Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[Randy_Carson]

No, the pope’s infallibility spreads further than just two cases (where did you get that number?). I asked because I have seen some Eastern Orthodox deny the infallibility of the Church.

If you accept infallibility, how is something known by the Church to have been decided infallibly? Either it is a minimal solution, the pope, or a maximal solution, the universal acceptance of the entire body faithful, which seems to be the EO position. If we consider this from the perspective of practicality, the papacy is a more suitable principle because the principle is definite and discernible. Relying on the acceptance of the whole body of the faithful is a question-begging method because the identity of the faithful is uncertain and the fact of universal acceptance is impossible to verify. What good is infallibility if you can’t discern it? If the infallibility of the Church is to be maintained by the EO, it will have to better explained than it has been to me in popular EO apologetics.

“Whatever you loose on earth is also loosed in heaven; whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven.”

The word “whatever” in this context is truly breathtaking, isn’t it?

And yet, it is precisely to one man, Peter, that Jesus gives such awesome authority and responsibilty. That is why we know that the Holy Spirit takes an active role in protecting the one flock from the vicarious shepherd through the charism of infallibility.

 

[spina1953]

I would like to add to Randy’s post on Acts: that Luke in Acts concerning the Council of Jerusalem, that Lukes presents the event of the Council handled two issues: circumcision and the dietary problems. he has done this so that he might stress the break with Judaism without any conditions being laid on Gentile converts by Aposttolic college of Jerusalem. Luke presents Peter as the one whose voice prevails in the question of circumcision through an appeal to his experience ( the Cornelius episode), James as the influencial figure who decides the issue of dietary regulations. The Jerusalem Council also it seems to me decides to recognize officially the evanelization of the Gentiles, which was initiated by first Peter, then Paul and Barnabas, which causes the Christian Church to officially break out of its Jewish matrix. Here also in Lukes account of the event that James is refuring to Peter, and making a decision for the whole of the Council. there seems to me to be two groups, the Apostles and their deciples and the Converted Pharissees who were arguing that Gentile converts must be circumisised before becoming Christian and also that they cannot eat meat (pork )etc. as part of the deitary laws. Othewise they cannot be admitted as Christians. The reason why the Council decides is based on what Peter has to say about the events that called into question the council was called in the first place. The ruling of the council is based on Peter’s discourse.

 

[dcointin]

Where do the fathers speak of a primacy of honor apart from jurisdiction?

 

[GaryTaylor]

1.It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men; which men, if they discharged their functions honestly, would be a great boon [to the Church], but if they should fall away, the direst calamity.

2.Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say, ] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. St Irenaeus

“For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority”

I didn’t see the word “honor” in there?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople: Father of Monothelitism

Patriarch Sergius I of Constantinople was the driving force behind this doctrine, with the full blessing of the Emperor Heraclius. Coming to the imperial throne in 610, the patriarch had long since converted the emperor to the new doctrine, as by 622, Heraclius had communicated with Bishop Paul of Armenia where the emperor asserted that the energy, or the active force, of Christ was single. This doctrine of Monoenergism was the precursor of Monotheletism.

Heraclius’ interest at the time was focused on Armenia, and it was probably at this time that the emperor decided to use Monothelitism as a political weapon and reconcile the Non-Chalcedonian Church of Armenia with the Imperial Church.] To help bring this about, a synod was held in 622 at Theodosiopolis, called the Synod of Garin where Monoenergism was discussed. Over the next few years Heraclius was preoccupied with his prosecution of the war against the Sassanids, but by 626 he had issued a decree to Arcadius, Bishop of Cyprus, requesting that he teach the doctrine of “one hegumenic energy”. By all accounts this was met with notable success, particularly as there was a large colony of Armenians on the island at that time, and this encouraged Heraclius to attempt to seek a wider approval of his compromise. In 626, he asked Patriarch Sergius to approach Cyrus, Bishop of Phasis, to secure his cooperation.

With the successful conclusion to the Persian war, Heraclius could devote more time to promoting his compromise, which was now more urgent due to the administration of the recovered Monophysite provinces of Syria and Egypt. So in 629, a meeting took place between the emperor and Athanasius the Jacobite at Hierapolis. An agreement was struck whereby the Jacobites were to return to the Imperial Church on the basis of the single energy doctrine, and Athanasius was to be madePatriarch of Antioch. Then in 630, Bishop Cyrus was made Patriarch of Alexandria, and he soon won over another Non-Chalcedonian group. Very soon three of the five Patriarchates – Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria – were teaching about Christ’s “one theandric energy”.

Not everyone was convinced, in particular a monk of Palestine named Sophronius, who believed there was something unsound in the doctrine. Because of this, he became the champion of Dyothelitism – the doctrine of the two wills of Christ. He was concerned that for the sake of ecclesiastical unity, doctrinal expressions were being compromised. For the first few years Patriarch Sergius of Constantinople managed to keep him silent, but when Sophronius was appointed Patriarch of Jerusalem in 634, he used his newfound position of authority to challenge the validity of the doctrine of Monoenergism.

Determined to prevent this formidable challenge to his Christological compromise, Sergius wrote to the Patriarch of the West, Pope Honorius I, at Rome, asking him to endorse a position that Church unity should not be endangered by having any discussions or disputes over Christ’s possessing one energy or two. Pope Honorius’ reply in 635 not only endorsed this view that all discussions should cease, but he also agreed with the doctrine of Monoenergism. Although Honorius himself agreed with Sergius’ formula, he did not define it as dogma using his papal authority. In the meantime the epistola synodica of Sophronius appeared, the outcome of the Synod of Cyprus, and this attempted to show that the new doctrine was inconsistent with orthodoxy. He declared that it was nothing more than a bastardized form of Monophysitism, and consequently it went against the hard fought achievements at Chalcedon. Suddenly, support for the doctrine began to subside and soon former supporters were busy finding flaws and inconsistencies in the proposal. Soon, Sergius and Heraclius abandoned it as a doctrine.

Yet Sergius and the emperor refused to give up. Three years later the patriarch came up with a slightly modified formula, which Heraclius released as the Ecthesis in 638. This edict was considered to be the official response to Sophronius’ letter. It forbade all mention of Christ possessing one or two energies; instead, it now proclaimed that Christ, while possessing two natures, had but a single will. This approach seemed to be a more acceptable compromise, and once again it secured widespread support throughout the East. Sophronius had died before the release of the new doctrine, and his replacement as Patriarch of Jerusalem approved the modified formula. Patriarch Sergius died by the end of 638, and his replacement Pyrrhus was also a devoted Monothelite and a close friend of Heraclius. The two remaining patriarchs in the East also gave their approval to the doctrine now referred to as Monothelitism, and so it looked as if Heraclius would finally heal the divisions in the imperial church.

Unfortunately he had not counted on the popes at Rome. During that same year of 638, Pope Honorius I too had died. His successor Pope Severinus condemned the Ecthesis outright, and so was forbidden his seat until 640. His successor Pope John IV also rejected the doctrine completely, leading to a major schism between the eastern and western halves of the Chalcedonian Church. When news reached Heraclius of the Pope’s condemnation, he was already old and ill, and the news only hastened his death, declaring with his dying breath that the controversy was all due to Sergius, and that the patriarch had pressured him to give his unwilling approval to the Ecthesis.

 

[prodromos]

“Whatever you loose on earth is also loosed in heaven; whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven.”

The word “whatever” in this context is truly breathtaking, isn’t it?

And yet, it is precisely to one man, Peter, that Jesus gives such awesome authority and responsibilty. That is why we know that the Holy Spirit takes an active role in protecting the one flock from the vicarious shepherd through the charism of infallibility.

What is truly breathtaking is the above statement in the light of Matthew 18:18, where Christ gives this same authority to all the disciples.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is truly breathtaking is the above statement in the light of Matthew 18:18, where Christ gives this same authority to all the disciples.

But there is “no” mention of Keys? Here look…

KIng James
Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.

American King James Version
Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

American Standard Version
Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Darby Bible Translation
Verily I say to you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven.

English Revised Version
Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Maybe its in the Bible you have?

 

[prodromos]

John Chrysostom on Peter’s Universal Jurisdiction (and Keys)

And now we are back to the selective quote mines ripped from their context. You do with the Fathers what many Protestants do with Scripture.

 

[Peter_J]

What is truly breathtaking is the above statement in the light of Matthew 18:18, where Christ gives this same authority to all the disciples.

True. However, it seems to me that just as we Catholics have a slightly tendency to ignore the latter verse, Orthodox have a slight tendency to ignore the former.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And now we are back to the selective quote mines ripped from their context. You do with the Fathers what many Protestants do with Scripture.

Uh, Uh lets not go there, that sounds like the Mary had to die dilemma, double standard again, I would venture to say that is indeed “protestant”?

Charity we are seeking the TRUTH! And for “everyone” so the truth could then permeated our lost brothers and sisters minds. Not division having the reverse effect, which is indeed what I see.

The protestant issue effecting orthodoxy is all of our problems. Not hard to tell. And mind you they are not all lost, there’s some very good Christians seeking Church Unity.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Orthodox Christian doctrine does teach that the Church is infallible. Infallibility is not verified by a legalistic process. It is verified by the Holy Tradition, which is the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit. A council is an Ecumenical Council when it is received and accepted by the Church as were the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I believe that it is a serious mistake to give one man the power to make infallible statements that are not subject to review by the Church as are papal decrees. There is no doubt that the ancient Popes had no such authority. Even an important decree like the Tomb of Leo had to be studied and approved by the Council of Chalcedon before it was considered an infallible statement of the dogma of the Church.

Doesn’t this devolve into might makes right? How are we to determine the acceptance of the council by the Church. The non-Chalcedonians never accepted Chalcedon. Maybe they are the true Church alone. Maybe both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians are part of the true Church, and Chalcedon has not made its way into the life of the whole Church and, therefore, is not an ecumenical council. This is especially problematic when modern ecumenical efforts say that these people were never heretics in the first place. How can such matters be decided definitively? Moreover, where did the idea of an infallible ecumenical council come from? Not Scripture. Not Apostolic Tradition either, because the first one was not held until the Fourth Century. I also don’t see how ecumenical councils factor in as an organ of infalliblity. I am inclined to believe that there ought to be a simpler principle of unity than the decisions of an arbitrary collection of bishops as ratified by a seemingly arbitray set of the faithful (the “orthodox” faithful).

Secondly, I think your notion of papal infallibility is skewed because I am not aware of any instance in which the pope has made infallible statements apart from the bishops.

 

[prodromos]

But there is “no” mention of Keys?

There was no mention of keys in Randy’s post either, simply the authority to bind and loose. Does this mean that you now support the notion that the authority to bind and loose implies holding the keys?

 

[Randy_Carson]

But there is “no” mention of Keys? Here look…

KIng James
Verily I say unto you, whatsoever you shall bind on earth shall be what has been bound in heaven: and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be what has been loosed in heaven.

American King James Version
Truly I say to you, Whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

American Standard Version
Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Douay-Rheims Bible
Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

Darby Bible Translation
Verily I say to you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on the earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever ye shall loose on the earth shall be loosed in heaven.

English Revised Version
Verily I say unto you, What things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Maybe its in the Bible you have?

 

[Randy_Carson]

There was no mention of keys in Randy’s post either, simply the authority to bind and loose. Does this mean that you now support the notion that the authority to bind and loose implies holding the keys?

The word being highlighted was “whatever”. Some folks just don’t get how all-inclusive that word is and just how much authority was invested in Peter and the Apostles.

However, it is correct to say that only Peter received the keys; the Church has them now because they were given to the head of the Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What is truly breathtaking is the above statement in the light of Matthew 18:18, where Christ gives this same authority to all the disciples.

Ah…I mentally made the connection between Peter, the keys and the office of the Royal Steward from Is. 22:20-22 and neglected to connect the dots for everyone else.

 

[dzheremi]

Doesn’t this devolve into might makes right? How are we to determine the acceptance of the council by the Church. The non-Chalcedonians never accepted Chalcedon. Maybe they are the true Church alone. Maybe both Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians are part of the true Church, and Chalcedon has not made its way into the life of the whole Church and, therefore, is not an ecumenical council.

Dear Roman Catholics everywhere (but especially on CAF, where I see this exact argument reoccur over and over),

Please, please stop bringing up the non-Chalcedonian Orthodox in your arguments with the Byzantine Chalcedonians. You guys agree on that council, so you don’t get to turn around later and say “But what about this one?”, as though you actually doubt it. Are you converting to Oriental Orthodoxy? No? Then stop it. You’re not making a point. You’re only irritating me. We don’t accept Chalcedon or your supposed Papal prerogatives, and the attempt to defend one by bringing up the other is really annoying and wrong.

I am inclined to believe that there ought to be a simpler principle of unity than the decisions of an arbitrary collection of bishops as ratified by a seemingly arbitray set of the faithful (the “orthodox” faithful).

It worked for Rome in those days, and for some time afterwards.

 

[Randy_Carson]

And now we are back to the selective quote mines ripped from their context. You do with the Fathers what many Protestants do with Scripture.

Then show me the full context of the passages and provide explanations as to how the quotes do NOT mean that Peter was head of the universal church.

Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There was no mention of keys in Randy’s post either, simply the authority to bind and loose. Does this mean that you now support the notion that the authority to bind and loose implies holding the keys?

According to non-Catholic commentators William F. Albright and C.S. Mann:

“Isaiah 22:15ff undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority, and Roland de Vaux Ancient Israel, tr. by John McHugh, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1961] rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain, of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is described as having the same authority in Isaiah; it was Hilkiah’s position until he was ousted, and Jotham as regent is also described as ‘over the household’ [2 Kings 15:5]…It is of considerable importance that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are being discussed [cf. Matt 18:18; John 20:23] the symbol of the keys is absent, since the sayings apply in those instances to a wider circle…The role of Peter as steward of the Kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority, as was the case of the OT chamberlain who held the ‘keys.’ The clauses ‘on earth,’ ‘in heaven’, have reference to the permanent character of the steward’s work.” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew, page 196-197)

 

[prodromos]

Then show me the full context of the passages and provide explanations as to how the quotes do NOT mean that Peter was head of the universal church.

Thanks.

Forgive me, now it is me mentally joining the dots and assuming you were posting these quotes as if they supported your beliefs regarding the papacy. I have absolutely no problem with what St John Chrysostom says of blessed Apostle Peter. Do you have a problem with what he says of the blessed Apostles James, John and Paul?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Forgive me, now it is me mentally joining the dots and assuming you were posting these quotes as if they supported your beliefs regarding the papacy. I have absolutely no problem with what St John Chrysostom says of blessed Apostle Peter. Do you have a problem with what he says of the blessed Apostles James, John and Paul?

I did post them in support of my understanding of the universal jurisdiction of the papacy, and it is my contention that John Chrysostom viewed Peter as having that jurisdiction.

However, you suggested that I had taken these quotes out of context - the implication being that I had used them improperly as a Protestant might misuse scripture. So, if that is what you believe, please show me my error. If not, cool.

Now, do you have quotes suggesting that ol’ Chrys thought that ALL of the apostles had universal jurisdiction?