Do the Orthodox Even Want Reunification?

[josie_L]

For your reading pleasure. You will note earlier that when St. Gregory first referred to the Seat of Peter, it was in reference to the Patriarch of Alexandria.

St. Gregory is not saying that the Patriarch of Alexandria holds Peter’s office for that privilege belonged to him, here is an excerpt taken from:

Gregory the Great: His Place in History and Thought by F. Homes Dudden, B.D. (volume 2, page 224-225)

The controversy thus oddly terminated leads us to inquire – What exactly was Gregory’s view respecting his own position? What, in his opinion, was the relation of the Papacy towards the Churches? Now, Gregory has been accused of insincerity, in that while disclaiming the title Universalis, he yet claimed all the title implied. This charge, however, is misleading and is not true. As has been already pointed out, Gregory interpreted “universalis” in the sense of “unus”; and he certainly never pretended to be the sole bishop in Christendom.

On the other hand (though abhorring the title which might mean “sole bishop”), he NEVER FOR AN INSTANT denied, or made any pretence of denying, that the Pope was the PRIMATE and CHIEF of Christian bishops. There can be NO DOUBT that Gregory claimed a PRIMACY, not of honour MERELY, but of AUTHORITY, in the Church Universal. To him the Apostolic See was “THE HEAD OF ALL THE CHURCHES,”

[Epp xiii:50 – “Sede apostolica, quae omnium ecclesiarum caput est.”

cf. xiii:40 – “Illud autem ammonemus, ut apostolicae sedis reverentia nullius praesumptione turbetur. Tunc enim membrorum status integer manet, si caput fidei nulla pulset iniuria.”]

and its bishop was called to undertake “the government” of the Church.

[v:44 – “Indignus ego ad ecclesiae regimen adductus sum.”]

The reason alleged for this preeminence was that the Roman Bishop was the successor and vicar of St. Peter, CHIEF of the Apostles [ii:46] to whom had been committed the “cura et principatus” of the whole Church, and on the stability of whom, as on a ROCK, the Church had been firmly established [Epp v:37; vii:37].

“Wherefore, although there were many Apostles, yet in respect of the principate the See of the PRINCE of the Apostles ALONE has grown strong in authority” [vii:37].

As the successor, then, of the CHIEF of the Apostles [Peter], the Pope claimed a DIVINE RIGHT OF PRIMACY [iii:30 – “Apostolica sedes Deo auctore cunctis praelata constat ecclesiis”].

**The decrees of councils would have NO FORCE “WITHOUT the authority and consent of the Apostolic See” [ix:156; cf. v:39,41,44].
**

Appeals might be made to the Pope against the decisions even of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and such decisions might be reversed by sentence of the Papal court [see pg 203ff in this volume].

All bishops, moreover, even the patriarchs, were subject to correction and punishment by the Pope, if guilty of heresy or uncanonical proceedings. “If any of the four patriarchs had done such a thing,” he wrote again to a bishop who had disobeyed his orders [ii:50], “such contumacy could not have been passed over without the gravest scandal.”

“As regards the Church of Constantinople,” he said once more [ix:26], “WHO CAN DOUBT THAT IT IS SUBJECT TO THE APOSTOLIC SEE? Why, both our Most Religious Lord the Emperor, and our brother the Bishop of Constantinople, continually acknowledge it.”

bringyou.to/apologetics/num7.htm

 

[John_Larocque]

Before I comment further, a couple of points. I really think you are putting a lot more effort into this than I am.

Yes, it is clear, as per the famous Anglican theologian J.N.D. Kelly, and other scholars (as well as Orthodox) that I cited (only one intent on divorcing Pope Gregory’s many epistles by obsessing over one letter taken out of context is going to say it is not clear)

There was no obsession. I entered a couple of search terms into Google earlier (including “caput fidei”) and came up with this Orthodox blogger. I thought there was some decent material on there, including that last letter from St. Gregory where he explicitly says that he rejected the title “Universal Pope” for the same reasons Rome rejected the title “ecumenical patriarch” (not only on Constantinople, but on itself). You can’t just wave a magic wand and wish that to be expunged from the record. In this isolated letter “taken out of context”, he says, “I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. … my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.” Is Pope Gregory addressing his counterpart as a fellow patriarch/bishop, and therefore equal?

I ignored your first response quoting Nicholas Afanassieff, but your point was insistent enough that it was quoted… again. To wit, that there are two Chairs of St. Peter, this platonic episcopal ideal of St. Cyprian’s, in which every bishop is an alter Petrus… and the actual See of the City of Rome, whom Cyprian described once , I think, as the focal point or source of sacerdotal unity. Did I miss much?

In any case, I don’t view Afanassieff as infallible, and in fact his local church ecclesiology required correction, away from a kind of presbyterianism, in the famous doctoral thesis by the future +John of Pergamon. The focal point of the “complete” or Catholic church in the early church isn’t the local parish, but the diocese united by the bishop, who is successor of the apostles.

A perfectly good example of the bishop as “alter Petrus” view is St. Chrysostom.

“In speaking of Peter, the recollection of another Peter has come to me [St. Flavian of Antioch] our common father and teacher, who has succeeded to the virtue of Peter, and also to his chair. For this is the one great prerogative of our city, that it received the coryphaeus of the apostles as its teacher in the beginning. For it was right that she who first was adorned with the name of Christians [cf. Acts 11:26] before the whole world, should receive the first of the apostles as her pastor. But though we received him as teacher, we did not retain him to the end, but gave him up to Royal Rome. Nay, but we did retain him till the end; for we do not retain the body of Peter but we retain the faith of Peter as though it were Peter himself; and while we retain the faith of Peter, we have Peter himself.” (Hom in inscr Act II, 6, vol III, 86[70])

There are two concepts - the first is that the bishop is successor of the apostles. Apostolic succession, as we know, is done through the laying on of hands, which is why every diocese had lists of who ordained whom. Because the bishop is an “alter Petrus” he has also inherited the “chair of St. Peter”. But what’s interesting if you cycle down to the bottom of the paragraph, there is the reference to the FAITH of St. Peter. If you have the faith of St. Peter, you have St. Peter. Thus, every bishop, while he is orthodox, possesses both the virtue and chair of St. Peter. That is the second element.

Anyway, I don’t have much more to add at this point. But if you’re willing to let the quote machine rest for a bit, I don’t mind contributing a little more later.

 

[Cecilianus]

Uh-oh—a true scholar is calling me to the carpet on syllogisms and premises.

You gotta love the scholastic mind set!

It is very simple. Rome approves of birth control in some manner (NFP).

The original argument was about four or five pages ago, so can you refresh my memory by providing a complete syllogism, instead of a single premise? (Or is it your conclusion?) Was your argument that Catholicism is false because Rome approves of the sin of NFP, or is your argument that Rome permits birth control, therefore Rome is committing heresy by opposing birth control (an argument involving rather inconsistent premises, I would think)? I’m sorry, I honestly don’t understand the point of your jab which I just re-read quoted on page 19.

 

[Madaglan]

Obviously I meant God the Father. By ‘spoke’ I mean spoke from heaven. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear.
Madaglan;6296976:

After the Ascension, God spoke to Saul (made Paul), and has continued to speak to persons to present times. I believe that in the West this tradition of listening to inner voice of God is even stronger than in the East.

Hi Ferde,

Sorry for calling you John.

 

[Mickey]

You know very well that the autocephalous churches within the Orthodox community do not uniformly teach and/or practice against artificial contraception.

All of Orthodoxy teaches against ABC except for extreme situations (where sometimes permission for condom use is granted) as discerned by a spiritual father–that is what I have been saying.

however, such cases as you said are extreme.

Hello? That is what I have been saying.

you make it out to be that there are contradictions in Church teachings because of this.

I will clarify. Are you telling me that ABC is permitted in extreme situations for the RCC? Are you saying that non-artificial birth control (such as NFP) is allowed by the RC? If this is all true, then I believe our Churches teach the same thing.

Edit: NFP is used because it does not violate God’s laws, wherein condoms do.

Yet NFP is a more effective birth control–that is the dichotomy.

 

[Mickey]

Was your argument that Catholicism is false because Rome approves of the sin of NFP

Wha?

or is your argument that Rome permits birth control, therefore Rome is committing heresy by opposing birth control

Huh?

I am not trying to prove someting false or heretic. What are you talking about?

 

[Madaglan]

I ignored your first response quoting Nicholas Afanassieff, but your point was insistent enough that it was quoted… again. To wit, that there are two Chairs of St. Peter, this platonic episcopal ideal of St. Cyprian’s, in which every bishop is an alter Petrus… and the actual See of the City of Rome, whom Cyprian described once , I think, as the focal point or source of sacerdotal unity. Did I miss much?

In any case, I don’t view Afanassieff as infallible, and in fact his local church ecclesiology required correction, away from a kind of presbyterianism, in the famous doctoral thesis by the future +John of Pergamon. The focal point of the “complete” or Catholic church in the early church isn’t the local parish, but the diocese united by the bishop, who is successor of the apostles.

I don’t view Afanessieff as infallible either.

I believe that in the earliest times of the Church, there were no dioceses or eparchies as we know them, and the celebration of the Eucharist was by the bishop. As the Christian faith spread, there entered the pastoral need for presbyters to operate in behalf of the bishop in outlying districts. Afanessieff looks to this earlier organization as guidance for his local church ecclesiology. Other Orthodox, like Fr. John Meyendorff, follow the same.

Afanessieff’s local church ecclesiology is also known as Eucharistic ecclesiology, and although the community may spread into individual parishes, the Liturgy each parish celebrates is the same, offered under the authority of the bishop. In Byzantine churches, the bishop actually signs his name on the altar cloth as an approval for the celebration of the Liturgy.

You can see the Church in the sense of “parts” contributing towards a greater completeness (e.g. parishes adding together to form a diocese unified by the bishop). You can also see the fullness of the one represented locally without a multiplicity of parts, which I believe better. This is seen with the Eucharist. The Eucharist that a Patriarch offers is no more complete than that offered by a bishop or priest. It’s not the offering up of many eucharists that constitutes the Eucharist of the Church offered by one individual, but the one Eucharist that is distributed and offered everywhere but nowhere divided or diminished.

 

[josie_L]

There was no obsession. I entered a couple of search terms into Google earlier (including “caput fidei”) and came up with this Orthodox blogger. I thought there was some decent material on there, including that last letter from St. Gregory where he explicitly says that he rejected the title “Universal Pope” for the same reasons Rome rejected the title “ecumenical patriarch” (not only on Constantinople, but on itself). You can’t just wave a magic wand and wish that to be expunged from the record. In this isolated letter “taken out of context”, he says, “I do not seek to be prospered by words but by my conduct. … my honour is the solid vigour of my brethren. Then am I truly honoured when the honour due to all and each is not denied them. For if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally.” Is Pope Gregory addressing his counterpart as a fellow patriarch/bishop, and therefore equal?

I’m not trying to wave it away with a magic wand, I am saying that you are taking it out of context in that he is not repudiating his primacy/prerogatives, i.e., universal jurisdiction, as the successor to Peter (as is attested in the multiple epistles cited in my previous posts defending and upholding the privileges of his see) but rather the idea of a universal which connotes “unus” or sole bishop/patriarch, hence, his words “you deny that you are yourself what you call me universally”, i.e. a patriarch as well. Here is something that might delineate better what I said:

QUESTION: Is it true that Pope Gregory I denied that the pope is the “universal bishop” and taught that the Bishop of Rome has no authority over any other bishop?

ANSWER: No. Gregory the Great (540 - 604), saint, pope, and doctor of the Church, never taught any such thing. He would have denied that the title “universal bishop” could be applied to anyone, himself included, if by that term one meant there was only one bishop for the whole world and that all other “bishops” were bishops in name only, with no real authority of their own. Such a distorted version of the biblical model of bishops is incompatible with Catholic teaching.

But that isn’t to say that the title didn’t – and doesn’t – have a proper sense of which Gregory approved. If meant in the sense that the Bishop of Rome is the leader of all the bishops, the title is correct. If it means he is the only bishop and all the other “bishops” are not really successors to the apostles, it’s false.

now here are the words of St. Gregory the Great:

[Pope Gregory also appealed to the Emperor Maurice – Epp v:37]

“It is clear to every one who knows the Gospel that the CARE of the WHOLE CHURCH has been committed to the blessed PETER, CHIEF of the Apostles. For him it is said: [quotes from John 21:15-17; Luke 22:31-32; and Matt 16:18-19]
. Behold, he receives the keys of the kingdom of heaven; to him is given the power of binding and loosing; to him the CARE and PRIMACY of the WHOLE CHURCH is committed; and yet he is never called the Universal Apostle. But that most holy man, my fellow-bishop John, wishes to be called the Universal Bishop. I am compelled to exclaim, O tempora! O mores!”

“Most Religious Lord, am I defending my own cause, am I vindicating a wrong done to myself alone? NO; it is the cause of Almighty God, the cause of the UNIVERSAL CHURCH. We know of a truth that many bishops of the Church of Constantinople have fallen into the whirlpool of heresy, and have become not only heretics, but heresiarchs.” [Gregory quotes as instances Nestorius and Macedonius]

“If, then, any bishop of that Church assumes the title Universal, the Universal Church must be overthrown with the fall of the Universal Bishop. God forbid! Far from all Christian hearts be that blasphemous name, by which one bishop madly arrogates** all honour to himself, taking it away from the rest of his brethren!”**

See how St. Gregory the Great delineates between St. Peter’s care over all the churches, i.e., universal jurisdiction, but is not called a Universal apostle, i.e., the only apostle arrogating all honour to himself. Thus St. Gregory as the successor to St. Peter is not repudiating his own primacy/universal jurisdiction (and again reading the evidence I provided in my posts will show you this) but rather repudiating the idea of “universal”, i.e, “unus” as in one bishop/patriarch.

 

[josie_L]

Here is Pope Leo the Great:

Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. …And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matth. xvi. 19). And again it is said to him, And when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou Me? Feed my sheep (Joh. xxi. 17). Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. (To Evlogios, Patriarch of Alexandria, Ep XL)

I believe you meant to say Pope St. Gregory the Great (instead of Pope St. Leo the Great), however, since you brought him up I’d like to share with you (part of) an epistle of his:

For when the Twelve Apostles, after receiving through the Holy Spirit the power of speaking with all tongues, had distributed the world into parts among themselves, and undertaken to instruct it in the Gospel, the most blessed Peter, chief of the apostolic band, was appointed to the citadel of the Roman Empire, that the light of truth, which was being displayed for the salvation of all the nations, might spread itself more effectively throughout the body of the world from the head itself. What nation had no representatives then living in this city; or what peoples did not know what Rome had learned? Here it was that the tenets of philosophy must be crushed, here that the follies
of earthly wisdom must be dispelled, here that the cult of demons must be refuted, here that the blasphemy of all idolatries must be rooted out, here where the most persistent superstition had gathered together all the various errors had anywhere been devised.

Now Pope St. Leo states that Rome is the head of the Church so ipso facto the bishop of Rome is head of the Church, moreover, this headship was not shared with Antioch and/or Alexandria as that honor or appellation was never applied to them. In fact, let me reiterate the words of the bishops at Chalcedon (almost 600 of them):

For if where two or three are gathered together in His name He has said that there He is in the midst of them, must He not have been much more particularly present with 520 priests, who preferred the spread of knowledge concerning Him …Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451

or

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Now, note how they refer to Pope Leo as the head, again there is no mention of either Antioch and/or Alexandria (albeit the bishop of Alexandria, Dioscorus, was ex- communicated by the Pope through the council at Chalcedon). Leo held the primacy and/or headship of the Church because Peter had a primacy and therefore was head of the Church, i.e, it is the bishops of Rome who are the direct heirs of Peter (who hold his office) . Let me quote St. Chrysostom (although many more fathers have attested to Peter’s headship):

“After that grave fall (for there is no sin equal to denial) after so great a sin, He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church, and, what is more than all, He showed us that he had a greater love for his master than any of the apostles, for saith he: ‘Peter lovest thou Me more than these?’” (Hom 5 de Poen 2, vol II, 308[311])

“He saith to him, ‘Feed My sheep.’ Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the apostles, the mouth of the disciples, and the head of the choir; for this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now, since his denial had been purged away, He entrusts him with the rule over the brethren; and the fervent love which thou hast shown throughout, and in which thou didst boast, show now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldst lay down for Me, give for My sheep.” (Hom 88[87] in Joann 1, vol VIII, 477-9[525-6])

Who apart from Rome had a primacy and was referred to as head of the Church (like Peter), and who else but Rome had universal jurisdiction (rule over the brethren like Peter was given by Christ) as witnessed through the history of the Church?

Edit: The Pope was given privileges and prerogatives of which I spoke of that were unique to it’s see (as attested by the fathers, councils, scripture and history).

 

[sidbrown]

I believe you meant to say Pope St. Gregory the Great (instead of Pope St. Leo the Great), however, since you brought him up I’d like to share with you (part of) an epistle of his:

Now Pope St. Leo states that Rome is the head of the Church so ipso facto the bishop of Rome is head of the Church, moreover, this headship was not shared with Antioch and/or Alexandria as that honor or appellation was never applied to them. In fact, let me reiterate the words of the bishops at Chalcedon (almost 600 of them):

or

Now, note how they refer to Pope Leo as the head, again there is no mention of either Antioch and/or Alexandria (albeit the bishop of Alexandria, Dioscorus, was ex- communicated by the Pope through the council at Chalcedon). Leo held the primacy and/or headship of the Church because Peter had a primacy and therefore was head of the Church, i.e, it is the bishops of Rome who are the direct heirs of Peter (who hold his office) . Let me quote St. Chrysostom (although many more fathers have attested to Peter’s headship):

Who apart from Rome had a primacy and was referred to as head of the Church (like Peter), and who else but Rome had universal jurisdiction (rule over the brethren like Peter was given by Christ) as witnessed through the history of the Church?

Edit: The Pope was given privileges and prerogatives of which I spoke of that were unique to it’s see (as attested by the fathers, councils, scripture and history).

I read that many Orthodox will agree that Rome had a certain primacy of honor, but they will disagree on the claim of infallibility or Supreme universal jurisdiction.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t view Afanessieff as infallible either.

But neither was St. Cyprian infallible.

 

[John_Larocque]

Let’s unpack this statement and see if we’re missing a context.

For when the Twelve Apostles, after receiving through the Holy Spirit the power of speaking with all tongues, had distributed the world into parts among themselves, and undertaken to instruct it in the Gospel, the most blessed Peter, chief of the apostolic band, was appointed to the citadel of the Roman Empire, that the light of truth, which was being displayed for the salvation of all the nations, might spread itself more effectively throughout the body of the world from the head of the world] itself. What nation had no representatives then living in this city; or what peoples did not know what Rome had learned? Here it was that the tenets of philosophy must be crushed, here that the follies of earthly wisdom must be dispelled, here that the cult of demons must be refuted, here that the blasphemy of all idolatries must be rooted out, here where the most persistent superstition had gathered together all the various errors had anywhere been devised.

Who is the “head” here in the paragraph? I have underlined the context and added a couple of words to make it clear. The “head” being spoken here isn’t St. Peter, it’s the head of the Roman empire, the city of Rome, the “head”. From Pope Leo’s words, it’s also the center of “the cult of demons” and “blasphemy of all idolatries” and where “the most persistent superstion had gathered together.”

We know that although Rome remained the see of St. Peter, it was no longer the head of the empire in the era of Constantine, Justinian et. al.

The Chalcedonian quotations - and I don’t know the source of them or who wrote them - all appear to be in context. I saw that they were cited on a page written by Mark Bonocore and a handful of other apologetic pages.

The St. Chrysostom quotation falls into this trap:

vintage.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html

Error #2: “The Peter Syndrome.” This refers to the propensity on the part of many Roman Catholic apologists to find any statement about Peter in the writings of an early Father and apply this to the Bishop of Rome. There are many exalted statements made about Peter by men such as Cyprian or Chrysostom. However, it does not follow that these statements about Peter have anything at all to do with the bishop of Rome. The Roman apologist must demonstrate that for such statements to be meaningful that the Father under discussion believed that the bishop of Rome alone is the sole, unique successor of Peter, so that any such exalted language about Peter is to be applied in that Father’s thinking to the bishop of Rome alone. If such a basis is not provided, references to Peter are irrelevant.

I have already potsed earlier a quotation where he refers to his episcopal predecessor in Antioch as a successor of St. Peter, who possessed both the chair of St. Peter and St. Peter’s faith (and therefore possessed St. Peter). Conclusion: not every Patristic citation referring to St. Peter is a reference to the office of the papacy or the Bishop of Rome. In the case cited earlier, the St. Peter references were to the bishop of Antioch. And in the second Chrysostom you cited, it is clear to me that he referring to the office of the bishop and his pastoral ministry as an"alter Petrus". “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.”

In the first Chrysostom citation, there’s this quote: “He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church.” That is to say, he lost that honour with his denial of Jesus, but had won it back through his faith?

 

[Madaglan]

But neither was St. Cyprian infallible.

No human being is infallible.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Let’s unpack this statement and see if we’re missing a context.

Who is the “head” here in the paragraph? I have underlined the context and added a couple of words to make it clear. The “head” being spoken here isn’t St. Peter, it’s the head of the Roman empire, the city of Rome, the “head”.

It is certain you’re missing a context here, John. You’ve skated right past what was said about Peter re: the Apostolic band and focused on what you think makes your point. It doesn’t. The quote says (if I remember it. I wish we could see the quotes in previous messages), Peter was sent to the citadel of the Roman Empire. The ‘head’ spoken of is the head of the Roman Empire, not the Catholic Church. Peter was sent there precisely to lead the Church, as ITS head, in battle against the pagan Empire, which was defeated by the Resurrection of Christ in an astonishingly few centuries. I’m afraid your citation doesn’t say anything near what you suppose it says.

We know that although Rome remained the see of St. Peter, it was no longer the head of the empire in the era of Constantine, Justinian et. al.

I don’t see how that helps your argument. Civil governments come and go all the time.

The St. Chrysostom quotation falls into this trap:

vintage.aomin.org/SBNDDHrep.html

I can’t believe you posted a rant by James White on this site. James White is a foaming-at-the-mouth anti-Catholic bigot. Is that really where you want to go for your support?

I have already potsed earlier a quotation where he refers to his episcopal predecessor in Antioch as a successor of St. Peter, who possessed both the chair of St. Peter and St. Peter’s faith (and therefore possessed St. Peter). Conclusion:

Not the one you come to. He was successor of Peter as bishop IN ANTIOCH, not as the Vicar of Christ. Your parenthetical addition is an opinion and it’s wrong.

not every Patristic citation referring to St. Peter is a reference to the office of the papacy or the Bishop of Rome.

Certainly, but the ones that are, are.

And in the second Chrysostom you cited, it is clear to me that he referring to the office of the bishop and his pastoral ministry as an"alter Petrus". “Feed my lambs, feed my sheep.”

That’s not clear at all and I deny it. The Lord was speaking directly to Peter – He was in his face – when He said, “Feed my sheep/lambs.” THREE TIMES. Why do non-Catholics insist on trying to make the unambiguous words of Scripture say what they don’t say and refuse to believe what they DO say? It’s a puzzle to me.

In the first Chrysostom citation, there’s this quote: “He brought him back to his former honor and entrusted him with the headship of the universal church.” That is to say, he lost that honour with his denial of Jesus, but had won it back through his faith?

I see you acknowledging He ‘entrusted him with the headship of the universal church.’ You can stop right there.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

No human being is infallible.

That’s true. We Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is infallible and speaks through the Vicar of Christ on earth. IOW, popes submit to the infallibility of the Holy Spirit.

 

[John_Larocque]

I can’t believe you posted a rant by James White on this site… Is that really where you want to go for your support?

I don’t agree with his site or his “ministry” but it was a valid comment.

He was successor of Peter as bishop IN ANTIOCH, not as the Vicar of Christ.

In the earlier quote Chrysostom asserted that his Antiochian predecessor possessed St. Peter’s chair and St. Peter’s faith. The bishop is an “alter Petrus”.

By the way, every bishop is a vicar of Christ or “alter Christus”. That goes back to another predecessor of Chrysostom, St. Ignatius of Antioch.

That’s not clear at all and I deny it. The Lord was speaking directly to Peter – He was in his face – when He said, “Feed my sheep/lambs.” THREE TIMES. Why do non-Catholics insist on trying to make the unambiguous words of Scripture say what they don’t say and refuse to believe what they DO say? It’s a puzzle to me.

I think the point is that the ministry of Peter is the episcopal ministry and the office of the bishop. Every catholic bishop is tasked with the same responsibility given to Peter. Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. St. Peter is the model for every catholic bishop.

I see you acknowledging He ‘entrusted him with the headship of the universal church.’ You can stop right there.

Actually, that particular quote opens up a whole line of thought. If Chrysostom is asserting St. Peter’s primacy, he is also asserting that for a time, he lost that primacy when he lost his faith. And then his primacy was restored when his faith was restored. I don’t know recall if he’s the only father to assert this, but I’ve read this elsewhere from him and in other places. That St. Peter’s primacy is conditional or contingent on his faith. Since every catholic bishop is a local “protos” (with the presbyters, deacons and eucharistic assemblys under hiscare), this applies to him as well. Lose your faith, lose your office.

 

[Mickey]

We Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is infallible and speaks through the Vicar of Christ on earth.

Spiritus Ubi Vult Spirat.

 

[Hesychios]

That’s true. We Catholics believe the Holy Spirit is infallible and speaks through the Vicar of Christ on earth. IOW, popes submit to the infallibility of the Holy Spirit.

That is incorrect.

You are claiming that the Pope is an oracle. The church does not even make that claim.

What you think on this subject was condemned with Montanism.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

That is incorrect.

You are claiming that the Pope is an oracle. The church does not even make that claim.

What you think on this subject was condemned with Montanism.

I am claiming no such thing and what I said isn’t close to Montanism. To be so, I’d have to be saying the pope is the Holy Spirit and I’m not saying that.

How do you believe the Holy Spirit guides the Church to the truth? What’s the mechanism there?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I don’t agree with his site or his “ministry” but it was a valid comment.

C’mon, John. It was a comment reflecting his anti-Catholic bigotry. If you lie down with dogs, you’re gonna get fleas. James White is a dog-capital-D. Nothing he says about the Catholic Church has a shred of truth to it.

In the earlier quote Chrysostom asserted that his Antiochian predecessor possessed St. Peter’s chair and St. Peter’s faith. The bishop is an “alter Petrus”.

By the way, every bishop is a vicar of Christ or “alter Christus”. That goes back to another predecessor of Chrysostom, St. Ignatius of Antioch.

Sure, but ‘alter Christus’ doesn’t mean the bishop IS Christ or that he hold’s Christ’s power or authority. There’s only one Peter. Throw the politics away, keep reading Scripture and pray for guidance.

I think the point is that the ministry of Peter is the episcopal ministry and the office of the bishop. Every catholic bishop is tasked with the same responsibility given to Peter. Feed my lambs, feed my sheep. St. Peter is the model for every catholic bishop.

Absolutely, and I can say that about every Orthodox bishop, too. But it doesn’t dilute Peter’s office and the authority the Lord assigned to him.

Actually, that particular quote opens up a whole line of thought. If Chrysostom is asserting St. Peter’s primacy, he is also asserting that for a time, he lost that primacy when he lost his faith. And then his primacy was restored when his faith was restored. I don’t know recall if he’s the only father to assert this, but I’ve read this elsewhere from him and in other places. That St. Peter’s primacy is conditional or contingent on his faith. Since every catholic bishop is a local “protos” (with the presbyters, deacons and eucharistic assemblys under hiscare), this applies to him as well. Lose your faith, lose your office.

Almost every quote will open up a long and contentious line of thought, but I’m not sure there’s anything to be gained from it. Peter’s alleged ‘loss of faith’ is an interpretation that also opens a whole line of thought. It’s certainly not in Scripture that he lost his faith. He denied the Lord out of fear. That’s more a failure to exercise faith than its loss.

Look, the Gospels say what they say and what they say is not convoluted. We make it convoluted. Politics created the split and politics continues to divide the two lungs of the Body of Christ. The doctrines were revealed long ago. Unless you believe the Holy Spirit has not guided the Church to the truth and it’s still up for grabs. I don’t believe that.