Does this article (obviously from an Eastern Orthodox perspective) accurately represent Catholicism?

[jam070406]

Nah, just ask the pope to rule on it

Would it help if he brought donuts?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Bearclaws baby… He could grow a long ZZ Top beard and bring baklavat for everyone LOL Try to bribe the Easterners

Would it help if he brought donuts?

 

[Nicea325]

If this point has already been said in response, then disregard my remark.

The pope is NOT 1st among equals.

I have never understood such a position. If the pope is ** FIRST** among equals,then how does it equate into all bishops being equal?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Dzheremi pretty much hit the nail on the head. The Orthodox can argue against this as much as the Catholics can argue for it. You cannot say with certainty which side is right, going solely on history; if such was the case, then, as I’ve oft said before, and as many others before me have said, the schism would have not lasted so long or to such an extent.

Sometimes it can be difficult to argue from letters, sometimes we need to look at actions taken for example;

prior to the great schism, history records St. Ignatius of Antioch before being executed in 110 a.d, writes a letter to the Romans, recognizing the Roman Church, “Worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of felicitation, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification and presiding in Love, maintaining the Law of Christ, and bearer of the Father’s name.”

We also have Irenaeus revealing Pope Victor 180 a.d (exercising the keys of Peter) by excommunicating the Asian group visiting Rome opting for Easter to be celebrated for the 14th of Nissan, and then threatened to excommunicate the diocese of Asia, when Irenaeus did not question the Popes authority to excommunicate or intervene in the workings of another diocese, he questioned the severity in the matters.

The bishop of Carthage “Cyprian” appealed to Pope Stephen, when the bishop of Arles “Marcion” proved lapsi to the church proving that the bishop of Rome could intervene.

Pope Stephen also argued against “Cyprian” not to rebaptise the repentative apostates within the Eastern Catholics and won the argument.

Pope Stephen exercising in another hemisphere “Spain”. When a spanish synod deposed the bishop Basilides of Emerita, who appealed to the Pope and was re-instated. This act proved the bishop of Rome, the Pope overruled a Spanish synod.

In 431 The Pope called on Cyril of Alexandria to proceed to Constantinople and demand that Nestorius, the patriarch of Constantinople, retract his heterodox opinion within ten days.

The Pope excommunicated the Patriarch Photius and was deposed by the former Patriarch Ignatius, after Photius protector died the Emperor Michael III. Although after Ignatius dies, the Pope recognized Photius as Patriarch.

Another aspect that reveals a view of primacy of the Popes early on, is that the Patriarchs of Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch supported the Chair of Peter and viewed the Patriarch of Constantinople as an artifical creation of man who lacked apostolic roots who was an usurper. It is too bad the muslims invaded them and destroyed all these Patriarchs except the Patriarch of Constantinople.

I like Hesychios argument of what caused the great schism. He has admitted that it began when the Pope crowned Charlemagne. I tend to agree with him here with some clarification.

It was during the Iconoclasts gained control of Constantinople. It was these the Iconoclasts who began a widespread purge of Iconodules, that they invaded southern Italy and “took” southern Italy from the Popes jurisdiction. From this action from the Iconoclasts which had military support from their Emperor in Constaninople, that forced the Pope to crown a Roman Emperor Charlemagne to protect her flock from the invading Iconoclasts from the East. It is from here as I agree with Hesychios, that the East and West begin its course into schism.

By the influences of secualr powers. Once the Iconodules finally regained control of the Orthodox Church in 843. We have Rome armed with her own Emperor to protect her flock from the barbarians, and the Constaninople holding to a new capital with her own Eastern Emperor of the Roman Empire.

This power struggle begins, two hundred years later when Southern Italy demands It’s Latin Liturgy after being a long Greek stronghold. The Pope ordered those Greek Church’s that remained in Southern Italy to change back to Latin. Then the Patriarch Michael Cerularius retaliated by ordering all Latin Church’s in Constantinople to accept the Greek Rite liturgy or be suppressed.

From here we have letter exchange, delegates begin to excommunicate the Patriarch who burned the Papal bull etc… thus 1054 East and West go their own ways.

The True schism begins its road from the actions from Iconoclasts from the East not the Orthodox = Iconodules, and a response from the Pope to protect herself from these invaders from East by crowning her a “Christian” Emperor, which was inevitable anyway, should not be an avenue anymore to carry this contention of separation between East and West from 1054. Besides did not the Pope already reconcile this history?

 

[steve_b]

It’s a reasonable idea though, isn’t it? Can you at least see why they would argue that, even if you don’t agree with it yourselves? After all, James delivered the decree at the Council of Jerusalem, the oft-quoted (by Catholics and Orthodox) St. Iranaeus called Peter and Paul “the two most glorious apostles” in his “Against Heresies” (which is often quoted to assert RC claims of Roman supremacy, conveniently forgetting that since Iranaeus was a Latin bishop belonging to the Roman church, it would make sense that he would defer to it especially, as a Maronite to his church, a Melkite to his church, a Chaldean to his church, etc). And, of course, Jesus dealt with squabbles among His apostles a different way (in Luke 9), not by confirming any sort of supremacy but by teaching that the least among them will be the greatest.

Just some historical context

• Irenaeus was from Smyrna. Smyrna was the same city Polycarp was from and was bishop of the Church at Smyrna. Today Smyrna is in present day Turkey.
• Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp and Polycarp was a disciple of St John the apostle, as was Ignatius of Antioch also. Ignatius and Polycarp knew each other. Ignatius, Polycarp, and Irenaeus ALL called the Church the Catholic Church
• Irenaeus wrote,

:
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 Churchshould agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist everywhere.

1. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes

• Catch those main points
• what Irenaeus is going to say came from the apostles Peter and Paul from the Church of Rome
• It’s a necessity that everyone agrees with THIS Church because of it’s preeminent authorty and this is apostolic tradition held and preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere
• then to make sure no confusion exists who he is speaking of, when he says everyone should agree with “this Church” he names the 1st 3 popes of Rome who succeeded Peter. This is apostolic tradition.
• And the pope of the Catholic Church, made Irenaeus bishop of Lyon France.
• Therefore, what Irenaeus wrote in “Against Heresies” came from Ignatius, Polycarp, who got their education from John the apostle, AND tradition from Peter and Paul, and all faithful who preserved the apostolic traditions faithfully down to his time.

dz:

I wouldn’t pretend that this settles the issue, but I think that there is more than enough debatable material and historical circumstance to make sure that this debate goes on basically forever. It is, at any rate, not patently obvious that one interpretation should win out above all others.

It only goes on forever, with people who choose to ignore facts that end the debate…

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

The East demodes the pope to a gavel-banging guy who sits at the head of table. He has no real power but to lead the discussion. I don’t think the East has a firm, coherent reason why they reject the Pope. I’ve read opinions from different Orthodox scholars and in the book “The Primacy of Peter,” the various authors in there give a variety of reasons for their rejection. Some say that the charism of the original apostle doesn’t transfer to the next bishop. Some say that all the apostles’ authority and charisms exist in all bishops, some say the Pope was a descendent of St. Peter, some say he wasn’t, some say he wasn’t the first Pope (Peter) because he had no diocese and was like an itinerant traveling apostle not putting down roots anywhere, some say he’s just a Coryphaeus, a big brother at the head of the table, some say lots of things. They all agree they reject him but between Meyendorff, Koulomzine, Kesich, Afanassief, and Schmemann, I got a lot of mixed signals. And I hear different arguments wherever I go. That’s why I tend to raise an eyebrow.

I have never understood such a position. If the pope is ** FIRST** among equals,then how does it equate into all bishops being equal?

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

If this point has already been said in response, then disregard my remark.

The pope is NOT 1st among equals.

Of course we Catholics do not consider him “first among equals” in the same sense that Orthodox do.

But that phrase does have a certain legitimacy to it in the sense that there are only three tiers to Holy Orders, and that a pope is not Sacramentally a higher order than any other bishop. Plus there’s the fact that he genuinely does exercise his authority over the Latin Church far more directly than over the eastern Catholic churches.

Dzheremi pretty much hit the nail on the head. The Orthodox can argue against this as much as the Catholics can argue for it. You cannot say with certainty which side is right, going solely on history; if such was the case, then, as I’ve oft said before, and as many others before me have said, the schism would have not lasted so long or to such an extent.

It does make deciding matters of Catholic vs. Orthodox ecclesiology more difficult.

When I was younger, I used to wonder if it was just political correctness that made most secular flowcharts of Christian denominations consistently label the united pre-1054 church as “the Christian Church” or “Christian Church (undivided).” Usually only after that point do they get less cryptic (they usually then say “Roman Catholic” and “Eastern Orthodox” which is not really precise enough for me, but there ya go).

But now I think it’s because - from a secular (i.e. purely historical) perspective - they’re both clearly apostolic, so from an worldly perspective, which one was “really” the pre-1054 church seems purely academic and abstract.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

I agree with you Fone Bone that the only divine offices revealed from scripture are bishop, priest and deacon. The Apostles themselves were set apart, and it is from the apostles themselves apostolic succession begins in the office of the Episcopate, from their laying on of hands.

Patriarch office is an ecclessial office, not a divine office.

Although it can be argued that Jesus alone changes the office of Simon, to be Peter holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Upon which Peter the “bishop of Rome” Paul the celebrated Evangelist together begins the unbroken lineage of Romes first Apostolic successor in the Popes, who from his divine office of bishop of Rome qualifies him as Peter = Pope possesser of the keys to the kingdom of heaven on earth.

As far as being first among equals derives from his divine office as bishop of Rome. What set’s the bishop of Rome apart is his possession of the keys of Peter as his apostolic successor, in the chair of Peter it is only Peter and popes who can bind and loose over the whole body of Jesus Christ.

I believe the “infallibility” of the Pope possessing the keys of Peter in the kingdom of heaven on earth is what keeps the Orthodox, Orthodox. They can neither add or subtract from the apostolic faith from which it was handed to them. Although they can independently council just as the American bishops can council without the pope in dealing with their local issues of faith.

But if the revealed Apostolic faith comes into question, or these independent councils desire to change any part of the revealed apostolic faith other than what has already been infallibly declared as doctrine by both Popes and Church councils.

It is here on the international level the Pope, can intervene with his keys to bind and loose to protect any heresy from ever infecting the revelations of Jesus Christ. Although the Pope does not do this alone, for the Rock of Peter must be supported by sacred scripture, sacred Tradition and unity with the college of bishops world wide.

Should the college of bishops themselves fall into error or secular powers impede their voices, then we have the promise of Jesus to Peter, “I will never leave you”, and "I will give you, Peter the keys to bind and loose on earth.

Jesus has secured his gospels and revelations within the confines of the infallibility of the Popes, which protects them from error.

Fone Bone 2001;7700333]Of course we Catholics do not consider him “first among equals” in the same sense that Orthodox do.

But that phrase does have a certain legitimacy to it in the sense that there are only three tiers to Holy Orders, and that a pope is not Sacramentally a higher order than any other bishop. Plus there’s the fact that he genuinely does exercise his authority over the Latin Church far more directly than over the eastern Catholic churches

.

 

[dzheremi]

Just some historical context

What does any of this stuff about where Irenaeus was born have to do with anything? Theology is not determined by geography.

*]what Irenaeus is going to say came from the apostles Peter and Paul from the Church of Rome
*]It’s a necessity that everyone agrees with THIS Church because of it’s preeminent authorty and this is apostolic tradition held and preserved continuously by those faithful men who exist everywhere
*]then to make sure no confusion exists who he is speaking of, when he says everyone should agree with “this Church” he names the 1st 3 popes of Rome who succeeded Peter. This is apostolic tradition.

*]And the pope of the Catholic Church, made Irenaeus bishop of Lyon France.
*]Therefore, what Irenaeus wrote in “Against Heresies” came from Ignatius, Polycarp, who got their education from John the apostle, AND tradition from Peter and Paul, and all faithful who preserved the apostolic traditions faithfully down to his time.

I don’t see any Papal supremacy in any of this.

It only goes on forever, with people who choose to ignore facts that end the debate…

Forgive me, good sir, I was unaware that your interpretation of the facts is the only one that matters. It is so nice to have Jesus Christ our Lord, God, and Savior posting on CAF today, giving us His perfect interpretation of His saints’ writings.

 

[steve_b]

I have never understood such a position. If the pope is FIRST among equals,then how does it equate into all bishops being equal?

Jesus ends that argument.

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the onewho rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves. … 31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you ( plural, all of them) as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you,(singular) Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you (sou 2nd pers singular) have turned back, strengthen (sterizo) your brothers.”

• In v 26 Jesus confirms one of them will be the greatest and one will rule.( hegiomai). No 1st among equals
• It’s Satan who wants people arguing that NO ONE is the leader.

Definition Hegeomai ἡγέομαι]

**1)**to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
2) to consider, deem, account, think

The person Jesus names next is the one to end ther debate

Lk 22:
31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you (singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen(sterizo) your brothers."

• Peter was to rule (hegeomai) AND Peter was to confirm (sterizo) them after THEY were sifted by Satan. And Jesus was praying specifically for Peter as leader and confirmer. And Jesus said this in front of all the apostles, so there would be no more arguing.

definition of sterizo στηρίζω]
1) to make stable, place firmly, set fast, fix
2) to strengthen, make firm
3) to render constant, confirm, one’s mind

Jesus AGAIN confirms Peter as the leader of the Church, AFTER the resurrection and before the ascention

[Jn 21:16…] Jesus said to Peter directly, in front of all the apostles, I want you Peter, to feed and rule (ποιμαίνω poimaino) my sheep.

And we can’t forget [Mt 16:16…]

 

[steve_b]

What does any of this stuff about where Irenaeus was born have to do with anything? Theology is not determined by geography.

You are the one making the point about locations. You brought up Irenaeus being part of the “Latin Church” as the only reason for the positions he takes in “against heresies”. You imply other Churches in other locations, would say something different in defference to themselves. That’s why I pointed out, Irenaeus was originally from the East. All his mentors were from the East. What you wrote was contrary to what Irenaeus wrote.
dz:

I don’t see any Papal supremacy in any of this.

Irenaeus said everyone was to agree with the Church of Rome because of her pre-eminent authority. Since one of his mentors was Ignatius and Ignatius said do NOTHING without the bishop, then in context of Irenaeus statement, the Church of Rome doesn’t do anything from it’s bishop. That’s why the names of the bishops of Rome were named specifically. Therefore, the bishop of Rome is the one everyone was to agree with. Thus in the title of his work “Against Heresies” if one didn’t agree with what Irenaeus was teaching here, they were ones who Irenaeus was writing against.
dz:

Forgive me, good sir, I was unaware that your interpretation of the facts is the only one that matters. It is so nice to have Jesus Christ our Lord, God, and Savior posting on CAF today, giving us His perfect interpretation of His saints’ writings.

you don’t subscribe to papal authority?

 

[Louie1983]

What does any of this stuff about where Irenaeus was born have to do with anything? Theology is not determined by geography.

I don’t see any Papal supremacy in any of this.

Forgive me, good sir, I was unaware that your interpretation of the facts is the only one that matters. It is so nice to have Jesus Christ our Lord, God, and Savior posting on CAF today, giving us His perfect interpretation of His saints’ writings.

typical rsponse

A good argument is presented and the knives are out.

 

[steve_b]

Of course we Catholics do not consider him “first among equals” in the same sense that Orthodox do.

But that phrase does have a certain legitimacy to it in the sense that there are only three tiers to Holy Orders, and that a pope is not Sacramentally a higher order than any other bishop. Plus there’s the fact that he genuinely does exercise his authority over the Latin Church far more directly than over the eastern Catholic churches.

It does make deciding matters of Catholic vs. Orthodox ecclesiology more difficult.

When I was younger, I used to wonder if it was just political correctness that made most secular flowcharts of Christian denominations consistently label the united pre-1054 church as “the Christian Church” or “Christian Church (undivided).” Usually only after that point do they get less cryptic (they usually then say “Roman Catholic” and “Eastern Orthodox” which is not really precise enough for me, but there ya go).

But now I think it’s because - from a secular (i.e. purely historical) perspective - they’re both clearly apostolic, so from an worldly perspective, which one was “really” the pre-1054 church seems purely academic and abstract.

I’ve seen some of those flow charts also. Some don’t even follow the simplest of facts.

• We know the Church of Rome was there in the 1st century. That’s why we have the book of Romans.
• We know the Church from the 1st century was called the Catholic Church.
• We know from the 4th century the Catholic Church is an article of faith. (N creed)
• any flow chart that doesn’t show the Catholic Church coming from the 1st century, qualifies itself as nonsense

 

[dzheremi]

You are the one making the point about locations. You brought up Irenaeus being part of the “Latin Church” as the only reason for the positions he takes in “against heresies”. You imply other Churches in other locations, would say something different in defference to themselves. That’s why I pointed out, Irenaeus was originally from the East. All his mentors were from the East. What you wrote was contrary to what Irenaeus wrote.

Not really. What I wrote is that it makes sense for Iranaeus to be writing about his own church. It doesn’t really make sense to point to it as being an example of an “easterner” assenting to some sort of infallibility as Rome claims for itself.

Irenaeus said everyone was to agree with the Church of Rome because of her pre-eminent authority.

Yes, and her authority is dependent upon her orthodoxy. Rome was long orthodox, but has since stopped embracing her previous positions in favor of medieval and later novelties, so the authority that came through her authoritatively orthodox position is no longer in her. Rome has lost her orthodoxy, and with it her authority.

Since one of his mentors was Ignatius and Ignatius said do NOTHING without the bishop, then in context of Irenaeus statement, the Church of Rome doesn’t do anything from it’s bishop. That’s why the names of the bishops of Rome were named specifically. Therefore, the bishop of Rome is the one everyone was to agree with. Thus in the title of his work “Against Heresies” if one didn’t agree with what Irenaeus was teaching here, they were ones who Irenaeus was writing against.

I am agreeing with Irenaeus wrote, and disagreeing with your interpretation of it that it somehow is referring to the modern Roman Catholic Church.

you don’t subscribe to papal authority?

Perhaps I used the wrong term here. I guess it would be more appropriate to say “Universal Jurisdiction”. I don’t believe that the Pope of Rome has the power to decide matters for the entire church, and I don’t believe his power is any more than that of another bishop with whom he may be in communion.

 

[steve_b]

Not really. What I wrote is that it makes sense for Iranaeus to be writing about his own church. It doesn’t really make sense to point to it as being an example of an “easterner” assenting to some sort of infallibility as Rome claims for itself.

This isn’t about his Church. This is about THE Church. The issues of East vs West in his day is NOT the issues today between East and West.

I sense you’re not Catholic, but you don’t identify yourself
dz:

Yes, and her authority is dependent upon her orthodoxy.

Her authority comes from being the chair of Peter. Therefore, it comes from Jesus. He gurantees her teaching will be true.
dz:

Rome was long orthodox, but has since stopped embracing her previous positions in favor of medieval and later novelties, so the authority that came through her authoritatively orthodox position is no longer in her.

Says who?
dz:

Rome has lost her orthodoxy, and with it her authority.

According to who? You don’t make statments like that without being expected to present proof. Let’s see your proof.

I see now, you’re EO of some stripe? Which EO are you?
dz:

I am agreeing with Irenaeus wrote,

No you’re not. You’re opposing him
dz:

and disagreeing with your interpretation of it that it somehow is referring to the modern Roman Catholic Church.

It’s the same Church Paul wrote the following to

Rm 1
*To all in Rome who are loved by God and called to be his holy people: *
*Grace and peace to you from God our Father and from the Lord Jesus Christ. 8 First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is being reported all over the world. 9 God, whom I serve in my spirit in preaching the gospel of his Son, is my witness how constantly I remember you 10 in my prayers at all times; and I pray that now at last by God’s will the way may be opened for me to come to you. *11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong— 12 that is, that you and I may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith.

It’s the same Church of Rome Irenaeus wrote about

“Against Heresies” Bk 3 Ch 3
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 Churchshould agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, inasmuch as the apostolic tradition has been preserved continuously by those faithful men] who exist everywhere
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes

It’s the same Church today, with Benedict XVI as pope, 266th successor to St Peter
dz:

Perhaps I used the wrong term here. I guess it would be more appropriate to say “Universal Jurisdiction”. I don’t believe that the Pope of Rome has the power to decide matters for the entire church, and I don’t believe his power is any more than that of another bishop with whom he may be in communion.

The pope has immediate jurisdiction over the universal Church. NO other bishop has that jurisdiction.

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I find it hard to believe that Christ would go out of His way to make Peter the Rock of the Church, pray that Peter’s faith not fail but be strengthened, promise us the gates of hell would not prevail, make Peter the leader of the apostles, have Peter establish this magnificent See of Rome that is the leader of Christendom for centuries and the final word on much, and then allow his great Roman Church to collapse into oblivion with bizarre, unorthodox, heterodoxy and downright sinful teachings while the others remain true. I don’t see it historically and just from a common sense feel for Christ and his assurances and prayers and admonitions in Scripture, I don’t buy it. The gates of hell won’t prevail because of Orthodoxy and the great Western Church falls into oblivion? I just don’t buy it. Newman makes more sense…

Yes, and her authority is dependent upon her orthodoxy. Rome was long orthodox, but has since stopped embracing her previous positions in favor of medieval and later novelties, so the authority that came through her authoritatively orthodox position is no longer in her. Rome has lost her orthodoxy, and with it her authority.

 

[IowaJay]

Newman makes more sense…

I have a question based on that comment -

I’m aware of the quotes from Scripture, Irenaeus, etc. referenced above which have been used to support papal primacy.

The problem I have from a historical perspective is how those passages were interpreted and put into use. In other words, what I see in terms of how primacy operated in the early church looks very different than the way it operates now. In the early Church, ecumenical councils were not called or presided over by the Bishop of Rome, but now they are. In the early Church, bishops were picked and ordained by locals (see Hippolytus’ “On the Apostolic Tradition” for example) - there is no evidence whatsoever of the Bishop of Rome having to approve of those elections.

Is there more recent historical scholarship besides Newman’s Development of Doctrine from a Catholic perspective which explains this difference?

 

[jam070406]

I find it hard to believe that Christ would go out of His way to make Peter the Rock of the Church, pray that Peter’s faith not fail but be strengthened, promise us the gates of hell would not prevail, make Peter the leader of the apostles, have Peter establish this magnificent See of Rome that is the leader of Christendom for centuries and the final word on much, and then allow his great Roman Church to collapse into oblivion with bizarre, unorthodox, heterodoxy and downright sinful teachings while the others remain true. I don’t see it historically and just from a common sense feel for Christ and his assurances and prayers and admonitions in Scripture, I don’t buy it. The gates of hell won’t prevail because of Orthodoxy and the great Western Church falls into oblivion? I just don’t buy it. Newman makes more sense…

I agree. The apparant evidence is hard to ignore.
Plus, I see only the Pope addressing issues on the world stage, that affect all of humanity.

 

[dzheremi]

This isn’t about his Church. This is about THE Church. The issues of East vs West in his day is NOT the issues today between East and West.

Indeed, so if/when Catholics use Iranaeus to try to prove the infallibility or universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pope, they are reading things into past writings that are not appropriate for the time.

I sense you’re not Catholic, but you don’t identify yourself

Irrelevant.

Her authority comes from being the chair of Peter. Therefore, it comes from Jesus. He gurantees her teaching will be true.

I find it so odd that Catholics, who are so (rightly) against Protestant doctrines like “Once Saved Always Saved” would turn around and endorse a variation of that thinking when it comes to the leadership of their church. The Pope in Rome is not “Once Peter, Always Peter”, neither is the Pope of Alexandria “Once Mark, Always Mark”. To say that the faith is guaranteed by the chair, rather than the content of the faith itself, makes absolutely NO sense at all. It really does remind me of Richard Nixon’s assertion that when the President does something it isn’t illegal. Well, I’m sorry, but when the Pope of Rome does something unorthodox and contrary to the faith, it is unorthodox and contrary to the faith and his occupying the chair of Peter does NOT protect him from judgment or the ability to fall into heresy. Pope Honorius was even anathematized decades after his death at the third council of Constantinople in 680 AD – a council which the then-current Pope of Rome, Leo II, accepted the decrees of, and the Roman Catholic Church thereby accepted and apparently accepts. So don’t give me this “the chair guarantees it” business. The chair does not protect its holder from heresy. History, included history that is uncontroversially accepted by today’s Roman Catholic Church, bears this out.

Says who?

Everyone who doesn’t buy Roman Catholic arguments regarding this point, I suppose. So, Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, Protestants, probably a vast number of Catholics whose ecclesiology is not Roman.

According to who? You don’t make statments like that without being expected to present proof. Let’s see your proof.

Are you serious? Proof that Rome is not orthodox? Wow. Uh…let’s start with the fact that Rome changed the Creed (despite accepting the earlier conciliar decree that no changes could be made), leading many into error. The numerous post-schism innovations also do not bode well for any claims of Roman Catholic orthodoxy. Certainly it is possible to be an orthodox Roman Catholic, but Rome’s beliefs and practices are themselves not orthodox, so that’s not really a good standard. The devotions which have taken root in the church that developed out of private revelations are also something that is unacceptable for orthodox worship (the novenas, chaplets, etc). It is easier to enumerate the ways that Rome may be considered to have kept in line with its own ancient faith than it would be to point to all the ways that it has not.

I see now, you’re EO of some stripe? Which EO are you?

No, I’m not.

No you’re not. You’re opposing him

And I would say that you are opposing him by extending his words to the modern, unorthodox church in Rome. We can do this all day, but I’d rather not.

It’s the same Church today, with Benedict XVI as pope, 266th successor to St Peter

Geographically, yes. Doctrinally, no. Doctrine trumps geography every single time, no matter what church we’re talking about. You could be orthodox in Rome just as much as in Constantinople, Moscow, Alexandria, etc. But the Roman Catholic Church is not.

The pope has immediate jurisdiction over the universal Church. NO other bishop has that jurisdiction.

I’m sorry, but I just don’t agree. The Roman Pope has jurisdiction over his church to the extent that he teaches the faith unchanged, but he does not have jurisdiction over others’ churches. The Roman Pope cannot tell the Alexandrian Pope, or the Ecumenical Patriarch, or the Armenian Catholicos what to do. And really, he shouldn’t even be doing that to the churches that are in union with Rome, if they are indeed to be respected as self-governing churches, and encouraged as he has encouraged them to return to their roots. Well, their roots (as formerly Orthodox churches) include a conciliar model of organization and governance that would not give the Roman Pope the prerogative to interfere in their affairs whenever he feels he should. What was the overall message of the Middle Eastern Synod last year? That’s right, “Power to the Patriarchs”! And that is as it should be! To quote the story from National Catholic Reporter found here: “it’s an argument for greater collegiality, or shared decision- making, in Catholicism, as a corrective to what is perceived as excessive papal power.”

You see that? “Excessive papal power.” And that’s from the patriarchs of eastern churches that are in union with Rome! I think you’d have a hard time finding any easterner who wouldn’t agree at least in theory that this is the reality of the Roman communion’s organization, and that it is defective and wrong. Rome should NOT be telling anyone else what to do.

 

[dzheremi]

I find it hard to believe that Christ would go out of His way to make Peter the Rock of the Church, pray that Peter’s faith not fail but be strengthened, promise us the gates of hell would not prevail, make Peter the leader of the apostles, have Peter establish this magnificent See of Rome that is the leader of Christendom for centuries and the final word on much, and then allow his great Roman Church to collapse into oblivion with bizarre, unorthodox, heterodoxy and downright sinful teachings while the others remain true. I don’t see it historically and just from a common sense feel for Christ and his assurances and prayers and admonitions in Scripture, I don’t buy it. The gates of hell won’t prevail because of Orthodoxy and the great Western Church falls into oblivion? I just don’t buy it. Newman makes more sense…

Think of it this way, Gurney my good man: We both agree that Christ prayed that Peter’s faith not fail, right? (I’m going to assume that you do, since you brought it up.)

Well, if the church is founded upon the person of Peter, why should our Lord and Savior have to pray for Peter’s faith? As I tried to explain just now to Steve B, if the orthodoxy of the chair is guaranteed by virtue of the person holding it rather than the faith held by the person in it, then the content of his faith should not matter. Of course we both know that it does matter, so it is better/safer/more sensible to say that the problem is not with Christ’s assurances, but with the modern Roman Catholic church’s interpretation of them.