C
Cavaradossi
Guest
That is a false dichotomy. Many saints have believed and taught things which were erroneous. No saint’s writings are completely free of error.
- Status
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Cavaradossi,
I do concur with the letter of your remark.
We may nevertheless note, that Gregory did not propose his idea
that “it is manifest that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all Churches” as a simple thelogumenon,
but as a certainty, or rather as a matter of fact.
Why were popes expressing similar views never condemned in those centuries ?
We may suppose he is a Saint because in those times those ideas were accepted. (In the CC too there are Saints who would teach beliefs which, after their own time, were declared not acceptable. )
Could you declare the same as Saint Gregory nowadays within an EOC ?
In Christ
P7
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
St. Augustine similarly presented many thelogoumena as fact, but that does not make them any more true. It matters not if St. Gregory believed his opinion to be true.
I think you answered your own question. The claimed jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome was often not an issue in the East. It became an issue when the papacy underwent a rather radical shift in character during the Gregorian Reforms.
No. Just as one cannot teach St. Basil’s cautious teachings with regards to the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
S
Shiranui117
Guest
Given that my premise was based off of the power of the keys being given to both Peter and the Apostles, I have to ask: What is your idea of the power of the keys? Is it distinct from the power of binding and loosing? Do you think the other Apostles received the power of the keys as well?
Yes, he worked actively for unity of the Churches, as did many others of the Apostles, and Peter was indeed given the charge to confirm his brothers. However, does his working for the maintenance of unity therefore make him the source of it, or merely the maintainer of it?
The full(er) context of that:
If Paul, the herald of the Truth, the trumpet of the Holy Ghost, had recourse to the great Peter, in order to obtain a decision from him for those at Antioch who were disputing about living by the Law, much more do we small and humble folk run to the Apostolic See to get healing from you for the sores of the churches. For it is fitting that you should in all things have the pre-eminence, seeing that your See possesses many peculiar privileges. For other cities get a name for size or beauty or population, and some that are devoid of these advantages are compensated by certain spiritual gifts: but your city has the fullest abundance of good things from the Giver of all good.
For she is of all cities the greatest and most famous, the mistress of the world and teeming with population. And besides this she has created an empire which is still predominant and has imposed her own name upon her subjects. But her chief decoration is her Faith, to which the Divine Apostle is a sure witness when he exclaims "your faith is proclaimed in all the world Romans 1:8;" and if immediately after receiving the seeds of the saving Gospel she bore such a weight of wondrous fruit, what words are sufficient to express the piety which is now found in her? She has, too, the tombs of our common fathers and teachers of the Truth, Peter and Paul , to illumine the souls of the faithful. And this blessed and divine pair arose indeed in the East, and shed its rays in all directions, but voluntarily underwent the sunset of life in the West, from whence now it illumines the whole world. These have rendered your See so glorious: this is the chief of all your goods. And their See is still blest by the light of their God’s presence, seeing that therein He has placed your Holiness to shed abroad the rays of the one true Faith.
I don’t see a word about authority in here. There is talk about Rome being pre-eminent and in the forefront, but not over and above everyone else.
I’ve made my point regarding Ignatius’s letter to the Romans, but pray tell, how does “On the Opinion of Dionysius” support the “unique role of Rome?”
As a mediator, yes, and as a judge of whether a retrial was called for, yes. However, Rome herself could not make any decisions about who was right or not; she could merely decide whether a retrial was needed, and the judges of the matter would be the bishops in the dioceses adjacent to the two disputants.
Perhaps so, but even then it’s hardly the only reason. As I said before, it was originally in the East where not only the heresies arose, and it was also nearly always from the East that came the defenders of the true faith, and the clarifications of the orthodox understanding.
As I also said before, Rome often held the orthodox line, because the Roman Church didn’t try so hard to explain the faith. They just kept the faith as it had been handed down to them.
As did a multitude of others. But again, does Rome teaching and acting to preserve union make them the source of union, or are they merely working to maintain the union that is already there?
Sure, Rome is called the mouthpiece of Peter, and Peter is called mouthpiece of the Apostles. But how does this lead to Papal infallibility?By whom was Leo set as the mouthpiece of Peter? Is the Council meaning that they have to check every day whether Leo leads them into error, and then at dinner time acknolwedge him again as the mouthpiece of Peter for today, or… the Ecumencial Council tells us that it is an inherent prerogative, (as such to be regarded as jure divino). If so, isn’t the Council teaching papal infallibility?
If the Council of Chalcedon really was teaching Papal infallibility, why does no one mention that?
Moreover, did Gregory’s understanding of Rome being set over all the churches match the RCC’s current notions?
S
SPH1
Guest
Let’s put it this way. The early Church always had the Roman Church among it’s membership, something the current Eastern Orthodox cannot say and which makes them different from the early Church.
No council can be binding/infallible without at least the assent of the Roman Church on board. Just as the Jerusalem Council could not have been binding if Peter were absent or not on board.
Take away Peter/Roman Church assent and no council can be binding. This Petrine assent is ultimately what marks for us a (potentially) binding council.
Yet the so-called autonomous Eastern Orthodox Churches (bishops), being not infallible and not able to pronounce binding Christian doctrine, therefore must be subject to some higher Church authority. At the least, these autonomous Churches are bound by an Ecumenical Council, whether they personally agree with it or not.
S
SPH1
Guest
Peter was given the keys individually, while the rest of the apostles were given the keys collectively. So Peter/Pope can act individually while the apostles/bishops act collectively as in a Council.
And this is how it apparently is in Eastern Orthodoxy. No Eastern Orthodox bishop (to my understanding) has individual infallibility, although they might each hold the keys (or perhaps “a key”). The keys only work for them via Council.
Everything in the New Testament Church that required a Papal act, and the most important points in the New Testament Church, were done by Peter.
- Pentecost, the crowd asking what they were to do (to be saved.) Peter didn’t say that he’ll get back to them on that after consulting the other apostles, nor did Peter simply say to be better Jews and obey the Law better. Peter unilaterally defined the faith of the new Church by telling them to repent and be baptised in Christ.
- The Baptism of Cornelius, done at the order of Peter without consulting the others. It is true that Peter later explained his actions, but this was out of pastoral considerations for the others; Peter was not seeking their ratification. Baptism of gentiles was a done deal…whether or not the others agreed.
- The Jerusalem Council. Much discussion and arguing and it is not clear that things were going in the right direction. Peter stood up, chastised the entire Council and laid down the Faith of the Church: salvation by grace in Christ. Now, Peter was not throwing out a personal opinion, to be kicked-around and accepted or rejected by the Council or James, as the Protestants might characterise it. Rather, salvation by grace was the constant faith of the Church going back through the baptism of Cornelius and back to Pentecost (even though the Council and James might not have fully caught on to it until Peter spoke.)
No other apostle had or exercised such immense and unilateral authority over and affecting the entire Church.
If I might ask: why explore Eastern Orthodoxy (with Buddhist leanings) rather than the Holy Catholic Church? Eastern Orthodoxy cannot offer more.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
See, this is one of my big problems with Catholicism. The Pope doesn’t need the rest of the Church, but the rest of the Church needs the Pope?
I’ll ask you what I’ve asked a couple others on this thread already:
What ARE the powers of the keys, anyway? How are they used?
Papal act? You DO know that the bishopric of Rome wouldn’t even exist for another couple decades, AND that Peter was never actually a Pope himself, right?
What, no love for Paul?
Yeah, because Jesus totally didn’t talk constantly about that kind of stuff in front of everyone, including the Apostles, other disciples, the crowds, and their mothers.
Peter knew what Jesus taught just as well as the rest of them. Peter didn’t unilaterally define anything, because repenting and being baptised in Christ was already defined about ten thousand times by Christ Himself.This makes no sense at all. When people are baptized, do priests need to check with every other single priest, deacon and bishop? Heck no.
How can you say this so confidently when Paul talks about Peter kowtowing to the Judaizers? Paul even opposed Peter “to his face” about the issue.
Also, James had the final say at the Council of Jerusalem.
Regarding the bold… …Do you even remember what the Council of Jerusalem was about? I’ll post it for your reference.
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
16 ‘After this I will return
And will rebuild the tabernacle of David, which has fallen down;
I will rebuild its ruins,
And I will set it up;
17 So that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
Even all the Gentiles who are called by My name,
Says the Lord who does all these things.’**
18 “Known to God from eternity are all His works.[c] 19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d] from things strangled, and from blood. 21 For Moses has had throughout many generations those who preach him in every city, being read in the synagogues every Sabbath.”
The Jerusalem Decree
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”[f] —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.
What, still no love for Paul?
Then maybe you can tell me why June 29th is the Feast of Sts. Peter AND Paul?
I was once a Catholic, and I was confirmed in the Roman Church rather hastily after coming from a Protestant background. However, once I found an Eastern Catholic church in my area, I started going there, and was nourished by the Byzantine spirituality. Heck, just by attending Divine Liturgy and keeping a Byzantine spiritual life as best I could (i.e. not very good
) I was able to learn just as much about doctrine and Church teaching as what I learned in RCIA, and then some! It was rich and met my spiritual needs in ways I don’t think Latin spirituality ever could.-I’d tried the Rosary(that didn’t quite resonate with me
) and the Divine Mercy Chaplet (that did better, and as things turned out, IIRC it incorporated a prayer commonly used by Eastern Christians: “Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us”),-I’d gone to Mass both at my local parish (which had a lot of Protestant influence, and showed nothing of a Church that boasted a rich theological tradition that had been cultivated over two milennia) and our diocesan cathedral
-I’d attended Eucharistic Adoration (good quiet time for prayer/reflection at first, but as I started to experience tension in my spiritual life between RC dogmas and Byzantine spirituality, the chapel with the Tabernacle just turned into a place where I couldn’t settle down.
So long story short, as I learned more about the dogmas of the Roman Catholic Church and its relation to the Eastern Catholic Churches I couldn’t reconcile the Byzantine spirituality and the history of the first-milennium Church with the RC dogmas/ideas about the Pope and ecclesiology, and what seemed to me like over-dogmatization of Latin theology. It came to the point where I was rejecting these dogmas and questioning the validity of the Catholic Church. With that placing a heavy strain on my conscience, I decided it best to explore the Orthodox Church–the Church that was home to the Byzantine spirituality that had nourished me and helped me grow as a Christian–and leave behind me the Catholic dogmas that did nothing except bring cognitive dissonance, tension and stress into my spiritual life. As far as I’ve been able to discern through a lot of study and thought, Holy Orthodoxy has at LEAST as good a claim as the Catholic Church to being the one true Church established by Jesus.
As for the Buddhism part, I just find that a lot of the stuff the Buddha talked about with suffering, not-self, the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path flat-out makes sense, and all those things are testable by logic and experience. Heck, if you interpret them the right way, they even sync up with orthodox Christianity darn well.**
S
Shiranui117
Guest
And I could say that the early Church always had the Churches of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica and Philippi. The Roman Catholic Church had none of these churches for hundreds of years after the Schism, and only kinda got them back with the advent of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
Looks like the Catholic Church is different from the early Church, too.
Then maybe you’d like to explain to me how the Orthodox have had binding councils without the Pope?
I think you mean autocephalous+autonomous here, not just autonomous.
Also, in what I bolded, you seem to be saying that the Orthodox can’t be infallible without the Pope.
Do you think the Church would cease to be infallible if we didn’t have the Pope of Rome or the Roman Church?
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Cavaradossi,
essentially:
- well, we seem to agree that Saint Gregory’s belief that the Apostolic See is, by the ordering of God, set over all churches was accepted in the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church of the VII Century.
- You add it became an issue after another Gregory, ie Pope Gregory VII, ie since the XI century. Fine.
( or heretic ? ) ? ( BTW, was the Apostolic See part of the OHCAC when this doctrine was defined ?)
In Christ
P7
S
SPH1
Guest
Shiranui117,
The keys refer to both the binding and loosening of sin and to Church discipline and doctrine.
Your “no love for Paul” comments indicate that you did not get my point, or perhaps I was unclear. In either case, do not require further comment.
My reference to “Papal Acts” did not pertain to the Roman Church. Rather, that Peter was unilaterally defining important Church teachings, and in the case of the Council, correcting the entire council. Peter acted like the Pope, even though his “title” was not Pope but “Rock”.
Pentecost: Yes, Christ taught alot of things. But Peter was able to cut right to the essential point when asked what they should do. And he did not have to consult with the others, who if they replied might have come up with alot of things they should do.
Baptism of Cornelius: you waaayyy over simplify. Baptism of gentiles was a major event and Peter did that unilaterally without first discussing it with the other apostles. What other apostle did such a thing?
Jerusalem Council: You apparently take what I call a Protestant view: that salvation by grace was merely Peter’s personal opinion, to be accepted or rejected as the Council or James saw fit. No, I see it as Peter correcting an errant Council by laying down the faith of the Church.
SIDE NOTE: Regarding the keys and the Council. I think even the Eastern Orthodox will say that any apostles present at the council had the keys. But what about the elders? Who were they and did they have the keys? Were they other bishops in town for the Council? Were they members of the Jersusalem Church? What was their authority?
I also think that Paul and Peter were at the Council primarily to correct the Jerusalem Church of any Judaizing tendencies.
Feast of Sts Peter and Paul: Yes, the Holy Catholic Church recognizes the lineage of both apostles in the Church at Rome. See what that means? The Roman Church not only inherited Peter’s authority, but also that of Paul…the apostle to the gentiles. So the apostleship to the Jews and the apostleship to the Gentiles was combined into one See.
The keys refer to both the binding and loosening of sin and to Church discipline and doctrine.
Your “no love for Paul” comments indicate that you did not get my point, or perhaps I was unclear. In either case, do not require further comment.
My reference to “Papal Acts” did not pertain to the Roman Church. Rather, that Peter was unilaterally defining important Church teachings, and in the case of the Council, correcting the entire council. Peter acted like the Pope, even though his “title” was not Pope but “Rock”.
Pentecost: Yes, Christ taught alot of things. But Peter was able to cut right to the essential point when asked what they should do. And he did not have to consult with the others, who if they replied might have come up with alot of things they should do.
Baptism of Cornelius: you waaayyy over simplify. Baptism of gentiles was a major event and Peter did that unilaterally without first discussing it with the other apostles. What other apostle did such a thing?
Jerusalem Council: You apparently take what I call a Protestant view: that salvation by grace was merely Peter’s personal opinion, to be accepted or rejected as the Council or James saw fit. No, I see it as Peter correcting an errant Council by laying down the faith of the Church.
SIDE NOTE: Regarding the keys and the Council. I think even the Eastern Orthodox will say that any apostles present at the council had the keys. But what about the elders? Who were they and did they have the keys? Were they other bishops in town for the Council? Were they members of the Jersusalem Church? What was their authority?
I also think that Paul and Peter were at the Council primarily to correct the Jerusalem Church of any Judaizing tendencies.
Feast of Sts Peter and Paul: Yes, the Holy Catholic Church recognizes the lineage of both apostles in the Church at Rome. See what that means? The Roman Church not only inherited Peter’s authority, but also that of Paul…the apostle to the gentiles. So the apostleship to the Jews and the apostleship to the Gentiles was combined into one See.
S
Shiranui117
Guest
And you think that only the Pope can exercise these alone? A priest can’t exercise the powers of binding and loosing in confession? Others aside from the Pope can’t individually be bastions of the true faith?
Yeah, I didn’t get your point. Paul did a ton of legwork with evangelizing, at LEAST as much as Peter.
Really? Peter corrected Paul? You forget that Paul chewed Peter out for acquiescing to the Judaizers. Paul was the first defender against the Judaizers’ heresy, NOT Peter. If anything, it was Paul who corrected Peter on this matter.
Actually, all 12 of the Apostles has previously been preaching beforehand. Peter just piped up for the lot of them when they were accused of being drunk.
2 When the Day of Pentecost had fully come, they were all with one accord[a] in one place. 2 And suddenly there came a sound from heaven, as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled the whole house where they were sitting. 3 Then there appeared to them divided tongues, as of fire, and one sat upon each of them. 4 And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
5 And there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, devout men, from every nation under heaven. 6 And when this sound occurred, the multitude came together, and were confused, because everyone heard them speak in his own language. 7 Then they were all amazed and marveled, saying to one another, “Look, are not all these who speak Galileans? 8 And how is it that we hear, each in our own language in which we were born? 9 Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, 10 Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cretans and Arabs—we hear them speaking in our own tongues the wonderful works of God.” 12 So they were all amazed and perplexed, saying to one another, “Whatever could this mean?”
13 Others mocking said, “They are full of new wine.”
14 But Peter, standing up with the eleven, raised his voice and said to them, (insert long sermon here)
So even there, Peter had the other 11 on board with him.
No more controversial than baptizing Samaritans, which is something that was already in place. Baptizing Samaritans was just as taboo as baptizing Gentiles.
What are you talking about? This is a false dichotomy here. Peter sided with the right side, that’s it. He didn’t single-handedly decide how the Council should rule. It was only after the testimonies of Peter, and the myriad stories of Paul and Barnabas, that James decided to give the final word.
Also, the Jerusalem Council was about whether the Gentiles would need to accept the Mosaic Law or not. I suppose you could say that salvation by grace was an implication of that, but the matter at hand was whether the Gentiles would need to accept Jewish laws.
15 And certain men came down from Judea and taught the brethren, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 Therefore, when Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and dispute with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas and certain others of them should go up to Jerusalem, to the apostles and elders, about this question.
3 So, being sent on their way by the church, they passed through Phoenicia and Samaria, describing 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 the apostles and the elders; and they reported all things that God had done with them. 5 But some of the sect of the Pharisees who believed rose up, saying, “It is necessary to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.”
Here it is clear that Paul, Barnabas and representatives of the Judaizers decided to take the matter to Jerusalem, where the matter would be decided in council.
6 Now the apostles and elders came together to consider this matter. 7 And when there had been much dispute, Peter rose up and said to them: “Men and brethren, you know that a good while ago God chose among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe. 8 So God, who knows the heart, acknowledged them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as He did to us, 9 and made no distinction between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith. 10 Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear? 11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ[a] we shall be saved in the same manner as they.”
12 Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles. 13 And after they had become silent, James answered, saying, “Men and brethren, listen to me: 14 Simon has declared how God at the first visited the Gentiles to take out of them a people for His name. 15 And with this the words of the prophets agree, just as it is written:
. . .
19 Therefore I judge that we should not trouble those from among the Gentiles who are turning to God, 20 but that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality,[d] from things strangled, and from blood. . . .
22 Then it pleased the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas, namely, Judas who was also named Barsabas,[e] and Silas, leading men among the brethren.
23 They wrote this letter by them:
The apostles, the elders, and the brethren,
To the brethren who are of the Gentiles in Antioch, Syria, and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 Since we have heard that some who went out from us have troubled you with words, unsettling your souls, saying, “You must be circumcised and keep the law”[f] —to whom we gave no such commandment— 25 it seemed good to us, being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men to you with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who will also report the same things by word of mouth. 28 For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: 29 that you abstain from things offered to idols, from blood, from things strangled, and from sexual immorality.[g] If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well.
Farewell.
See how it’s James’ ruling that gets sent out as the Councils’ final decision? Peter, Paul and Barnabas proved their case against the Judaizers, and James sided with the anti-Judaizers. James’ word was the final say at the Council, not Peter’s.
Now, if Peter “corrected” the whole Council, then why did Paul and Barnabas add to and support what Peter said? By your argument, Peter’s say-so would have been the end of the matter. But it wasn’t.
The elders were most likely priests/bishops, yes. And yes, they had the keys, just like the rest of the Apostles, as they are successors of the Apostles.
No, Paul was there because he and Barnabas were one of the two disputing parties. Of course he’d show up; Paul was the one who raised the issue in the first place.
S
SPH1
Guest
Shiranui117,
I normally don’t like responding to a shot gun-like string of questions and don’t have much time now in any event. So I’ll give some quick comment:
KEYS: The keys are not exercised solely by the Bishops, as their authority is also delegated to their priests insofar as confession/forgiveness of sin. As for the Pope’s personal keys, I don’t know if the Pope also delegates this authority or reserves it solely to himself. A good question, perhaps, for a parlor chat but not really critical.
LOVE FOR PAUL: I wasn’t slighting Paul or his work, just pointing out the fact that Peter was the first apostle to the gentiles and that Paul’s special work as apostle to the gentiles was a continuation of Peter’s initial work. It was Peter who opened up Christianity to the gentiles, through God. Or rather, the other way around.
PENTECOST: Peter unilaterally cut right to the chase, without consulting the others, the essential faith of the new Church: salvation by grace through Christ, rather than the Law. This would eventually control the issue at the Council.
Note that the others didn’t say anything in response to the crowd asking what they should do, and it is not certain that the others would have come up with the same reply. Similar to Matt 16 when the others didn’t say anything when Christ asked the apostles who they say he is. Only Peter got it right.
BAPTISM OF GENTILES: I think you greatly underplay the immensity of this event, and I doubt you’d get much support from either Eastern Orthodox or Protestants on that one. A great unilateral act on the part of Peter affecting the entire Church, and perhaps the greatest Papal act of all time.
JERUSALEM COUNCIL: There was much dispute over whether circumcision was necessary (Acts 15:7) and I don’t think it clear that things were going in the right direction until Peter stood up and laid down the faith of the Church (salvation by grace) and chastised the Council (why put God to the test). Peter correcting the Council with the faith of the Church put an end to the debate. As for James (do you think we Catholics have the wrong man in charge?) and the letter, it was really a pastoral letter sent out so as not to offend Jewish sensibilities…perhaps throwing the Judaizers a bone.
I don’t have time to search now, but Paul also later writes apparently of the same Council, and doesn’t reference the pastoral provisions of the letter at all, but only being mindful of the poor. The binding part of the Council was salvation by grace in Christ.
Note also that, as I recall, Paul said the Judaizers came from James? If that’s correct, then rightly or wrongly, James could have been seen as the leader of the Judaizers. James had to publically disavow that.
PAUL’S REBUKE OF PETER: This takes nothing away from Peter’s authority and not for a single second did Paul indicate that Peter was unchurched, or no longer an apostle or the Rock. In fact, to show Peter’s influence, even Paul’s own man Barnabas followed Peter’s example (not a teaching, though.) Paul HAD to make sure that Peter was on board…for without Peter on board, Paul and his ministry was going nowhere. All Peter really had to do was say that Paul was out, not a real apostle, and that would be that. I doubt it would have even been close: the rank-and-file church would follow Peter, a known apostle. Paul was the unknown quantity, always seemingly defending his apostleship. Something Peter never had to do.
But there is one more thing. Christ himself had already determined that the rebuke incident between Paul and Peter did not touch upon Peter’s authority. Look at John 21, where Christ tells Peter to feed and tend Christ’s sheep. Christ, through His divine eyes, saw the future including Peter’s martyrdom. And Christ also saw the rebuke incident. But my point is that Christ saw Peter’s faithful service unto Peter’s death.
Do you get that? Peter’s faithful service unto death was a done deal, foreordained by Christ! Nothing could take that away, nothing could unchurch Peter, nothing could take away Peter’s apostleship or Peter’s Christ-given authority to tend and feed Christ’s sheep…all of the sheep.
IMO, any attempt to lessen Christ’s charge to Peter over Paul’s rebuke is an impious attack upon Christ and His decisions and choices. And again, Paul didn’t even purport to do that either. Only non/anti-Catholics attempt to remove Peter from his Christ-given charge.
Time’s up and it’s getting evening. I have to work-out.
I normally don’t like responding to a shot gun-like string of questions and don’t have much time now in any event. So I’ll give some quick comment:
KEYS: The keys are not exercised solely by the Bishops, as their authority is also delegated to their priests insofar as confession/forgiveness of sin. As for the Pope’s personal keys, I don’t know if the Pope also delegates this authority or reserves it solely to himself. A good question, perhaps, for a parlor chat but not really critical.
LOVE FOR PAUL: I wasn’t slighting Paul or his work, just pointing out the fact that Peter was the first apostle to the gentiles and that Paul’s special work as apostle to the gentiles was a continuation of Peter’s initial work. It was Peter who opened up Christianity to the gentiles, through God. Or rather, the other way around.
PENTECOST: Peter unilaterally cut right to the chase, without consulting the others, the essential faith of the new Church: salvation by grace through Christ, rather than the Law. This would eventually control the issue at the Council.
Note that the others didn’t say anything in response to the crowd asking what they should do, and it is not certain that the others would have come up with the same reply. Similar to Matt 16 when the others didn’t say anything when Christ asked the apostles who they say he is. Only Peter got it right.
BAPTISM OF GENTILES: I think you greatly underplay the immensity of this event, and I doubt you’d get much support from either Eastern Orthodox or Protestants on that one. A great unilateral act on the part of Peter affecting the entire Church, and perhaps the greatest Papal act of all time.
JERUSALEM COUNCIL: There was much dispute over whether circumcision was necessary (Acts 15:7) and I don’t think it clear that things were going in the right direction until Peter stood up and laid down the faith of the Church (salvation by grace) and chastised the Council (why put God to the test). Peter correcting the Council with the faith of the Church put an end to the debate. As for James (do you think we Catholics have the wrong man in charge?) and the letter, it was really a pastoral letter sent out so as not to offend Jewish sensibilities…perhaps throwing the Judaizers a bone.
I don’t have time to search now, but Paul also later writes apparently of the same Council, and doesn’t reference the pastoral provisions of the letter at all, but only being mindful of the poor. The binding part of the Council was salvation by grace in Christ.
Note also that, as I recall, Paul said the Judaizers came from James? If that’s correct, then rightly or wrongly, James could have been seen as the leader of the Judaizers. James had to publically disavow that.
PAUL’S REBUKE OF PETER: This takes nothing away from Peter’s authority and not for a single second did Paul indicate that Peter was unchurched, or no longer an apostle or the Rock. In fact, to show Peter’s influence, even Paul’s own man Barnabas followed Peter’s example (not a teaching, though.) Paul HAD to make sure that Peter was on board…for without Peter on board, Paul and his ministry was going nowhere. All Peter really had to do was say that Paul was out, not a real apostle, and that would be that. I doubt it would have even been close: the rank-and-file church would follow Peter, a known apostle. Paul was the unknown quantity, always seemingly defending his apostleship. Something Peter never had to do.
But there is one more thing. Christ himself had already determined that the rebuke incident between Paul and Peter did not touch upon Peter’s authority. Look at John 21, where Christ tells Peter to feed and tend Christ’s sheep. Christ, through His divine eyes, saw the future including Peter’s martyrdom. And Christ also saw the rebuke incident. But my point is that Christ saw Peter’s faithful service unto Peter’s death.
Do you get that? Peter’s faithful service unto death was a done deal, foreordained by Christ! Nothing could take that away, nothing could unchurch Peter, nothing could take away Peter’s apostleship or Peter’s Christ-given authority to tend and feed Christ’s sheep…all of the sheep.
IMO, any attempt to lessen Christ’s charge to Peter over Paul’s rebuke is an impious attack upon Christ and His decisions and choices. And again, Paul didn’t even purport to do that either. Only non/anti-Catholics attempt to remove Peter from his Christ-given charge.
Time’s up and it’s getting evening. I have to work-out.
M
mardukm
Guest
EXCELLENT!
I would also like to add that Christ Himself asserted that the one servant that He would set in charge of the other servants/his entire household would still exist when He returns - indicating that until the Second Coming, the Church would have this head pastor that Christ Himself established. And yet, anti-Catholics and non-Catholics still question whether Christ established such a headship for His Church on earth.
Blessings,
Marduk
M
mardukm
Guest
I’m not sure, but off-hand I know St. Theodore the Studite expressed that belief about the bishop of Rome.
Blessings,
Marduk
S
Shiranui117
Guest
Lol, sorry. Asking questions of a person’s position is one of the things I find myself doing
What do you mean, “delegates this authority or reserves it solely for himself”? I don’t understand exactly what you’re saying here.
LOVE FOR PAUL: I wasn’t slighting Paul or his work, just pointing out the fact that Peter was the first apostle to the gentiles and that Paul’s special work as apostle to the gentiles was a continuation of Peter’s initial work. It was Peter who opened up Christianity to the gentiles, through God. Or rather, the other way around.
Yet others added to what Peter was saying. As I said before, if Peter’s say was enough, Paul, Barnabas and James wouldn’t have needed to back Peter up.
Where do others ask what they should do? There was no asking involved in that passage. People accused them of being drunk, and Peter wasn’t about to take that one sitting down. He spoke on behalf of all the Apostles, and laid out the faith that all of them already believed in.
I wouldn’t call it Papal, but yes, I do agree that it was a big thing. I just don’t see it as Peter exercising some great authority and doing something completely unheard of.
Really, Peter was following Christ’s example. Christ had talked to Gentiles (i.e. the Canaanite woman) and Samaritans, so the precedent was there for Christians to reach out to Gentiles, even if no one had yet acted on it. Peter was the first to act on that precedent and spread the Church and the Truth to the Gentiles, and yes, he did pave the way.
Peter didn’t end it all on his own. It was he, Paul, Barnabas and James that teamed up to lay down the true faith.
:ehh: No, it’s quite clear that the letter was intended to convey the decree of the Council. It wasn’t just a pastoral letter, it was the official record of the decision of the Council.
Do you have references for this?
And Peter had kowtowed to the Judaizers.
11 Now when Peter[a] had come to Antioch, I withstood him to his face, because he was to be blamed; 12 for before certain men came from James, he would eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 13 And the rest of the Jews also played the hypocrite with him, so that even Barnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy.
So yes, James could have been the leader of the Judaizers. However, Peter also failed to correct the Judaizers, and instead bowed to their demands.
Where did I say that? All I said was that Peter had screwed up, and Paul called him out on it. Never did I say that Peter was unchurched or no longer an Apostle.
It just said Barnabas got carried away by the Judaizers, it doesn’t specifically say whether it was Peter’s example that Barnabas followed. Barnabas got carried away by the Judaizers as a whole. Yes, Peter was one of them, but the text doesn’t say that Barnabas followed Peter specifically.
Actually, I think you’re oversimplifying. The Christians at Corinth and throughout Greece considered Paul their FATHER. I doubt they’d follow Peter over Paul, the man who had first evangelized them.
However, I find this entire point of yours unsavory. I mean, really, Peter just has the authority to kick people out of the Church because he can?
I didn’t say it took away from Peter’s authority. It just means that Peter wasn’t always right, and did need to be corrected.
Again, where did I say that Peter would no longer be unchurched or cease to be an Apostle?
I feel like you’re insinuating that I’m impiously attacking Christ and His decisions and choices, and implying that I could be anti-Catholic. Is that the case?
P
pneuma07
Guest
Dear Shinanui,
the issue of the keys has more to do with potestas than with infallibility, IMHO, which is our present topic. Let me then focus more on that, if you agree. ( You’re already dealing with the keys anyway here wwith SPH1
)The maintainer of the unity of the Church has to be IMHO the source of the soundest interpretation of Divine Revelation,
Yes, there is no word about potestas. Theodoret is extolling the Apostolic See as thebeacon of orthodoxy, isn’t he ?
From Rome Peter and Paul “illumine the whole world”. As strong as that.
BTW Could you give please the reference for your point regarding Ignatius’s letter to the Romans ?
As for Athanasius on the two Dionysius:
*The Bishop Dionysius having heard of the affairs in Pentapolis and having written, in zeal for religion, as I said above, his letter to Euphranor and Ammonius against the heresy of Sabellius, some of the brethren belonging to the Church, of right opinions, but without asking him, so as to learn from himself how he had written, went up to Rome; and they spoke against him in the presence of his namesake Dionysius
( My comment: how do you get to know in the III century whether the bishop of Alexandria is teaching orthodoxy ? You go to Rome
)the Bishop of Rome. And he, upon hearing it, wrote simultaneously against the partisans of Sabellius and against those who held the very opinions for uttering which Arius was cast out of the Church; calling it an equal and opposite impiety to hold with Sabellius, or with those who say that the Word of God is a thing made and formed and originated. And he wrote also to Dionysius to inform him of what they had said about him.
( The bishop of Rome does not wash his hands on this Alexandrian issue. He writes down the guideline of orthodoxy on the matter ! )
And the latter straightway wrote back, and inscribed his books ‘a Refutation and a Defence.’
( Not an angry " What has to do Rome with scrutinizing my orthodoxy ?". On the contrary, he writes his defence to the bishop of Rome. And this is the bishop of Alexandria !
)Here mark the detestable gang of the adversaries of Christ, and how they themselves have stirred up their disgrace against themselves. For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all.
( And this remark by Athanasius, with his “by all”, underlines the unique role of Rome in his own view.)
And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defence concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all.
- Object and general method of Dionysius in his ‘Refutation and Defence.’
( again, we get the Alexandrian was not angry that he had to defend himself towards Rome )*
St. Athanasius On the Opinion of Dionysius.
tbc
P
pneuma07
Guest
Just not to give anybody the impression that there is only Canon 3 in Sardica about the appelate universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome
:
*Canon 3
Greek
Bishop Hosius said: This also it is necessary to add—that no bishop pass from his own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless indeed he be called by his brethren, that we seem not to close the gates of charity.
And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province.
But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before.
Canon 4
Greek
Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which you have pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.
Canon 5
Greek
Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right— that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he think that the bishops are sufficient for the examination and decision of the matter let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.
The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.*
I underline that this is Greek version of the Canons.
Mardukm is certainly able to explain for you all the implications of the above, and the main cases where it was used. ( Including Photius’ case ).
Btw WELCOME BACK to the thread Mardukm !
So Rome kept the orthodox faith. And provided a vital support for those brave Easterners who were trying to defend it against the overwhelming might of emperors and in many cases patriarchs. ( Besides setting the line in decisive moments.
)If this has not to do with " confirm your brothers "…
See previous post
Shiranui, do you expect to be officially taught error by the mouthpiece of Peter ?
Not just no one.
(And we could also usefully examine’s Leo’s own view on the matter.) The case for Papal infallibility is probably considered ( even ? ) stronger in connection with another Ecumenical Council, ie Constantinople III.See my posts in response to Cavaradossi
In Christ
P7
PS Looking forward to your opinions on post 179.
S
steve_b
Guest
They were all apostles, but “beginning from one” , Cyprian is refering back to Peter, ergo his successors too, which Jesus made as the leader over the others.
S:
1st among equals is a nonsense term. It’s a way to equalize authority for those who have authority problems.
S:
authority is real or it is nothing.
S:
not the only instance
S:
Jesus has 2 wills, human and Divine. If one isn’t clear on how the following is explained, there could be misunderstandings.
John 6:38
For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me.
Since we know whatever Jesus did, He did perfectly, If one is not absolutely precise with their language, it could LOOK like using Jn 6:38, Jesus only used one will even though He has 2 wills. Honorius not formulating his thoughts on this, nor formulate the language for correct understanding, requested Sergius by letter, that the subject of Jesus 2 wills, be tabled. That’s where Honorius failed. By tabeling this, he was accused of not stopping the monothelite heresy, thereby he was condemned.
S:
Put simply, if one is in Istanbul, and ask where is the Catholic Church, one will be directed to
St Antoine Catholic Church. BTW, it’s the largest Church (active membership) in Constantinople/Istanbul today
S:
If it’s unpredictability of travel you’re considering, then travel by land isn’t easier. Especially since the Romans were persecuting the Church severely as in throwing Catholics to the lions or using them as human torches to light up the appian way at night,… In that case, One might consider the shorter distance given the perils.
Distance between Corinth and Ephesus is ~250 miles where St John was.
Distance between Corinth and Rome, is ~700 miles where Clement was
BTW, in order to reduce the miles from Corinth to Rome to ~700 mi, sea travel is required also.
It still begs the question, why didn’t Corinth seek help from John who is much closer?
S:
St John, a living apostle, is only 250 miles away from them. Peter and Paul died ~67 a.d. Clement writes his letter ~80 / ~90 a.d. I think your point avoids the real issue.
S:
All should agree with Rome, is apostolic tradition passed on. That’s the point that follows
S:
Re: your last point
*]what is “the faith” preached to men by succession of what bishops?
*]What Church is “this Church” that “every Church should agree with”?
*]who specifically are the succession of bishops Irenaeus names who pass on this Tradition, preserved continuously and faithfully to faithful men who exist everywhere?
Irenaeus answers very specifically- “the apostles, [Peter & Paul] then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus ,- from Linus the bishopric passed onto Anacletus; Clement*, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telephorus*, Hyginus, Pius; Anicetus, Soter, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.”
*]What Church is this Church that every Church should agree with? It’s Rome.
*]How do we know? Where do these bishops named, come from? Irenaeus names 12 popes of Rome, in apostolic succession, down to his day. Therefore, the teaching “All must agree with this Church” i.e. Rome, comes from Peter and Paul, via those bishops down to Irenaeus time.
T
Trebor135
Guest
Finally playing catch-up…
I don’t have any issues with that notion.
It may be. The burden of proof rests with the Catholic camp, though.
Ibid.
This may be the case, actually. Papal infallibility in particular is certainly the bigger sticking point for me.
Sure.
- Status