Orthodoxy (and I believe the west too) teaches the Incarnation, which refers to the Son, who is not created. There is of course a derivative sense in which God does reveal himself and act through creation, but it is secondary to the Incarnation. I am not aware of an “incarnational principle” other than the Incarnation itself.
Let me expound a little. I didn’t mean to be dismissive. Of course Orthodoxy teaches, as does the west, that the Incarnated Christ “spreads” Himself (for lack of a better word) into various channels of grace (God’s energies) for the salvation of us humans. The sacraments, the priesthood, lay ministries, the Church itself as the Body of Christ. This is all done, as is the Incarnation itself, for the purpose of Theosis, the assumption of us into the life of God through Christ. If that is what you mean by “the incarnational principle”, that is certainly taught in Orthodoxy.
And where in scripture does Christ appoint a “visible Head of the Church”? He appoints the Apostles as His representatives and “shepherds” and arguably he appoints Peter (and arguably his successors) as a “Chief Shepherd” in Luke, but being a “Chief Shepherd” is not the same as being a visible “Head of the Church” with “full, supreme and universal authority over the whole Church”.
Pastor Aeternus (Vatican I) gives these references from the Bible, too much to post here:
Personally, I do not find the purely scriptural case for the papacy as compelling as some find it. Personally, I do think it is clear that Peter holds a place of primacy among the Apostles - the nature of that primacy is another question, though. But, as far as showing compellingly that this primacy was an office intended by God to be perpetual, I don’t think so. That being said, if I had only scripture and reason to judge by, I think I might have to side with the Papacy as the most plausible position - but, we are not limited to scripture and reason, as we also have history and the Church Fathers and their interpretation of matters.
Well, I’m not sure that I see how that touches upon the question of Peter’s primacy or the papacy. In any case the Apostles had a higher and unique position than any others in the Church, so if there were some reason none of them held the position James did in Jerusalem, then that reason answers for all of them, including Peter. I’m sure someone else here is more informed about James as bishop of Jerusalem, and so on.
I’m not particularly bothered by such an omission. I don’t see the epistles as a Catechism, meant to systematically lay out all major points of the faith. The fact that someone is silent on something does not mean they did not believe it. It all depends on the context, the purpose for which they were writing and the points they wished to get across, what truths it could be assumed there was no need to mention, etc.
Hi Mardukm and Miles Vitae,
) in a letter to pope Paschal ( 12 of Book ii, which we can find in documentacatholicaomnia.eu/20vs/103_migne_gm/0758-0826,_Theodorus_Studita,Epistolae(MPG_099_0903_1680),_GM.pdf, in Greek and in a Latin translation ), writes:Yes, that’s how God rules his Church – through His appointed ministers. There is an hierarchy of roles in the Church of God - established by God in Jesus Christ - as is evident in Scripture, and throughout the history of the Church.
The Apostles were intended by Christ to be itinerant and to spread the Gospel, not to spend time only in one place to oversee a local Church.
In Galatians, St. Paul mentions that at the start of his ministry, he conferred with St. Peter and no other Apostle. That would certainly indicate the uniqueness of St. Peter’s position among the Apostles.
Perhaps none of the other “pillars of the Church” that St. Paul mentions elsewhere, James and John, were available.
If the Apostles didn’t understand what Jesus meant, then of what use is the Deposit of Faith to us? Why do we know more today than those who actually lived alongside Jesus and could have asked him the question directly? And why do we say our faith is Apostolic if we believe that the Apostles themselves were clueless about certain aspects of our own faith?
This is a case of, “oohhh, I believe in Papal Supremacy thus I will interpret this to mean that.” Clearly if you ask someone who has no concept of Papal Supremacy if this encounter meant anything, they wouldn’t come to that conclusion. Of course St. Peter occupies a special place among the Apostles. But that doesn’t automatically mean he rules over them.
Highly unlikely. First of all, St. John according to Tradition was the constant companion of St. Peter. Secondly, the epistle to the Galatians does indeed indicate that he did see St. James, but only conferred with St. Peter.
“Uniqueness” is read by CTG as “supremacy.”
Why must you impose your misunderstanding of the Church’s teaching on everything?I corrected my statement to conform more to the Forum debate guidelines. Sorry for the use of the second person.“Uniqueness” is read by CTG as “supremacy.”
Blessings,
Marduk
thank you for such an enjoyable thread.
I’d like to offer a quotation.
St Thedore the Studite of Costantinople ( ok, we’d be technically just outside the Patristic time
And later in the same text we have:
- Hear, O Apostolic Head, divinely-appointed ( theoproblete ) Shepherd of Christ’s sheep*, keybearer of the Kingdom of Heaven, Rock of the Faith upon which the Catholic Church is built. ….
*
To thee spoke Christ our Lord*:‘And thou being one day converted, shalt strengthen thy brethren.’ Behold the hour and the place. Help us, thou that art set by God for this.]
I hope this can count and help.
I didn’t read the entire content of the link, but one thing caught my eye - the interpretation of Fr. Hardon that St. Cyprian taught that unity is restored by submission to the Pope. I personally don’t agree with that interpretation of St. Cyprian, but I will hold off on the matter until we get into a discussion on the third issue in this thread - the interpretation of the primacy.