Debating the filioque

[Randy_Carson]

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

How so, Peter?

Were you expecting any of these folks currently taking exception to my refutation of their cherished strawmen to convert any time soon?

Perhaps those who are lurking but not posting are happy to hear Orthodox apologists refuted.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Cute. However, I never really brought up the issue regarding Peter as Rock because, silly me, I figured that was not in doubt. Then last night, I was doing some reading, and damn if it isn’t true: some EO like some Protestants are building their houses on the “confession” sand. No sooner had this sunk in than Fr. John makes the same argument. Now, I have argued that “Peter is the Rock” because of the implications for universal jurisdiction previously, but I never addressed “Peter” v. “confession” directly until today.

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

Oh, I’m supposed to have a complete library of the writings of the ECF’s on my shelf all highlighted and ready to go? C’mon. Of course I cut and paste from others who have done the research. Why reinvent the wheel?

Out of context? Look, if one of the passages I quoted does NOT say “Peter is the rock”, you get back to me on that. I’ll delete it from my files.

You guys are amazing. We present ECF’s talking in clear language about the pope and you say, “That’s just flowery language…typical Eastern puffery…pay no attention.” Then I present ECF’s stating pretty plainly that Peter - NOT HIS CONFESSION - is the Rock, and you say, “out of context…heterodox sources.” Wow.

Tell you what. Open your Bible and point me to a verse, a single verse, which says that Peter is NOT the head of the universal Church. Make an ARGUMENT. I’m tired of assertions.

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.

No traction with Soloviev? How exactly have you disproved what Soloviev said? Numerous posters have confirmed the “ossification” that Soloviev criticized. And with obvious pride.

And Newman fails? Did you interact with the text I quoted? No. Fr. John called him a “liberal Protestant” and dismissed him. Unless I missed something or cannot recall it at the moment, not one EO has explained why doctrine does not develop as the need of the Church requires it. Going further, Sheed points out WHY development is unavoidable: thinking men pray and live the Word of God and see connections not seen in the past.

Prooftexts? Heh. I only wish that some would actually quote a text or two from Scripture, so we could reason together…but the silence in that regard is deafening. Oh, I hear all about Canon 28 and various councils and Photius and Honorius…but I haven’t had anyone ask me to examine the Word of God concerning Jesus and his Royal Steward, Cephas.

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.

Newman’s assessment has been proven correct in the wider world of the universal Church. In the smaller, divided and distinct churches that make up the Orthodox quilt, maybe not.

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

That and fear and pride.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Let’s set aside the problem of Eastern doctrine v. Western doctrine for a post or two, okay?

Are you saying that doctrine develops? This really is a yes or no question.

If so, how does that happen?

And why?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Sure. That’s what we Catholics would love to discuss with you.

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.

Interpretation? You mean people think about, pray about, and live out the revelation and over time arrive at some conclusions about what the correct meaning of revelation is? Isn’t that development of doctrine, Cavaradossi? I’ve been told that Orthodox theologians pray (as opposed to Catholic theologians who teach at liberal arts colleges). As they pray, what do they learn? Correct interpretations? See how this works?

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.

And we do!

:clapping::dancing::extrahappy::choocho:
:whackadoo::egyptian::bluelite:

Ahem. You see, Cavaradossi, Catholics are completely at home with the different interpretations you mention. Depending on the context, it is absolutely understandable that a Father might extol Jesus as the Rock, Peter as the Rock, Peter’s confession as the Rock. In fact, we can even understand why a Father might speak of the Eucharist as symbolic in one paragraph and as the real presence in another. We have nothing to fear from a “both-and” approach.

But here’s the thing, and there’s really no getting around it: for some, the idea that Peter is the Rock is unthinkable. Because if Peter is the Rock, then that means that the Catholic Church was right on this point all along. Other dominoes start to fall. So, I applaud your honesty (and anticipate your rebuttal backing away from this cliff), but there it is: Peter is the Rock. The papacy is the foundation upon which Jesus promised to build His Church.

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

Is that what you think, Cavaradossi? No. But look, Satan tried to derail the plan of God by tempting Jesus in the desert. When that failed, he managed to get Jesus nailed to the Cross. When that didn’t work, he had Stephen stoned, Peter arrested…and on and on and on. The Nestorians had their shot at unseating the Church, but God triumphed. The schism occurred but we soldier on. The Reformation tore the fabric of the Church again, but hell still has not prevailed. The Church that Jesus promised to build continues to preach the good news and make disciples of all nations.

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.

The pope has apologized twice. Are you ready to forgive and forget? Some in this forum don’t appear to be.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Cavaradossi & Misplaced_Book:

Do you hear what is being said? Doctrine cannot develop.

That, gentlemen, is the definition of ossification, and that is what Soloviev observed.

No traction, MB? Really?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

And you, apparently, are ignoring a whole bunch of Greek scholars who say this is poppycock. “One must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the messianic confession, of Peter.”

Building one’s entire faith on one verse is something that a Protestant might do.

Well, Father, as one former Southern Methodist boy to another, I agree. Happily, I have a whole bunch more verses we’ll get to.

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.

Don’t forget the promised Holy Spirit who leads the Church into all truth. That’s infallibility, but we’ll get to that verse another time.

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.

Ah. The expected shift from Peter to the argument for Apostolic Succession. I’ve seen it sooo many times from Protestants. But first, let me thank you for the concession regarding the Fathers, Father. Remember, you wrote:

Originally Posted by frjohnmorris View Post
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.

It appears that you are backing off on that now. To be fair, I’ve had this same discussion countless times with non-Catholics in the Apologetics forum, so I figured we would reach this point eventually.

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.

Well, Fr. John, if you are correct, then I can’t wait to lay that on some Baptists who think that every congregation was completely autonomous.

Wait till I tell them that an Orthodox priest proved them wrong…what a hoot!

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

I almost forgot to ask: would you mind sharing the comments you wrote for Isaiah 22:20-22?

Thanks.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Cavaradossi & Misplaced_Book:

Do you hear what is being said? Doctrine cannot develop.

Equivocation. Different definitions of doctrinal development are running around here. As Fr. Michael Pomazansky teaches in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, that doctrine develops in one sense of the word, but it does not develop in another sense of the word. Doctrine develops in the sense that the sphere of what is considered to be dogma increased as arguments over the right exegesis of the scriptures are resolved. Doctrine “develops” in this narrow sense not in that we can expand upon the content of revelation, or bring it to greater perfection, but in that we establish how the content of revelation is to be understood and interpreted.

However, many use the term doctrinal development in order to mean the expansion of doctrine through the means of philosophy (as is the case of many modern speculative theologians). The tools of philosophy can be used to expound the truths of divine revelation, but cannot themselves be used to derive truths not already present in the deposit of faith, and in this sense, doctrine can never develop, because its content never truly changes. Fr. Michael Pomazansky makes the (admittedly crude) analogy of Dogmatic Theology to the study of any writer, such as Pushkinology. The field of Pushkinology itself may expand as more study Pushkin and interpret his works, but the content of his works themselves can never be added to by this process.

That, gentlemen, is the definition of ossification, and that is what Soloviev observed.

A most amusing accusation. I would in fact be worried if Soloviev had found Orthodoxy anything but “ossified.” For Soloviev believed that the Church’s knowledge of the faith was imperfect and on a constant trajectory towards perfection. His view that Orthodoxy was “ossified” was essentially his justification for his eclectic idea that all religions were in some sense true, with Christianity only being the highest among them, and for his Sophiology, namely his thoughts on the eternal feminine and the “eternal Femininity of God” (these two things only being a few of his many erroneous and inventive “doctrinal developments”). It should come as no surprise, then, that Orthodoxy in fact had no room for his mad philosophical ravings on Sophia, and that he in turn criticized Orthodoxy as being “ossified.”

 

[Peter_J]

How so, Peter?

I’d say that you’ve been giving us a black eye, making it appear that we need to resort to specious arguments and even name calling.

I haven’t forgetten that, not too long ago, I stood up for you because I thought some of my fellow ECs were too harsh in assessing your participation here. I still think I was right to do so but, on the other hand, I don’t intend to pretend that your posts (including your “arguments”) are better than they really are.

Were you expecting any of these folks currently taking exception to my refutation of their cherished strawmen to convert any time soon?

Perhaps those who are lurking but not posting are happy to hear Orthodox apologists refuted.

I don’t really have any expectation that anyone will convert or not convert. But it doesn’t concern me too much because I believe that pastoral activity in the Catholic Church no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other (cf the Balamand Statement).

Having said that, I can’t help noticing that you keep repeating the same assertions, for example here:

But here’s the thing, and there’s really no getting around it: for some, the idea that Peter is the Rock is unthinkable. Because if Peter is the Rock, then that means that the Catholic Church was right on this point all along. Other dominoes start to fall. So, I applaud your honesty (and anticipate your rebuttal backing away from this cliff), but there it is: Peter is the Rock. The papacy is the foundation upon which Jesus promised to build His Church.

over and over again (I don’t want to included a dozen quotes in this posts but trust me, you’ve repeated them over and over, and over and over, again). Do you really think that repetition will convince anyone?

 

[Peter_J]

A most amusing accusation. I would in fact be worried if Soloviev had found Orthodoxy anything but “ossified.” For Soloviev believed that the Church’s knowledge of the faith was imperfect and on a constant trajectory towards perfection. His view that Orthodoxy was “ossified” was essentially his justification for his eclectic idea that all religions were in some sense true, with Christianity only being the highest among them, and for his Sophiology, namely his thoughts on the eternal feminine and the “eternal Femininity of God” (these two things only being a few of his many erroneous and inventive “doctrinal developments”). It should come as no surprise, then, that Orthodoxy in fact had no room for his mad philosophical ravings on Sophia, and that he in turn criticized Orthodoxy as being “ossified.”

Interesting. I have generally avoided wasting time on Soloviev, but I don’t think I ever entirely knew why – I largely just took on faith, from some Catholics I trust, that it would be a waste of time.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’d say that you’ve been giving us a black eye, making it appear that we need to resort to specious arguments and even name calling.

I haven’t forgetten that, not too long ago, I stood up for you because I thought some of my fellow ECs were too harsh in assessing your participation here. I still think I was right to do so but, on the other hand, I don’t intend to pretend that your posts (including your “arguments”) are better than they really are.

I don’t really have any expectation that anyone will convert or not convert. But it doesn’t concern me too much because I believe that pastoral activity in the Catholic Church no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other (cf the Balamand Statement).

Having said that, I can’t help noticing that you keep repeating the same assertions, for example here:

over and over again (I don’t want to included a dozen quotes in this posts but trust me, you’ve repeated them over and over, and over and over, again). Do you really think that repetition will convince anyone?

Specious? Are you Orthodox?

Here’s what we could do, Peter…why don’t you take over the discussion for a few days? I would be very interested to watch how you would like to address the charges that:

a. the papacy is a man-made tradition
b. the Orthodox Church ALONE is the one, true Church
c. Catholics are the ones in schism (are the heretics, etc.)
d. Orthodoxy and Catholicism are two different faiths (Cavaradossi)
e. doctrine does not develop
f. Peter is not the Rock
g. and on and on and on.

Willing to tackle all that?

 

[Peter_J]

Specious? Are you Orthodox?

No. Why? They don’t have a copyright on that word.

Here’s what we could do, Peter…why don’t you take over the discussion for a few days?

Thanks, and I’ll think about it, but I’m about 98% sure that my answer will be no. Heck, sometimes I even wonder why I continue reading this discussion.

P.S. Perhaps rather than trying to appoint someone, the best thing would be to just see who steps in. That’s generally how it works.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Randy,

There is no need to be rude. Cavaradossi and Father John have more than ably answered your objections and arguments, so I won’t pile on or rehash what they have said. They are much more knowledgeable than I am.

I have actually been thinking about my participation on this forum, and in particular the discussions over the past weeks on Orthodoxy here. Interestingly enough, just today after Divine Liturgy there was an ecumenical gathering of sorts of different Christian clergy that I had the pleasure to be around for. I spent an hour or so talking with a Benedictine Roman Catholic Deacon, who was a very lovely man. I then got to thinking about these conversations, and while I am still firm in my beliefs of the truth of Orthodoxy, I realize that I have fallen into the Sin of Pride, because “Winning the Argument” actually started becoming a consideration. This won’t do at all. I certainly didn’t speak to the Deacon the way I have argued here, and I realized I am wrong. It isn’t about winning the argument, it isn’t about scoring points. The Truth must be served, and the Orthodox Faith needs to be explained, defended and the dialogue needs to continue. I’m not the man to do it.

I ask Forgiveness from anyone who may have been scandalized or put off by any sharp edges or foolishness that I may have written. As I said, there are more dispassionate and knowledgeable voices on Orthodoxy here who already have written posts. I would encourage everyone to listen to them, pray, and continue your path.

God be with you all.

 

[RyanBlack]

How so, Peter?

Were you expecting any of these folks currently taking exception to my refutation of their cherished strawmen to convert any time soon?

Perhaps those who are lurking but not posting are happy to hear Orthodox apologists refuted.

And perhaps those who are lurking say “What a rude, arrogant, jerk. If this is what Catholicism is all about, no thanks.” In all serious, rhetoric like that being used by Randy serves no good purpose. However, it does serve the purpose of keeping Catholics and the Orthodox divided.

 

[Randy_Carson]

No. Why? They don’t have a copyright on that word.

Thanks, and I’ll think about it, but I’m about 98% sure that my answer will be no. Heck, sometimes I even wonder why I continue reading this discussion.

P.S. Perhaps rather than trying to appoint someone, the best thing would be to just see who steps in. That’s generally how it works.

Yes, it is. That’s why I’m here…no one else was taking up the challenge.

But I could use some help, so feel free to chime in.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Randy,

There is no need to be rude. Cavaradossi and Father John have more than ably answered your objections and arguments, so I won’t pile on or rehash what they have said. They are much more knowledgeable than I am.

I have actually been thinking about my participation on this forum, and in particular the discussions over the past weeks on Orthodoxy here. Interestingly enough, just today after Divine Liturgy there was an ecumenical gathering of sorts of different Christian clergy that I had the pleasure to be around for. I spent an hour or so talking with a Benedictine Roman Catholic Deacon, who was a very lovely man. I then got to thinking about these conversations, and while I am still firm in my beliefs of the truth of Orthodoxy, I realize that I have fallen into the Sin of Pride, because “Winning the Argument” actually started becoming a consideration. This won’t do at all. I certainly didn’t speak to the Deacon the way I have argued here, and I realized I am wrong. It isn’t about winning the argument, it isn’t about scoring points. The Truth must be served, and the Orthodox Faith needs to be explained, defended and the dialogue needs to continue. I’m not the man to do it.

I ask Forgiveness from anyone who may have been scandalized or put off by any sharp edges or foolishness that I may have written. As I said, there are more dispassionate and knowledgeable voices on Orthodoxy here who already have written posts. I would encourage everyone to listen to them, pray, and continue your path.

God be with you all.

MB-

First, I forgive you. Be at peace.

Second, I, too, have been reflecting along these lines. When I’m not online here, I’m reading about Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Bernard of Clairveaux, Terese of Liseaux and Francis de Sales in a wonderful book entitled, The Fulfillment of All Desire. It’s not a book of Catholic theology; it’s about the universal call to holiness and the spiritual marriage with God to which we may all aspire. You can read the first 30 pages or so here:

barnesandnoble.com/w/the-fulfillment-of-all-desire-ralph-martin/1007986291?ean=9781931018364

At the same time, MB, I believe deep in my heart that Orthodoxy is an error that can and must be overcome by Truth. Consider how far we have come in the past couple of weeks:

• It was originally asserted that doctrine does not develop. Now, Cavaradossi has shown that this is not true.
• It was originally asserted that Peter is not the Rock. Now, Cavaradossi concedes that he was.

I’m happy for Cavaradossi, but the real beneficiary of this is Fr. John.

If you admit that Peter is the rock and that doctrine does develop, then I can build the case for the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Universal Church. The schism is ended.

Getting people to admit things they don’t want to admit is difficult. Paul was beaten and left for dead for preaching the truth to people that did not want to hear it. I’m bruised but NOT beaten, and I will dust myself off and go back into the Areopagus to speak again. Paul wrote:

Romans 10:14-15
14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? 15 And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent? That is why the Scriptures say, “How beautiful are the feet of messengers who bring good news!”

I’m not questioning anyone’s salvation, and I’m no Paul, but the papacy is part of the Truth that has been revealed to us by God. People need to hear the truth because the Truth will set them free.

That’s why I do what I do.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Equivocation. Different definitions of doctrinal development are running around here. As Fr. Michael Pomazansky teaches in Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, that doctrine develops in one sense of the word, but it does not develop in another sense of the word. Doctrine develops in the sense that the sphere of what is considered to be dogma increased as arguments over the right exegesis of the scriptures are resolved. Doctrine “develops” in this narrow sense not in that we can expand upon the content of revelation, or bring it to greater perfection, but in that we establish how the content of revelation is to be understood and interpreted.

However, many use the term doctrinal development in order to mean the expansion of doctrine through the means of philosophy (as is the case of many modern speculative theologians). The tools of philosophy can be used to expound the truths of divine revelation, but cannot themselves be used to derive truths not already present in the deposit of faith, and in this sense, doctrine can never develop, because its content never truly changes. Fr. Michael Pomazansky makes the (admittedly crude) analogy of Dogmatic Theology to the study of any writer, such as Pushkinology. The field of Pushkinology itself may expand as more study Pushkin and interpret his works, but the content of his works themselves can never be added to by this process.

I’d like to give an example and get your opinion.

Jesus has ascended and the Holy Spirit has descended. The early Church is scattered but begins to proclaim the good news wherever it goes. A part of that gospel is this: Jesus is God. Good so far?

Then one day, Polycarp is praying about God becoming a man…thank you, Lord…born of a woman…Mary…yes, Lord…Jesus was Mary’s only son…praise you, Jesus…Mary is Jesus’ mother…Jesus is the son of God and the son of Mary…

Hey!

Wait a second!

If Mary is the Mother of Jesus and Jesus is God…that means…no…yes! Mary is the Mother of God!

I wonder what Ignatius will think of this when I tell him…I should write to Clement in Rome, first.

Now, did doctrine develop in this case or not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

MB-

First, I forgive you. Be at peace.

Second, I, too, have been reflecting along these lines. When I’m not online here, I’m reading about Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Bernard of Clairveaux, Terese of Liseaux and Francis de Sales in a wonderful book entitled, The Fulfillment of All Desire. It’s not a book of Catholic theology; it’s about the universal call to holiness and the spiritual marriage with God to which we may all aspire. You can read the first 30 pages or so here:

barnesandnoble.com/w/the-fulfillment-of-all-desire-ralph-martin/1007986291?ean=9781931018364

It might change your life.

At the same time, MB, I believe deep in my heart that Orthodoxy is an error that can and must be overcome by Truth. Consider how far we have come in the past couple of weeks:

• It was originally asserted that doctrine does not develop. Now, Cavaradossi has shown that this is not true.
• It was originally asserted that Peter is not the Rock. Now, Cavaradossi concedes that he was.

I’m happy for Cavaradossi, but the real beneficiary of this is Fr. John.

If you admit that Peter is the rock and that doctrine does develop, then I can build the case for the Bishop of Rome as the head of the Universal Church. The schism is ended.

Getting people to admit things they don’t want to admit is difficult. Paul was beaten and left for dead for preaching the truth to people that did not want to hear it. I’m bruised but NOT beaten, and I will dust myself off and go back into the Areopagus to speak again. Paul wrote:

Romans 10:14-15
14 But how can they call on him to save them unless they believe in him? And how can they believe in him if they have never heard about him? And how can they hear about him unless someone tells them? 15 And how will anyone go and tell them without being sent? That is why the Scriptures say, “How beautiful are the feet of messengers who bring good news!”

I’m not questioning anyone’s salvation, and I’m no Paul, but the papacy is part of the Truth that has been revealed to us by God. People need to hear the truth because the Truth will set them free.

That’s why I do what I do.

 

[spina1953]

My commnt to post #455, In that that post it says that Orthodox " recognizes St Peter as the chief of the Apostles but believes all Bishops are sucessors to St. Peter. My thinking is that there are sucessors to St. Peter and the other Bishops are sucessors to the rest of he Apostles. I say this because I think that the Apostles as a whole stood behind Peter as their spokes person and while they may have had some differences as we can read in the New Testament Gospels, they all preached and taught the same thing. Over time there was It seems to me, questions as to what they meant in what they taught and preachd which needed to be resolved so that all woul b on the same page so to speak. Where the Pope pronounces it, it i becaue there is union between the Bishops and the Pope. the Pope on his own does not pronounce a doctrine without the aid and union with all of its bishops in union with him What I am saying is my understanding is that first there is agreement before the Pope makes pronouncements concerning any doctrine.

 

[spina1953]

I agree with Post #456 with the primises made.