G
GaryTaylor
Guest
I agree, couldn’t have said it that well. And I see no sense adding to that.
- Status
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
You have only articulated here an argument for the succession of bishops. You have nowhere shown that St. Peter, unlike the other apostles, of whom he was chief, was meant only to have one unique successor.
That is not what that verse means. It is Christ’s promise that the Holy Spirit shall descend upon the Church and guide her into all truth. If revelation continues, then Christ lied, for the Spirit has allowed the Church to exist in darkness for some time (hence the Apostles to whom he was speaking in John 16:13 were not guided into all truth). Furthermore, this erroneous idea of a continuous revelation contradicts the CCC, which states:
65 "In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son."26 Christ, the Son of God made man, is the Father’s one, perfect and unsurpassable Word. In him he has said everything; there will be no other word than this one. St. John of the Cross, among others, commented strikingly on Hebrews 1:1-2:
In giving us his Son, his only Word (for he possesses no other), he spoke everything to us at once in this sole Word - and he has no more to say. . . because what he spoke before to the prophets in parts, he has now spoken all at once by giving us the All Who is His Son. Any person questioning God or desiring some vision or revelation would be guilty not only of foolish behaviour but also of offending him, by not fixing his eyes entirely upon Christ and by living with the desire for some other novelty.
There will be no further Revelation
That is merely begging the question. You assume what you are trying to prove, that your Church is the true Church.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Canonically, it has entailed in the past a right to appellate jurisdiction
So then the power of the pope is not by virtue of his episcopacy. How then does he obtain his powers?
Then by virtue of what does the pope have his charism conferred upon him? If he neither is ordained into his unique ministry by the laying on of hands, nor has the power of his ministry by virtue of being bishop, whence does he derive his special charism?
Indeed, that fact was part of my question. If pope is truly a type of apostolic succession as you asserted earlier, why are popes not ordained as such? Instead, they are either ordained as bishop (if not a bishop), or a bishop is assigned to the see of Rome (in which case, there is no ordination at all).
So then this is not apostolic succession at all but a special inalienable power granted to the man who happens to be the bishop of the city where Peter happened to be martyred. Far then, from the claim that this is mentioned in scripture (i.e., attempts to justify the papacy with apostolic succession), this concept of an inalienable primacy afforded for all times to the bishop of whatever city where Peter happens to suffer martyrdom seems not to be detailed in the Scriptures at all.
No, I am not making any sort of misguided presumptions. I am simply taking your claim that the papacy is based on apostolic succession and running it to its inevitable conclusion that like everything else related to apostolic succession, it therefore must be conferred by the laying on of hands. But now it seems I am being told that it has nothing to do with the laying on of hands in a lineage descending from the apostle Peter at all, but that it has to do with some sort of inalienable charism granted to the bishop of the city of Peter’s martyrdom.
By the way, I am no hater of the papacy. I like all Orthodox Christians venerate the great popes of the first millennium, like St. Leo, St. Gregory, and St. Martin (perhaps my favorite pope). I simply reject the way papacy developed during the Gregorian Reforms.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I really love how people go out of their way for character assassination.Quote…(we don’t disagree with the NEED FOR AUTHORITY)
So you agree on Unity of the Church?
And of course just so its clear on this thread CTG is “incorrect” with his conclusion that this isn’t a topic of Pope Benedict. Light of World would be the work to read to clarity that very large misunderstanding.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Not at all, the thinking of Apotheoun is similar to Pope Benedict in the above book though. My only thinking is the proper perspective on the Church’s and that which we do agree on. From there no doubt much can be said.
M
Mickey
Guest
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
I’m not sure what you mean by “one unique successor.” St. Peter has a line of successors. We know their names. They come one after another. Please explain what you mean.
Cavaradossi; 10202719:
I’m not talking about further doctrinal revelation. I mean the defining of doctrine and the development of doctrine. For axample, the dual nature of Christ is not articulated in Scripture and had to be defined specifically, which didn’t happen for four centuries after Pentecost. The same can be said of The Blessed VIrgin’s title, ‘Mother of God.’
Cavaradossi; 10202719:
I assume nothing. The facts prove the Catholic Church is the true Church and my question obtains. There was no Orthodox (capital O) Church in the 1st Century, nor in the 4th Century, nor in the 8th Century. There were Eastern Bishops (the Church developed from east to west) and as time and circumstances directed, discord developed and schism resulted. Then the Orthodox Church was created to separate the East from the West. Facts. So…do you believe the Lord created a false Church, in heresy from the very beginning? I know this will cause your blood to boil, but I urge you to consider what I say dispassionately. They are facts and no amount of denial will change them.
J
joe370
Guest
The Trinity and the definitive establishment of sacred scripture as well.
:yup: There was just the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.
B
brb3
Guest
Ferde Rombola …
Good point about Scripture teaching that HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE YOU (,Church) TO ALL TRUTH !!
That helps me accept those 1854 pronouncements regarding Mary !!!
Good point about Scripture teaching that HOLY SPIRIT WILL GUIDE YOU (,Church) TO ALL TRUTH !!
That helps me accept those 1854 pronouncements regarding Mary !!!
M
Mickey
Guest
A
Apotheoun
Guest
I mean that the Bishop of Rome holds primacy when all the bishops of the Church meet in an ecumenical council, or - to put it another way - that he holds the first rank among all the bishops. Of course it must always be borne in mind that primacy is not supremacy, and that the Bishop of Rome has only one vote in an ecumenical council, and that he cannot overrule the assembled bishops nor can he “lord it over them” as some kind of Gentile prince or sovereign.
J
joe370
Guest
Yes brother.There was just the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. — Oh brother.
I take it you do not agree?
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
That’s a good start. Assuming you accept what it entailed in the past, you acknowledge the pope decides disputed questions. You are not far from the kingdom. Where does that authority come from?
From Christ and the verses we’ve been discussing; the keys, binding and loosing, which is not the same as that conferred on the others, feed my sheep, strengthen your brothers, etc. These words mean something, Cav. You know they’re there in Scripture, but you seem unwilling to give them the weight they carry.
And, BTW it is by virtue of the episcopacy of the Bishop of Rome.
Lol. You keep asking the same question. I’ve said the pope’s authority derives from the office of the Chair of Peter (ex cathedra) by succession and his powers are conferred on him by the Lord as recorded in Scripture. I don’t know what else to say.
I explained this. The office does not require ordination apart from ordination as bishop. Popes are elected, not ordained. What about that don’t you understand? Apostolic succession applies to the office of bishop and that’s what the pope is – the Bishop of Rome. The Bishop of Rome is, ipso facto, the pope. He has already been ordained and his succession is from St. Peter to the office of pope, not bishop. You are right when you say it’s a particular succession.
No, the city where Peter presided over the Church, where his Chair is located. Apostolic succession accrues to the Bishop of Rome, who is the pope.
The authority of the pope is not subject to your edicts. Your setting down the requirements for the apostolic succession of the Bishop of Rome to the papacy is not detailed in Scripture either. You just seem to want things to be the way you want them to be.
“It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal” (Ambrose of Milan, Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).
Where Peter is, there is the Church. That’s all you need to know.
And that is precisely your misguided presumption. You have decreed the office of pope must be confirmed by the laying on of hands. Where is that in Scripture?
To the city of Peter’s Chair, which today happens to be Rome. What’s it going to take, Cav? I’ve explained it six ways. What’s it going to take???
You sure have me fooled. I’d hate to see what a hater of the papacy looks like if you’re not him. If you reject the Gregorian Reforms, you reject the papacy.
Here’s a very edifying article on wiki about the papacy. It’s quite long. Bring your lunch. I couldn’t link it, so you’ll have to paste it in.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papal_succession
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
As he does in Antioch. Who knows how many sees there are which Peter established which are now unknown to us? But Rome’s exclusivist claim is what I am addressing. Where is it contained in the scriptures not that Peter is the chief of the apostles, but that a special charism would be inherited exclusively by the bishop of the city where Peter would suffer martyrdom?
The full divinity and full humanity of Christ is detailed in the Scriptures, as is the fact that the Virgin is Theotokos. But the heretics twisted the scriptures to teach false doctrines of men (as St. Basil called the teachings of the heretics) which never had been taught before, making councils necessary top cut them and their heretical doctrines out from the one Catholic Church of Christ. This is the necessity of the tradition, the living understanding of the Scriptures which was passed on from the Apostles to the Church, and from each subsequent generation to the next, preserved in the writings of the Fathers, and most importantly in the liturgical practices of the Catholic and Orthodox faith. It does not mean that the revelation, the gospel, which was once delivered to the apostles was in any way incomplete or in need of development.
My blood is not boiling, and franky, you do not know me well enough either to predict how I will feel about something or what my mental state of mind will be. I would appreciate it if in the future you would not make strange and overly-familiar statements about me as if you knew me.
Now, this is a rather a naive and poorly thought out argument, and the claim that it is irrefutable at the end is rather absurd, for anybody who has read any sort of document disseminated by our hierarchs and councils would know that we claim to be the Catholic Church, and reject the claim of your Church to be the same (and just like your Church’s claim to the contrary, just claiming it to be do doesn’t make it true, which is why people disagree over which Church is the true Church). Even the article on the Orthodox Church in the Catholic Encyclopedia, written by Fortescue whose assessment of the Orthodox East was often dim (but progressive for his time), dismantles this argument: How “Orthodox” became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. It was used at first, long before the schism of Photius, especially in the East, not with any idea of opposition against the West, but rather as the antithesis to the Eastern heretics — Nestorians and Monophysites. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, “Catholic” became the most common name for the original Church in the West, “Orthodox” in the East.
This dual identity in fact still remains the case today, which is why our Church is called interchangeably the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, and the Orthodox Catholic Church (this name originally being adopted to distinguish the Catholic Church from the Nestorians and non-Chalcedonians who claim likewise to be the Catholic Church). Your argument that we somehow changed the name of the Church in order to create a new church simply doesn’t pan out
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Oh brother what, Mickey?! Roll your eyes all day, but until you provide some facts you’re just making faces.Oh brother.
M
Mickey
Guest
Ah. More proof texting and cherry picking. It is a fact that where St Peter is…there is the Church…and St Paul…and St Andrew…and St John…etc.
Let us look at another one from the same Father:
The primacy is one of confession, not of honor: of faith, not jurisdiction.
St Ambrose, De Spiritu Sancto
M
Mickey
Guest
Your posts are increasingly more arrogant and insulting to Cavarodossi. He is the one providing all the facts…and you seem to be getting a bit frustrated.
A
Apotheoun
Guest
The bishops in general are the successors of all the Apostles - including St. Peter - and so wherever there is a true bishop there is a true Church.
M
Mickey
Guest
Amen.
- Status