Do you support union of Catholic and Orthodox Churches?

[JackQ]

Church Councils are a subject of discussion in these debates, and we have an example of one in The Acts of the Apostles. The question, you will remember, is whether Gentiles, in order to become Christians, should be circumcised and follow the ritual prescriptions of the Mosaic Law. Here is what happens at the Council, from Acts, Chapter 15:

"1 And some, coming down from Judea, taught the brethren: That, except you be circumcised after the manner of Moses, you cannot be saved.

2 And when Paul and Barnabas had no small contest with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of the other side should go up to the apostles and priests to Jerusalem, about this question.

3 They therefore, being brought on their way by the church, passed through Phenice and Samaria, relating the conversion of the Gentiles. And they caused great joy to all the brethren.

4 And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received by the church and by the apostles and ancients, declaring how great things God had done with them.

5 But there arose of the sect of the Pharisees some that believed, saying: They must be circumcised and be commanded to observe the law of Moses.

6 And the apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this matter.

7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

8 And God, who knows the hearts, gave testimony, giving unto them the Holy Ghost, as well as to us:

9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.

10 Now therefore, why tempt you God to put a yoke upon the necks of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear?

11 But by the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, we believe to be saved, in like manner as they also.

12 And all the multitude held their peace: and they heard Barnabas and Paul telling what great signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

13 And after they had held their peace, James answered, saying: Men, brethren, hear me.

14 Simon has related how God first visited to take to the Gentiles, a people to his name.

15 And to this agree the words of the prophets, as it is written:

16 After these things I will return and will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down: and the ruins thereof I will rebuild. And I will set it up:

17 That the residue of men may seek after the Lord, and all nations upon whom my name is invoked, says the Lord, who does these things.

18 To the Lord was his own work known from the beginning of the world.

19 For which cause, judge that they who from among the Gentiles are converted to God are not to be disquieted:

20 But that we write unto them, that they refrain themselves from the pollutions of idols and from fornication and from things strangled and from blood.

21 For Moses of old time has in every city them that preach him in the synagogues, where he is read every sabbath.

22 Then it pleased the apostles and ancients, with the whole church, to choose men of their own company and to send to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas, who was surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren.

23 Writing by their hands: The apostles and ancients, brethren, to the brethren of the Gentiles that are at Antioch and in Syria and Cilicia, greeting.

24 Forasmuch as we have heard that some going out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, to whom we gave no commandment:

25 It has seemed good to us, being assembled together, to choose out men and to send them unto you, with our well beloved Barnabas and Paul:

26 Men that have given their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.

27 We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who themselves also will, by word of mouth, tell you the same things.

28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay no further burden upon you than these necessary things:

29 That you abstain from things sacrificed to idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornication: from which things keeping yourselves, you shall do well. Farewell."

Notice what happens. There is a dispute, they convene a Council, the argument is made by both sides in front of the Council, then Peter gets up to make a statement enunciating the doctrine that both Jews and Gentiles are saved by the grace of Jesus Christ, and that the yoke of the Mosaic law should, therefore, be placed upon the Gentiles. After Peter speaks we read that “all the multitude held their peace.” Then Paul and Barnabas relate their experience with the Gentiles. Finally, James gets up, references what Peter said, and says that the Church should impose on the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia no more than certain “necessary things.” The apostles, elders, and the whole Church agree to this, and send a letter to the mentioned Gentile Christians embodying the decree that all agreed on. [CONTINUED IN NEXT POST]

 

[JackQ]

In this case, the dispute is silenced after Peter speaks; he has enunciated the applicable doctrine. More is heard from Paul and Barnabas, the prevailing parties in the dispute, then James fashions a decree, what would later be called a canon, that everyone agrees to. Peter enunciates the doctrine, then all the apostles agree on the decree.

As to your point, it is to be noted that at both Caesarea Philippi and at Jerusalem, Peter enunciates doctrine while together with the other apostles. When he goes off by himself, as he did when he rebuked Jesus, he errs. So when Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, he consulted with the other bishops and issued the decree. Of course, this is not a limitation imposed by Vatican I. But. perhaps, in a future Council it ought to be looked into.

I hasten to add that if Peter goes off by himself, there is nothing to indicate that someone else, or even all of the rest of the apostles can fulfill Peter’s role in his stead. And when Peter makes a statement of doctrine, it is not for the others to dissent. It is, however, for the entire body of apostles to determine the precise application of the doctrine enunciated, both in a legislative and judicial sense.

Perhaps that is how the line should be drawn. My humble suggestion.

 

[JackQ]

And the Orthodox would agree with St Irenaeus - although they believe Rome excommunicated itself over the Filioque etc.

And RC Traditionalists today who don’t agree with Vatican II or the Novus Ordo hold to a similar view where they will accept all RC councils, papal pronouncements and teachings - but wonder about Vatican II and Pope John Paul II in varying degrees that can go as far as sedevacantism.

Alex

And the question that never gets answered is: if one has to agree with Rome, at what point don’t you have to agree with Rome?

 

[JackQ]

You forget Purgatory as well, JackQ.

That too.

 

[JackQ]

I agree with you! (You are a true religious gentleman).

In fact, if it was left out of the Nicene Creed and kept as a theological tradition of the Latin Church (without imposing it on the East), the Orthodox would agree with you as well.

Alex

We can’t do that for them. Florence is a binding Council in our tradition.

 

[Nine_Two]

Jack, perhaps you didn’t see my post, it being the last one on the previous page, but I’m curious for an answer to my question, what is the idea of Infallibility compatible with from the tradition of the combined churches?

 

[JackQ]

Jack, perhaps you didn’t see my post, it being the last one on the previous page, but I’m curious for an answer to my question, what is the idea of Infallibility compatible with from the tradition of the combined churches?

Sorry about that. I’m going to have to get back with you tomorrow.

 

[shaky]

In this case, the dispute is silenced after Peter speaks; he has enunciated the applicable doctrine. More is heard from Paul and Barnabas, the prevailing parties in the dispute, then James fashions a decree, what would later be called a canon, that everyone agrees to. Peter enunciates the doctrine, then all the apostles agree on the decree.

As to your point, it is to be noted that at both Caesarea Philippi and at Jerusalem, Peter enunciates doctrine while together with the other apostles. When he goes off by himself, as he did when he rebuked Jesus, he errs. So when Pope Pius XII proclaimed the dogma of the Assumption, he consulted with the other bishops and issued the decree. Of course, this is not a limitation imposed by Vatican I. But. perhaps, in a future Council it ought to be looked into.

I hasten to add that if Peter goes off by himself, there is nothing to indicate that someone else, or even all of the rest of the apostles can fulfill Peter’s role in his stead. And when Peter makes a statement of doctrine, it is not for the others to dissent. It is, however, for the entire body of apostles to determine the precise application of the doctrine enunciated, both in a legislative and judicial sense.

Perhaps that is how the line should be drawn. My humble suggestion.

Are you saying Peter thought up the doctrine by himself and the others can’t disagree
What about when Paul had a go a Peter with his Attitude over Circumcision.

Is this what happens in the catholic church the Pope can make up doctrine by himself.
I thought it was done through the holy Synod of Bishops First!!

 

[shaky]

No, there are a few differences between the constitution of the Church and the U.S. Constitution. And as an Orthodox Christian I’m sure you’re aware that Andrew and John were actually the first disciples.

Irenaeus is making the statement that everyone has to agree with the Roman church. You can agree with him, or disagree, but that’s what he says. I agree with him.

Yes i do agree with Irenaeus In the true Historical context. Just like East and west agreed with in the beginning!! {Preeminence Authority} Means First in position First Amongst Equals. Not taking it out of Context by implying Supremacy like the bishops of Rome did In 1054 AD causing the split. 2 things caused the split Supremacy of the Pope and the Filioque.

 

[shaky]

And the Orthodox would agree with St Irenaeus - although they believe Rome excommunicated itself over the Filioque etc.

And RC Traditionalists today who don’t agree with Vatican II or the Novus Ordo hold to a similar view where they will accept all RC councils, papal pronouncements and teachings - but wonder about Vatican II and Pope John Paul II in varying degrees that can go as far as sedevacantism.

Alex

It was not Just the issue of the Filioque. It was also changing from preeminence Authority of the Pope from being first Amongst Equals to Supremacy.

 

[Ignatios]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is not a repository of Church dogma.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is where info. regarding the RCC is to be found, and it operates under and with the blessing of your church, not to mention what is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia is also found in the The Vatican site.

…But, as it turns out, I came across a document of Vatican I that calls the Pope the visible head of the Church Militant. So I have to agree that it is not wrong to say that the Pope is head of the Church in that qualified sense, provided you mean what the Church means by it. But the qualifiers there should give a hint. The Pope is not the Head of the Church in the same sense that Christ is the Head of the Church. If I work in a company with an immediate supervisor, I might call that supervisor my boss, even though the real boss is the owner. Yes, we should submit to the Pope in matters of faith and morals, and there is no human on earth above his head that we can appeal to. But he is answerable to Christ. That places Christ over the Pope, which makes Christ the Head of the Church.

The pope is the HEAD of the Church militant as stated by your church and has the authority to do all "if " he wishes so, “infallibility”? reading the powers that he possess I think he can change or make a new dogma by himself and turn over an Ecumenical Councils if he wishes to do so, I mean, what else, he is beleived to have power to get people out of the Purgatory which is beleived to be beyond this life in your church.

Now let’s go back to your initial statement: “as long as the Bishop of Rome is claiming himself to be the Head of the Church of GOD and that he is Infallibile and that he is the rep. of GOD on earth as dogma, there will be no reconciliation.”

You capitalized “Head,” which implies something that the Church does not teach.

I didn’t, your church did I said to you what ever I list is not of myself but it is of your church, it is in the Vatican document: " Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible** Head **of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God"
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

You did not qualify what was meant by infallibility,

I was not explaining what “infallibility” is, I was listing the Dogmas of your church.

…and I believed that I was justified in assuming that you were making the same mistake that many make,

I think you made the same mistake that many RCs do, that assume that everyone disagree with them is Protestant.

believing that the Church teaches that the Pope is infallible in all respects. If you did not mean that, I’m sorry I misunderstood you. I also took you to mean that the Pope is God’s representative in an exclusive sense that the Church does not teach. So, if you did not mean what I thought you meant, I guess that’s all there is to say. You, of course, will decide whether you will reconcile with the Catholic Church, and you will determine the terms of that.

The RCC does not teach that the Pope is Infallible in all respect BUT it teaches that he has the absolute power to change/add/make new dogmas all by himself if he willed it and no one can chanllenge him according to RCC documents read the site below from the Vatican site.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

GOD bless.

 

[JackQ]

Jack, perhaps you didn’t see my post, it being the last one on the previous page, but I’m curious for an answer to my question, what is the idea of Infallibility compatible with from the tradition of the combined churches?

All right, then, dealing specifically with papal infallibility arising out the tradition of the combined churches, you’ve specifically disallowed me Matthew 16, which I happen to believe is the dispositive text, because, as the Lord said to Peter at that time, “flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” I realize you disagree, and, since we’re both looking at the same tradition up to the eleventh century, I suppose that’s why I think a central authority that we can both appeal to is important.

A scripture passage you didn’t mention is the post resurrection appearance of Jesus in the Gospel of John, where he tells Peter to “feed my sheep.”

After the time of the Apostles there is the letter of Clement, the bishop of Rome, writing in the first century to the Corinthians, where near the end of the letter he tells them, “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger…” And, of course, there is that famous passage from Irenaeus who wrote this in the second century:

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

 

[JackQ]

Yes i do agree with Irenaeus In the true Historical context. Just like East and west agreed with in the beginning!! {Preeminence Authority} Means First in position First Amongst Equals. Not taking it out of Context by implying Supremacy like the bishops of Rome did In 1054 AD causing the split. 2 things caused the split Supremacy of the Pope and the Filioque.

Well, the point is that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church. Are you converting to Catholicism or to Eastern Orthodoxy?

 

[JackQ]

The Catholic Encyclopedia is where info. regarding the RCC is to be found, and it operates under and with the blessing of your church, not to mention what is found in the Catholic Encyclopedia is also found in the The Vatican site.

The pope is the HEAD of the Church militant as stated by your church and has the authority to do all "if " he wishes so, “infallibility”? reading the powers that he possess I think he can change or make a new dogma by himself and turn over an Ecumenical Councils if he wishes to do so, I mean, what else, he is beleived to have power to get people out of the Purgatory which is beleived to be beyond this life in your church.

I didn’t, your church did I said to you what ever I list is not of myself but it is of your church, it is in the Vatican document: " Continuing in that same undertaking, this Council is resolved to declare and proclaim before all men the doctrine concerning bishops, the successors of the apostles, who together with the successor of Peter, the Vicar of Christ, the visible** Head **of the whole Church, govern the house of the living God"
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

I was not explaining what “infallibility” is, I was listing the Dogmas of your church.

I think you made the same mistake that many RCs do, that assume that everyone disagree with them is Protestant.

The RCC does not teach that the Pope is Infallible in all respect BUT it teaches that he has the absolute power to change/add/make new dogmas all by himself if he willed it and no one can chanllenge him according to RCC documents read the site below from the Vatican site.

papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm

GOD bless.

I followed that link, and it took me to a site that I often visit, but it is not a Vatican site. It’s a good site, though, with lots of papal writings.

Look, I don’t know what you want me to say. According to Catholic teaching, Christ is the Head of the Church. It’s right there in the Catechism. Section 792 says, “Christ ‘is the head of the body, the Church.’” The Pope is only the visible head of the Church militant, which is the strongest “head” language I could find pertaining to the Pope. And you found some language that said he’s the “visible” head. Now I admit, you caused me to do some research whereby I discovered some “head” language pertaining to the Pope that I didn’t know about, but in my cite and yours there are qualifiers to that headship. Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church, and that is Church doctrine. If all you do is come back and say, ‘no, the Pope is the Head of your Church,’ I guess I’m going to have to throw up my hands.

The Catholic Encyclopedia is a place where information about Catholicism can be found, but it is not an official Church site. I know of no official Church documents which cite it.

The Pope can’t just declare anything he wants to infallibly. His infallibility isn’t his action but the action of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit prevents the Pope from committing error under the specified conditions. So the Pope can’t just do anything he wants, because God will intervene to prevent him from declaring a heresy infallibly.

The Pope, as well as other bishops in certain circumstances, can specify the terms of Indulgences. But it is you or I that make the indulgences operative by fulfilling the conditions. I don’t know if that means that you or I can release someone from Purgatory, but it is simply an outgrowth of the power Christ gave to his Apostles to forgive sins.

 

[Nine_Two]

All right, then, dealing specifically with papal infallibility arising out the tradition of the combined churches, you’ve specifically disallowed me Matthew 16, which I happen to believe is the dispositive text, because, as the Lord said to Peter at that time, “flesh and blood has not revealed it to you, but my Father who is in heaven.” I realize you disagree, and, since we’re both looking at the same tradition up to the eleventh century, I suppose that’s why I think a central authority that we can both appeal to is important.

As I said, any implication of Matt 16:18 being about infallibility is contradicted a few verses later. “You know not the things of God, but of man!” Certainly it is an argument in favour of the Primacy of Peter, but that is not the subject.

A scripture passage you didn’t mention is the post resurrection appearance of Jesus in the Gospel of John, where he tells Peter to “feed my sheep.”

Again, while granting Peter a leadership role, this part of scripture does not suggest Papal infallibility, particularly if you read it in light of the Greek rather than English, or at least read it with an understanding of the difference between agape and phileo, the first, what Christ asks the first two times meaning love to the extent that you would sacrifice everything, and phileo, used by Christ the third time and Peter all three times, meaning the love shared between two friends. Essentially Christ was giving Peter a test and Peter failed, feeding his sheep was meant to help Peter get to a point where he could pass the test.

After the time of the Apostles there is the letter of Clement, the bishop of Rome, writing in the first century to the Corinthians, where near the end of the letter he tells them, “If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger…”

Again, this shows a certain primacy - the issue at Corinth had been appealed to the Bishop of Rome (not yet called the Pope), as was their right. Additionally Clement wasn’t dealing with faith or morals - the area which the pope claims infallibility on - he was dealing with Church organization and obeying the authority put above you, in this case the Bishop of Corinth.

And, of course, there is that famous passage from Irenaeus who wrote this in the second century:
“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”

Irenaeus is speaking about the Church of Rome, not the person of the Pope who holds infallibility. Additionally he doesn’t say it cannot ever go wrong.

I’m going to have to disagree that anything in tradition shows Infallibility. Primacy, certainly, but not Infallibility.

 

[ciero]

As I said, any implication of Matt 16:18 being about infallibility is contradicted a few verses later. “You know not the things of God, but of man!” Certainly it is an argument in favour of the Primacy of Peter, but that is not the subject.

Again, while granting Peter a leadership role, this part of scripture does not suggest Papal infallibility, particularly if you read it in light of the Greek rather than English, or at least read it with an understanding of the difference between agape and phileo, the first, what Christ asks the first two times meaning love to the extent that you would sacrifice everything, and phileo, used by Christ the third time and Peter all three times, meaning the love shared between two friends. Essentially Christ was giving Peter a test and Peter failed, feeding his sheep was meant to help Peter get to a point where he could pass the test.

Again, this shows a certain primacy - the issue at Corinth had been appealed to the Bishop of Rome (not yet called the Pope), as was their right. Additionally Clement wasn’t dealing with faith or morals - the area which the pope claims infallibility on - he was dealing with Church organization and obeying the authority put above you, in this case the Bishop of Corinth.

Irenaeus is speaking about the Church of Rome, not the person of the Pope who holds infallibility. Additionally he doesn’t say it cannot ever go wrong.

I’m going to have to disagree that anything in tradition shows Infallibility. Primacy, certainly, but not Infallibility.

These traditional Latins are going to have a rude awakening when there is full unity between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches.

 

[JackQ]

As I said, any implication of Matt 16:18 being about infallibility is contradicted a few verses later. “You know not the things of God, but of man!” Certainly it is an argument in favour of the Primacy of Peter, but that is not the subject.

Again, while granting Peter a leadership role, this part of scripture does not suggest Papal infallibility, particularly if you read it in light of the Greek rather than English, or at least read it with an understanding of the difference between agape and phileo, the first, what Christ asks the first two times meaning love to the extent that you would sacrifice everything, and phileo, used by Christ the third time and Peter all three times, meaning the love shared between two friends. Essentially Christ was giving Peter a test and Peter failed, feeding his sheep was meant to help Peter get to a point where he could pass the test.

Again, this shows a certain primacy - the issue at Corinth had been appealed to the Bishop of Rome (not yet called the Pope), as was their right. Additionally Clement wasn’t dealing with faith or morals - the area which the pope claims infallibility on - he was dealing with Church organization and obeying the authority put above you, in this case the Bishop of Corinth.

Irenaeus is speaking about the Church of Rome, not the person of the Pope who holds infallibility. Additionally he doesn’t say it cannot ever go wrong.

I’m going to have to disagree that anything in tradition shows Infallibility. Primacy, certainly, but not Infallibility.

Would you agree that the Pope is the focal point of unity in the Church? Isn’t that the most reasonable interpretation of “on this rock I will build my Church?”

 

[JackQ]

These traditional Latins are going to have a rude awakening when there is full unity between the Catholic & Orthodox Churches.

There already is full unity. You’re Orthodox in communion with Rome, aren’t you?

 

[shaky]

Well, the point is that everyone has to agree with the Roman Church. Are you converting to Catholicism or to Eastern Orthodoxy?

I Agree everybody will have to Agree with the Roman Church When there is Full Unity.
I have not yet fully made up my mind which way to Go. I wished there was full unity.
At the moment i am leaning towards Eastern Orthodoxy. where i live its 1hour and 20 minutes by train to get to church. I am a 5 minute walk from a Roman catholic Church.

 

[Nine_Two]

Would you agree that the Pope is the focal point of unity in the Church? Isn’t that the most reasonable interpretation of “on this rock I will build my Church?”

I would disagree. The Faith itself is the focal point of unity.