I am considering the Orthodox Church

[Mickey]

I think I’ll just rehash my last post to Michael for this one:

And I shall also rehash: Papal infallibility is a 19th century innovation pushed through by Pius IX and ultramontanists.

 

[Mickey]

And you claim they were all little Peters

No. no. no. They were all apostles–and equal as apostles.

How did the others have their “apostolic standing” restored after they abandoned Jesus? And why was only Peter singled out for such affirmation?

I am not privy to the others denying him three times publically. Yes, they all ran in fear. But one denied Him and one betrayed Him. The one who betrayed Him hanged himself. The one who denied Him three times repented with bitter tears. Later, he was restored to his apostolic ministry by Christ’s triple affirmation. St John ran at first–then returned to be with Christ every step of the way with His Mother–even unto the crucifixtion.

Perhaps St John should be the first supreme infallible Pope?

Why would you quote Augustine when, according to you, he didn’t even get one of the basic tenets of the Faith, Original Sin, correct?

None of the Church Fathers are infallible. St Augustine said and wrote many great things.

 

[Mickey]

They see things holistically and from a papal viewpoint

And that is exactly what we are saying is not patristic.

 

[jlhargus]

By “we” I mean the priests and bishops of the Holy Orthodox Church. The Apostles received the keys and hence the Orthodox Church. And the power to bind and loose is given to our priests and bishops. You had better be careful with whom you call a heretic my dear josie. When you point the finger at someone–there are three more pointing back at yourself.

JL: What did Christ tell Peter in [Mt16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for FLESH AND BLOOD HATH NOT REVEALED IT UNTO THEE, BUT MY FATHER which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19 And I WILL GIVE UNTO THEE (Peter only) THE KEYS OF THE KINGODM OF HEAVEN: and WHATSOEVER THOU (Peter only) shalt BIND ON EARTH shall be BOUND IN HEAVEN: and WHATSOEVER THOU (Peter only) shalt LOOSE ON EARTH shall be LOOSED IN HEAVEN.]
In Matthew only Peter is given the keys of the kingdom, just as in the Davidic kingdom the king gave the keys only to his First Minister, Isa22:19-.

In Mt18:18 Christ is speaking to the apostles including Peter who is mentioned. However if you wish to say, “the disciples”, means all. It would make no difference as that would mean all the disciples or CHURCH as a collective group which includes Peter. Meaning the Church as a whole would bind and loose in her leaders who must be in union with the ONE HOLDER of the keys Peter, Peter can bind and loose apart from the other disciples, as he was given the keys and authority to bind an loose singularly in Mt16 and collectively in Mt18:18.

Peter as the sole holder of the keys, as he alone was given the keys to bind and loose, individually. The other apostles, which included Peter, were given the authority to bind and loose ONLY, NO KEYS mentioned. The others can only bind and loose in union and agreement with the holder of the keys who can open and close apart from the rest, but the rest cannot bind or loose if Peter does not open but closes. Why is it those who are not in union with Peter, have NEVER held an Eucuminical Council nor have they EVER defined a doctrine that must be held by all their Churches? Because they recognize they have no authority to do so apart from Peter. That’s why they have never developed in there understanding of doctrine. I am not trying to be arguemenative as I have great respect for our Orthodox brethren.

If we say to ourselves ’ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ then we too become Peter, for whoever is united to Christ becomes Peter.
Origen

Then why is a priest suject to his bishop? Do your priest’s ordain bishops?

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Hi Mickey,

Happy Pascha there. Nobody said it was patristic. It was speculation by many saints, some believed it not to be true. The pope felt it needed to be finally declared as fact. From a Catholic point of view, as I mentioned earlier, a papal declaration with an infallible anathema attached and a statement that it is binding says that it’s truth. For an Orthodox, if it wasn’t said thousands of years previously then it’s boloney. From a Catholic point of view, from development doctrine angles like Newman taught, this debate that has gone on for centuries is finally declared solved by the Holy Father. Nobody thought it was a patristic definite fact. It’s simply a long-standing debate that the pope, from the Catholic faith angle, banged the gavel on and made a ruling. Done.

And that is exactly what we are saying is not patristic.

 

[Hesychios]

And yet, it’s people like you who pepetuate the myth.

It is real in your church, because your church allows it to continue. By claiming these are myths, you are denying the Pope’s authority and may find yourself in anathema.

However the claims are patently false and therefore illegitimate, and have no force in the rest of Apostolic Christianity.

 

[Ignatios]

Post #247.

Okay I see, I thought that it was one sentence there, but I missed the period at the end of the first sentence, in which I thought that you attributed to me your statement the: “…So it went to the final court of appeal (the successor of Peter) and was settled.”

But even your statement above is not historically correct, why? because, a court of appeal would judge between two factions, thus, this would be three factions, the court itself and the other two factions, where the situation in the matter of the I.C. there was only two factions including the Pope or according to your understanding the Court of appeal, there was no third faction, at times when the Pope was lenient towards the Dominicans he was rreluctant to back it up, and then when the Pope was Fransiscan or lenient towards the Fransiscans, he passed it as dogma. IOW, the Fransiscans Finally “WON” that war.

I didn’t contradict myself. You claimed that the IC is foreign to the deposit of Faith. I suggested St. Alphosus’s book to show it was indeed not foreign. In fact, it proves that the Pope didn’t create some “innovation” or add to the Faith, as you claimed.

Deposit of Faith is the Apostolic Teaching, or the Holy Tradition, your Saint Alphosus lived in the 17th century, the I.C. started to appear around the 13th century(?), the Deposit of Faith is some 1300 years prior to the appearence of the I.C., it didn’t seem like the East heard of it prior to its appearing date nor the Roman Church accepted it as Apostolic but on the contrary at times alomst half of the RCC rejected it as an innovation, Now how on earth this was drawn from the Deposit of Faith, we are speaking about the “theory” of the I.C., If it was an Apostolic origin the East and/or the whole West wouldn’t have rejected.

The Church views the Marian dogma’s as Christocentric.

Actually the dogma of the I.C. can lead to Christocentric error.

Based on private revelation??? Where did you get that idea?

GOD bless †††

You stated earlier and rightly so according to your church’s teaching, that the Pope was guided by the Holy Spirit to declare this as dogma… (private revelation). And If the dogmas are to be through or from the Papacy then what a waste of time was all those E.Councils…

 

[jam070406]

It is real in your church, because your church allows it to continue. By claiming these are myths, you are denying the Pope’s authority and may find yourself in anathema.

What on earth are you talking about? I was referring to polemic myths about the Papacy that Orthodox like to toss out.

However the claims are patently false and therefore illegitimate, and have no force in the rest of Apostolic Christianity.

Thank you. I agree that the claims of a Papal dictatorship are illegitimate as well.

 

[Hesychios]

Yes, it is in fact incorrect because you view the papacy as a political institution whereas we Catholics see it as a divine institution (based on Scripture and Tradtion),

Actually, I am not confused about it at all.

Your analogy does not apply, it is something of a red herring.
.

I will pose to you the same question I did Mick:

Primacy is operative throughout Holy Orthodoxy, at every level.

Thus a cathedral Dean has primacy over a parish priest, a pastor has primacy over an associate pastor. There is primacy among deacons. When these people concelebrate the order is very important and determines who does what at any given time. But it is fluid, in that depending upon who is presently involved roles will shift.

Even among altar servers this applies, and this pertains to how they are arranged in relation to the altar during worship.

Primacy is well known and understood in Holy Orthodoxy, it goes right up through the ranks of bishops and even effects the order in which they commemorate one another.

It is not about one bishop ruling another bishops church, or one priest controlling another priest’s temple.

There is no ‘ordinary and immediate’ control exercised in another house.

 

[jam070406]

But even your statement above is not historically correct, why? because, a court of appeal would judge between two factions, thus, this would be three factions, the court itself and the other two factions, where the situation in the matter of the I.C. there was only two factions including the Pope or according to your understanding the Court of appeal, there was no third faction, at times when the Pope was lenient towards the Dominicans he was rreluctant to back it up, and then when the Pope was Fransiscan or lenient towards the Fransiscans, he passed it as dogma. IOW, the Fransiscans Finally “WON” that war.

So, in your understanding the Pope defined the dogma to appease the Franciscans.

Deposit of Faith is the Apostolic Teaching, or the Holy Tradition, your Saint Alphosus lived in the 17th century, the I.C. started to appear around the 13th century(?), the Deposit of Faith is some 1300 years prior to the appearence of the I.C., it didn’t seem like the East heard of it prior to its appearing date nor the Roman Church accepted it as Apostolic but on the contrary at times alomst half of the RCC rejected it as an innovation, Now how on earth this was drawn from the Deposit of Faith, we are speaking about the “theory” of the I.C., If it was an Apostolic origin the East and/or the whole West wouldn’t have rejected.

He draws from Tradition, which includes Eastern Saints.

Actually the dogma of the I.C. can lead to Christocentric error.

According to what authority?

You stated earlier and rightly so according to your church’s teaching, that the Pope was guided by the Holy Spirit to declare this as dogma… (private revelation). And If the dogmas are to be through or from the Papacy then what a waste of time was all those E.Councils…

Um, no. Apparantly you don’t understand the Church’s teaching on infallibility.

 

[SSTeacher]

I perceived the notion of papal supremacy tightly locked to the notion of papal infallibility (in the minds of Catholics, at least) and I was very much drawn to it because it seemed such a refreshing contrast to the cacophony of the Evangelical world I was leaving behind wherein “everyone is his or her own pope.” However, as I went on to compare and contrast the Catholic Church with the Orthodox Church in more detail, I saw a connection between three serious historical disruptions – all of which could be tied to the papacy and which probably wouldn’t have occurred without it. They were:

a) The schism of 1054
b) The Reformation
c) The Second Vatican Council

I recognized, of course, that there were Catholic arguments supporting the institution of the papacy that challenged the direction my thinking was taking but it seemed to me that those arguments fell into the category of, “Why I am a Catholic and remain one.” They therefore carried less weight with me as the question to which I had progressed was, “Why should I not become Orthodox?” And so I continued with that line of thinking and the result was that I steered around the Catholic Church and in the process began slowly to develop an Orthodox mindset.

Lapell;6474824:

How have you viewed the notion of “supremacy”?

One guy with too much power.

josie L;6482303:

SSTeacher;6478523:

One guy with too much power.

This is an incorrect understanding of the papacyNo, it isn’t.

SSTeacher;6482810:

No, it isn’t.

So then can you please define the difference between primacy and supremacy?

In this context, I suppose primacy might be seen if one supposes five guys who understand that they are equal in all respects and have mutual respect for each other but who have agreed amongst themselves that they will defer to Guy No 1 in the event that they find difficulty in agreeing amongst themselves. In this same scenario, supremacy might be seen to develop if Guy No 1 gratuitously asserts that he’s in a much higher position than the other four guys.

In the primacy model, Guy No 1 does not seek power for its own sake but rather sees his role as that of an arbitrator but he will only arbitrate if called upon to do so by the other four guys. In the supremacy model, Guy No 1 actively seeks power and considers that the other four guys are subordinate to him so he will not tolerate any insubordination from them.

In the primacy model, Guy No 1 sees himself as a servant who will serve in an advisory capacity if he is called upon by his four equals to do so whereas in the supremacy model Guy No 1 sees himself as a master with the authority to issue gratuitous instructions and commandments to the other four subordinates in whatever way he sees fit and in the event of dissension considers that he has the power to take disciplinary action against them.

They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

My contention is that the twin components of papal supremacy and papal infallibility are essential to Catholicism. But the very existence of the Orthodox Church demonstrates that unity of doctrine can be sustained without the assistance of a supreme or infallible cleric. The central question, then, for the Original Poster and for all other inquirers who seek to contrast and compare Catholicism with Holy Orthodoxy is this:

How is it that the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church has managed to maintain unity of doctrine without papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

And the Orthodox have done so without the heaps of thousands of pages of canon law and complex legal machinery as well. Orthodoxy has been spread so far through different and diverse countries that span hugely different governments the last 100 years from democracies to communist countries, across oceans and seas and yet they’ve maintained unity and cohesion, mutual respect. It’s impressive indeed. And they’ve had precious few heresies and avoided anything even remotely as gigantic as the Reformation rebels that Catholicism faced. It is impressive. Some would call it lucky. Some would call it the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

How is it that the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church has managed to maintain unity of doctrine without papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

 

[SSTeacher]

How is it that the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church has managed to maintain unity of doctrine without papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

Thoughtfully,
Mick
:thumbsup:And the Orthodox have done so without the heaps of thousands of pages of canon law and complex legal machinery as well. Orthodoxy has been spread so far through different and diverse countries that span hugely different governments the last 100 years from democracies to communist countries, across oceans and seas and yet they’ve maintained unity and cohesion, mutual respect. It’s impressive indeed. And they’ve had precious few heresies and avoided anything even remotely as gigantic as the Reformation rebels that Catholicism faced. It is impressive. Some would call it lucky. Some would call it the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You follow my thinking so well and accept my points as valid yet we’ve ended up with different conclusions. Would you mind going into a little further detail and state why it is that you are a Catholic and not an Orthodox Christian? If you were to give a brief explanation as to why you chose Catholicism and rejected Orthodoxy when you left Anglicanism it would probably help the Original Poster who is a Catholic experiencing uncertainty. Such times are very difficult, as you know.

Fraternally,
Mick

 

[crazzeto]

And the Orthodox have done so without the heaps of thousands of pages of canon law and complex legal machinery as well. Orthodoxy has been spread so far through different and diverse countries that span hugely different governments the last 100 years from democracies to communist countries, across oceans and seas and yet they’ve maintained unity and cohesion, mutual respect. It’s impressive indeed. **And they’ve had precious few heresies **and avoided anything even remotely as gigantic as the Reformation rebels that Catholicism faced. It is impressive. Some would call it lucky. Some would call it the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Interestingly, most Heresies were pulmigated out of Constaninople, where as not a single heresy was pulmiaged by Rome. Just food for thought.

 

[josie_L]

My point is, that if we take what St. Vincent of Lerins said " …take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic…" and try to base the I.C. on this saying of this Saint, then we find that either St Vincent was false ( his saying was accepted to be truly catholic and orthodox by the whole Church) or the RCC fell in error regarding this dogma, since it was not everywhere, always and by all, NOT even in the RCC itself can this be applied, never mind the Eastern Holy Sees.

And since when have any of the dogmas

Please, name me one dogma that was accepted and believed by all, always and everywhere?

Edit: The Vincentian canon is useful with regard to studying the fathers/traditions but it is not fail-safe.

 

[josie_L]

My contention is that the twin components of papal supremacy and papal infallibility are essential to Catholicism. But the very existence of the Orthodox Church demonstrates that unity of doctrine can be sustained without the assistance of a supreme or infallible cleric. The central question, then, for the Original Poster and for all other inquirers who seek to contrast and compare Catholicism with Holy Orthodoxy is this:

How is it that the Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Orthodox Church has managed to maintain unity of doctrine without papal supremacy and papal infallibility?

Thoughtfully,
Mick

You are not unified in your doctrine, i.e., Pan-Orthodoxy has different views with respect to the afterlife, re-baptism, contraceptives, divorce, christology, ecumencal councils, the Bible, primacy, ecclesiology. . . .etc.

 

[josie_L]

In this context, I suppose primacy might be seen if one supposes five guys who understand that they are equal in all respects and have mutual respect for each other but who have agreed amongst themselves that they will defer to Guy No 1 in the event that they find difficulty in agreeing amongst themselves. In this same scenario, supremacy might be seen to develop if Guy No 1 gratuitously asserts that he’s in a much higher position than the other four guys.

In the primacy model, Guy No 1 does not seek power for its own sake but rather sees his role as that of an arbitrator but he will only arbitrate if called upon to do so by the other four guys. In the supremacy model, Guy No 1 actively seeks power and considers that the other four guys are subordinate to him so he will not tolerate any insubordination from them.

In the primacy model, Guy No 1 sees himself as a servant who will serve in an advisory capacity if he is called upon by his four equals to do so whereas in the supremacy model Guy No 1 sees himself as a master with the authority to issue gratuitous instructions and commandments to the other four subordinates in whatever way he sees fit and in the event of dissension considers that he has the power to take disciplinary action against them.

Thoughtfully,
Mick

When did the term “first among equals” appear, i.e., have any church fathers ever used this term in connection to the bishops of Rome? And how does this ecclesiology fit in with the hierarchical structure of the Kingdom of Israel/Judah (King (Jesus), Steward (key-bearer), ministers (bishops), queen Mother (Blessed Virgin Mary) with that of the Kingdom of God, i.e., the Church, being that there is a continuity between Old and New?

Please read this article from Father Ray Ryland about the pentarchy theory: catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9806eaw.asp

 

[josie_L]

Actually, I am not confused about it at all.

Your analogy does not apply, it is something of a red herring.

What “red herring”, i.e., I am telling you that we Catholics believe the papacy was/is divinely instituted, so unless you can argue that it is not through scripture and tradition, your (present) arguments against the papacy will have no effect on us?

Primacy is operative throughout Holy Orthodoxy, at every level.

Thus a cathedral Dean has primacy over a parish priest, a pastor has primacy over an associate pastor. There is primacy among deacons. When these people concelebrate the order is very important and determines who does what at any given time. But it is fluid, in that depending upon who is presently involved roles will shift.

Even among altar servers this applies, and this pertains to how they are arranged in relation to the altar during worship.

Primacy is well known and understood in Holy Orthodoxy, it goes right up through the ranks of bishops and even effects the order in which they commemorate one another.

It is not about one bishop ruling another bishops church, or one priest controlling another priest’s temple.

There is no ‘ordinary and immediate’ control exercised in another house.

I asked you to define primacy in light of the 4 pages of quotes from Church fathers I gave you? Moreover, you are reiterating a fallacy of which I and others have already explained concerning the papacy, i.e., the Catholic Church is not a divine institution ruled and governed by one bishop (as was expressly clarified by Pope St. Gregory the Great). Please read the following:

To this it is replied that no difficulty is involved in the exercise of immediate jurisdiction over the same subjects by two rulers, provided only that these rulers stand in subordination, the one to the other.** We constantly see the system at work. In an army the regimental officer and the general both possess immediate authority over the soldiers; yet no one maintains that the inferior authority is thereby annulled.** The objection lacks all weight. The Vatican Council says most justly (cap. iii):

**This power of the supreme pontiff in no way derogates from the ordinary immediate power of episcopal jurisdiction, in virtue of which the bishops, who, appointed by the Holy Spirit [Acts 20:28], have succeeded to the place of the Apostles as true pastors, feed and rule their several flocks, each the one which has been assigned to him: that power is rather maintained, confirmed and defended by the supreme pastor **(Enchir., n. 1828).

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm#III

 

[Lapell]

And the Orthodox have done so without the heaps of thousands of pages of canon law and complex legal machinery as well. Orthodoxy has been spread so far through different and diverse countries that span hugely different governments the last 100 years from democracies to communist countries, across oceans and seas and yet they’ve maintained unity and cohesion, mutual respect. It’s impressive indeed. And they’ve had precious few heresies and avoided anything even remotely as gigantic as the Reformation rebels that Catholicism faced. It is impressive. Some would call it lucky. Some would call it the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

Maybe there were specific situations in the Western Churches calling for those “heaps of thousands of pages of Canon Law and complex legal machinery”. If you think Canon Law in the Catholic Church looks complicated, try the Talmud in Judaism! What brings the definition of dogmas and the making of new laws, or of new provisions in certain laws, if not new informations on certain aspects of the teachings and laws?

 

[Lapell]

Maybe there were specific situations in the Western Churches calling for those “heaps of thousands of pages of Canon Law and complex legal machinery”. If you think Canon Law in the Catholic Church looks complicated, try the Talmud in Judaism! What brings the definition of dogmas and the making of new laws, or of new provisions in certain laws, if not new informations on certain aspects of the teachings and laws?

Sorry, gurneyhalleck1, I just realize you were trying to show our brothers from the EOC what a tour de force it is for the RCC to even be somehow able to be fully in tune with Jesus’ ways and the Holy Spirit.
I thought I was replying to you, but in fact, this can be put in addition to what you had said…