Catholic-Orthodox Timeline: Bonocore Responds

[LionHeart777]

Finally, Fr. John,

I think the following commentary by St. John Chrysostom and Dom John Chapman’s commentary on his commentary is remarkable:

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? …

Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm

 

[Randy_Carson]

(Emphasis mine)

Notice Fr. John, that St. John Chrysostom did not say what you said; he only affirmed the positive; ‘on the faith of his confession.’ I made this point in another conversation with you, though granted, you have had interactions on many threads with many posters.

Anyway, he Catechism of the Catholic Church itself says:

“424 Moved by the grace of the Holy Spirit and drawn by the Father, we believe in Jesus and confess: 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. On the rock of this faith confessed by St. Peter, Christ built his Church.” (Par. 424) (Emphasis mine)

Yet elsewhere:

“881 The Lord made Simon alone, whom he named Peter, the ‘rock’ of his Church. He gave him the keys of his Church and instituted him shepherd of the whole flock. ‘The office of binding and loosing which was given to Peter was also assigned to the college of apostles united to its head.’ This pastoral office of Peter and the other apostles belongs to the Church’s very foundation and is continued by the bishops under the primacy of the Pope.” (Par. 881) (Emphasis mine)

That is because these two interpretations are complimentary, so long as one doesn’t exclude St. Peter from being the “rock” as you have done. Notice in your citation of St. John Chrysostom, he didn’t do this. In other writings, St. John refers to St. Peter as “’…the unbroken Rock, the unshaken foundation…’ " (De Eleemos III, 4, vol II, 298[300])” or “’…the foundation of the Church’ (Hom 3 in Matt 5, vol VII, 38[42])”

(Source: philvaz.com/apologetics/num52.htm)

Even in the same Homily you cited Fr. John, St. John Chrysostom later says:

“‘Do you see how He Himself leads Peter to a high consideration of Himself, and reveals Himself and shows Himself to be the Son of God by these two promises? For what is proper to God alone, that is, to forgive sins, and to make the Church in so great an onset of waves, and to cause a fisherman to be stronger than any rock, when the whole world wars against him…’” (Homily 54) (Ibid.)

As Dom John Chapman said, regarding the whole series of passages he gices from Homily 54: “I think this passage alone would have made it clear that the Rock is Peter, in St. Chrysostom’s view, as well as, and because of, the firmness of his confession.** He has no idea of the two notions, ‘Peter is the Rock’ and ‘his faith is the Rock’ being mutually exclusive, as, in fact, they are not.** It is equally clear that the promise is understood as granting him an ecumenical jurisdiction in a way which is not given to the other apostles.” (Ibid.) (Emphasis mine).

Death by a thousand quotes.

 

[LionHeart777]

Death by a thousand quotes.

I might’ve got carried away…maybe all weren’t necessary I wanted to drive the point home; the same point you made:

“Sounds like ‘both/and’ and not ‘either/or’ to me, Father.” That’s exactly it!

 

[prodromos]

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?

Way back in the thread I posted a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on St John Chrysostom with an excerpt from the article.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11423660#post11423660

Perhaps you can explain how someone who has obviously studied Chrysostom’s life and works in depth, much moreso than the people who collected your quote mines, came to the opposite conclusion to that which you hold.

I agree with his conclusion because having read just a little of his life, it is clear that St John did not consider what he wrote about Peter as having anything to do with the bishop of Rome.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Sounds like “both/and” and not “either/or” to me, Father. Chrysostom and other fathers sometimes spoke of one and sometime the other interpretation.

This is perfectly acceptable to Catholics because we are not threatened by either view point. But it is truly devastating to the Orthodox position because once it has been admitted that Peter is the rock, then so many implications arise. That’s why you deny the plain reading of the text so vigorously…you can’t afford to let that first domino fall.

Even if Peter is the rock upon which He promises to built His Church, it does not give St. Peter dictatorial authority over the Church. It merely means that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles. For St. Paul tells us that the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles. Ephesians 2:20.
The issue that divides us is not the belief that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles, or even that the Bishop of Rome is the senior Bishop of the Church with a primacy of honor. The issue that divides us is that the modern papacy has exceeded the authority and honor recognized it has having by the ancient Church. Neither the 7 Ecumenical Councils nor the 4 Eastern Patriarchs ever recognized Rome as having the power and authority modern Popes have over the Catholic Church. They only recognized Rome as having a primacy of honor as first among equals like the Ecumenical Patriarch has in Eastern Orthodoxy today.

Fr. John

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hi Jose. I’m Jeremy. It’s nice to meet you.

Nice to meet you as well, Jeremy.

Yes, I’m Orthodox, and we in the Oriental Orthodox communion of which the Coptic Orthodox Church is a part do not accept Chalcedon or subsequent councils of the Byzantines or the Latins.

Gotcha .

My Parish Patron Saint is Judas Thaddeus, probably my main devotional saint. Wasn’t St. Jude one of the Apostles to bring the Gospel to your Church? Armenia?

I pray things are peaceful for your Church in Egypt.

Certainly. He’s the greatest. If you wish, have a listen/read how we venerate him and his partner in evangelism, St. Paul, in the Coptic Orthodox tradition.

Nice! I mean it, very nice chant. Thank you for sharing!

And nice come back as well,

 

[LionHeart777]

Way back in the thread I posted a link to the Catholic Encyclopedia article on St John Chrysostom with an excerpt from the article.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=11423660#post11423660

Perhaps you can explain how someone who has obviously studied Chrysostom’s life and works in depth, much moreso than the people who collected your quote mines, came to the opposite conclusion to that which you hold.

I agree with his conclusion because having read just a little of his life, it is clear that St John did not consider what he wrote about Peter as having anything to do with the bishop of Rome.

Hi prodromos,

While Randy can certainly speak for himself, I don’t see the citation by Dom Chrysostom Baur whom you cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia as contradicting Randy’s contention that: “…it is my contention that John Chrysostom viewed Peter as having that [universal] jurisdiction.” I see the former speaking of St. Peter’s successors in the Roman Pontiffs and for that matter, from what I’ve read of St. John Chrysostom I would agree; “…there is no clear and any direct passage in favour of the primacy of the pope.” (Source) But by 'the pope" I think he means St. Peter’s successors in Rome and not St. Peter himself, for it is hard not to see the Primacy of St. Peter in St. John Chrysostom’s writings (and as Dom John Chapman argues, St. Peter’s Primacy includes jurisdiction for St. John Chrysostom.) Right after Dom Chrysostom Baur makes the comment you cited (which I cut to only include mention of the Papacy), he says, “But it must be remembered that all the respective passages contain nothing positive against the actual Catholic doctrine.” (Source.)

And as far as I can tell (but who am I?) Dom Chrysostom Baur is correct. But that does not contradict the Catholic position as he says.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Even if Peter is the rock upon which He promises to built His Church, it does not give St. Peter dictatorial authority over the Church. It merely means that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles. For St. Paul tells us that the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles. Ephesians 2:20.
The issue that divides us is not the belief that St. Peter was the chief of the Apostles, or even that the Bishop of Rome is the senior Bishop of the Church with a primacy of honor. The issue that divides us is that the modern papacy has exceeded the authority and honor recognized it has having by the ancient Church. Neither the 7 Ecumenical Councils nor the 4 Eastern Patriarchs ever recognized Rome as having the power and authority modern Popes have over the Catholic Church. They only recognized Rome as having a primacy of honor as first among equals like the Ecumenical Patriarch has in Eastern Orthodoxy today.

Fr. John

Dictatorial?

 

[LionHeart777]

Dictatorial?

Yes, Father I recommend reading the following from the Vatican’s website:

“The Pope Exercises Supreme Jurisdiction”

From a General Audience February 24, 1993

Here is an excerpt:

"This does not mean claiming for the Successor of Peter powers like those of the earthly ‘rulers’ of whom Jesus spoke (cf. Mt 20:25-28), but being faithful to the will of the Church’s Founder, who established this type of society and this form of governance to serve the communion in faith and love.

To fulfill Christ’s will, the Successor of Peter must assume and exercise the authority he has received in a spirit of humble service and with the aim of ensuring unity. Even in the various historical ways of exercising that authority, he must imitate Christ in serving and bringing into unity those called to be part of the one fold. He will never subordinate what he has received for Christ and his Church to his own personal aims. He can never forget that the universal pastoral mission must entail a very profound participation in the Redeemer’s sacrifice, in the mystery of the cross.

Regarding his relationship with his brothers in the episcopate, he must remember and apply the words of St. Gregory the Great: ‘My honor is the honor of the universal Church. My honor is the solid strength of my brothers. I am truly honored, then, when each of them is not denied the honor due him’ [1] ."

 

[dzheremi]

My Parish Patron Saint is Judas Thaddeus, probably my main devotional saint. Wasn’t St. Jude one of the Apostles to bring the Gospel to your Church? Armenia?

Yes, St. Thaddeus was one of the evangelists that Armenian tradition says brought Christianity to the Armenians, along with the apostle St. Bartholomew.

 

[LionHeart777]

Yes, St. Thaddeus was one of the evangelists that Armenian tradition says brought Christianity to the Armenians, along with the apostle St. Bartholomew.

I have read this story in Eusebius; that’s why St. Jude Thaddeus is depicted (at least in Western Iconography) with the image of Jesus which he brought to the King of Edessa. Correct?

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dictatorial?

When a person has absolute authority and is subject to no higher power, what else do you call it? Is it not true that the Pope holds all power in the Catholic Church and is unanswerable to any higher authority not even an Ecumenical Council? Is it not true that the Pope has the authority to issue doctrinal proclamations “ex cathedra,” and once he does it no way exists within the Catholic Church to overrule a papal declaration of doctrine “ex cathedra?” There is not even a way to remove a corrupt, incompetent or heretical Pope. My comment was not meant to be an insult. It was meant to be an accurate statement of the authority of the Pope in the Catholic Church.
In the ancient Church a Pope was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council and according to the canons should have been answerable to the Holy Synod of Rome, but now the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council and there is no real functioning Holy Synod in the Patriarchate of the West.
We have a Patriarch, but he must submit to the will of the Metropolitans of the Patriarchate who make up the Holy Synod of Antioch. The Holy Synod can overrule the Patriarch and can even remove a Patriarch. The Patriarch has no authority to unilaterally issue doctrinal declarations, a pan-Orthodox council can issue doctrinal statements, but the proposed doctrinal definition must be sent to the Holy Synods of the autocephalous Churches of Eastern Orthodoxy for approval.

Fr. John

 

[prodromos]

I might’ve got carried away…maybe all weren’t necessary I wanted to drive the point home; the same point you made:

“Sounds like ‘both/and’ and not ‘either/or’ to me, Father.” That’s exactly it!

Simon is Peter, the ‘rock’ because of his confession of faith. However, don’t forget that shortly after being named “Rock” by Christ, he was then called Satan because he was working against the will of God. So it seems to me that being ‘rock’ is conditional on the true confession of faith and being aligned to the will of God.

What do you make of the fact that Jesus only called him Simon after his three time denial? The apostles refer to him as Peter, but Christ is never again recorded calling him that.

 

[Reuben_J]

When a person has absolute authority and is subject to no higher power, what else do you call it? Is it not true that the Pope holds all power in the Catholic Church and is unanswerable to any higher authority not even an Ecumenical Council? Is it not true that the Pope has the authority to issue doctrinal proclamations “ex cathedra,” and once he does it no way exists within the Catholic Church to overrule a papal declaration of doctrine “ex cathedra?” There is not even a way to remove a corrupt, incompetent or heretical Pope. My comment was not meant to be an insult. It was meant to be an accurate statement of the authority of the Pope in the Catholic Church.

Absolutely nonsense and a total lack of understanding of the role of the Pope. This kind of statement is no less than insulting. One of the Papal titles is Servant Of The Servants Of God.

Similarly, the lack of understanding of the usage of ex-cathedra that your post is more of an irritation than anything else.

In the ancient Church a Pope was subject to the authority of an Ecumenical Council and according to the canons should have been answerable to the Holy Synod of Rome, but now the Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is above an Ecumenical Council and there is no real functioning Holy Synod in the Patriarchate of the West.

Another untruth. There was no definition on that either.

 

[Novocastrian]

Absolutely nonsense and a total lack of understanding of the role of the Pope. This kind of statement is no less than insulting. One of the Papal titles is Servant Of The Servants Of God.

Nobody is denying that the Pope tries to be a servant. Those outside the RC communion tend to think highly of Benedict and Francis as servants of the whole Church. But the fact remains that the decrees of the Popes are irreformable; there is nobody with the authority to judge the Roman Pontiff, in any circumstances. Some of us find this problematic.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I am amused to see Fr. Meyendorff quoted in one of the many prooftexts (how juvenile it is to rely on things written by others without first reading them or trying to understand them; I might as well be conversing with one of the news bots which post here at CAF), given that Fr. Meyendorff most definitely did not think that the papal claims as they exist today are the truth.

 

[Reuben_J]

Nobody is denying that the Pope tries to be a servant. Those outside the RC communion tend to think highly of Benedict and Francis as servants of the whole Church. But the fact remains that the decrees of the Popes are irreformable; there is nobody with the authority to judge the Roman Pontiff, in any circumstances. Some of us find this problematic.

One has to know how the papacy functions. That’s the problem with such accusation which is more in wanting to disparage the Pope which it does when without appreciating how the whole papacy work. It seems explanation falls on deaf ears here. Thus without using the principle that if you want to know what a church believes you have to ask the church concerned instead of stubbornly continue with your misconceptions.

 

[Reuben_J]

Indeed the fact that non-Catholics find authority a problem is a given but if you want to criticise the papacy, criticise it for what it really is, not for what it is not.

 

[Novocastrian]

One has to know how the papacy functions. That’s the problem with such accusation which is more in wanting to disparage the Pope which it does when without appreciating how the whole papacy work. It seems explanation falls on deaf ears here. Thus without using the principle that if you want to know what a church believes you have to ask the church concerned instead of stubbornly continue with your misconceptions.

I’m pretty sure that I do understand how the Papacy works, and that I’m right in saying that it is the case that within the Roman Catholic Church nobody can judge the Roman Pontiff. This is great when you have someone like Benedict XVI - a reserved academic faithful to tradition and compassionate towards the diverse needs of Catholics around the world - but a serious flaw when you have less suitable Popes. Even on the Ultramontane model of the papacy while the Holy Spirit is said to protect the Pope’s ex cathedra statements from error, there is no similar guarantee that universal jurisdiction will not be abused; an absolute monarchy is precisely as good or as bad as the person exercising it!

 

[Reuben_J]

I’m pretty sure that I do understand how the Papacy works,

Then that is good. But look at frjohnmorris’s post which you defended. I find that is insulting which I reported to the mods because it is disparaging the papacy by giving insinuation without taking into regards the term he used, for example, ex-cathedra.

and that I’m right in saying that it is the case that within the Roman Catholic Church nobody can judge the Roman Pontiff. This is great when you have someone like Benedict XVI - a reserved academic faithful to tradition and compassionate towards the diverse needs of Catholics around the world - but a serious flaw when you have less suitable Popes. Even on the Ultramontane model of the papacy while the Holy Spirit is said to protect the Pope’s ex cathedra statements from error, there is no similar guarantee that universal jurisdiction will not be abused; an absolute monarchy is precisely as good or as bad as the person exercising it!

The issue is apparently papal infallibility and the term ex-cathedra which is being used together with the former. I have no problem if you are commenting on the truth but to manipulate those terms to make the Pope a ‘dictator’, I consider being malicious.

What are papal infallibility and ex-cathedra then?

Papal infallibility.
**Misconception: **That it include all utterances and teaching of the Popes.

**Papal infallibility in a nutshell: **
It is only confined to faith and moral.

Faith is the faith of the apostles and should add nothing to it. A Pope can only confirm and affirm this faith.

Moral does not change along the ages. For example, murder is wrong. Anything that amount to that is wrong.

A Pope in not infallible; that was what Pope John Paul II said. “I am not infallible”.

Papal infallibility is important for a leader of the Church because it is a charism to protect it against straying away from the deposit of faith. Pope, Bishops, priests and others who hold similar positions in work of God are blessed by God in varying degrees in order that they may carry out their roles accordingly.

Ex-cathedra.
Misconception: That a Pope can speak ex-cathedra in all matters according to his whim and fancy.

Ex-cathedra in a nutshell:
The Pope can only speak ex-cathedra on matters where papal infallibility applies. His decrees are not ex-cathedra if they are outside that scope.

Again, ex-cathedra is important to the leader of the Church for it gives credibility and authority on his proclamation of faith and moral.

In reality, much of the doctrine of faith has been defined and known. The Trinity and the divinity of Christ for example. There is actually nothing new except for new development which did not exist during the time of Church Fathers. For examples – euthanasia, artificial birth control. The Pope, and most of the times, on the advice of the multitude of Cardinals, Bishops, Theologians and professionals, will have to make a stand on these issues. If they contradict faith and moral, the Church through the Pope have to say so and teach accordingly.

This is great protection for the Church. While other churches waver on these issues, the Catholic Church stands firm throughout the centuries.

The myth that the Pope acts alone:

Misconception: It is dangerous as a Pope will act independently without consulting the Church (the College of Cardinals, theologians, et al).

In reality: This is not possible today now that the Church is already stabilized unlike during the ancient Church where the Popes were pretty much unable to act independently with interference by politicians or where the Popes themselves holding personal political power.

A Pope has to ratify an outcome of a Council is like a President/Queen/Prime Minister who sign a document to make it legit. This is check and balance where two parties are required in a major decision. The authority of the Pope is similar to the authority of the President/Queen/Prime Minister where he is legitimately given that authority from an established body or source.

Thus such letter by Pope Honorius is not considered infallible nor written ex-cathedra simply because it did not affirm the faith of the apostles which was already established. He could not change what has been established. That is why a Pope cannot change the doctrines which have been known and established contrary to the fear of our non-Catholic brethrens.

We cannot based the action of the Church under seize to prove a norm. If that must be used, then a completely free Church should be the model.