Define "Supremacy"

[Orthodoc]

[If everything the Orthodox Church claims against the papacy can be equally applied to the Orthodox Church (i.e., persecutions, “dictatorship,” simony, use of the secular arm, etc.), what is the real rationale for continued separation?]

[For now, can you please answer my question in post# 72 above? Thanks.]

Answer: [Caps are mine]

I Corinthians 1:10 - Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, THAT YOU ALL SPEAK THE SAME THING, and that there be no divisions among you, BUT THAT YOU BE PERFECTLY JOINED TOGETHER IN THE SAME MIND AND IN THE SAME JUDGEMENT.

Note: Prior to the schism we all fit the above scriptural commandment. Since the Orthodox Catholic Church has not added, subtracted, or changed its doctrine since the time of a united church…we will only once again fit the above description of unity when the Roman Catholic Church returns to the Church and doctrines it left at that time and returns to Orthodox Catholicity. Only then can unity be achieved.

Now, I have answered your question.

Orthodoc

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Greg,

I know this is off the topic of the thread, since you have requested a response I will reply.
The Russian Orthodox hierarchy rightly believes that they have a responsibility to defend the flock against those that have fallen into heresy. We are not free to believe whatever we want regarding Christianity in Orthodox theology. This is an obvious notion that is also intact in the Latin way of thinking. Since there are many Orthodox Christians in Russia it is appropriate for the shepherd to stop the flock from being lead astray. This is a serious responsibility, it’s not looked at in western modern terms of democracy and freedom to believe anything and it’s not about negating free will, it’s about not allowing those who do not rightly divide the word of God’s truth to attack. It is always honorable to guard the faithful and fulfill the obligation to prevent apostasy. The Latins would even agree with that premise. However, do keep in mind that we are not talking about burning all the heretics. In short there is no theological freedom to believe whatever you want in Orthodox thought or Latin thought. To use a commonly shared position against the Orthodox hierarchy in Russia to suggest a notion along the lines of see how bad they are is saying quite a bit. You can not argue that the Russian Orthodox Church is wrong by not allowing other religions access to the flock. This is particularly so since many of those other religions are laden with heresy and actively seek to “convert” Orthodox Christians. I would think that under similar circumstances Rome would have to respond in a like manner to suggest otherwise is an additional strong twisting of this subject matter as well.

I have to go take care of yourself.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve B,

To put thing in their proper context when Saint Cyprian (A.D. 251) wrote about the “chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built” he was not addressing the papacy or the Latins as they understand it today. Can you find any statement from an early Church father that says that Peter is infallible when speaking from that chair? (ex-cathedra)
I think this additional text written by Matthew Steenberg would help with the subject matter from an Orthodox perspective.

"The Orthodox Church has always professed, and indeed still professes, that the Episcopal seat of St Peter is the first among those of the great sees. This must be clarified immediately to read first among equals of the successors to the holy Apostles, for the Church’s ‘collegiality’ does not ascribe more ‘spiritual authority’ (or such) to any one bishop over another. The successors of the Apostles are the successors to the Apostles, equal as respects the charism of the apostolate and authority in ‘rightly defining the Word of God’s truth’. They are, nonetheless, accorded an organized hierarchy of honour and organizational authority, precisely as the Lord organized the ranks of the original twelve Apostles. Thus amongst these equals there is a ‘first’, not inasmuch as canonical or spiritual authority are concerned, but as respects organization, unity, and patrimony.

In this ‘hierarchy of the hierarchs’, the bishop of Rome, the descendent of St Peter, is as noted above ranked first of all. However, because this organization of bishops also professes that none is doctrinally flawless or inerrant, it is possible for one or another - or even whole successions of bishops - to fall into error or heresy. This is precisely the situation that the Church would and does proclaim with regard to the see of St Peter. While it rightly would hold first place among the sees of the Church, the departure from the Orthodox Faith by its patrimony means that this position shifts to the next in the hierarchy - namely, Constantinople."

End of Matthew Steenberg’s quote.

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve B,

As far as the error part goes do keep in mind that there are many, as such I will mention a few things that are easily to identify with. The Orthodox Church has remained true to the teachings of Christ and the Fathers. When the Fathers are truthfully referred to in the context of the Orthodox faith from which their understanding and writings are born by the grace of God many of the positions articulated by those in communion with the Bishop of Rome are revealed as simply wrong or distorted. In Orthodox theology the mind is considered lower and the heart is expressed by the Orthodox Fathers as the seat of the soul and divine knowledge it has always been that way. From the Latin’s we can see the results of the reliance of the mind for theological development. It is known that there is a direct correlation between liturgical consistent practices and theological consistency expressed in the fullness of the truth and established in the Orthodox Church, which the Lord God Almighty’s right hand has planted. Hence we can learn much by taking a look at the Latin liturgical practices of today. In the correct teachings of the Orthodox Church children are not denied the precious body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
In the developed Latin rite of today as a result of the adjusting of the original order of the sacraments by the minds of men in error, sadly children are denied the Eucharist until they have reached the age of reason of seven years old or so when they are more intelligent. This denial of the Body and blood of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ is an established practice within the Latin rite of today. Children used to not be denied the Eucharist but the minds of men went to work and have subjected the sincere faithful to their distortions for past 900 years or so. Has Christ not been crucified for children even if they have not reached the age of reason?

John 21:16
He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

Matthew 19
13 Then were there brought unto him little children, that he should put his hands on them, and pray: and the disciples rebuked them.
14 But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven.
15 And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence.

Matthew 26

While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”
27: Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.

As Saint Clement of Alexandria has written “We learn from the Scriptures demonstrably that the heresies have gone astray, and that only in the true Church is the most accurate knowledge.”

Facilitated by the presence of children surely most men or woman can move into their hearts for a moment and see that it is wrong to deny a child the body and blood of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ irrespective of what the minds of men in the Latin rite now subject the faithful to as well as their loved ones. How can this practice be rationalized within the heart? It is a violation of the hearts and minds suffered by many Latin rite parents who love their children in accordance with the commandment of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

John 15:13
Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.

Surely these little ones are loved and cherished and HIS friends and no exclusion is suggested.

St Irenaeus of Lyons tells us the heretics are proved to be disciples not of the Apostles, but of their own wicked notions. To this cause also are due the various opinions that exist among them, inasmuch as each one adopts error in whatever manner it presents itself to him. But the Church throughout all the world, having its origin firm from the Apostles, perseveres in one and the same opinion with regard to God and His Son.

It is obvious and true that the Latin’s of today have separated themselves from Orthodoxy by means of unorthodoxy which is being experienced today by many sincere and faithful members who have seen some more of the dismantling of the ancient and venerable Latin rite with acceleration before their very eyes. These faithful people have subjected themselves and their children to the understandings of those in error who when made aware of a heresy disregard or adjust that heresy for justification purposes. Many of these things are merely a manifestation of the continuation of the great apostasy from the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Matthew,

Welcome, brother. I appreciate your defense of the ROC. The reason I brought up the issue of “dictatorship” with regards to the ROC is because the RO on this board have brought up accusations of “dictatorship” against the papacy as a (supposedly) valid excuse to maintain disunity. The link indicates that the rationale is morally invalid.

Though I agree with you that the method of the ROC is enshrined even in the CC’s political theory, I believe in the freedom of conscience, and so does the Catholic Church. It is almost ironic that given the Orthodox Church’s focus on the spirituality and responsibility of the lay Church, she would not trust her members to make their own, informed choices about religion, and instead attempt to use the State in a coercive manner to protect them. Where is the legendary trust in the Holy Spirit that inspires the Orthodox Church? In any case, there is no justification for including the Catholic Church in the restrictions of the new laws, especially as she has had solid presence in Russian lands since the 19th century (certainly much longer than the “15 years” prescribed in the restrictions). I am also very disturbed at the fact that the Russian Orthodox Church would use such coercive means to promote itself, yet feels free to take advantage of the more democratic and traditionally Catholic lands in order to establish herself there. If it were not for these gross inconsistencies in ROC doctrine and practice, I would not care a whit about what she does in her own canonical territory.

Once again, welcome!

God bless,

Greg

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Matthew,

I want to comment on your post regarding the Communion to infants. If you do not mind my saying so, it seems you are judging the Catholic practice on a misperceived understanding of the Sacraments. It is not a matter of mind over heart for the Catholic Church at all. The underlying reason we do not feel the need to give communion to infants is because we believe the grace of our Lord is not limited to the Sacraments (though they are indeed the NORMAL means of grace). It is not so much that we believe that an infant needs to be capable of reason to receive the Sacrament – certainly, the CC grants communion even to mentally handicapped people who may not fully understand Who it is they are receiving. If the Catholic Church understood that God’s grace is limited to the Sacraments, we would not hesitate to practice infant communion. But since we believe God’s grace can and does exist beyond the Sacraments (and I’m sure you believe it as well), we feel secure that withholding communion from infants does not deprive them of the grace necessary for salvation (which they obtained at baptism) should they die before the age of reason – and isn’t that what it’s all about? So the kerygma is maintained – the necessity of divine grace – though the practice is different.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Greg,

The legendary trust in the Holy Spirit that inspires the Orthodox Church is not withdrawn from our hierarchs, as you must agree since your Papacy acknowledges that it’s appropriate for the Orthodox to listen to our Patriarch’s and Bishops. Even the Bishop of Rome listens quite often I might add. The trust in the Holy Spirit inspired many martyrs in Russia under the assaults of the Christian hating state. In fact, incalculable number of Russian Orthodox Christians perished. So please don’t mock their relatives who might consider your words as rather inconsiderate.

If you believe that God’s grace is not limited then why do you limit it when you perceive and articulate those perceptions. If you believe that Holy Eucharist is the true body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ therefore the whole Christ is truly present in the Eucharist why deny the Eucharist to His children?

I have read what you have written and there is no point in me being here. As such it’s best that I leave.

Thank you for conveying your perspective.

Dear Father Ambrose,

I give up as this is a place of twisting things. Since the Latins can twist Holy writ with such disregard it is no shock to me that other subjects are available for such treatment as well.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

"I think that if there was no support for the Orthodox position I don’t think the Orthodox would question understandings in context such as Irenaeus had articulated, etc. The Orthodox patristic views and that implicit reliance in Orthodox theology can not be disregarded or reduced to support the Roman Catholic supremacy developments.

Here are some remarks from a friend of mine who is teaching at Oxford. He has conveyed his approval for me to reference them as they are relavant to the subject matter.

Some of the most straightforward remarks in this regard actually come down to us from St Gregory the Great, pope of Rome in the sixth-seventh centuries A.D. His remarks were occasioned by the Emperor’s application of the title ‘Ecumenical Patriarch’ to St John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople. Gregory was deeply disturbed by this title, not because he felt that its attribution to a patriarch other than that of the see of St Peter was improper, but because he felt the very notion of such a title or rank was incorrect (we must keep in mind that St Gregory understood ‘ecumenical’ to mean universal in authority and power, which is not how the term as it is used in the title ‘ecumenical patriarch’ has come down to us today’). In response to this, St Gregory writes to St John:

“Certainly Peter, the first of the Apostles, himself a member of the holy and universal Church, Paul, Andrew, John – what were these but heads of particular communities? And yet all were members under one Head …] the prelates of this Apostolic See *, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor offered them of being called ‘universal’ (oikoumenikos) by the venerable Council of Chalcedon. Yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by such a title, or has seized upon this ill-advised name, lest if, in virtue of the rank of the pontificate he took to himself the glory of singularity, he might seem to have denied it to all his brethren …]”
(Excerpted from Book 5 of the collected epistles of St Gregory the Great of Rome, Epistle 18).

Later he writes in a similar vein:

“This name of Universality was offered by the Holy Synod of Chalcedon to the pontiff of the apostolic see which by the Providence of God I serve *. But no one of my predecessors has ever consented to use this so profane a title since, forsooth, if one Patriarch is called Universal, the name of Patriarch in the case of the rest is derogated. But far be this from the mind of a Christian that any on should wish to seize for himself that whereby he might seem in the least degree to lessen the honor of his brethren…”
(Book 5, Epistle 43)

When, a short time later he writes to the Emperor (Maurice) on the matter, he is yet more emphatic:

“Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others.”
(Book 7, Epistle 33)

Later, he writes to the Bishop of Alexandria (Evlogios):

“Your Blessedness …] You address me saying, ‘As you have commanded’. This word ‘command’ I beg you to remove from my hearing, since I know who I am and who you are. For in position you are my brother, in character my father. …] In the preface of the epistle which you have addressed to myself, who forbade it, you have thought fit to make use of a proud appellation, calling me Universal Pope. But I beg you, most sweet Holiness: do this no more, since what is given to another beyond what reason demands, is subtracted from yourself …] For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.”
(Book 8, Epistle 30)

There are multiple things of note in these quotations, but among them I might simply point out Gregory’s own insistence that, prior to his own day (he reposed in A.D. 604), no bishop of Rome had ever claimed episcopal primacy of authority."
**
Matthew,

Reread what I wrote. The answer to this is there.

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

Yes, it is there and it is called the spirit of humility and not infallibility. Is it obvious? The spirit of humility unites but so can the spirit of deception. St Gregory the Great understood the aforementioned well. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction with respect to all other bishops and he makes no mention of a position of singular infallibility applied to the Bishop of Rome or any other see. From an Orthodox perspective if Rome was not in error certainly primacy of jurisdiction is something that is not foreign to Orthodox thought as it was not foreign to St Gregory the Great either. Infallibility would be foreign to both. The best that you could do to support the idea of infallibility would be to provide references to some “seeds” that have been watered in intellectualism and that have grown accordingly.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

Yes, it is there and it is called the spirit of humility and not infallibility. Is it obvious? The spirit of humility unites but so can the spirit of deception. St Gregory the Great understood the aforementioned well. He believed the bishop of Rome has primacy of jurisdiction with respect to all other bishops and he makes no mention of a position of singular infallibility applied to the Bishop of Rome or any other see. From an Orthodox perspective if Rome was not in error certainly primacy of jurisdiction is something that is not foreign to Orthodox thought as it was not foreign to St Gregory the Great either. Infallibility would be foreign to both. The best that you could do to support the idea of infallibility would be to provide references to some “seeds” that have been watered in intellectualism and that have grown accordingly.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

Matthew,

I can give you a more detailed answer than the one I previously gave you. But first ask yourself, do you think that if your interpretation of those passages from pope Gregory the Great were valid, that Gregory would be called saint and doctor of the Church? NOPE !!!

You’ve been persuaded by Protestant fundamentalists arguments. They took Gregory’s comments out of context and spun a bunch of pretext around them. Go back and reread what I said previously.

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve B,

To put thing in their proper context when Saint Cyprian (A.D. 251) wrote about the “chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built” he was not addressing the papacy or the Latins as they understand it today.

The quote I gave you was Cyprian’s letter to Pope Cornelius.
Matthew P.:

Can you find any statement from an early Church father that says that Peter is infallible when speaking from that chair? (ex-cathedra)

1. Are you suggesting Peter taught error?
2. “from the chair” is an expression. What you’re hinting at is like saying a judge can’t rule on an issue authoritatively, unless he’s physically sitting on his bench. We know that’s not the case.
3. Jesus said the Pharisees sit on Moses seat, so “do whatever they tell you to do” because of it. You won’t find one reference in scripture showing Moses had a chair he ruled from. Yet Jesus ratifies it. It’s an expression. When the boss introduces his right hand man, does that mean he can only be on his boss’s right hand when making policy or deciding an important matter? If Jesus says this about the pharisees, how much more will he say this about Peter, His duely appointed, whom He renames Rock, and say He will build His Church on.

Matthew P.:

I think this additional text written by Matthew Steenberg would help with the subject matter from an Orthodox perspective.

"The Orthodox Church has always professed, and indeed still professes, that the Episcopal seat of St Peter is the first among those of the great sees. This must be clarified immediately to read first among equals of the successors to the holy Apostles, for the Church’s ‘collegiality’ does not ascribe more ‘spiritual authority’ (or such) to any one bishop over another. The successors of the Apostles are the successors to the Apostles, equal as respects the charism of the apostolate and authority in ‘rightly defining the Word of God’s truth’. They are, nonetheless, accorded an organized hierarchy of honour and organizational authority, precisely as the Lord organized the ranks of the original twelve Apostles. Thus amongst these equals there is a ‘first’, not inasmuch as canonical or spiritual authority are concerned, but as respects organization, unity, and patrimony.

In this ‘hierarchy of the hierarchs’, the bishop of Rome, the descendent of St Peter, is as noted above ranked first of all. However, because this organization of bishops also professes that none is doctrinally flawless or inerrant, it is possible for one or another - or even whole successions of bishops - to fall into error or heresy. This is precisely the situation that the Church would and does proclaim with regard to the see of St Peter. While it rightly would hold first place among the sees of the Church, the departure from the Orthodox Faith by its patrimony means that this position shifts to the next in the hierarchy - namely, Constantinople."

Steenberg’s interpretation as an Orthodox taking the Orthodox position, is duely noted

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

Allow me to explain a few things from my perspective and advise you on how distortions occur. An accurate example would be the establishment of a foundation an incorrect premise put in place by either ignorance or the desire to promote an incorrect notion.

As such when you make the incorrect comment that I have been persuaded by Protestant fundamentalists arguments you are stating something that is not true. At this point in time you can not know what I’m specifically persuaded by. You could conjecture but this is of little use to anyone. I hope you can see that your attention to that matter really doesn’t have anything to do with this subject matter. But it does provide an indication of the movements of the reasoning that you are articulating. Such statements are often wrong before they are even uttered, I just thought I would bring that to your attention for your consideration. Please don’t be offended.

As an Christian in communion with Rome your Church had at one time been of the same mind as my Church, the Orthodox Catholic Church. The usually reference date of the great schism is 1054. The Protestant reformation was around 1517-1559. The Orthodox Church is not persuaded by Protestants fundamentalists arguments as the Orthodox Church still maintains it’s reliance on it patristic understandings for theology. This notion is something that is all but lost with the Latins of today as a well known Latin theologian has mentioned to me recently. Now, it is true that the Protestants will often be persuaded by some Orthodox understandings particularly if they help them to substantiate their opposition to the distortions of the Latins. Bear in mind that those Orthodox positions had existed long before the reformation, confusing that reality the other way around is very inaccurate. That reality doesn’t change irrespective of what you have written.

To respond to your other comment if my interpretation of those passages from pope Gregory the Great were valid, that Gregory would be called saint and doctor of the Church? NOPE !!!

The Orthodox Church is the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. We adhere to the teachings that have come forth from those councils. None of those councils that the Latins used to adhere to as well have accepted the notion of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. No Church father has ever taught an infallibility doctrine and it is clearly contradicted by the practice of the early Councils and Church fathers. To stay on subject I will not mention many other things that the Latins to not adhere to even though they agreed that they would in a very serious way. Basically saying anathema to any man who would dare to changes these things. Then latter changing them, hence we have problems.

The early Church never viewed the bishops of Rome to be infallible. YEP!!!

Steve, you might want to become familiar with the first seven Ecumenical Councils and read some of the Fathers from those councils if you have not. If you already have, in charity do not respond to anything I write. If you have not and have some time to do so you may understand the words in the link below.

geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/bartholomew_phos.html

Bear in mind that those things that divide the Church are not good, and I often fall well short of the below words. As such please don’t be offend by my post.

“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Volodymyr]

Fr Ambrose:

Dear John,

Thanks muchly. I am a Paleohimerologite, so I am holding off with the allnight vigilling and celebration for two more weeks

Otche:

Pozdravljaju Vas c dnjom Sv Amvrosija Midolanskoho. -( 20 djekabra) Ja takojh “starokalendaristom”. Mnohaya i blahaya Vam Lyeta!

Catholics do use word supremacy for Pope. He is the Supreme Pontiff - (po russkij verkhovnij jhretz). Whatever that is, that is what supremacy must mean for Pope.

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,
Allow me to explain a few things … [snip]… just thought I would bring that to your attention for your consideration. Please don’t be offended.

I’m not offended. I was primarily responding to what you took out of context.
Matthew P.:

Bear in mind that those Orthodox positions had existed long before the reformation, confusing that reality the other way around is very inaccurate. That reality doesn’t change irrespective of what you have written.

According to you infallibility doesn’t exist. Therefore you can’t say you didn’t err…
Matthew P.:

To respond to your other comment if my interpretation of those passages from pope Gregory the Great were valid, that Gregory would be called saint and doctor of the Church? NOPE !!!
The*** Orthodox Church is the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. ***

And the Catholic Church is the Chair of Peter.
Matthew P.:

None of those councils that the Latins used to adhere to as well have accepted the notion of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome.

If infallibility doesn’t exist, then these councils taught error. So why follow them?
Matthew P.:

No Church father has ever taught an infallibility doctrine and it is clearly contradicted by the practice of the early Councils and Church fathers.

Cyprian , writing to the pope regarding heretics coming to visit him, put the question this way, “they {the heretics and schismatics] still dare–a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics–to set sail and to bear letters from*** schismatic*** and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that ***these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access”.(*Letters [54], 14).

In the fifth century, Augustine succinctly captured the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is concluded" (Sermons 131, 10).

What infallibility does is prevent a pope from solemnly and formally teaching as “truth” something that is, in fact, error.
It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself.
Matthew P.:

The early Church never viewed the bishops of Rome to be infallible. YEP!!!

**** catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9706eaw.asp

Personally, I’ll take my chances with the promises Jesus made concerning His Church that he builds on Peter.
Matthew P.:

Steve, you might want to become familiar with the first seven Ecumenical Councils and read some of the Fathers from those councils if you have not. If you already have, in charity do not respond to anything I write. If you have not and have some time to do so you may understand the words in the link below. [snip]

And you might want to familiarize yourself with those councils also and all the other ecumenical councils after that.
Matthew P.:

As such please don’t be offend by my post.
“The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, and they may come to their senses and escape the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.”

Don’t worry, I’m not offended. And I have no interest in being quarrelsome. What good does that do?

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

I would like to bring a few additional things to your attention. As far as taking something out of the context you are referring to you might want to check into that much more. There is nothing wrong with saying I’ll check into it.

Your quote: “According to you infallibility doesn’t exist. Therefore you can’t say you didn’t err…”

The Orthodox Church does not accept Papal infallibility. We believe that what has been stated in the Seven Ecumenical Councils is “infallible”. We do not believe in Papal infallibility as the Latins do nor did any of those councils. As such your above statement is once again conjecture on your part which has led you to another incorrect conclusion which can lead you to make further incorrect statements. For instance;

Your quote: “If infallibility doesn’t exist, then these councils taught error. So why follow them?”

“It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself.”

Well there are some problems with what you are stating again. There have been many Popes that have “officially taught error” even Rome acknowledges that fact.

Pope Honorius come to my mind as a good example. He was the bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. He “officially” embraced a heresy called montheletism which officially teaches that Christ was of one will only which was officially the divine.

Pope Honoriusa was thrown out and considered a heretic at the 6th Ecumenical Council. That’s right, a Pope excommunicated by a council so much for infallibility. We can deduce as many Orthodox Saints have that Popes did not have absolute authority over the Church councils as Popes have made many mistakes relative to dogma as Pope Honorius was teaching heresy and supporting it. At the end of the 6th Ecumenical Council the bishops exclaimed excluding the Bishop of Rome “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus” The Honorius they are referring to was the Bishop of Rome. As a side note Rome me accepts the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Perhaps you have read it differently?

Your quote: Personally, I’ll take my chances with the promises Jesus made concerning His Church that he builds on Peter.

Pope Honorius occupied the Chair of Peter. So I think it is important to remember that the rock of the confession of the person Peter “thou art the Christ the Son of the living God” was an inclusive part of Saint Peter who said those words. Then we have Pope Honorius who also believed that Christ was the Son of the living God but understood and taught that the natures of Christ in a way that the Orthodox Catholic Church did not agree with. What so you conclude from that?

In Christ,
Matthew Panchisin

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Steve,

Here is a further read.

The explanation of the Holy Gospel according to Saint Matthew by the Blessed Theophylact says the following. It is an accurate reflection of Orthodox thought.

He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God. Once again Peter leaps forward with fervor and confesses that He is truly the Son of God. He did not say, thou art the anointed one, a Son of God", without the article, “the” , but with the article, “the Son”, that is, He Who is the One and the Only, not a son by grace, but He Who is begotten of the same essence as the Father. For there were also many other christs, anointed ones, such as all the priests and kings; but the Christ, with the article, there is but One.

And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Bar Jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father Who is in heaven. He calls Peter blessed for having received knowledge by divine grace. And by commending Peter, He thereby shows the opinions of other men to be false. For he calls him “Bar Jona”, that is, son of Jona", as if saying, “Just as you are the son of Jona, so am I the Son of My Father in heaven, and of one essence with Him.” He calls this knowledge “revelation”, speaking of hidden and unknown things that were disclosed by the Father.

And I say also unto thee, Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it. The Lord gives Peter a great reward, that the Church will be built on him. Since Peter confessed him as Son of God, the Lord says, “This confession which you have made shall be the foundation of those who believe, so that every man who intends to build the house of faith shall lay down this confession as the foundation.” For even if we should construct a myriad of virtues, but do not have as a foundation the Orthodox confession, our construction is rotten. By saying “My Church” He shows that He is the Master of all, for the whole universe is the servant of God. The gates of hades are those persecutors who from time to time would send Christians to hades. But the heretics, too, are gates leading to hades. The Church, then has prevailed over many persecutors and many heretics. The Church is also each one of us who has become a house of God. For if we have been established on the confession of Christ, the gates of hades, which are our sins, will not prevail against us. It was from these gates that David, to, had been lifted up when he said “O thou that dost raise me up from the gates of death” (ps. 9:13) From what gates, O David? From the twin gates of murder and adultery.

And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in the heavens: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in the heavens. He spoke as God, with authority, “I will give unto thee.” For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys. By “keys” understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind, Even though the words “I will give unto thee” were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23) The verb in Greek for “ye remit”, aphete, is second person plural, obviously not referring to one person only. Had the authority been granted to Peter alone, the text would read, “whose soever sins thou remittest”, but since “ye” is plural, we understand that the gift was given to all the apostles. Also, the words “I will give” indicate a future time, namely after the resurrection. The actual granting of the authority to remit sins takes place on the occasion described in Jn. 20:23, when, after the resurrection, the Lord breaths on all the assembled disciples. “The heavens” also mean the virtues, and the keys to the heavens are labors. For by laboring we enter into each of the virtues as if by means of keys that are used to open. If I do not labor but only know the good, I possess only the key of knowledge but remain outside. That man is bound in the heavens, that is, in the virtues, who does not walk in them, but he who is diligent in aquiring virtues is loosed in them. Therefore let us not have sins, so that we may not be bound by the chains of our own sins.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[Aris]

Matthew P.:

Pope Honorius occupied the Chair of Peter. So I think it is important to remember that the rock of the confession of the person Peter “thou art the Christ the Son of the living God” was an inclusive part of Saint Peter who said those words. Then we have Pope Honorius who also believed that Christ was the Son of the living God but understood and taught that the natures of Christ in a way that the Orthodox Catholic Church did not agree with. What so you conclude from that?

Matthew,

That is how the Protestants understood infallibility. It is not how infallibility is understood and defined by the Catholic Church.

It would do us well to ponder these points.

1. Peter was infallible in at least four instances.
   Peter’s confession of Christ’s identity
   Peter’s vision regarding the Gentiles
   When he wrote 1 & 2 peter
2. He was acknowledged as the leader of the Church. It would seem implausible and improbable that after Peter died, the structure of the Church changed without a recognized leader.
3. The authority from the seat of Peter is biblical. Mt 16:18

 

[Sarah_Jane]

Where Does the Bible Say Anything about the Papacy?

catholic.com/thisrock/2003/0307sbs.asp

“In Matthew 16:19 Jesus gives Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven: “I will give to you soi] 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 Greek pronoun soi is singular referring only to Peter. The power of the keys is given to Peter alone in this passage. The phrase about binding and loosing connotes jurisdiction, not just a primacy of example or honor.”

 

[Matthew_P]

Dear Sarah Jane,

What are those keys that in your opinion Peter alone has been given? Did the other Apostles receive the gift of the Holy Spirit from Peter? Even Rome does not deny that the other disciples have received ye the Holy Spirit. They have just manufactured with words a Peter who is infallible and superior to the other disciples. This notion is foreign to Orthodox Christianity.

Even though the words “I will give unto thee” were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, 'Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted."(Jn. 20:23) The verb in Greek for “ye remit”, aphete, is second person plural, obviously not referring to one person only. Had the authority been granted to Peter alone, the text would read, “whose soever sins thou remittest”, but since “ye” is plural, we understand that the gift was given to all the apostles. Also, the words “I will give” indicate a future time, namely after the resurrection. The actual granting of the authority to remit sins takes place on the occasion described in Jn. 20:23, when, after the resurrection, the Lord breaths on all the assembled disciples.

Peter alone was not breathed on by Christ.

John 20:23

20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.

21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.

22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:

23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Matthew 28: 18-20

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen

We may notice that as the eleven disciples heard these words Christ the Son of God did not say that all authority has been given to Peter and to observe all things that Peter has commanded you and that Peter is with you always.

The positions that are being articulated to support an infallible Peter are not in accordance with Orthodox thought as many other incorrect understandings of the Latins have remained for over 1000 years. As a result of these Peter notions from a Latin perspective the current reality is there are some 30,000 different denominations around today. The unity of Peter or Rome that is often referenced has not worked to well because of incorrect practices and understandings that continue to be put forth and promote division.

In Christ,

Matthew Panchisin

 

[steve_b]

Matthew P.:

Dear Steve,

I would like to bring a few additional things to your attention. As far as taking something out of the context you are referring to you might want to check into that much more. There is nothing wrong with saying I’ll check into it.

That’s not what I was referring to. I was referring to taking the popes comments out of context.
Matthew P.:

Your quote: “According to you infallibility doesn’t exist. Therefore you can’t say you didn’t err…”

The Orthodox Church does not accept Papal infallibility. We believe that what has been stated in the Seven Ecumenical Councils is “infallible”.

And who told you this? And why do you believe it?
Matthew P.:

We do not believe in Papal infallibility as the Latins do nor did any of those councils.

Without the popes approval, none of those councils were binding on the Church.
Matthew P.:

Your quote: “If infallibility doesn’t exist, then these councils taught error. So why follow them?”

“It is the Holy Spirit who prevents the pope from officially teaching error, and this charism follows necessarily from the existence of the Church itself.”

Well there are some problems with what you are stating again. There have been many Popes that have “officially taught error” even Rome acknowledges that fact.

Oh really!!!
Matthew P.:

Pope Honorius come to my mind as a good example. He was the bishop of Rome from 625 to 638 A.D. He “officially” embraced a heresy called montheletism which officially teaches that Christ was of one will only which was officially the divine.

Honorius never “taught” error. In fact he told Sergius not to speak of what they {Honorius and Sergius] talked about. If anything, Honorius failed because he DIDN’T teach. But infallibility is not an issue when one doesn’t teach. Only when one teaches does it come into play. And it must be understood that all Christians are bound by what is being taught. Honorius said nothing of the kind. He said to Sergius don’t talk about the issue. Therefore, Honorius didn’t teach on the matter. Get it?
Matthew P.:

Pope Honoriusa was thrown out and considered a heretic at the 6th Ecumenical Council. That’s right, a Pope excommunicated by a council so much for infallibility.

You punch at shadows. That case did not apply to infallibility.
Matthew P.:

We can deduce as many Orthodox Saints have that Popes did not have absolute authority over the Church councils as Popes have made many mistakes relative to dogma as Pope Honorius was teaching heresy and supporting it. At the end of the 6th Ecumenical Council the bishops exclaimed excluding the Bishop of Rome “Anathema to the heretic Sergius, to the heretic Cyrus, to the heretic Honorius, to the heretic Pyrrhus” The Honorius they are referring to was the Bishop of Rome. As a side note Rome me accepts the 6th Ecumenical Council.

Perhaps you have read it differently?

Honorius didn’t violate his teaching office. Infallibility was not involked. Next subject.