Debating the filioque

[frjohnmorris]

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.

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

Yet a communion of autocephalous Churches untied by one common Faith and made one by the Communion of the Bishops with each other is exactly the Church ratified by the canons of the divinely inspired 7 Ecumenical Councils. Read the canons and decrees of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and you will find not one hint of the type of rule not exercised by the Popes over the Roman Catholic Church.
It is the common Faith and sharing in the Eucharist that makes us one Church, not papal monarchical rule over the Church.
The Rock upon which Our Lord built His Church was the Faith confessed by St. Peter, not the person of Peter.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yet a communion of autocephalous Churches untied by one common Faith and made one by the Communion of the Bishops with each other is exactly the Church ratified by the canons of the divinely inspired 7 Ecumenical Councils.

“Upon this rock I will build what I must call my communion of autocephalous Churches.”

Which translation Is that from? The Orthodox Study Bible?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Read the canons and decrees of the 7 Ecumenical Councils and you will find not one hint of the type of rule not exercised by the Popes over the Roman Catholic Church.
It is the common Faith and sharing in the Eucharist that makes us one Church, not papal monarchical rule over the Church.

Either/or, Father? How about both/and? Peter as head of the Church is the visible sign of unity in the Church that shares the Eucharist and the common faith.

The Rock upon which Our Lord built His Church was the Faith confessed by St. Peter, not the person of Peter.

Peter is the rock, and the Eastern Fathers I quoted disagree with you.

 

[frjohnmorris]

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

That is only because the Roman Catholics keep using the same arguments. Let me put it plainly there is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church will give up its centuries old conciliar system to submit to papal domination. I believe that it is very dangerous to give the kind of power to one man as has been given to the Pope. I believe that the medieval and modern papacy is more a result of his role as prince over central Italy as an absolute of monarch applied to the Church instead of the Bible and the Faith of the ancient undivided Church especially as mandated by the 7 Ecumenical Councils the canons of which show nothing resembling modern papal authority.

Archpreist John W. Morris

 

[RyanBlack]

That is only because the Roman Catholics keep using the same arguments. Let me put it plainly there is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church will give up its centuries old conciliar system to submit to papal domination. I believe that it is very dangerous to give the kind of power to one man as has been given to the Pope. I believe that the medieval and modern papacy is more a result of his role as prince over central Italy as an absolute of monarch applied to the Church instead of the Bible and the Faith of the ancient undivided Church especially as mandated by the 7 Ecumenical Councils the canons of which show nothing resembling modern papal authority.

Archpreist John W. Morris

Father John, why are you directing this at me? The comment of mine to which you are responding was not directed at you, but at Randy Carson.

 

[RyanBlack]

“Upon this rock I will build what I must call my communion of autocephalous Churches.”

Which translation Is that from? The Orthodox Study Bible?

What good is all of this anti-Orthodox sarcasm and vitriol supposed to accomplish?

BTW, the Catholic Church is a communion of sui iuris (self-governing) churches. So even when you take away the nasty, arrogant sarcasm, this is a very problematic criticism for a Catholic to be making.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That is only because the Roman Catholics keep using the same arguments.

Of course. Because our arguments are unanswered.

Let me put it plainly there is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church will give up its centuries old conciliar system to submit to papal domination. I believe that it is very dangerous to give the kind of power to one man as has been given to the Pope.

This is a response of fear and not of love or of truth.

I believe that the medieval and modern papacy is more a result of his role as prince over central Italy as an absolute of monarch applied to the Church instead of the Bible and the Faith of the ancient undivided Church especially as mandated by the 7 Ecumenical Councils the canons of which show nothing resembling modern papal authority.

Archpreist John W. Morris

Yes you do believe that. But you were answered by Newman (whom you dismissed as a liberal Protestant) who explained why a “modern” papacy would have been unknown to an “ancient” Church father, and by Frank J. Sheed who explained in simple terms why doctrine develops as a natural process of reasoning and praying about divine revelation.

You have no answers other than to sputter that you don’t agree. Oh, and “7 Councils, 7 Councils, 7 Councils…”.

Now, turn your attention to the Fathers I quoted.

Peter is the Rock. Peter is the Royal Steward.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Randy,

You have no answers other than to sputter that you don’t agree. Oh, and “7 Councils, 7 Councils, 7 Councils…”.

I agree with most (but not all) of your rhetoric, but please cut back on the sarcasm. I really don’t think it is helping.

Besides, Fr. John is certainly not wrong to base his Faith on the 7 Councils.

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Randy_Carson]

SUMMARY OF THE DEBATE THUS FAR

Objection: The modern papacy was unknown to the Early Church Fathers and the seven Ecumenical Councils.

Answer: Newman points out that the papacy (like other doctrines) developed over time as the needs of the Church required it. Consequently, we should not expect to read the Fathers extolling a strong, centralized papacy if such was not yet required in their day.

Objection: Doctrine does not develop.

Answer: Sheed rightly notes that the Church has always taught the faith delivered once for all to the saints. As the Church has reflected upon that revelation, prayed about it and lived it, she has seen further and further and made connections not previously made. These things, too, she has taught.

Objection: Peter is not the rock. Jesus was referring to Peter’s confession.

Answer: Numerous Eastern Church Fathers and boatloads of Protestant Scholars (called as “hostile witnesses”) agree: Peter - not his confession - is the rock in Matthew 16:18.

Objection: Numbers don’t mean anything, and besides, the Orthodox Church has not been able to expand very much due to the oppression of Islam and Communism.

Answer: Numbers don’t mean everything, but this failure to fulfill the Great Commission suggests that Orthodoxy ALONE is not the one, true Church. It is part of the Church and not in full communion with it.

Objection: Cardinal Humbert and the Crusaders started all this.

Answer: The Apostle Paul taught us how to respond to injustices and sleights: "The very fact that you have disagreements among you means you have been completely defeated [by the evil one] already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? (1 Co 6:7)

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dear brother Randy,

I agree with most (but not all) of your rhetoric, but please cut back on the sarcasm. I really don’t think it is helping.

Besides, Fr. John is certainly not wrong to base his Faith on the 7 Councils.

Blessings,
Marduk

Your point is made, and so is mine. I will not say it again.

Thank you, Marduk.

 

[Richca]

That is only because the Roman Catholics keep using the same arguments. Let me put it plainly there is no way that the Eastern Orthodox Church will give up its centuries old conciliar system to submit to papal domination. I believe that it is very dangerous to give the kind of power to one man as has been given to the Pope. I believe that the medieval and modern papacy is more a result of his role as prince over central Italy as an absolute of monarch applied to the Church instead of the Bible and the Faith of the ancient undivided Church especially as mandated by the 7 Ecumenical Councils the canons of which show nothing resembling modern papal authority.

Archpreist John W. Morris

Hi frjohnmorris,
Apparently, Jesus Christ did not deem it dangerous to build His Church upon Peter the rock and give to him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Randy,

Answer: Numerous Eastern Church Fathers and boatloads of Protestant Scholars (called as “hostile witnesses”) agree: Peter - not his confession - is the rock in Matthew 16:18.

By this statement, are you not guilty of the same thing that is accused of those who deny that St. Peter is (not also) the Rock - namely, of falsely bifurcating the St. Peter from his Faith and from our Lord? V1 asserted:
He made Peter a perpetual principle of this twofold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.

We need to be careful that in our defense of the Faith, we do not go to opposite extremes.

Answer: Numbers don’t mean everything, but this failure to fulfill the Great Commission suggests that Orthodoxy ALONE is not the one, true Church. It is part of the Church and not in full communion with it.

This does not follow. If Orthodoxy is part of the Church, then wherever she is, then she indeed fulfilled her part of the Great Commission. Is the lack of numbers of the Catholic Church in Russia to be interpreted as a failure of the Catholic Church in that part of the world? Does this mean that the Catholic Church has failed in her mission?

Blessings,
Marduk

 

[Peter_J]

Randy, I don’t doubt that you mean well. But speaking as a fellow Catholic, you are definitely not doing us any favors here.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Of course. Because our arguments are unanswered.

This is a response of fear and not of love or of truth.

Yes you do believe that. But you were answered by Newman (whom you dismissed as a liberal Protestant) who explained why a “modern” papacy would have been unknown to an “ancient” Church father, and by Frank J. Sheed who explained in simple terms why doctrine develops as a natural process of reasoning and praying about divine revelation.

You have no answers other than to sputter that you don’t agree. Oh, and “7 Councils, 7 Councils, 7 Councils…”.

Now, turn your attention to the Fathers I quoted.

Peter is the Rock. Peter is the Royal Steward.

As opposed to “Peter is the Rock, Peter is the Rock, Peter is the Rock…” ?

Or Cutting and pasting out of context Patristic quotes and passages from heterodox sources?

Unbelievable. No Randy, We have answered numerous times but you aren’t listening. You resort to sarcasm and vitriol when your arguments fail. You didn’t get any traction with Soloviev so now you moved on to Newman…We have an answer for him too, but you seem to not be interested in anything but “proving us wrong.” When Newman fails you will fall back on the same worn prooftexts we have rebutted time and again.

We have kept the Faith without the need for a Monarchical Papacy. Obviously in that regard the Papacy was unnecessary. Newman operated under the assumption that the Papacy is necessary. Our very existence is a rebuttal to that claim. Newman’s underlining assumption is wrong.

It isn’t fear or lack of love that keeps Old Rome unreconciled…it is a very real disagreement on key things.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father John, why are you directing this at me? The comment of mine to which you are responding was not directed at you, but at Randy Carson.

Sorry. Sometimes it is difficult tell who wrote what. Sometimes when you respond to someone, it looks as if you are responding to someone else.
I am all for cooperation between Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. I am sitting in my office while they take the pictures of a wedding between a Catholic man and a woman from my parish. I did the complete Orthodox wedding, and the local Catholic priest did a blessing at the end, so am I not anti-Catholic as such. However, I can never accept the papacy as it is presently constituted. I do not believe that any man is infallible, only the Church is infallible. Even an Ecumenical Council is not an Ecumenical Council until its decisions are received and ratified by the whole Church.

Fr. John W. Morris

 

[Cavaradossi]

Answered by Newman.

Not quite, because the thrust of Newman’s idea cuts both ways. If his premise on doctrinal development, which he uses as a justification for the growth of the papacy is granted to be true, and in general therefore, “it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later,” then it is not answered by Newman, because Newman himself offers no reason, to my knowledge, why the determinate teaching of the later Church, which should be used to interpret the deeds of the earlier Church should not be the teaching of ours as opposed to that of the Latins. If one is to grant Newman’s hypothesis to be true (and one first has to demonstrate manifestly why his hypothesis on doctrinal development must necessarily be true), then one also has to demonstrate how the way doctrine developed amongst the Latins is more true to the Apostolic spirit than the way doctrine has developed amongst the Easterners.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Objection: The modern papacy was unknown to the Early Church Fathers and the seven Ecumenical Councils.

Answer: Newman points out that the papacy (like other doctrines) developed over time as the needs of the Church required it. Consequently, we should not expect to read the Fathers extolling a strong, centralized papacy if such was not yet required in their day.

But as I pointed out, if we are to grant the premise of doctrinal development, then one must give a compelling reason for why we ought not use the present teaching of the Orthodox to interpret the deeds of the early Church instead of the present teaching of the Roman Church.

Objection: Doctrine does not develop.

Answer: Sheed rightly notes that the Church has always taught the faith delivered once for all to the saints. As the Church has reflected upon that revelation, prayed about it and lived it, she has seen further and further and made connections not previously made. These things, too, she has taught.

That answer is woefully inadequate, because little has been provided to justify accepting that principle over the theory that dogmas are introduced by adherence to the right interpretation of what came before. According to the first model, perhaps one could justify the dogmas added to the faith of the Latins in the second millennium, but according to the second, they would be accretions and additions.

Objection: Peter is not the rock. Jesus was referring to Peter’s confession.

Answer: Numerous Eastern Church Fathers and boatloads of Protestant Scholars (called as “hostile witnesses”) agree: Peter - not his confession - is the rock in Matthew 16:18.

According to numerous saints, the confession is the Rock. Indeed, all three interpretations, that Christ is the Rock, that Peter is the Rock, and that Peter’s faith is the Rock, are to be found among the Fathers. One then must, if he adheres to the above, admit that the Fathers and Doctors of the Church who understood the Rock as being Peter’s faith or Christ were wrong in their interpretations of this passage. But to do so would run afoul of the fact that Pope Benedict XIV wrote in De Canonizatione that the faith of a doctor of the Church may not be impugned at all. On this principle, faithful Roman Catholics should admit that these other interpretations are in fact valid.

Objection: Numbers don’t mean anything, and besides, the Orthodox Church has not been able to expand very much due to the oppression of Islam and Communism.

Answer: Numbers don’t mean everything, but this failure to fulfill the Great Commission suggests that Orthodoxy ALONE is not the one, true Church. It is part of the Church and not in full communion with it.

None of this accounts for the fact that the Nestorians were at one point larger the Roman Church. Perhaps then we should think that the Nestorians were alone the one true Church

Objection: Cardinal Humbert and the Crusaders started all this.

Answer: The Apostle Paul taught us how to respond to injustices and sleights: "The very fact that you have disagreements among you means you have been completely defeated [by the evil one] already. Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be cheated? (1 Co 6:7)

But in ecclesiastical affairs, who was at fault is an important detail for resolving schisms, as it normally results in the promulgation of canons which prevent further abuses in the future.

 

[spina1953]

In reading some of the posts it seems to me and that at least one says that there will never be union between the Orthodx Church and rthe Catholic Church. I remind all that there has been in the past many Orthodox based Churches that have come into communion with Rome. In the end it is not for to say that the Orthodox will never come into communion with Rome, but it is up to those with the authoruty to make it so.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Not quite, because the thrust of Newman’s idea cuts both ways. If his premise on doctrinal development, which he uses as a justification for the growth of the papacy is granted to be true, and in general therefore, “it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later,” then it is not answered by Newman, because Newman himself offers no reason, to my knowledge, why the determinate teaching of the later Church, which should be used to interpret the deeds of the earlier Church should not be the teaching of ours as opposed to that of the Latins. If one is to grant Newman’s hypothesis to be true (and one first has to demonstrate manifestly why his hypothesis on doctrinal development must necessarily be true), then one also has to demonstrate how the way doctrine developed amongst the Latins is more true to the Apostolic spirit than the way doctrine has developed amongst the Easterners.

You are right, what standards do we use to determine the truth if there are no unchangeable standards? I left Protestantism to get away from that kind of thinking. If we accept the concept of doctrinal development, we open ourselves to the same kind of heresies that have destroyed main line American Protestantism. The ideas that doctrine can develop means that doctrine can change and that we moderns are more able to determine the truth of God than the authors of the Holy Scriptures, the Holy Fathers who inherited the Apostolic Tradition and the 7 Ecumenical Councils, the result is the corruption of the Christian Faith because there are no standards. Such ideas led to the ordination of women and blessing same sex unions in American mainline Protestantism. If a doctrine cannot be shown to have existed in the Church since the beginning, it cannot be true. Even the Ecumenical Councils did not invent new doctrine. They affirmed what the Church already believed against new teachings that were different from the teachings inherited from the Apostolic Church. There is no way that any honest student of ancient Church history will not be forced to recognize the Popes never had universal jurisdiction, much less the authority to infallibility declare doctrine for the whole Church. Every binding decision on doctrine was made by an Ecumenical Council, not the Bishop of Rome. The canons of the Ecumenical Councils establish local self-administration and make no mention of any sort of universal jurisdiction by Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[frjohnmorris]

“Upon this rock I will build what I must call my communion of autocephalous Churches.”

Which translation Is that from? The Orthodox Study Bible?

http://g.christianbook.com/g/ebooks/covers/w185/0/003590_w185.png

Either/or, Father? How about both/and? Peter as head of the Church is the visible sign of unity in the Church that shares the Eucharist and the common faith.

Peter is the rock, and the Eastern Fathers I quoted disagree with you.

I am quite familiar with the Orthodox Study Bible. If you look at the list of contributors you will find my name. I wrote the Glossary and worked on the commentary on Isaiah and Romans.
You are ignoring the commentary on St. Matthew 16:18. "Peter/rock is a play on the word “rock” in both Aramaic and Greek (petros/petra) This rock refers not to Peter per se, but “to the faith of his confession (JohnChr) The true Rock is Christ himself (I Cor12:3)”
The exact words of St. John Chrysostom are ““And I say unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church;” that is, on the faith of his confession.”

Therefore the rock upon which Christ will build His Church is not St. Peter, but the faith in Christ that St. Peter confessed.
Building one’s entire faith on one verse is something that a Protestant might do. However, Catholics like Orthodox have the wealth of the Holy Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils to guide them to the correct interpretation of the Holy Scriptures.
It is however true that some Fathers state that Christ will build His Church on the person of Peter. However, even if we accept the argument that Peter is the rock on which Christ will build His Church, it does not follow that this gives Peter special authority that was passed on to his successors in Rome. It could also be an illusion that the Church is built on the foundation of the Apostles as St. Paul wrote, “built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,” Ephesians 2:20 The Eastern Orthodox Church recognize St. Peter as the chief of the Apostles, but believes that in a sense all Bishops are successors to St. Peter.
Someone made a reference to the Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians in support of papal claims. The problem with this argument is that Corinth was already under the direct authority of the Bishop of Rome, because the ancient Church followed the administrative divisions of the Roman Empire and Corinth was one of the cities ruled directly by the secular government of Rome.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dear brother Randy,

By this statement, are you not guilty of the same thing that is accused of those who deny that St. Peter is (not also) the Rock - namely, of falsely bifurcating the St. Peter from his Faith and from our Lord? V1 asserted:
He made Peter a perpetual principle of this twofold unity and a visible foundation, that on his strength an everlasting temple might be erected and on the firmness of his faith a Church might arise whose pinnacle was to reach into heaven.

We need to be careful that in our defense of the Faith, we do not go to opposite extremes.

The tenor and tide of the apologetics “battle” forces me to appear to be more extreme than I would if I were talking amongst Catholics only.

As a Catholic, I am perfectly content to take a both-and position; Peter is the Rock because of His confession. No Problem. But those who disagree are FORCED by their presuppositions into an either-or position, and this is flatly erroneous. Either Peter or his confession is the rock; the former is unthinkable not due to logic or the rules of grammar, etc. but because of the implications. Consequently, they cling to the confession of Peter despite the fact that scholars reject this empty assertion.

This does not follow. If Orthodoxy is part of the Church, then wherever she is, then she indeed fulfilled her part of the Great Commission. Is the lack of numbers of the Catholic Church in Russia to be interpreted as a failure of the Catholic Church in that part of the world? Does this mean that the Catholic Church has failed in her mission?

Her part??? Yes, this is my thinking exactly. Orthodoxy has done her part, but this undermines completely the extreme position of those EO who have asserted that:

a. the papacy is a man-made tradition
b. the Orthodox Church is the one, true Church
c. etc., etc.

You see, for the EO extremist, their Church is the Church and Catholicism is simply heresy. Thus, any achievements Catholics have made are NOT credited to their ledger because Catholics may not even be Christians due to flawed baptisms (though to his credit Fr. John has been waging a valiant campaign against other EO’s on this point) and other theological errors. Let’s not forget that Cavaradossi stated in no uncertain terms that Catholicism and Orthodoxy are different faiths. Let that sink in.

Conversely, since Catholics view the Orthodox as part of (though separated from) the one Church, everything that has been accomplished for Christ in the East is credited to that one, universal Church whose head is the successor of Peter.

So, has the Catholic Church failed because some regions are being shepherded by Patriarchs instead of popes? No, because Catholicism is the sum total of Christianity - whether those not in formal communion like it or know it or not.