles and bishops wherever their travels took them and to be the rock upon which the Church was built wherever that might be. No other apostle comes close to these “special prerogatives.”
I do not agree with the type of development of doctrines which would be necessary for this syllogism to work. The way we reflect upon revelation can change and attain greater precision, but nothing itself can be added by rational thought to revelation itself. The deposit of faith can never be increased by any process of development
I understand you do not agree, but we are agreed on the rest of this.
 
Yes, so which group of “really smart people” are we to look to? For there were also plenty of “really smart” heretics.
The really smart people led by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Hello?

The Orthodox Church doesn’t consider itself infallible, does it?
 
Randy Carson;Because God cannot allow His Church to teach error.

I RESPOND: I agree, but I do not agree with your assumption that the Roman Catholic Church is the true Church. I recognize the Eastern Orthodox Church as the true Church or I would not be Eastern Orthodox. My studies of church history have convinced me that the Eastern Orthodox Church has maintained without change or corruption the Faith of the ancient Church. I can show the growth of the papacy historically as a departure from the Faith and practices of the ancient undivided Church.

Weren’t these same sees the ones that were constantly embracing one heresy after the other? And you look to them for orthodoxy with regard to the papacy?

I RESPOND: The Eastern Patriarchs who embraced heresy or were corrupt, were all removed by the Church acting through a local or Ecumenical Council. There is no way for the Roman Catholic Church to remove a Pope because you have given the Popes too much power and authority. In our system a Patriarch is answerable to the Holy Synod of his patriarchate as well as to the other Patriarchs. There is no accountability of a Pope to the rest of your Church.
There have been plenty of corrupt and power hungry Popes. Alexander VI was not exactly an example of true Christian morality. I do not believe that it was good for the Western Church for its leader to become a secular prince as the Popes became when they became the rulers over Rome and central Italy. It is not faithful to the teachings of Christ for a Bishop to field armies and led troops in war as some of the Popes did. Was not Julius II called the “Warrior Pope?” How is it healthy for the Church to be led by a warrior? In the Eastern Orthodox Church no Priest or Bishop is allowed to bear arms. If an Orthodox Priest or Bishop kills someone, he is automatically removed from office.

Unless, of course, it was ACTUALLY there, but you have interpreted it according to your own presuppositions.

And Roman Catholics do not interpret history and the Holy Scriptures according to their own presuppositions? Just like a Baptist or a Calvinists you have your proof texts which you take out of context to prove your point of view. So far, only two sections of the Bible have been given as justification for the powers of the Pope, St. Matthew 16: 17-1, and St. John 21:15-19. It seems to me that if papal supremacy were so important it would be clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures throughout the New Testament, not in two passages, that can be interpreted differently than Roman Catholics. For example, the rock upon which Christ would build His Church is the Faith confessed by St. Peter, not St. Peter himself. The triple questions asked by Christ in John was his restoration to Apostleship after his triple denial of Christ.

Fr. John, I see this all the time in my discussions with Protestants…they have spent their whole lives assuming one thing about John 6, and then by the mercy of God, it hits them one day like a ton of bricks - Jesus really is talking about his flesh being real food. But before that, they sail past those verses a million times never assuming anything other than a metaphorical meaning.

I RESPOND: Roman Catholics are just like Protestants. Instead of following the Holy Tradition of the ancient Church which enshrined the conciliar system of polity, you have let your Church become an absolute monarchy led by one man, who is not accountable to the rest of your Church. If a Pope makes a bad or theologically unsound decision, you have no safety valve to overrule the bad or theologically unsound decision. We have such a safety valve through our conciliar system. A Patriarch can be overruled by the Holy Synod of his patriarchate or, if necessary, by a pan-Orthodox council. I can show that the conciliar system was the system adopted by the ancient undivided Church in which all important decisions were made by councils, not papal decree. The best that you can do is argue that the papacy is a matter of development of doctrine. If it were truly a matter of a legitimate development of doctrine, it would have been accepted by all 5 ancient Patriarchates, not just by one, the one who benefits by this supposedly development of doctrine by claiming universal power for himself.

Fr. John
 
Ah. I forgot. You are in the camp which believes that Catholics are of a different faith than true Christians.
But then faithful Roman Catholics do not hesitate to say the same to Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, that there are elements of their faith which are not true. Is such indignation—in response to our understanding that certain beliefs of Roman Catholics (such as the Son being the cause of the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit and Papal Infallibility) are false and departures from the faith—really justified? What meaningful dialogue can there be if we do not discuss our differences, but content ourselves only on the fact that we agree on many points of doctrine?
Tell me, are any Catholics saved? Or will only Orthodox be in heaven?
There is no guarantee of salvation for those outside of the Church. That is the patristic teaching going all the way back to St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, and others. I only know that salvation is offered in the Church, and that those outside are left to the mercy of God. In accordance with the fathers, I believe that being outside of the Church is not inherently salvific, but rather that those outside of the Church, if they are saved, are saved by the mercy of God and by virtue of the Church herself, and not by virtue of the sacraments and rites performed outside of the Church. To quote St. Augustine:
“Outside the Catholic Church, is is possible to have everything except salvation. It is possible to have honor, it is posible to have Sacraments, it is possible to sing Alleluia, it is possible to respond Amen, it is possible to have the Gospel, it is posible to have faith and preach in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: but never has it been possible to find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
(St. Augustine, Sermon to the People of the Caesarean Church, ch. 6)
 
Because God cannot allow His Church to teach error.
And I could show you that a mighty oak tree is the same organism that sprouted as an acorn 100 years earlier. But since God cannot allow His Church to teach error, and since Peter is the final court of appeal for doctrinal disputes, then God cannot allow Peter to teach error.

Now, before you go rushing into another of your long explanations of the 7 Ecumenical Councils, just recall that God speaks to us in various ways. If the popes (or emperors) have called councils to consult with their brother bishops, then the popes may have heard God speaking through them. Balaam heard God speaking through an ***, didn’t he?
Weren’t these same sees the ones that were constantly embracing one heresy after the other? And you look to them for orthodoxy with regard to the papacy?
I RESPOND: The Eastern Patriarchs who embraced heresy or were corrupt, were all removed by the Church acting through a local or Ecumenical Council. There is no way for the Roman Catholic Church to remove a Pope because you have given the Popes too much power and authority. In our system a Patriarch is answerable to the Holy Synod of his patriarchate as well as to the other Patriarchs. There is no accountability of a Pope to the rest of your Church.
There have been plenty of corrupt and power hungry Popes. Alexander VI was not exactly an example of true Christian morality. I do not believe that it was good for the Western Church for its leader to become a secular prince as the Popes became when they became the rulers over Rome and central Italy. It is not faithful to the teachings of Christ for a Bishop to field armies and led troops in war as some of the Popes did. Was not Julius II called the “Warrior Pope?” How is it healthy for the Church to be led by a warrior? In the Eastern Orthodox Church no Priest or Bishop is allowed to bear arms. If an Orthodox Priest or Bishop kills someone, he is automatically removed from office.

Have you never heard of the Church Militant, Father? 😛

Ah, but seriously, there were some very corrupt popes. Happily, they were so busy sinning they never had time to worry about attempting to define doctrine. Papal infallibility was preserved! :dancing:
Unless, of course, it was ACTUALLY there, but you have interpreted it according to your own presuppositions.
And Roman Catholics do not interpret history and the Holy Scriptures according to their own presuppositions? Just like a Baptist or a Calvinists you have your proof texts which you take out of context to prove your point of view. So far, only two sections of the Bible have been given as justification for the powers of the Pope, St. Matthew 16: 17-1, and St. John 21:15-19. It seems to me that if papal supremacy were so important it would be clearly taught in the Holy Scriptures throughout the New Testament, not in two passages, that can be interpreted differently than Roman Catholics. For example, the rock upon which Christ would build His Church is the Faith confessed by St. Peter, not St. Peter himself. The triple questions asked by Christ in John was his restoration to Apostleship after his triple denial of Christ.

Only two verses? Father, you need to spend more time in the apologetics subforum. 😛

(cont.)
 
Just for reference, below is an excerpt from the Catholic Encyclopedia entry on St John Chrysostom
It is true that Chrysostom has some strange passages on our Blessed Lady (see Newman, “Certain difficulties felt by Anglicans in Catholic Teachings”, London, 1876, pp. 130 sqq.), that he seems to ignore private confession to a priest, that there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.
 
Fr. John, I see this all the time in my discussions with Protestants…they have spent their whole lives assuming one thing about John 6, and then by the mercy of God, it hits them one day like a ton of bricks - Jesus really is talking about his flesh being real food. But before that, they sail past those verses a million times never assuming anything other than a metaphorical meaning.
I RESPOND: Roman Catholics are just like Protestants. Instead of following the Holy Tradition of the ancient Church which enshrined the conciliar system of polity, you have let your Church become an absolute monarchy led by one man, who is not accountable to the rest of your Church. If a Pope makes a bad or theologically unsound decision, you have no safety valve to overrule the bad or theologically unsound decision. We have such a safety valve through our conciliar system. A Patriarch can be overruled by the Holy Synod of his patriarchate or, if necessary, by a pan-Orthodox council. I can show that the conciliar system was the system adopted by the ancient undivided Church in which all important decisions were made by councils, not papal decree. The best that you can do is argue that the papacy is a matter of development of doctrine. If it were truly a matter of a legitimate development of doctrine, it would have been accepted by all 5 ancient Patriarchates, not just by one, the one who benefits by this supposedly development of doctrine by claiming universal power for himself.

Fr. John

Well, you might be right. However, as I have been reflecting upon our dialogue over the past couple of months, I can’t help but see a lot of parallels between the Orthodox and the SSPX. Both groups are steadfastly clinging to the past, resisting change for the sake of their traditions, and denying the papacy as we see it today. These must be common elements that appeal to certain people.
 
Thank you, Cavaradossi. I was aware of the distinction. And YOU are aware that Catholics AGREE that nothing can be added to the faith?
Yes, but I do not think that the Latins have always been so faithful to this principle.
I asked this before, but I do not know if I received a response: Consider the following:
  1. Mary is the Mother of Jesus.
  2. Jesus is God.
  3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God. (I know you prefer theotokos and have some slight differences on this, but just play along, okay? Make whatever transpositions you need to for the sake of discussion.)
Now, the apostles would have known one and two for sure. Do you think they would have arrived at three during their lifetimes? And if not, would this be considered a development or an addition?
The title Theotokos is not an addition, but it is a development (in the sense Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky uses the term), for it does not add a new conclusion to the deposit of faith, but rather, it functions as a dogmatic formula which gives a concise exposition of faith (as do other dogmata such as two natures, one incarnate nature of the word of God, two wills, the veneration of icons, etc.) The approach given here is in fact backwards. We do not work with the deposit of revelation as a sort of set of data from which we then can syllogistically derive new a new datum (in the manner of the syllogism above). Rather we develop new terminologies to describe what was already known to the Apostles. I think in fact that one cannot but claim that the Apostles were not ignorant both of the principle of the divine motherhood (i.e., the special gift that the All-holy Theotokos was given to be the mother of the Word) and the principle that the Word is divine. The devotional and dogmatic title Theotokos comments here on both of these principles at once. It is not in fact a new datum or truth which can then be added to the deposit of faith, but a dogmatic formula which calls to mind two truths which were known before the title was widespread, and which exposes those who refuse to confess it as deniers of those truths.
But recall that one voice is constantly denying that doctrine develops and that Orthodox doctrine is “enshrined”. Well, the last couple of shrines I visited contained dead bodies, and I was castigated for referencing this ossification when I quoted Soloviev elsewhere.
How terrible that you think your shrines contain merely dead bodies. Our shrines contain the bodily remains of very living saints (which is why I suppose many relics have a reputation for miracle-working), for our God is a God of the living, not of the dead. If my memory serves me, you have been castigated (by some otherwise rather gentle and mild-mannered posters too, like Ryan Black), frankly, because you seem not to have done much research at all on Eastern theology (of any era, so it seems), so your claims then rightfully sound quite hollow, because while you can repeat Solovyov’s discontentment with Orthodoxy until the end of the universe (I’ll address Solovyov in a second), you offer no good reasons for why Solovyov’s criticisms were justified.
Was Soloviev wrong?
He was very wrong. Solovyov’s philosophical views were inimical to the spirit of Orthodoxy and of Christianity, which led him to beliefs like the belief that Christianity was not the only true religion, but rather the most true of religions (all of which were true in his syncretic system), and that we were to attain to higher knowledge of God than our predecessors through philosophy and a process of continually attempting to perfect our knowledge of God (essentially, the bad kind of doctrinal development in which one can add to the deposit of faith). Essentially, Solovyov had created a syncretic Sophiological system which valued doctrinal development very highly, and this led him to criticize the “ossification” of Orthodox theology. The Orthodox were frankly right to reject his ideas.
 
The really smart people led by the Holy Spirit into all truth. Hello?

The Orthodox Church doesn’t consider itself infallible, does it?
The Church can never be overcome by an heretical confession of faith, according to the promise of Christ, and thus, we believe the Church to be indefectible.
 
How terrible that you think your shrines contain merely dead bodies. Our shrines contain the bodily remains of very living saints (which is why I suppose many relics have a reputation for miracle-working), for our God is a God of the living, not of the dead.
Amusing. However, although the saints are living, their bodies are quite dead. My words were chosen carefully after many years of debating Bible Only Christians. 😉

FWIW, I frequently use a similar argument to explain prayer to the saints - though naturally proved from scripture and articulated more clearly this way:

The Saints Can Hear Our Prayers Proved From Scripture

1. Jesus teaches from the Old Testament


“Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the account of the bush, how God said to him, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are badly mistaken!” (Mark 12:26-27)

In this teaching, Jesus tells us plainly that the Father is the God of the living.

2. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by parable

"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores. "The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’ But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’ He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’ Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’ He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”(Luke 16:19-31)

In this parable, Jesus has two of the “dead” characters in his story talking with one another, and one of the “dead” men intercedes on behalf of his living relatives.

3. Speaking with the “Dead” - Jesus teaches by personal example

“After six days Jesus took with him Peter, James and John the brother of James, and led them up a high mountain by themselves. There he was transfigured before them. His face shone like the sun, and his clothes became as white as the light. Just then there appeared before them Moses and Elijah, talking with Jesus.” (Matthew 17:1-3)

At the transfiguration, Jesus was talking with two “dead” people, Moses and Elijah. They’re actually alive, though. Of course, as God, Jesus did not need to speak face to face with Moses and Elijah, but because Jesus was also fully human, it makes sense that they would appear to him in a way that his human senses could understand.

4. Speaking to the dead – Peter teaches by example

“Peter sent them all out of the room; then he got down on his knees and prayed. Turning toward the dead woman, he said, “Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. He took her by the hand and helped her to her feet. Then he called the believers and the widows and presented her to them alive.” (Acts 9:40-41)

5. Those in Heaven Hear Our Prayers - John teaches through prophetic revelation

“He came and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” (Revelation 5:7-8)

The 24 elders in heaven are men, and notice that they each have a golden bowl full of the prayers of the saints. That’s us since we’re all saints! So, how did they get hold of our prayers in order to offer them to God?

“Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all the saints, on the golden altar before the throne.” (Revelation 8:3)

Here, an angel also offers our prayers along with incense.
 
The Church can never be overcome by an heretical confession of faith, according to the promise of Christ, and thus, we believe the Church to be indefectible.
Well, I don’t believe that God has allowed His Church built upon the rock to be overcome by heresy; however, smaller portions of it have hived off into different directions while making all sorts of claims.

But we’re back to mere assertions, aren’t we?
 
He was very wrong. Solovyov’s philosophical views were inimical to the spirit of Orthodoxy and of Christianity, which led him to beliefs like the belief that Christianity was not the only true religion, but rather the most true of religions (all of which were true in his syncretic system), and that we were to attain to higher knowledge of God than our predecessors through philosophy and a process of continually attempting to perfect our knowledge of God (essentially, the bad kind of doctrinal development in which one can add to the deposit of faith). Essentially, Solovyov had created a syncretic Sophiological system which valued doctrinal development very highly, and this led him to criticize the “ossification” of Orthodox theology. The Orthodox were frankly right to reject his ideas.
Are all religions other than Orthodoxy false? IOW, don’t Hindus and Muslims have a few things right? And if so, doesn’t that make Orthodoxy (or Christianity) the most true and others less true? I don’t see the problem here.

But was he wrong about Orthodoxy refusing to develop? From the testimony of those in this forum who appear to be quite proud of their unchanging doctrine carefully “enshrined”, apparently not.

We may not agree with everything Soloviev believed, but he was on the money here.
 
The title Theotokos is not an addition, but it is a development (in the sense Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky uses the term), for it does not add a new conclusion to the deposit of faith, but rather, it functions as a dogmatic formula which gives a concise exposition of faith (as do other dogmata such as two natures, one incarnate nature of the word of God, two wills, the veneration of icons, etc.) The approach given here is in fact backwards. We do not work with the deposit of revelation as a sort of set of data from which we then can syllogistically derive new a new datum (in the manner of the syllogism above). Rather we develop new terminologies to describe what was already known to the Apostles. I think in fact that one cannot but claim that the Apostles were not ignorant both of the principle of the divine motherhood (i.e., the special gift that the All-holy Theotokos was given to be the mother of the Word) and the principle that the Word is divine. The devotional and dogmatic title Theotokos comments here on both of these principles at once. It is not in fact a new datum or truth which can then be added to the deposit of faith, but a dogmatic formula which calls to mind two truths which were known before the title was widespread, and which exposes those who refuse to confess it as deniers of those truths.
Uh-huh.

🍿

Ever work a jig-saw puzzle, Cav?
 
Okay, guys. I’m gonna take another break from these discussions.

Thanks for your time and thoughts. I continue to learn a lot about the Eastern Church from you.
 
But then faithful Roman Catholics do not hesitate to say the same to Anglicans, Lutherans, and Calvinists, that there are elements of their faith which are not true. Is such indignation—in response to our understanding that certain beliefs of Roman Catholics (such as the Son being the cause of the subsistent being of the Holy Spirit and Papal Infallibility) are false and departures from the faith—really justified? What meaningful dialogue can there be if we do not discuss our differences, but content ourselves only on the fact that we agree on many points of doctrine?
No indignation here. Of course, I wouldn’t tell an Anglican that he was of another faith since through baptism he is joined to the body of Christ. But I know you have your thoughts on Baptism that does not take place in an Orthodox Church.
There is no guarantee of salvation for those outside of the Church. That is the patristic teaching going all the way back to St. Cyprian, St. Augustine, and others. I only know that salvation is offered in the Church, and that those outside are left to the mercy of God. In accordance with the fathers, I believe that being outside of the Church is not inherently salvific, but rather that those outside of the Church, if they are saved, are saved by the mercy of God and by virtue of the Church herself, and not by virtue of the sacraments and rites performed outside of the Church. To quote St. Augustine:
“Outside the Catholic Church, is is possible to have everything except salvation. It is possible to have honor, it is posible to have Sacraments, it is possible to sing Alleluia, it is possible to respond Amen, it is possible to have the Gospel, it is posible to have faith and preach in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: but never has it been possible to find salvation except in the Catholic Church.”
(St. Augustine, Sermon to the People of the Caesarean Church, ch. 6)
Life was simpler then, wasn’t it?

But am I outside the Church because I am Roman Catholic and not Orthodox?
 
Okay, guys. I’m gonna take another break from these discussions.

Thanks for your time and thoughts. I continue to learn a lot about the Eastern Church from you.
 
Ah. So, eternal damnation for me.
Why would you say that?

Salvation can assuredly be found within the bosom of the Church, but we by no means limit God’s mercy. He can save who He will. Plus how can you be certain your faith journey reached its end when you became Catholic? If someone told you a decade ago that you would join the Catholic Church, what would you have thought?
 
Weren’t these same sees the ones that were constantly embracing one heresy after the other? And you look to them for orthodoxy with regard to the papacy?

I RESPOND: The Eastern Patriarchs who embraced heresy or were corrupt, were all removed by the Church acting through a local or Ecumenical Council. There is no way for the Roman Catholic Church to remove a Pope because you have given the Popes too much power and authority. In our system a Patriarch is answerable to the Holy Synod of his patriarchate as well as to the other Patriarchs. There is no accountability of a Pope to the rest of your Church.
There have been plenty of corrupt and power hungry Popes. Alexander VI was not exactly an example of true Christian morality. I do not believe that it was good for the Western Church for its leader to become a secular prince as the Popes became when they became the rulers over Rome and central Italy. It is not faithful to the teachings of Christ for a Bishop to field armies and led troops in war as some of the Popes did. Was not Julius II called the “Warrior Pope?” How is it healthy for the Church to be led by a warrior? In the Eastern Orthodox Church no Priest or Bishop is allowed to bear arms. If an Orthodox Priest or Bishop kills someone, he is automatically removed from office.
Any Catholic worth his salt will readily admit that there have been some spectacular sinners that have occupied the chair of St. Peter. However, do not confuse corruption/sinfulness with heresy. As David Currie wrote:
When we look for confirmation of this doctrine [papal infallibility] in history, we find it. Rome emerges as the only bishopric of the ancient sees that never taught heresy.
Born Fundamentalist Born Again Catholic (p. 91).

Not one Pope, not one, either before or after the Schism has been condemned for formally teaching a heresy.

(Continued below)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top