Debating the filioque

[frjohnmorris]

Father, bless.

I believe you are misunderstanding me. I realize that all marriages blessed by the Orthodox Church are considered sacramental; however, it is my understanding that the ancient Church did not bless second or third marriages. As an exercise of economy, bishops sometimes tolerated a second or third civil marriage, but such marriages were never blessed by the Church and thus not sacramental. The ancient Church, like the Catholic Church today, believed that only death could truly dissolve the sacramental bond. I would be interested in any evidence that shows the modern Orthodox practice prior to the 9th century. I realize that the modern Orthodox Church confers second / third sacramental marriages.

I am not surprised that an Orthodox wedding ceremony is recognized as valid for a Catholic. After all, the various Eastern Catholic Churches sui iuris that worship according to the Byzantine Rite (eg. the Melkites) would use a similar service. As the Byzantine form is also a Catholic form, it makes sense that no dispensation from form would be required. In the Latin Church, however, according to our canons and ancient Tradition, the exchange of vows is essential. I do not know why there is this difference between East and West but it appears to be ancient and the Catholic Church, at any rate, seems to accept the difference as one we can live with.

I do not think that you understand the nature of economy in Orthodoxy. By definition economy is a deviation from the norm in the interest of the salvation of persons provided that the deviation does not violate the dogma of the Church. In the Orthodox understanding dogma deals with the doctrines concerning Christ and God as proclaimed by the Ecumenical Councils. I would have to do additional research to give a detailed answer to your question. It will take some time because I have a wedding this weekend and leave Monday for a Deanery meeting. Therefore, I will not be in my office were I keep my theological books.
I personally see the Orthodox position as firmly grounded in the love, forgiveness and mercy of God. I believe that the Catholic position is too legalistic.
I am quite sure that the Orthodox position is based on a principle called the Pauline Privilege.
“To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband … and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, not the Lord, … But if the unbelieving partner desires to separate, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound. For God has called us to peace.” I Cor. 7:10-15
It has been my experience that in the case of divorce, either the man or the woman leaves the Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

You have a point, Fr. John. So, allow me to apply your logic in my own way.

Who better to understand the papacy than those to whom the gift has been given?

If God set up the institution of the papacy, which group was He more likely to guide into a correct understanding of it: the group that possessed it or the group that was in separation from it?

I will try to be diplomatic. Your argument is very weak and cannot withstand a serious investigation of the history of the history of the Church. I do not believe that God set up the institution of the papacy. I believe that it is man made doctrine that came from a misunderstanding of their position by the Popes and their supporters. I will not doubt the sincerity of the Popes, but I believe that they were wrong to seek such power for themselves, especially Pope Pius IX, the Pope who secured the doctrine of papal infallibility from the 1st Vatican Council.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

Dearst Fr. John, bless,

Sorry for the delay in responding. Very busy time here in the Philippines with All Soul’s feasts. Filipinos actually practically spend the WHOLE DAY at the cemetery in honor of their loved ones, praying, singing, celebrating, and feasting.

I hope you do not take brother Richca’s explanation on the Love between Father and Son as a reflection of actual Catholic teaching on the matter. He claims that his belief is what the Catholic Church teaches, but I’m sure you realize by now that’s not true. A lot of what he says sounds good (and with that veneer of orthodoxy might have actually misled one poster on this thread), yet he somehow insistently and surreptitiously inserts that bit of heterodox element that the Father and Son form the Source of the Holy Spirit . I don’t know about you, but the analogy of a man and woman producing a child was especially grating on my theological senses.

In any case, please consider the following explanation…But before doing so, I would like to ask you to think Latin for a moment, and try to imagine that Love is not Energy, distinct from Essence, but Essence and Energy as one, indistinctly. This is fundamental for a proper understanding of the Latin Catholic analogy of Love.

Generally speaking, the Catholic teaching (the correct one) is not that the love between Father and Son produces the Holy Spirit, but that the Love between the Father and Son IS the Holy Spirit. Do you see the difference? The first (heterodox) explanation conceives of the love between Father and Son as being “prior to” (not in time, mind you) the existence of the Holy Spirit, and is the cause of the existence of the Holy Spirit. This is probably how you naturally and inadvertantly concieve of it, Fr. John, because you regard love not as Essence, but as Energy. In distinction, Latins regard Essence and Energy to be indistinct. God IS love (according to Scripture), and Latins take this quite literally, according to the doctrine of the Simplicity of God. So according to the proper Catholic teaching, it is not that love causes the Essence, but that Love IS the Essence.

In this analogy, it is the Father alone who is the Srouce of this Love (Who is the Holy Spirit). This is rather explicit in the Official Clarification:
The Father is love in its source (2 Cor 13:13; 1 Jn 4:8, 16), the Son is “the Son that he loves” (Col 1:14).
The divine love which has its origin in the Father reposes in "the Son of his love"
The original character of the person of the Spirit as eternal Gift of the Father’s love for his beloved Son…
So the Love (Who is the Holy Spirit) comes FROM the Father and abides in the Son. This is traditionally expressed in the Latin Tradition by calling the Father the Lover, and the Son the Beloved. It is always the Father who is the Initiator and Source of this Love, while the Son is Its Recipient.

So far, I don’t think you have any problem understanding this, Father. That the Holy Spirit originates from the Father and abides in the Son from all Eternity is absolutely certain to be part of Orthodox Trinitarian theology. Just replace “Holy Spirit” with “Love,” and you get the Latin teaching.

But the Latin teaching does not stop there, and I think this is where the need for clarification begins. So, what happens “after” the Holy Spirit abides in the Son? I think this is the actual matter of your query?

At this point, let me stop. I would like to ask if, at this point, it is sufficienly clear that the Latin Catholic Church teaches (as opposed to the opinions of individual apologists) that the Father is the one and only Source of this Love (Who is the Holy Spirit) between Father and Son. If we are in agreement, I’ll continue. If something else needs clarification before proceeding (pun intended ), please advise.

Humbly,
Marduk

You doctrine comes from Augustine who developed what historians of Christian doctrine call the psychological explanation of the Holy Trinity. The problem with us is that Augustine used human reason to try to explain the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
The idea of God as simplicity comes from the Neo-Platonism that Augustine embraced. The distinction between energy and essence is as essential dogma to Orthodox Christians.
The Holy Spirit rests on the Son in time as we see from the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove the time of His Baptism. The Son sends the Holy Spirit in time, on the Apostles after His Resurrection and again at Pentecost. That is the economic Trinity. That is the work of the Holy Trinity for our salvation.
There is also the ontological Trinity. In the Ontological Trinity the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is begotten by the Father. Your explanation still sees to deny the full person-hood of the Holy Spirit as an equal person of the Holy Trinity.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

I will try to be diplomatic. Your argument is very weak and cannot withstand a serious investigation of the history of the history of the Church. I do not believe that God set up the institution of the papacy. I believe that it is man made doctrine that came from a misunderstanding of their position by the Popes and their supporters.

Then perhaps a closer investigation of the ACTUAL words of Jesus in the scriptures would clear your mind.

 

[Anthony86]

The problem with us is that Augustine used human reason to try to explain the mystery of the Holy Trinity.

I see this Orthodox objection frequently, but rarely see it substantiated beyond catch phrases. Could you elaborate? I fail to see how the Trinitarian theology of St. Augustine can be discarded with a mere reference to ‘human reason’ (as if he did not take his starting point in Sacred Scripture) while the Trinitarian theology of e.g. St. Gregory Palamas is somehow immune from such criticism (as if such theologians did not also make use of human philosophical terms and concepts to get some grasp on the mystery). It typically just seems part of a blanket rejection of Latin theology - and not just post-1054 Latin theology, but the ancient Latin Church as well.

In fact, the rejection of St. Augustine has been taken by quite a few modern Orthodox apologists to indefensible extremes. I’ve even seen him branded as a heresiarch, the source of all the (alleged) heresies of the West - never mind that the Orthodox (used?) to accept him as a Saint and, I believe, a Father. I mean, when even someone as dismissive of Catholicism as Seraphim Rose feels called to write a book in defense of this Father, I’d take that as a signal that perhaps things are being taken too far.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Then perhaps a closer investigation of the ACTUAL words of Jesus in the scriptures would clear your mind.

Let us look at the actual words of Our Lord. St. Matthew 16:

[15] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
[14] And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
[15] He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
[16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
[17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The rock on which Our Lord builds His Church is not the person of Peter, but the faith that Peter Confessed that Christ is the Son of the living God. Our Lord gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, but in the upper Room he gave the same power to the other Apostles. There is nothing in the entire New Testament that gives the Bishop of Rome special authority as a successor to St. Peter or any other special authority to any Bishop as successor to St. Peter.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

Let us look at the actual words of Our Lord. St. Matthew 16:

[15] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
[14] And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
[15] He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
[16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
[17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The rock on which Our Lord builds His Church is not the person of Peter, but the faith that Peter Confessed that Christ is the Son of the living God. Our Lord gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, but in the upper Room he gave the same power to the other Apostles. There is nothing in the entire New Testament that gives the Bishop of Rome special authority as a successor to St. Peter or any other special authority to any Bishop as successor to St. Peter.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Oh? You have a verse that shows the others receiving keys also? :nope:

The other apostles received derivative authority from the fact that Peter was given the keys as the Royal Steward. But that’s not what I REALLY want to address for now.

Let’s begin with Matthew 16:18.

Petros and Petra–Much Ado About Nothing

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is* kepha*, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of* kepha* in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, “and the Rock was Christ” though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from “Rock . . . rock.”

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

+++

A grammar specialist who is not Catholic explained that the adjective “this” grammatically must refer to the nearest preceding noun, which was Peter, not his declaration which occurs two verses earlier.



When Jesus says “whatever you bind” to Peter in Mat 16:18, the Greek text used for “you” is singular. In Mat 18:18 the Greek text, the word for “you” in “whatever you bind” is plural. Catholics think these two juxtaposed but similar phrases lay out the early structure of the Church with Peter as the Pope and the other apostles as priests.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, let’s take a look at what some Protestant Scholars have had to say about this, shall we? (I quote from them because they, being no friends of Rome, are what is known in the legal profession as “hostile witnesses”.)

Protestant Scholars Agree: Peter is the Rock

Here are five of the more than two dozen quotes I have from heavyweight Protestant scholars regarding the identity of “the rock” in Matthew 16:18.

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann

“[Peter] is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times….Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word that would serve his purpose. In view of the background of v. 19…one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter. “To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter,” Albright says, “among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence, rather it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure, his behavior would have been of far less consequence. Precisely because Peter is pre-eminent and is the foundation stone of the Church that his mistakes are in a sense so important, but his mistakes never correspond to his teachings as the Prince of the Apostles.” (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

Peter as the Rock will be the foundation of the future community, the church. Jesus here uses Aramaic and so only the Aramaic word which would serve His purpose. In view of the background in verse 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as the faith or the confession of Peter. (Ibid.)

Donald A. Carson (Baptist)

“On the basis of the distinction between ‘petros’ . . . and ‘petra’ . . . , many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Peter is a mere ‘stone,’ it is alleged; but Jesus himself is the ‘rock’ . . . Others adopt some other distinction . . . Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter . . . The Greek makes the distinction between ‘petros’ and ‘petra’ simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine ‘petra’ could not very well serve as a masculine name . . . Had Matthew wanted to say no more than that Peter was a stone in contrast with Jesus the Rock, the more common word would have been ‘lithos’ (‘stone’ of almost any size). Then there would have been no pun - and that is just the point! . . . In this passage Jesus is the builder of the church and it would be a strange mixture of metaphors that also sees him within the same clauses as its foundation . . .” (Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984], vol. 8: Matthew, Mark, Luke (Matthew: D.A. Carson), 368)

Oscar Cullman (Protestant Scholar)

“But what does Jesus mean when He says: ‘On this rock I will build my church’? The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in vew of the probably different setting of the story. For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia [church]. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, (ed. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich), [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1968], 6:108).

Donald Hagner (Contemporary Evangelical)

**“The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny [that Peter is the rock] in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy” (Word Biblical Commentary 33b:470). **

David Hill (Presbyterian)

“It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church…Attempts to interpret the ‘rock’ as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.” (The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible Commentary [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972], 261)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, let’s take a look at what Protestant Scholars admit about the keys given to Peter.

Protestant Scholars on the Keys of the Kingdom

W.F. Albright

"In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel." (The Anchor Bible; Matthew [Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Co., 1971], 195)

“It is of considerable importance, that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these 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 Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.**” (ibid.)

William Barclay

We now come to two phrases in which Jesus describes certain privileges which were given to and certain duties which were laid on Peter.

He says that he will give to Peter the keys of the Kingdom. This is obviously a difficult phrase; and we will do well to begin by detting down the things about it of which we can be sure…All these New Testament pictures and usages go back to a picture in Isaiah (Isaiah 22:22). Isaiah describes Eliakim, who will have the key of the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone [emphasis added] will open and shut. Now the duty of Eliakim was to be the faithful steward of the house. It is the steward who carries the keys of the house, who in the morning opens the door, and in the evening shuts it, and through whom visitors gain access to the royal presence. So then what Jesus is saying to Peter is that in the days to come, he will be the steward of the Kingdom…

Oscar Cullman

“In Matthew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the house, who has the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven, with which to open to those who wish to come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the keys of the house of David on the shoulders of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of His house, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the house.” (Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, 1953).

R.T. France

“These terms (binding and loosing) thus refer to a teaching function, and more specifically one of making halakhic pronouncements (i.e. relative to laws not written down in Jewish Scriptures but based on an oral interpretation of them) which are binding on the people of God. In that case, Peter’s ‘power of the keys’ declared in (Matt) 16:19 is not so much that of a doorkeeper, who decides who may or may not be admitted, but that of the steward whose keys of office enable him to regulate the affairs of the household” (Matthew: Evangelist and Teacher, 1989, 247).

Gerhardt Meier

**“Nowadays, a broad consensus has emerged which, in accordance with the words of the text applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal and conservative theologians agree…Matthew 16:18 ought not to be interpreted as a local church. The church in Matthew 16:18 is the universal entity, namely the people of God. **There is an increasing consensus now that this verse concerning the power of the keys is talking about the authority to teach and to discipline, including even to absolve sins.” (The End of the Historical Critical Method, 58-60).

The Anchor Bible Commentary

“By conferring the power to bind and loose upon church leadership, Jesus authorizes it to interpret the Scriptures and establish norms for Christian behaviour” (vol 1)

The Interpreter’s Bible

“The keys of the kingdom would be permitted to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority, unlimited power, total. Post- apostolic Christianity is now beginning to ascribe to the Apostles the prerogatives of Jesus.”

 

[frjohnmorris]

Oh? You have a verse that shows the others receiving keys also? :nope:

The other apostles received derivative authority from the fact that Peter was given the keys as the Royal Steward. But that’s not what I REALLY want to address for now.

Let’s begin with Matthew 16:18.

Petros and Petra–Much Ado About Nothing

Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros while “rock” is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn’t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is* kepha*, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, “You will be called Cephas”). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: “You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church.”

When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of* kepha* in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of “small stone” and “large rock” in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: “You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church.”

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, “and the Rock was Christ” though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from “Rock . . . rock.”

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

Our Lord gave the same authority that He gave to St. Peter in John 20:21-23.
You cannot support your interpretation from the Fathers who tell us that the Rock upon which Christ will build His Church is the faith professed by St. Peter, not the person of St. Peter.
Most importantly you can find no justification for the modern papal claims from the history of the Church during the age of the Fathers and 7 Ecumenicals. No Bishop of Rome exercised universal jurisdiction or was recognized as possessing the authority to unilaterally define the doctrine of the Church. That authority resided in the Ecumenical Councils, not the Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You cannot support your interpretation from the Fathers who tell us that the Rock upon which Christ will build His Church is the faith professed by St. Peter, not the person of St. Peter.
Most importantly you can find no justification for the modern papal claims from the history of the Church during the age of the Fathers and 7 Ecumenicals. No Bishop of Rome exercised universal jurisdiction or was recognized as possessing the authority to unilaterally define the doctrine of the Church. That authority resided in the Ecumenical Councils, not the Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris.

7 Councils, 7 Councils, 7 Councils…lalalalalalalalala…



Can’t handle a little Greek scholarship, Father?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Our Lord gave the same authority that He gave to St. Peter in John 20:21-23.

You mean when he named Peter to be the one Vicar of the One Flock?

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

This is what the word of God says, Father.

Jesus never said, “You are Peter and upon this rock I will build what I must call my communion of autocephalous churches.”

Jesus promised to build ONE CHURCH.

You cannot support your interpretation from the Fathers who tell us that the Rock upon which Christ will build His Church is the faith professed by St. Peter, not the person of St. Peter.

Most importantly you can find no justification for the modern papal claims from the history of the Church during the age of the Fathers and 7 Ecumenicals. No Bishop of Rome exercised universal jurisdiction or was recognized as possessing the authority to unilaterally define the doctrine of the Church. That authority resided in the Ecumenical Councils, not the Bishop of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris.

Answered by Newman. You’re running out of ideas and getting repetitive, Father.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John, bless,

Can you please explain the portion of your post I highlighted below? It is rather foreign to me as an Oriental. Permit me to explain:

I was always taught (when I was in the Oriental Orthodox communion), that the Spirit abides in/rests on the Son from all Eternity. The Fathers say the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, not at some point in time, but from all Eternity. From the moment of His origin from the Father, the Spirit rested on the Son and thus abided in/with Him.

Further, I was taught that the resting of the Holy Spirit on the Son at the river Jordan was not for the sake of the Son. It was not necessary for Jesus Himself (being deity personified, and this being so, the Spirit rested on the Son/abided in Him eternally “before” this moment in human history). The event at the river Jordan was completely for the sake of His followers, to show them the model which they were to follow (i.e., they needed to be baptized in the Holy Spirit).

Now, I would like to ask you some pointed questions to further our discussion:
(1) Is it your belief, or the teaching of your Church, that the Spirit became the Spirit of the Son only at some moment in time (i.e., at the Jordan when the Spirit rested on Him)?

(2) If the Greek Fathers of the late Middle Ages all affirm that the manifestation is eternal, how does one conclude that the resting of the Spirit on the Son is only temporal? I mean, for the manifestation to occur (which is eternal), the Spirit must “already” have been the Spirit of the Son, right? And the Spirit is the Spirit of the Son because the Spirit rests on/abides in the Son.

I fully understand the concept of perichoresis. I was taught that perichoresis is the reality of the immanent Godhead for the very fact that from the moment of His Origin from the Father, the Spirit immediately (i.e., from all Eternity), rested on the Son.

Thanks in advance for your explanation.

Humbly,
Marduk

You doctrine comes from Augustine who developed what historians of Christian doctrine call the psychological explanation of the Holy Trinity. The problem with us is that Augustine used human reason to try to explain the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
The idea of God as simplicity comes from the Neo-Platonism that Augustine embraced. The distinction between energy and essence is as essential dogma to Orthodox Christians.
The Holy Spirit rests on the Son in time as we see from the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove the time of His Baptism. The Son sends the Holy Spirit in time, on the Apostles after His Resurrection and again at Pentecost. That is the economic Trinity. That is the work of the Holy Trinity for our salvation.
There is also the ontological Trinity. In the Ontological Trinity the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is begotten by the Father. Your explanation still sees to deny the full person-hood of the Holy Spirit as an equal person of the Holy Trinity.

 

[mardukm]

Dearest Fr. John,

You cannot support your interpretation from the Fathers who tell us that the Rock upon which Christ will build His Church is the faith professed by St. Peter, not the person of St. Peter.

The “person of St. Peter” is not equivalent to “the person of Simon bar Jonah.” The “person of St. Peter” is a supernatural concept that is intimately connected with the Faith of Peter and the Rock Who is Jesus Christ. They are inseparable in the Catholic understanding.

You might be unaware of this, but Vatican 1 changed the title of the Chapter on Infallibility in Pastor Aeternus. In its initial draft, the title was “The Infallibility of the Pope.” But this was easily misinterpreted by many (especially the NEO-ultramontanist/ Absolutist Petrine advocates) to mean that infallibility belonged to the Pope in some personal way that was separated from the Church. In order to combat this Absolutist Petrine innovation, the Fathers at Vatican 1 changed the title to “The Infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pope.” The Magisterium is shared by all bishops of the Church. It is a supernatural feature of the Church (i.e. the Magisterium of God). The change was intended to clarify that the infallibility does not belong to the person who is Pope, but to the teaching authority that the Pope represented.

To repeat, the expression “the person of St. Peter” refers to St. Peter who is intimately and irrevocably connected to the Rock Who is Christ. It does not refer to Simon.

I hope that helps you understand the Catholic position a bit more.

Humbly,
Marduk

 

[Randy_Carson]

You cannot support your interpretation from the Fathers who tell us that the Rock upon which Christ will build His Church is the faith professed by St. Peter, not the person of St. Peter.

Eastern Fathers of the Church Recognize The Rock and Crush the “Confession” Argument
**Peter is the Rock

Tatian the Syrian (170 A.D.)

“Simon Kephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Rock, and on this Rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it” (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

Tertullian (220 A.D.)

“Was anything hid from Peter, who was called the Rock, whereon the Church was built; who obtained the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and the power of loosing and of binding in heaven and on earth?” (Tertullian, De Praescript Haeret).

Tertullian thereafter writes to criticize Pope Callistus I by saying …“I now inquire into your opinions, to see whence you usurp the right for the Church. Do you presume, because the Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church …[Matt 16-19]’ that the power of binding and loosing has thereby been handed over to you, that is, to every church akin to Peter? What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when He conferred this personally on Peter? ‘On you,’ He says, ‘I will build my Church; and I give to you the keys’…” (Tertullian, On Modesty 21:9-10)

**The Apocryphal Letter of St. Clement of Rome to St. James (C. 221 A.D.) **

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus Himself, with His truthful mouth, named Peter” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221])

St. Gregory Nazianzus

“See thou that of the disciples of Christ, all of whom were great and deserving of the choice, one is called a Rock and entrusted with the foundations of the Church.” (Gregory Naz., T. i or xxxii). … and "Peter, the Chief of the disciples, but he was a Rock (Gregory Naz., T. ii.) …and … “[Peter], that unbroken Rock who held the keys.” (Gregory Naz., Sect. ii Poem Moral. tom. ii.)

St. Gregory of Nyssa

“Peter, with his whole soul, associates himself with the Lamb; and, by means of the change of his name, he is changed by the Lord into something more divine. Instead of Simon,** being both called and having become a Rock**, the great Peter did not by advancing little by little attain unto this grace, but at once he listened to his brother (Andrew), believed in the Lamb, and was through faith perfected, and, having cleaved to the Rock, became himself Peter.” (Gregory of Nyssa, T. i. Hom. xv. in C. Cantic). …and …. “Peter …that most firm Rock, upon which the Lord build His Church.” (Gregory of Nyssa, Alt. Or. De. S. Steph.)

St. Basil the Great

“The house of God, which is the Church of the living God, the foundations of which are on the holy mountains, for it is built upon the Apostles and prophets. **One also of these mountains was Peter, upon which Rock **the Lord promised to build His Church.” (Basil, T. i. Comment. in Esai. c. ii.). …and …. “The soul of blessed Peter was called a lofty Rock …” (Basil, Sermon 1 De Fide I.13).

St. John Chrysostom

“…and when I name Peter, I name that unbroken Rock, that firm foundation, the Great Apostle, the First of the disciples …” (Chrysostom, T. ii. Hom. iii. de Paednit). …and …. “Peter, the leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that one set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” (Chrysostom, In illud. hoc Scitote). and …. “Peter, … that Pillar of the Church, the Buttress of the Faith, the Foundation of the Confession.” (Chrysostom, T. iii. Hom. de Dec. Mill. Talent)

+++

St. Ambrose (Bishop of Milan and one of the four original doctors of the Church)

"…Christ ‘bestow[ed] the favor of this title upon His disciple, so that HE TOO might be Peter [rock]” –that is, the Rock of the Church in a VICARIOUS sense.

“Peter is called the Rock because, like an immovable rock, he sustains and joins the mass of the entire Christian edifice.” (Ambrose, Sermon 4).

“[Christ] made answer: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on His own authority, he gave the Kingdom, whom he called the Rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?” (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal” (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

 

[Randy_Carson]

St. John Cassian on Peter as Royal Steward

Isaiah 22 shows is that an office existed – that is, the office of Prime Minister to the King of Israel; and Jesus, Who is the promised King and Messiah of Israel, makes Simon Peter His own Prime Minister in Matt 16:18-19.

Even St. John Cassian, a BYZANTINE GREEK and a disciple of St. John Chrysostom, noticed this connection. For, he writes …

“O Peter, Prince of Apostles, it is just that you should teach us, since you were yourself taught by the Lord; and also that you should open to us the gate of which you have received the Key (singular). Keep out all those who are undermining the heavenly House; turn away those who are trying to enter through false caverns and unlawful gates since it is certain that no one can enter in at the gate of the Kingdom except the one unto whom the Key (singular), placed by you in the churches, shall open it.” (John Cassian, Book III, Chap 12, Against the Nestorians on the Incarnation)

Matthew 16:18-19 talks about “binding” and “loosing” and refers to “keys” (plural). Clearly, St. John Cassian is taking his language directly from Isaiah 22 which speaks about the power to “open and shut” and which confers the authority of a “Key” (singular) over the “House” of David (i.e., the Church).

 

[Richca]

You doctrine comes from Augustine who developed what historians of Christian doctrine call the psychological explanation of the Holy Trinity. The problem with us is that Augustine used human reason to try to explain the mystery of the Holy Trinity.
The idea of God as simplicity comes from the Neo-Platonism that Augustine embraced. The distinction between energy and essence is as essential dogma to Orthodox Christians.
The Holy Spirit rests on the Son in time as we see from the descent of the Holy Spirit in the form of a dove the time of His Baptism. The Son sends the Holy Spirit in time, on the Apostles after His Resurrection and again at Pentecost. That is the economic Trinity. That is the work of the Holy Trinity for our salvation.
There is also the ontological Trinity. In the Ontological Trinity the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son is begotten by the Father. Your explanation still sees to deny the full person-hood of the Holy Spirit as an equal person of the Holy Trinity.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Hi frjohnmorris,
It is written “Now this is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent, Jesus Christ.” (John 17:3). Now, to know God requires an intellect or human reason, for knowledge proceeds from the intellect. Indeed, the only faculty which God created us with by which we can know or understand Him to some degree is the intellect or human reason. So to criticize St Augustine for using his intellect or human reason to come to some understanding of the Trinity is altogether unjustifiable.
Further, it is written "Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.” (Genesis 1:26)), and “For God formed us to be imperishable; the image of his own nature he made us” (Wisdom 2:23).
The Catholic Church understands these passages to mean that God created us with an immortal spiritual soul with the faculties or powers of intellect and will after the likeness of God. So we understand God to have an intellect and will. We also understand that the processions of the Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father’s intellect and will and that these processions are internal in God. For the three divine persons subsist in one divine nature.
I think you will find that St Augustine is not the only church father that says that the processions of the Son and Holy Spirit proceed from the Father’s intellect and will in one way or another.

St John says in the beginning of his gospel that the Son of God is the Word of God. Now a word or idea is conceived in the mind or intellect. So it is natural for us to believe that the Son of God, Jesus, proceeds from the intellect of the Father. For no one says, for example, that the idea or word “lion” proceeds from the will. The Holy Spirit who is called Love proceeds from the will of the Father. For we do not normally say “I love you with all my intellect or human reason.” But, we normally say “I love you with all my heart.” So love proceeds from the will.

Jesus says “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Truth is in the intellect. If Jesus says that He is Truth itself and St John says that Jesus is the Word of God, then it naturally follows that the Son of God proceeds from the Father’s intellect.

Jesus is also called the Wisdom of God. " For she (Wisdom) is a breath of the might of God
and a pure emanation of the glory of the Almighty; therefore nothing defiled can enter into her.
For she is the reflection of eternal light, the spotless mirror of the power of God,
the image of his goodness." (Wisdom 7: 25-26).

“God of my ancestors, Lord of mercy, you who have made all things by your word.” (Wisdom 9:1)
"Now with you is Wisdom, who knows your works and was present when you made the world. (Wisdom 9: 9). These last two verses have a parallel with the beginning of St John’s gospel.

Now wisdom is truth and knowledge and truth and knowledge proceed from the intellect.

St Augustine had a profound knowledge and understanding of Holy Scripture. His theology of the Trinity is based on Scripture with the help of his intellect or human reason which as I have said is the only faculty or power God gave us by which we can know Him or understand something of Him. St Augustine had a very keen intellect, he was a genius. No doubt, he also possessed infused knowledge from God.

 

[Richca]

Let us look at the actual words of Our Lord. St. Matthew 16:

[15] Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesare’a Philip’pi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?”
[14] And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Eli’jah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
[15] He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
[16] Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
[17] And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
[19] I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The rock on which Our Lord builds His Church is not the person of Peter, but the faith that Peter Confessed that Christ is the Son of the living God. Our Lord gave Peter the keys of the kingdom, but in the upper Room he gave the same power to the other Apostles. There is nothing in the entire New Testament that gives the Bishop of Rome special authority as a successor to St. Peter or any other special authority to any Bishop as successor to St. Peter.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Hello frjohnmorris,
It is quite obvious you are applying here an interpretation to the above passage of scripture that is simply not there. It is quite obvious that the literal interpretation of this passage is that Peter (and his confession of faith) is the Rock on which Christ said He will build His church and that Jesus will give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[RyanBlack]

7 Councils, 7 Councils, 7 Councils…lalalalalalalalala…



Can’t handle a little Greek scholarship, Father?

Again, who’s being adolescent now?

 

[RyanBlack]

You’re running out of ideas and getting repetitive, Father.

And you’re not repetitive in your arguments? People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.