Help - Why stay Catholic vs. moving to Eastern Orthodoxy?

[steve-b]

Augustine argues that it was Peter’s faith that the savior built the church on. But I understand why you need to be granted this essential point in order to deduce the Catholic view.

steve-b:

His faith isn’t what was given the keys. The keys went to Peter. Peter’s name was changed NOT his faith. When Jesus was talking to Peter directly, Jesus was NOT talking to Peter’s faith.

That said,

Augustine’s Letter 53, ch 1, para 2, ~a.d.400

“2. For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!” Matthew 16:18 The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these:— Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. …”

in extension

Augustine identifies

• Peter “himself” as the Rock Jesus is talking about
• The succession of one individual bishop of Rome, by name, from Peter, down to Augustine’s day.,

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

The Church Jesus established on Peter and those in union with him has been there from the beginning.

We’ve been over this. Augustine argues that Christ established the church on Peter’s faith, not his person.

Augustine Letter 53.
till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: “Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it!”

Read post 124 for the full quote.

Vonsalza:

You began spinning, as any devout Catholic would do in the face of that passage which is so unkind to Petrine development. The fact that your scenario in unmentioned in the biblical narrative is unimportant - to you, at least.

As for Mt 16, Peter thought he was defending Jesus.

Ah! So the savior was over-hasty or out-right wrong to compare Peter to Satan!

Good grief Steve…

That particular episode was a teaching moment for all. The apostles as well as those who read the event. Satan attacks always. He divides, that’s what he does. So Think about what you’re doing

steve-b:

I’ve shown you this before in another thread Peter’s primacy.

Vonsalza:

From this thread;
http://www.aoiusa.org/the-role-of-t...union-of-the-churches-in-the-first-millenium/

Show me in writing properly referenced, where “Orthodox Church” appears in the 1st century,

steve-b:

Peter is Jesus pick for leader of the Church

Vonsalza:

At that time? No doubt!

Show me where it wasn’t to continue

Vonsalza:

But his leadership was as a first among equals, not a supreme monarch.

1st among equals was invented by the Orthodox. It was NEVER accepted by any Pope. I’ve already post the evidence for that many times.

steve-b:

His faith isn’t what was given the keys.

if you think Augustine is wrong, then fine.
[/quote]

I showed you where Augustine also said it’s about Peter “himself”.

Vonsalza:

Just remember your text in Isaiah about those keys - the original guy that held them abused his position so much that they passed to another.
As such, Christ placed his guarantee on the church. Not any one person or seat. To disagree is to add to scripture what simply is not there.

Jesus is establishing a new covenant. The keys reference power and authority being given from the King to His prime minister Peter. Period dot end of sentence.

Vonsalza:

It’s just the flip side of Supremacy, Steve. You can’t cry “Papal Supremacy!” in one breath and then attempt to fabricate or resurrect long-dead checks to supremacy in the next.

It seems to be yet another corner the west has dogmatized itself into…

Take a breath

You’re all emotion and no evidence to support your views.

 

[Vonsalza]

Augustine identifies

• Peter “himself” as the Rock Jesus is talking about
• The succession of one individual bishop of Rome, by name, from Peter, down to Augustine’s day.,

From Augustine’s “Retractations”, or “Revisions” as some would argue it’s better translated. Written near the end of his life, making it the most likely candidate for Augustine’s definitive view on the matter;

“In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: ‘On him as on a rock the Church was built’…But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,’ that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven.’ For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ,’ in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable.”

Source:The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.

Sorry, Steve. Augustine’s not on your team on this one.

 

[Vonsalza]

Show me where it wasn’t to continue

As protestants and more bull-headed Orthodox are happy to point out, they don’t have the obligation to prove the negative, Steve.

You must show where the Petrine seat, specifically the concept of papacy, was meant to endure.

What makes it nigh impossible is that you have to show them from a text they accept as authoritative.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

It’s just the flip side of Supremacy, Steve. You can’t cry “Papal Supremacy!” in one breath and then attempt to fabricate or resurrect long-dead checks to supremacy in the next.

It seems to be yet another corner the west has dogmatized itself into…

Take a breath

You’re all emotion and no evidence to support your views.

No, this is a classic demurral because you’re stumped here. You’re trying to both have the cake and eat it too.

If you want to cry “papal supremacy”, then you have to accept that the pope is supreme and has no earthly counter.

 

[Vonsalza]

1st among equals was invented by the Orthodox. It was NEVER accepted by any Pope.

Victor had to accept his defeat over the Quartodeciman controversy.

“Papal supremacy” certainly seems to have come up short there, as well as in numerous other places in Christendom prior to the rise of Islam.

Again, the shrug emote seems apt here, so

 

[Vonsalza]

Show me in writing properly referenced, where “Orthodox Church” appears in the 1st century,

Show me in writing, properly referenced, where the Orthodox don’t claim to also be the very same Catholic Church referenced prior to the schism.

As such, even the vast, vast majority of your fellow Catholics find this argument absurd, Steve. And “absurd” is being charitable.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Augustine identifies

• Peter “himself” as the Rock Jesus is talking about
• The succession of one individual bishop of Rome, by name, from Peter, down to Augustine’s day.,

From Augustine’s “Retractations”, or “Revisions” as some would argue it’s better translated. Written near the end of his life, making it the most likely candidate for Augustine’s definitive view on the matter;

[snip for space]

. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable."

Source:The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1968), Saint Augustine, The Retractations Chapter 20.1.

Sorry, Steve. Augustine’s not on your team on this one.

Q/A from EWTN

Q:
Based on some reading of Aquinas’ Catena Aurea that I’ve been doing lately, I’ve become curious about the state of Augustine’s beliefs towards the end of his life. I have never read his Retractions, but this quote did surprise me very much, and I’m not sure what to make of it. Augustine, Retractions, i, 21, as quoted by St. Thomas Aquinas in Catena Aurea, under Matthew 16:18:

"I have said in a certain place of the Apostle Peter, that [p. 585] it was on him, as on a rock, that the Church was built. but I know that since that I have often explained these words of the Lord, “Thou art Peter, and on this rock will I build my Church,” as meaning upon Him whom Peter had confessed in the words, "Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God;: and so that Peter, taking his name from this rock, would represent the Church, which is built upon this rock. For it is not said to him, Thou art the rock, but, “Thou art Peter.” But the rock was Christ, [1 Cor 10:4] whom because Simon thus confessed, as the whole Church confesses Him, he was named Peter. Let the reader choose whether of these two opinions seems to him the more probable."

Am I correct in believing that Augustine denied that Peter was the rock from this, or am I simply unclear as to what he was saying? Some clarity would be well appreciated. Thanks.

A:
by Dr. Warren Carroll on 12/2/2001:
The Greek word “petros,” from which Peter is taken, means Rock, nothing else. The Aramaic word is “kephas,” which also means rock. Jesus was speaking in Aramaic. If St. Augustine believes otherwise (and as you say, this passage is not very clear), then he is wrong. The Church at the Council of Trent pronounced authoritatively in favor of the interpretation of this passage which I have repeatedly given on this Forum, which is decisively important in showing how Christ founded the Church. I believe every Catholic should know it by heart. - Dr. Carroll

Trent was an ecumenical council

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Show me where it wasn’t to continue

As protestants and more bull-headed Orthodox are happy to point out, they don’t have the obligation to prove the negative, Steve.

You must show where the Petrine seat, specifically the concept of papacy, was meant to endure.

What makes it nigh impossible is that you have to show them from a text they accept as authoritative.

The answers are there regardless of those who won’t accept them and try desperately to find objections they can fall back on. The papacy is 2000 yrs old. Peter and the Papacy | Catholic Answers . That shows it is to continue.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Vonsalza:

It’s just the flip side of Supremacy, Steve. You can’t cry “Papal Supremacy!” in one breath and then attempt to fabricate or resurrect long-dead checks to supremacy in the next.

It seems to be yet another corner the west has dogmatized itself into…

Take a breath

You’re all emotion and no evidence to support your views.

No, this is a classic demurral because you’re stumped here. You’re trying to both have the cake and eat it too.

If you want to cry “papal supremacy”, then you have to accept that the pope is supreme and has no earthly counter.

I’m not stumped. Anymore than Jesus was stumped when His own disciples left Him over the teaching of he Eucharist. When they left Jesus what did Jesus do? Think of a new explanation to convince them? Nope! He let them go.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

1st among equals was invented by the Orthodox. It was NEVER accepted by any Pope.

Victor had to accept his defeat over the Quartodeciman controversy.

“Papal supremacy” certainly seems to have come up short there, as well as in numerous other places in Christendom prior to the rise of Islam.

Again, the shrug emote seems apt here, so

Victor ultimately won that issue, just like Stephen won the issue over rebaptism in his dispute with Cyprian.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Show me in writing properly referenced, where “Orthodox Church” appears in the 1st century,

Show me in writing, properly referenced, where the Orthodox don’t claim to also be the very same Catholic Church referenced prior to the schism.

As such, even the vast, vast majority of your fellow Catholics find this argument absurd, Steve. And “absurd” is being charitable.

Schism is a serious sin. The consequences are disastrous on one’s soul. From St Paul

 

[Vonsalza]

Schism is a serious sin. The consequences are disastrous on one’s soul. From St Paul

Amen. Let us hope one day that all of Catholicism will repent of their pride and return to the loving bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church, right?

I think the plan for reconciliation is already out there. Benedict when he was still Ratzinger said, basically, that the rejoined Church will be one where the East ceases their objections to Roman primacy and the West will exercise supremacy only in the west, leaving eastern congregations to solve their own problems and only involving Rome when they bring the issue before it - a la Irenaeus.

Smart man he is, he understood at the time that reconciliation through uncompromising triumph of either Church’s traditional views was as likely as the sun rising in the west. Even said so in his famous published interview from the late 80s, early 90s (forget exactly when).

 

[catholic1seeks]

I’m exploring Eastern Orthodoxy as well. I can’t really say that I’m converting, but I’m curious enough to understand better what they believe.

We must pray and work for the day that being interested in Catholicism or Orthodoxy no longer necessitates leaving one communion in favor of another. Both share a common origin. Basically, in the first 1,000 years, the Faith encompassed multiple cultures and traditions – not just Greek Byzantine, not just Roman, not just Syriac, etc.

Thankfully, Catholicism already offers this opportunity. There are not only Orthodox Eastern counterparts in the Catholic Church. There are Oriental Orthodox counterparts in Catholicism as well. Don’t forget that the largest chunk of the Church of the East is now Catholic: the Chaldean Catholic Church.

 

[catholic1seeks]

@Vonsalza

What is the highest level of authority in the Orthodox Church? I.e., how is something definitively settled for the entire Church?

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

Schism is a serious sin. The consequences are disastrous on one’s soul. From St Paul

Amen. Let us hope one day that all of Catholicism will repent of their pride and return to the loving bosom of the Holy Orthodox Church, right?

I think the plan for reconciliation is already out there. Benedict when he was still Ratzinger said, basically, that the rejoined Church will be one where the East ceases their objections to Roman primacy and the West will exercise supremacy only in the west, leaving eastern congregations to solve their own problems and only involving Rome when they bring the issue before it - a la Irenaeus.

Smart man he is, he understood at the time that reconciliation through uncompromising triumph of either Church’s traditional views was as likely as the sun rising in the west. Even said so in his famous published interview from the late 80s, early 90s (forget exactly when).

I have to ask, Do you think that post is convincing? Try giving references properly referenced.

 

[Vonsalza]

@Vonsalza

What is the highest level of authority in the Orthodox Church?

Temporally? The Patriarch of whatever Church you’re a member of. He settles issues for his own Church and no one else’s.

When another Church is in error, your Church breaks communion in protest of their breach of Orthodoxy.

 

[Vonsalza]

I have to ask, Do you think that post is convincing? Try giving references properly referenced.

Oh, like this one you used in the other thread?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

What’s “Love Definition”?

 

[Vonsalza]

I guess you’re not familiar with The Ratzinger Report?

That’s where the material comes from. And the reference for Irenaeus would require someone to be aware of his references to Rome as a final arbiter.

Apologies if I spoke over you.

 

[Catholicwife32]

We must pray and work for the day that being interested in Catholicism or Orthodoxy no longer necessitates leaving one communion in favor of another

I’m interested in the Orthodox’s perspective on the schism. Because right now, I think claiming our great communion is a farce.