If the Papacy was really meant to be only honorary, then what about the Orthodox bishops?

  • Thread starter Thread starter josephback
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
No, really. You are good. It wasn’t an insult. 😉
Well, really, I have answered inquiries into this unending stream of subjects regarding the modern papacy for many years. There are literally thousands of quotes from hundreds of pre-schism saints. There is Church history. There is Scripture–and the interpretation of those Scriptures. There are the seven great councils. Seriously, this has been covered soooooo many times. In the end, you will accept a papacy that claims to have always embraced a doctrine of supremacy/infallibility (in some form).

And I will disagree. 🤷

Is there anything we have not covered yet, my friend?
 
Well, really, I have answered inquiries into this unending stream of subjects regarding the modern papacy for many years. There are literally thousands of quotes from hundreds of pre-schism saints. There is Church history. There is Scripture–and the interpretation of those Scriptures. There are the seven great councils. Seriously, this has been covered soooooo many times. In the end, you will accept a papacy that claims to have always embraced a doctrine of supremacy/infallibility (in some form).

And I will disagree. 🤷

Is there anything we have not covered yet, my friend?
Naw, I think it’s all been covered at some point. 🤷
 
There is no such thing as a ‘bishop of bishops’.
Are you sure about that? I forget where I read the term, but it was referring to the Pope. Maybe a more appropiate title would be “Overseer of bishops”.

Not really a good point. It is definitely problematic, the episcopacy does not depend upon the office of Pope, your own church declares this, nullifying the entire argument.

At the same time the priesthood is entirely dependent upon the bishop. Even the early church was lightning clear about this. The bishop makes the priest (delegating to him a portion of his own authority), and the priest may not contemplate a move to another bishop, he needs permission from his own bishop, or he is sent by his bishop.

I was gonna make another papal argument but I think you pre-empted
me. I’ll have to review the teaching of the Church on the Papacy.

For my own part I compare the development of the papacy to that of the US Presidency. Growing in visibility and reach but nowhere becoming unconstitutional.
 
It has to be Received Teaching
So it doesn’t have to be in a Council? It can be received from Tradition and/or Scripture, right?

If so, then why are we required to show a Council to prove such a doctrine?

And again, where does a Council state that all Bishops are Peter?
When there are serious issues that affect more than one synod.
Is it possible that there were no “serious issues that affected more than one synod” when it came to the Primacy of Rome? I do note that my statement assumes that there was such a Primacy; however, assuming it is true, would it be possible that it was never disputed so therefore no council was needed to reaffirm it? I am not using this as proof of the Primacy of Rome but I am just saying that it might be a possibility.
For fun, naturally … 😛
👍

God bless you. 🙂
 
St Peter is a great saint of the Holy Orthodox Church and is highly venerated along with St Paul. We have a feast day dedicated to both of these great saints preceded by a long period of fasting. Pope St Leo talks about these two great saints in the last quote I posted.
Mickey,

This is great 👍, however reality is, just as every indivivdual church has a structure, so does the entire church. As much as we may not understand or would deny this, that is how it was structured borrowing from the Greek thinkers. I believe that is why they are required reading for those who choose seminary school. And Rome being where St Peter + St Paul established the first church was given that honor. St Peter being Biblically given the Keys of the Kingdom in scripture through divine providence, and which btw is confimed in Matthew, St Peter confirms this in 1-Peter, and in context though OT-NT.

The fact that Doctrine may or may not propose a bold statement about this structure or leadership of the established church on earth, has little to do with reality. As we see through the years, Rome is who is writting these Doctrines.

And lets give an AMEN for that. How wonderful it is for St Mary to be so venerated today Queen of Heaven, the Gate, the neck of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ all absolute and correct. Immaculate Conception…Correct, Assumption…Correct. 👍😃

However when it comes to Rome expanding on their “Authority” why would they do this? Its been understood since the Apostles. Its not by chance when at Carthage St Paul mentions ROME. He didn’t mention Alexandria, nor is the church of Greece mentioned but in the converstion process. Of course by name Constantinople “didn’t exist”, and Russia was so far off, only God knew that would happen at the Biblical time. So historically and Biblically speaking Constantinople or Russia didn’t exist. And there is “NO” doctrine which transfers “ultimate authority” to either. Rome establish Constantinople to help “Rome”. Which btw it is “failing” to do at the moment, at least here anyway. Truth is in reality the Patriarch and Pope get along great and work in unison as we seen in Turkey. The Patriarch did not pick up on the polical movement to dispose of human rights, the Pope did. Then quickly “interceeded” for him. 🤷

Doctrine, why would the church of Rome create these Doctrines which constantly project their own authority over Christianity? The church of Rome doesn’t view itself as the Dictatorship of Christians, Servant of Servants I believe is what the Pope chose to call himself, certainly not King. Rome stands to serve mankind in humanity, christianity, civil rights, the sanctity of life. And has done so in a very profound manner for a very long time. It doesn’t insist the other churchs need submit to Her. It does however insist that the final say be left to Her. And this is why we see Rome absent at many Councils. Because She feels you are apt at running your church without Her. Had this not been the truth She would have been represented at every meeting and acted as a Sister running a grammer school class. This did not happen and for good reason…She Trusted YOU. The more the clanging cymbals sound on this lack of regard for Rome, the more it re-enforces that Rome cannot give that absolute trust, for as we see the result here. Camelot and best friends world-wide is a pipe-dream and will never exist. However we will need to work together with total respect/trust. And that does not exist yet…but it will.

There is no doctrine which Rome transfers its Biblical role. It “cannot” do this. They have that Cross to bear. So what we “all” need to do is support Rome, for it is Christianity in the rawest sense of the word. The Doctrines are not going to stop, and they shouldn’t stop. Should 1000 years down this path we conclude the error of a specific encyclical? So be it, the batting average looks great from where I stand. However we’re not afforded this opportunity today, especially in regards the Doctrines of St Mary. We need to support those, we don’t clearly understand this period we are in, they are solid, and timeless. The Doctrines with clear indications of authority do-not exist. Maybe Rome should leave a “few” for the generations to come? Maybe the doctrines “are” very needed?

We need to wake up, we will systematically be diminished otherwise. Good and evil is real, its war is real, and your in it. Look at Egypt/China this very minute. Its very telling with the persecution of christians and jews.

The Final Word in ecumenical issues is how I see it. call it what you will. We call it Servant of Servants. 👍

However this nomadic concept of Chirstianity doesn’t exist. It is and always has been structured.

Glad to see you back,

Peace
 
St Peter being Biblically given the Keys of the Kingdom in scripture through divine providence,
And as we know…the keys are Biblically connected to binding and loosing. In Matthew 18:18 we see where Christ gives authority to ALL the Apostles to bind and loose…hence ALL the Apostles hold the keys. 😉

I find it interesting when RC’s set forth arguments attempting to show that St Peter was the only one to receive the keys (I do not see where Christ has withheld the keys from the others). From there…there is a jump to St Peter being the first Pope…then it proceeds to the supremacy/infallibility argument. 🤷
 
And as we know…the keys are Biblically connected to binding and loosing. In Matthew 18:18 we see where Christ gives authority to ALL the Apostles to bind and loose…hence ALL the Apostles hold the keys. 😉

I find it interesting when RC’s set forth arguments attempting to show that St Peter was the only one to receive the keys (I do not see where Christ has withheld the keys from the others). From there…there is a jump to St Peter being the first Pope…then it proceeds to the supremacy/infallibility argument. 🤷
I hear you, yet doesn’t it show consistancy with St Paul speaking to Carthage also? Or from St Peters letters/or OT. St. Paul points to Christ/Rome when Carthage is praying to St Peter and Apollos. Where does the Bible state anyone else was given the Keys to the Davidic KIngdom. They are specifically passed to “you” St Peter in Matthew, 3X. With a direct connection to Isaiah 22 and the Keys of David. King David didn’t share the Keys he passed them down which is the connection to Jesus. Jesus did not need them He was Divine and Human. He passed them knowing he would not be here, but those Keys would need to remain, not as authority which Kind David struggled with.

Jesus Christ understood plural. He spoke in a singular context to St Peter. Going past these verse’s “then” authority to bind and lose becomes a plural in relation to the “equal” authority of the Apostles/todays Bishops, which of course is Biblcal also. The Keys in connection with Rome has been around forever. Nothing new here. Its understanding is never disputed in history. Where did that happen pre-schism?

Binding and losing is not one of the same. Two different teachings and understandings and truths.😉

Is it possible the parallel connection existed? Doesn’t appear to be, and it certainly isn’t contextual from scripture/history. Where?

Peace
 
St. Paul points to Christ/Rome when Carthage is praying to St Peter and Apollos.
What is your point? He also admonishes St Peter elsewhere.
Where does the Bible state anyone else was given the Keys to the Davidic KIngdom.
The power of binding and loosing is tied to the keys. 😉
connection to Isaiah 22 and the Keys of David.
Is there any patristic source that says Isaiah 22 is referring to St Peter? I think I have only heard this from Scott Hahn.
Jesus did not need them He was Divine and Human. He passed them knowing he would not be here, but those Keys would need to remain,
St Peter received the keys…the Apostles received the keys…the successors of the Apostles received the keys.

And Christ will be with us unto the end of time.
Jesus Christ understood plural. He spoke in a singular context to St Peter.
And then in the plural in Matthew 18:18.
The Keys in connection with Rome has been around forever. Nothing new here. Its understanding is never disputed in history.
The keys are linked to Rome…and Antioch…and Jerusalem…and Alexandria…and Constantinople…etc. 🙂

[Peter] is not the only one among the disciples who is worthy of pasturing the Lord’s sheep. If Christ speaks only to one, it is to emphasize unity. Indeed, so that you may know that it is the Church who has received the keys to the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord has said elsewhere to all the apostles: ’ Receive the Holy Spirit.’ And later, ‘Anyone whose sins you have forgiven, they are forgiven: anyone whose sins you retain, they are retained’ (Jn 20:22-23).
St Augustine**, Sermo 295, 2-8.**

“He has given, therefore, the keys to His Church, that whatsoever it should bind on earth might be bound in heaven, and whatsoever it should loose on earth might be loosed in heaven; that is to say, that whosoever in the Church should not believe that his sins are remitted, they should not be remitted to him; but that whosoever should believe and should repent, and turn from his sins, should be saved by the same faith and repentance on the ground of which he is received into the bosom of the Church.”
The City of God, by St. Augustine

"Driven from this line of defence you will appeal to the example of the clergy. … Far be it from me to censure the successors of the apostles, who with holy words consecrate the body of Christ, and who make us Christians. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, they judge men to some extent before the day of judgment, and guard the chastity of the bride of Christ.
St. Jerome
Binding and losing is not one of the same.
It is all connected, my friend.
Is it possible the parallel connection existed?
Yes. See above. I have more if you wish. 🙂
 
Scott Hahn? …its BIble, what is this chapter in Isaiah called by those who “wrote” the Bible? Davids Keys, in case you do not have a Bible present.

Glad to see you reading/watching the Catholic’s though:thumbsup:

Where is it connected in “History” though the ecumenical discourse? It isn’t but in the minds of “some”. Are St Augustines and St Jeromes quotes infallable? Oops, I forgot another area the EO doesnt agree with. So then they are not infallible, which means they are fallible. And btw they are lacking for the simple reason there is not definition through confrontation to what they specifically meant. Being that it was dismissed in that era, we must think otherwise.👍 So that is “moot”.

There is no concrete evidence to support any other but Romes interpretation of Scripture and that is History “also”.

“You” are reduced to partistics, not Rome. And since you choose to believe “infallible” is Romes error, it cannot be used as a defense by the EO. Its one way or the other:shrug:

And “NO” binding and losing is not tied to the Keys Biblically or in Rome, though you wish it so. Rome teaches otherwise. Sorry to state.🤷
 
Scott Hahn? …its BIble,
I’m talking about interpretation.
Are St Augustines and St Jeromes quotes infallable?
No. And from our historical reference…neither are the Pope’s statements (whether ex-cathedra or not). However, we do get our Scriptural interpretations from the patristic consensus.
Oops, I forgot another area the EO doesnt agree with.
Correct.
So that is “moot”.
No it is not. It is a patristic interpretation. You use Scott Hahn’s interpretations…I think it is okay for me to use patristic interpretations. 👍
There is no concrete evidence to support any other but Romes interpretation of Scripture
:confused:
“You” are reduced to partistics, not Rome.
Reduced?!?:confused:
And “NO” binding and losing is not tied to the Keys Biblically or in Rome, though you wish it so. Rome teaches otherwise. Sorry to state.
It most surely is connected. That is a Scriptural, historical and patristic certainty. 👍

St John Chrysosotom
For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now.
 
I suppose we disagree. Good thing we have the “Infallible” church.👍😃

We don’t consider those quotes “dogma” I guess you do? They are lacking.

Dr Hahn may well agree with Bible teaching. However its Bible not the teaching of Dr. Hahn, not a new revelation.

Ever wonder why in Revelations and the Seven Churchs only “one” holds the Keys to the Kingdom. Far to me to state “which” one that would be, but History/Scripture is very telling. 👍 I wonder what the Apostle John was thinking? :eek:
 
Indeed.
That is a very interesting comment. The patristic witness is many things…but lacking is **not **one of them. :nope:
Revelation is a very difficult book to understand. There are many layers. The patristic witness can shed much light on these passages. 😉
Right there’s were we disagee. “You” would like to stick to non-dogmatic patristic teaching. We stick to the “INFALLIBLE” teaching of the CC which cannot err. 👍
 
We stick to the “INFALLIBLE” teaching of the CC which cannot err.
Hence, the dilemma. The doctrine of infallibility was declared in 1870 by Pius IX. This ultramontanist understanding of the papacy was not a part of the early Church and many of our holy saints and martyrs attest to this…but you just brush them away as “lacking”. 😦

I am often wondering why early Popes of the Church did not declare a doctrine of supremacy/infallibility…but I think I know the answer.😉

In fact, one of the earlier Popes (Honorius) was even declared to be a heretic. :eek:

The 1870 doctrine of Pius IX is the main obstacle between reunion of the Latin and Orthodox Churches. Lord have mercy on us all!
 
Mickey have you seen this. I know Patriarch Bartholomew/Pope Benedict are pretty much in constant contact. The issue is the dialogue with Russia.

google.com/url?q=http://www.kaldaya.net/2011/News/06/June29_E5_PopeTellsOrthodox.html&sa=U&ei=w-dwTqSeIYeSgQe7m_iMBQ&ved=0CCUQFjAF&usg=AFQjCNE8u2nndI76LdHGSXfy2wrJI6t2MA

It would go a very long way should Pope Benedict gain visa to Russia which is another issue. Thats where they are at today. 🤷

We are hopelessly reduced to forum dialogue. Doesn’t do much good but to get to know each other. In that sense its pretty cool.

There’s no word anywhere but the attempt to gain Visa to Russia. Should know soon if thats a yes/no.

What is dogma or non-dogmatic is a bit different than ex-cathedra. Ex-Cathedrea wasn’t used till late. Dogma is nothing new though, Incarnate, Trinity etc. However not all the ECFs writtings/teachings are considered Dogma. Those would be three you posted.

Unless you have a link to show otherwise. I “think” I am correct here. 😉 There are many of his sermons which are dogma though. I believe 100.

Peace
 
Ex-Cathedrea wasn’t used till late.
Indeed.
Dogma is nothing new though, Incarnate, Trinity etc. However not all the ECFs writtings/teachings are considered Dogma. Those would be three you posted.
What I have posted, is a patristic witness that shows that the early Church did not have the same understanding as today’s modern papacy. There are many more than “three” statements from the Fathers of the Church. There is no dogma nor doctrine through most of the first century that supports today’s understanding of the Latin Papacy or Pius IX’s 1870 doctrine.
I “think” I am correct here.
No.
There are many of his sermons which are dogma though. I believe 100.
:confused:
 
Indeed.

What I have posted, is a patristic witness that shows that the early Church did not have the same understanding as today’s modern papacy
“WRONG”

Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Origen

“*f we were to attend carefully to the Gospels, we should also find, in relation to those things which seem to be common to Peter . . . a great difference and a preeminence in the things [Jesus] said to Peter, compared with the second class [of apostles]. For it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one heaven but of more, and in order that whatsoever things he binds on earth may be bound not in one heaven but in them all, as compared with the many who bind on earth and loose on earth, so that these things are bound and loosed not in [all] the heavens, as in the case of Peter, but in one only; for they do not reach so high a stage with power as Peter to bind and loose in all the heavens” (Commentary on Matthew 13:31 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Pope Damasus I

“Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Oh and of course St Jerome.

Jerome

“‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division” (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

“Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord” (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

And of course since you are talking St Augustine? Lets not forget him.👍

Augustine

“Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear ‘I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).

“Some things are said which seem to relate especially to the apostle Peter, and yet are not clear in their meaning unless referred to the Church, which he is acknowledged to have represented in a figure on account of the primacy which he bore among the disciples. Such is ‘I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ and other similar passages. In the same way, Judas represents those Jews who were Christ’s enemies” (Commentary on Psalm 108 1 [A.D. 415]). {CAF}

So do you see the dilemma more clearly “now”🤷 Would “you” like to see more:shrug: This ground has all been gone over.**
 
Clement of Alexandria

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly g.asped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).
That’s great Gary. You have come around to understand that the patristic witness is important. We know that St Peter was given the keys (as were the others). That is not in dispute. Perhaps you would want to post one quote at a time and state the point you are trying to make?
 
Tertullian

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
I like this one! Tetullian is referring to the Rock as Peter’s confession of faith…as he tells us that everyone can carry the keys. 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top