Eastern Orthodox and Infallibility

[Randy_Carson]

Rome seems to make its delight in converting protestants a bit more public.

Rome? Isn’t that really more of an American apologetics phenomenon?

 

[dzheremi]

Is there any prohibition by God for us to stop learning? Is there a prohibition for us to grow in learning?

A false dichotomy, if I’ve ever read one. Many of our learned fathers were simple people, but what they sought and what they confessed was not earthly wisdom or earthly learning. God does tell us quite explicitly in the holy scriptures that His ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:8-9), and yet we are called to reason together (Isaiah 1:18). The question is: To what end? The EO and the RC have answered this question differently, not because of a ‘prohibition’ (on the part of God, or the EO church), but because the function and limits of the intellect are not approached in the same way in both churches. As Fr. Andrew Damick of the Antiochian Orthodox Church put it in his “Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy” lectures, in the Orthodox Church it is possible to be a true theologian and be retarded.

 

[steido01]

Rome? Isn’t that really more of an American apologetics phenomenon?

You’re probably right. I should start better distinguishing between the Church headquartered there and those in America who look toward her.

 

[Brandon_Cal]

I was about to ask if the Orthodox even state, matter-of-fact, that the Church is infallible, but thankfully Nine_Two preemptively answered my question

We know the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church.

However man is prone to error - so no man can be infallible.

It is not so much that the Church is infallible (we see it make relatively minor mistakes all the time), so much that it teaches the truth as it has been revealed by God.

If the Church (as a whole) teaches something (often liturgically) then it is the truth. Whether or not it is something we must believe in order to be saved is another matter (and by that I don’t mean picking and choosing, I mean some beliefs, i.e. the existence of God, play directly into salvation while others, whether or not the Theotokos was Assumed into heaven, do not. If you struggle with one and find you can’t believe it, you can’t truly call yourself Orthodox, if you struggle with the other, then that is simply your struggle).

It is hard under these circumstances to apply “infallible” to the teachings, since all teachings of the Church are equally true. It is just the level of importance that changes.

I’m genuinely trying to understand the Orthodox viewpoint as I find it critical to my eventual conversion to either the Orthodox or Catholic church, so I hope you’ll bare with me here.

You yourself admit that there are some doctrines that absolutely must be believed by the very virtue of being Orthodox. What makes that so? Is it an Ecumenical Council? Is it one’s own local Bishop? If it be anything, how would that standard functionally differ from an understanding of “infallibility”? Surely something the Orthodox Church teaches must be understood to be “infallible”.

 

[Nine_Two]

I think I understand, but if a theologian were to say, “here is something worth considering and I think it is found in the writings of several Fathers in second, third and fourth centuries…”, would that meet the criteria? Or does Tradition taught today have to be EXPLICITLY found in the Tradition of earlier times?

For example, when did the Tradition regarding the theotokos first appear and would it have been considered a novelty at that time?

I’m not sure your example is a very good one. The Tradition that Mary is Theotokos is from scripture. The word itself was applied later but has no meaning beyond what is described in scripture (we use it as a title both to emphasize how special she was, and who exactly Christ was). I suppose this is most akin to the English speaking Catholic use of the term “Mother of God” to describe Mary. The English phrase has no real background in the Tradition of the Church but the concept it describes does (which is why we wont criticize you for the use of the phrase).

If you find several Father’s talking about something, and making consistent comments on it, then you already have something that is Tradition, even if it may be neglected. An example of this I’d give is the Catholic concept of Deification. It is so often ignored that many have no idea of its existence, but in spite of its neglect it is part of the Catholic Tradition.

I think perhaps what you might be trying to ask though, is what is the origin point of any given Tradition. Obviously it all had to come from somewhere. The answer to this should always be that it goes back to the Apostles at the very least, or even before to Christ. Take for example the Fasting Tradition in the Orthodox Church. We are called on to fast two days a week at least because Christ told the Pharisees that when he was gone his followers would fast more than the two days a week required by Pharisaic interpretation of the Law.
Church Fathers can expand on this, but their expansion doesn’t change the base of the Tradition. Again with the fasting example, saying we fast two days a week is far from an accurate description of Orthodox practice (both ideal and in reality) because so much has been expanded on. Yet the basic principle is still the core guiding principle.

Of course there is also tradition (small ‘t’), which even when given a sort of official status by the church, nonetheless has a later origin.

 

[Nine_Two]

You yourself admit that there are some doctrines that absolutely must be believed by the very virtue of being Orthodox. What makes that so? Is it an Ecumenical Council? Is it one’s own local Bishop? If it be anything, how would that standard functionally differ from an understanding of “infallibility”? Surely something the Orthodox Church teaches must be understood to be “infallible”.

Disclaimer: I’m no theologian:

We believe that salvation means growing close to God, therefore what one must believe is anything with which it is impossible to get close to God without - I gave the example before that one must believe in God. You can’t get close to someone you don’t believe in. We must believe those things which help us to understand who and what God is - such as the Triune nature, since you can’t get close to someone you don’t know.
On the flip side there are teachings of the Church that don’t necessarily pertain to getting to know God, such as the Assumption of Mary (I hate using that example, I don’t like casting doubt on it). However at the same time these things like this are good and profitable to believe in, so it shouldn’t be looked at as an optional belief, just a belief with more leeway for questioning.
And it is because it isn’t a divide between what must and what may be believed, there is no attempt to differentiate them. They should all be believed.
Dzeremi:

in the Orthodox Church it is possible to be a true theologian and be retarded.

As evidenced by all our “Fools for Christ”. Not necessarily retarded, but they did things no sane person would do - like questioning the motives of Emperors and Tsars to their faces (and living to do it again).

pablope:

Is there any prohibition by God for us to stop learning? Is there a prohibition for us to grow in learning?

If we want a learning metaphor, look at Gods revelation as a textbook. Read it through, glean what you can from it. But the Author (God) says there aren’t going to be any new editions, so don’t waste your time writing new chapters.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m not sure your example is a very good one. The Tradition that Mary is Theotokos is from scripture.

If pushed…well, okay, if asked…well, at every opportunity I’m happy to show where the universal jurisdiction of the pope is found in scripture to the same degree that many of the doctrines our two tradition share are found.

But not today, because big brother is watching.

However, it took a few centuries for things like the hypostatic union and even the Trinity to get ironed out. So, how is the development of papal doctrines any different?

 

[LionHeart777]

If pushed…well, okay, if asked…well, at every opportunity I’m happy to show where the universal jurisdiction of the pope is found in scripture to the same degree that many of the doctrines our two tradition share are found.

But not today, because big brother is watching.

However, it took a few centuries for things like the hypostatic union and even the Trinity to get ironed out. So, how is the development of papal doctrines any different?

I write from my phone so I’ll be brief: but also do some believe there is a specfic time when matters faith and morals are no longer to be settled? Certainly this is not the Catholic position…but it seems the CC is being criticized for this.

 

[Nine_Two]

If pushed…well, okay, if asked…well, at every opportunity I’m happy to show where the universal jurisdiction of the pope is found in scripture to the same degree that many of the doctrines our two tradition share are found.

But not today, because big brother is watching.

However, it took a few centuries for things like the hypostatic union and even the Trinity to get ironed out. So, how is the development of papal doctrines any different?

I’d disagree. The idea that Mary is Theotokos (Birthgiver of God) comes from the fact that she gave birth to Jesus (as shown in the two infancy accounts), and that Jesus is God (as shown throughout, though particularly the introduction to St. John’s Gospel).
It is very direct - which is why I suggest it isn’t the best example.

Regarding universal jurisdiction: While Tradition starts at the Apostles, it still has to be continuously consistent with itself as time moves on. If you can take verses out of the bible, but can’t show a consistent line of interpretation along the same lines that you are using, then you haven’t shown Tradition.
So while I completely agree that it is possible to interpret scripture as saying the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to the Office of Peter, has universal jurisdiction, it is also possible to interpret it as saying something somewhat less about the office, and in light of the Tradition we see passed down through the centuries - and the reverence which was shown Rome, it would seem that Tradition is not in favor of a Universal Pontiff.

 

[chimo]

Baklava?

Seriously, would you mind sharing this secret with the rest of us?

It’s a great dessert, baklava. What keeps the Eastern Orthodox Church together is simply everyone has equal authority within the Church. Decisions from Bishops and priests can be rejected if the lay people rejects it. It is interesting that in the Eastern Orthodox Church the Laity have this authority within the Church. Nothing goes by unless the Laity also agrees to it. This is a different approach than Rome since it is the Pope and the magisterium of the Church which decides on doctrine and teachings. Not so in the East. The Laity have this right as well in determining what is Church doctrine and what is not. That is why when a bishop or priest is ordained it must have the approval of the local congregation. Without those words “Axios” (which is a Greek word meaning he is worthy) from the Laity the person cannot be ordained a priest or bishop. In the East there is more authority given to the Laity than it is in the West. Without the involvement of the Laity in determining Church doctrine the Eastern Church would not have those teachings today that are very dear to them. All of what is determined in the East must also have the approval of the Laity.

 

[Anglo_Trad]

Can God through the Holy Spirit guide the Church in such a way that the Church is prevented from formally teaching error in matters of faith and morals?

Yes, of course.

Is God able to do this?

Yes, God is omnipotent.

Are you suggesting that God’s powers are in some way limited? I cannot understand why you ask these questions.

 

[jimkhong]

It’s a great dessert, baklava. What keeps the Eastern Orthodox Church together is simply everyone has equal authority within the Church. Decisions from Bishops and priests can be rejected if the lay people rejects it. It is interesting that in the Eastern Orthodox Church the Laity have this authority within the Church. Nothing goes by unless the Laity also agrees to it. This is a different approach than Rome since it is the Pope and the magisterium of the Church which decides on doctrine and teachings. Not so in the East. The Laity have this right as well in determining what is Church doctrine and what is not. That is why when a bishop or priest is ordained it must have the approval of the local congregation. Without those words “Axios” (which is a Greek word meaning he is worthy) from the Laity the person cannot be ordained a priest or bishop. In the East there is more authority given to the Laity than it is in the West. Without the involvement of the Laity in determining Church doctrine the Eastern Church would not have those teachings today that are very dear to them. All of what is determined in the East must also have the approval of the Laity.

Is this in theory or has there been any situation where an Eastern Laity has rejected something presented by the bishops? Does this apply even with bishops in ecumenical council?

Would this be an Eastern equivalent of the Western concepts of sensus fidelium and acceptance by the people?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’d disagree. The idea that Mary is Theotokos (Birthgiver of God) comes from the fact that she gave birth to Jesus (as shown in the two infancy accounts), and that Jesus is God (as shown throughout, though particularly the introduction to St. John’s Gospel).
It is very direct - which is why I suggest it isn’t the best example.

Frankly, I agree with you. But you try explaining that to your typical American bible Christian and see how far you get.

Regarding universal jurisdiction: While Tradition starts at the Apostles, it still has to be continuously consistent with itself as time moves on. If you can take verses out of the bible, but can’t show a consistent line of interpretation along the same lines that you are using, then you haven’t shown Tradition.

I’m with you so far, I think.

So while I completely agree that it is possible to interpret scripture as saying the Bishop of Rome, as the successor to the Office of Peter, has universal jurisdiction, it is also possible to interpret it as saying something somewhat less about the office,

Wow. This seems like a major concession to me. You are saying that Catholics have a scriptural basis for universal jurisdiction…but the problem occurs here:

and in light of the Tradition we see passed down through the centuries - and the reverence which was shown Rome, it would seem that Tradition is not in favor of a Universal Pontiff.

Nine_Two, that seems like a highly subjective position. I mean, it’s hard enough for us to avoid reading our presuppositions into scripture, but now you are having to evaluate reams of material from the Fathers, too? And from that you (surprise, surprise) determine that the early Church knew nothing of universal jursidiction?

Mull that over for a bit, and you’ll be in RCIA before you know it.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It’s a great dessert, baklava. What keeps the Eastern Orthodox Church together is simply everyone has equal authority within the Church. Decisions from Bishops and priests can be rejected if the lay people rejects it. It is interesting that in the Eastern Orthodox Church the Laity have this authority within the Church. Nothing goes by unless the Laity also agrees to it. This is a different approach than Rome since it is the Pope and the magisterium of the Church which decides on doctrine and teachings. Not so in the East. The Laity have this right as well in determining what is Church doctrine and what is not. That is why when a bishop or priest is ordained it must have the approval of the local congregation. Without those words “Axios” (which is a Greek word meaning he is worthy) from the Laity the person cannot be ordained a priest or bishop. In the East there is more authority given to the Laity than it is in the West. Without the involvement of the Laity in determining Church doctrine the Eastern Church would not have those teachings today that are very dear to them. All of what is determined in the East must also have the approval of the Laity.

Chimo, I’m an American, and you know how we are about democracy. :clapping:

But this seems foreign to me as far as the Church goes. Jesus didn’t establish a democracy; he established a kingdom. Further, he re-established to office of the Royal Steward beginning with Peter. Let me establish this point first.

Peter – The Royal Steward

Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, and the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter. Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

+++

Now, with the governance of the Church established as a kingdom and NOT a democracy, I want to ask a few questions:

Prior to 1930, every Protestant church (and I recognize that you are not Protestant) taught that artificial birth control was sinful. But at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church reversed its position. Subsequently, every Protestant denomination has followed suit. So, were Protestants teach error prior to 1930? Or have they been teaching error since 1930?

And to the point: Is this the kind of thing we want happening in the Catholic Church as a result of majority rule?

 

[chimo]

Chimo, I’m an American, and you know how we are about democracy. :clapping:

But this seems foreign to me as far as the Church goes. Jesus didn’t establish a democracy; he established a kingdom. Further, he re-established to office of the Royal Steward beginning with Peter. Let me establish this point first.

Peter – The Royal Steward

Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven”. In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else. God Himself passes the key from one steward to the next.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also read the following:

Matthew 16:13-19
When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

The passage quoted above from Matthew tells us that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name. Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never. Peter died as a martyr as Jesus foretold, and the successors of Peter have taken his place in the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Jesus specifically referenced the passage from Isaiah when He appointed Peter. Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.

+++

Now, with the governance of the Church established as a kingdom and NOT a democracy, I want to ask a few questions:

Prior to 1930, every Protestant church (and I recognize that you are not Protestant) taught that artificial birth control was sinful. But at the 1930 Lambeth Conference, the Anglican Church reversed its position. Subsequently, every Protestant denomination has followed suit. So, were Protestants teach error prior to 1930? Or have they been teaching error since 1930?

And to the point: Is this the kind of thing we want happening in the Catholic Church as a result of majority rule?

This is how infallibility works in the Eastern Church. Rome has hers and the Easterners have theirs. If you cannot understand the Eastern concept it is because you were never brought up in it. Since Roman Catholics do not know any other authority than the one that is contained within their structure than of course the Eastern concept would be foreign to them. What’s works for the East may not work for the West and what works for the West may not work for the East. We just grew up differently. Peter has his keys as you mentioned but so does the East. Both Churches in their histories have never governed each other or ever governed the other. The Pope is an important authority figure for Rome but he never had any authority over the East that resembles his own authority over his own Catholic Church. I wish Catholics would understand that. The Eastern Orthodox were never governed once by Rome. Just check the past 2000 years and you will discover a different platform or approach in the East. How can the Pope of Rome exercise any authority in the East when the model from the East uses a very different model than Rome’s. In truth the Roman model is foreign to the Easterners as the Eastern model is foreign to Rome. The Eastern Church never had the Roman model ever to govern her.

 

[chimo]

Is this in theory or has there been any situation where an Eastern Laity has rejected something presented by the bishops? Does this apply even with bishops in ecumenical council?

Would this be an Eastern equivalent of the Western concepts of sensus fidelium and acceptance by the people?

Thank you for your inquiry and I will get back to you with sources that might interest you. No this is not theory but actually contained within the Canons of the Orthodox Churches. The Laity have this given to them ever since the Eastern Church began. Ecumenical council decisions were not effective in the East until the Laity agrees to them. It is written in their code of how the Church operates. In fact an Ecumenical Council decision cannot be accepted fully until another Council ratifies it which means do the Laity accept the decisions of the Council that was formed first. If in time the Laity can exercise their disapproval then the Council decisions of the first Council meeting can be revoked. This is what is contained within the Canon structure for the Eastern Church to help govern it. For instance the Council of Florence which tried to bring together the Orthodox and Catholic Churches had agreement with the Eastern Bishops to bring this to the East. However the Eastern Church rejected it because it needs ratification from the Laity. The Laity do not usually change decisions or make up decisions but in this case they did so and their Bishops had to obey them. What is interesting in the Eastern Church is that all levels of government must say yes if anything is to be agreed on. If one party says no then it is rejected. As you can see this model is way far different than the one Rome has.

 

[Nine_Two]

Wow. This seems like a major concession to me. You are saying that Catholics have a scriptural basis for universal jurisdiction…but the problem occurs here:

It isn’t actually a very big concession. I’m acknowledging that you could interpret it that way if you isolated the verses and read into them a little bit. I’ll concede the same is also true of much heretical doctrine including that used by the JW and Mormons. That it can be interpreted that way doesn’t mean much.

Nine_Two, that seems like a highly subjective position. I mean, it’s hard enough for us to avoid reading our presuppositions into scripture, but now you are having to evaluate reams of material from the Fathers, too? And from that you (surprise, surprise) determine that the early Church knew nothing of universal jursidiction?

Mull that over for a bit, and you’ll be in RCIA before you know it.

You don’t have to go through every last bit of Tradition to figure out the general trend. We have Ecumenical Councils, for example, limiting the power of Patriarchs in the realms of other Patriarchs. This on its own contradicts the idea of Universal Jurisdiction.

The idea that any theological advancements must be checked by Tradition is not something that will ever bring me into RCIA. In fact the flippant attitude that it can be ignored as long as that one guy says everything is alright is something that will very much keep me out of Catholicism.

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is how infallibility works in the Eastern Church. Rome has hers and the Easterners have theirs. If you cannot understand the Eastern concept it is because you were never brought up in it. Since Roman Catholics do not know any other authority than the one that is contained within their structure than of course the Eastern concept would be foreign to them. What’s works for the East may not work for the West and what works for the West may not work for the East. We just grew up differently. Peter has his keys as you mentioned but so does the East. Both Churches in their histories have never governed each other or ever governed the other. The Pope is an important authority figure for Rome but he never had any authority over the East that resembles his own authority over his own Catholic Church. I wish Catholics would understand that. The Eastern Orthodox were never governed once by Rome. Just check the past 2000 years and you will discover a different platform or approach in the East. How can the Pope of Rome exercise any authority in the East when the model from the East uses a very different model than Rome’s. In truth the Roman model is foreign to the Easterners as the Eastern model is foreign to Rome. The Eastern Church never had the Roman model ever to govern her.

Since the Jews who were leading the Church during apostolic era WERE easterners, it certainly seems like they would have had SOME understanding of the things you describe. Yet, they STILL established the see of Peter as the head of the universal church.

I’m sure many will disagree, of course.

However, I’m fascinated by this statement: “Peter has his keys as you mentioned but so does the East.” Is there a verse of scripture that you would point to in support of that claim?

The unity or oneness of the Church is abundantly clear in scripture.

One Lord. One faith. One baptism. One flock. One Shepherd. One God and Father of us all.

Consequently, I see Peter as the ONE shepherd of the ONE flock and the keeper of the ONE set of keys.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It isn’t actually a very big concession. I’m acknowledging that you could interpret it that way if you isolated the verses and read into them a little bit. I’ll concede the same is also true of much heretical doctrine including that used by the JW and Mormons. That it can be interpreted that way doesn’t mean much.

Nice touch bringing them into the discussion. But again, wow. There is something in scripture which could conceivably be construed as support for universal jurisdiction.

You don’t have to go through every last bit of Tradition to figure out the general trend. We have Ecumenical Councils, for example, limiting the power of Patriarchs in the realms of other Patriarchs. This on its own contradicts the idea of Universal Jurisdiction.

The idea that any theological advancements must be checked by Tradition is not something that will ever bring me into RCIA. In fact the flippant attitude that it can be ignored as long as that one guy says everything is alright is something that will very much keep me out of Catholicism.

Ah. Then you will be comforted to learn that infallibility is a check which prevents the Holy Father from ever going outside the bounds of Tradition.

IOW, every pope is constrained by the teaching of his predecessors.

 

[chimo]

Since the Jews who were leading the Church during apostolic era WERE easterners, it certainly seems like they would have had SOME understanding of the things you describe. Yet, they STILL established the see of Peter as the head of the universal church.

I’m sure many will disagree, of course.

However, I’m fascinated by this statement: “Peter has his keys as you mentioned but so does the East.” Is there a verse of scripture that you would point to in support of that claim?

The unity or oneness of the Church is abundantly clear in scripture.

One Lord. One faith. One baptism. One flock. One Shepherd. One God and Father of us all.

Consequently, I see Peter as the ONE shepherd of the ONE flock and the keeper of the ONE set of keys.

You see Peter because he was a visible head of the Church of Rome. However you do not see how Easterners see Peter and how we understand his role in the East. Rome thinks of this role of Peter as having it universally over the whole Church. This is because you see the visible head of Peter in Rome. However the Eastern Church does not exclude Peter at all. I am not talking about Peter’s position in Rome. This role of Peter within the Eastern Church is vitally important for us. However the average Roman Catholic does not know of the role Peter is for the East. You have your understanding that only comes from Rome. However the East sees Peter with just as much affection and in fact every Bishop in the East sees this authority with Peter as been important for their own existence. The East accepts Peter’s apostolic mission as their own but they do not see this visible authority as do Rome. That is because Rome sees a exterior authority that needs to be seen while the East sees this interior authority that needs to be shared. All of Peter’s keys if you can say also rests in the East. Every bishop in the East identifies himself with Peter but not with the Peter that you define him to be. Understand this principal. Peter is in the East but in a different model than the one that you described. It is from this Eastern model where conflicts with the Western model has to find some compromise so that both models can coexist. As long as Rome wishes to push for their model unto the East the unity which we all want will never come. Rome must come to an understanding of the Eastern model if we will go forward to our eventual unity.