Orthodox objections

[Ignatius33]

You know how to cut and paste…Contratulations! http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Respect/respect-001.gif

Yes, I cut and pasted my own work here (though, of course, 95% of it is from the direct sources themselves), as I’ve posted on this topic many times on this board before and always pre-write my responses in Word format before posting. Out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on the substance of these passages?

 

[prodromos]

Out of curiosity, do you have any thoughts on the substance of these passages?

Only that in not providing links to the works from which these quotes have been taken, it is not possible to consider each in its proper context. I have seen and responded to many of these quotes before, but it takes a great deal of time and I no longer have the luxury of spending hours reading the works themselves or the historical background in which they were written.

“Text without context is pretext”

John

 

[Topaz1128]

Only that in not providing links to the works from which these quotes have been taken, it is not possible to consider each in its proper context. I have seen and responded to many of these quotes before, but it takes a great deal of time and I no longer have the luxury of spending hours reading the works themselves or the historical background in which they were written.

“Text without context is pretext”

John

Hmmm… Sounds like a cop-out to me…

 

[prodromos]

Hmmm… Sounds like a cop-out to me…

Have you ever made the effort to research the history behind certain events and read all the available works by the authors quoted?

 

[James224]

how do we answer to these objections from the eastern orthodoxies?

youtube.com/watch?v=KPdU9b8-mWU&feature=related

thanks guys…

A book I’ve read that answers all this and more is James Likoudis’ book, “The Divine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome and Modern Eastern Orthodoxy”. Likoudis is a convert from the Orthodox and wrote for years in the Wanderer. He says a lot of these attacks are from former protestants that have recently joined the Orthodox. He answers all these objections and says really the only one they disagree on is the Papacy. We have moved very close in recent years. I have a good friend who is Russian Orthodox and when I listen to her talk, she sounds very Catholic and she says I sound Orthodox when I talk about my faith. We have much in common.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Hmmm… Sounds like a cop-out to me…

Well here let me get your response to this…

Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848
A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, “to the Easterns”

To All the Bishops Everywhere, Beloved in the Holy Ghost, Our Venerable, Most Dear Brethren; and to their Most Pious Clergy; and to All the Genuine Orthodox Sons of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church: Brotherly Salutation in the Holy Spirit, and Every Good From God, and Salvation.

The holy, evangelical and divine Gospel of Salvation should be set forth by all in its original simplicity, and should evermore be believed in its unadulterated purity, even the same as it was revealed to His holy Apostles by our Savior, who for this very cause, descending from the bosom of God the Father, made Himself of no reputation and took upon Him the form of a servant (Phil. ii. 7); even the same, also, as those Apostles, who were ear and eye witnesses, sounded it forth, like clear-toned trumpets, to all that are under the sun (for their sound is gone out into all lands, and their words into the ends of the world); and, last of all, the very same as the many great and glorious Fathers of the Catholic Church in all parts of the earth, who heard those Apostolic voices, both by their synodical and their individual teachings handed it down to all everywhere, and even unto us. But the Prince of Evil, that spiritual enemy of man’s salvation, as formerly in Eden, craftily assuming the pretext of profitable counsel, he made man to become a transgressor of the divinely-spoken command. so in the spiritual Eden, the Church of God, he has from time to time beguiled many; and, mixing the deleterious drugs of heresy with the clear streams of orthodox doctrine, gives of the potion to drink to many of the innocent who live unguardedly, not giving earnest heed to the things they have heard (Heb. ii. 10), and to what they have been told by their fathers (Deut. xxxii. 7), in accordance with the Gospel and in agreement with the ancient Doctors; and who, imagining that the preached and written Word of the LORD and the perpetual witness of His Church are not sufficient for their souls’ salvation, impiously seek out novelties, as we change the fashion of our garments, embracing a counterfeit of the evangelical doctrine.

1. Hence have arisen manifold and monstrous heresies, which the Catholic Church, even from her infancy, taking unto her the whole armor of God, and assuming the sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God (Eph. vi. 13-17,) has been compelled to combat. She has triumphed over all unto this day, and she will triumph for ever, being manifested as mightier and more illustrious after each struggle.

1. Of these heresies, some already have entirely failed, some are in decay, some have wasted away, some yet flourish in a greater or less degree vigorous until the time of their return to the Faith, while others are reproduced to run their course from their birth to their destruction. For being the miserable cogitations and devices of miserable men, both one and the other, struck with the thunderbolt of the anathema of the seven Ecumenical Councils, shall vanish away, though they may last a thousand years; for the orthodoxy of the Catholic and Apostolic Church, by the living Word of God, alone endures for ever, according to the infallible promise of the LORD: the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. xviii. 18). Certainly, the mouths of ungodly and heretical men, however bold, however plausible and fair-speaking, however smooth they may be, will not prevail against the orthodox doctrine winning, its way silently and without noise. But, wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? (Jer. xii. 1.) Why are the ungodly exalted and lifted up as the cedars of Lebanon (Ps. xxxvii. 35), to defile the peaceful worship of God? The reason of this is mysterious, and the Church, though daily praying that this cross, this messenger of Satan, may depart from her, ever hears from the Lord: My grace is sufficient for thee, my strength is made perfect in weakness (2. Cor. xii. 9). Wherefore she gladly glories in her infirmities, that the power of Christ may rest upon her, and that they which are approved may be made manifest (1. Cor. x. 19).

Continued…

 

[josephdaniel29]

1. Of these heresies diffused, with what sufferings the LORD hath known, over a great part of the world, was formerly Arianism, and at present is the Papacy. This, too, as the former has become extinct, although now flourishing, shall not endure, but pass away and be cast down, and a great voice from heaven shall cry: It is cast down (Rev. xii. 10).

1. The new doctrine, that “the Holy Ghost proceedeth from the Father and the Son,” is contrary to the memorable declaration of our LORD, emphatically made respecting it: which proceedeth from the Father (John xv. 26), and contrary to the universal Confession of the Catholic Church as witnessed by the seven Ecumenical Councils, uttering “which proceedeth from the Father.” (Symbol of Faith).

i. This novel opinion destroys the oneness from the One cause, and the diverse origin of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity, both of which are witnessed to in the Gospel.

ii. Even into the divine Hypostases or Persons of the Trinity, of equal power and equally to be adored, it introduces diverse and unequal relations, with a confusion or commingling of them.

iii. It reproaches as imperfect, dark, and difficult to be understood, the previous Confession of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

iv. It censures the holy Fathers of the first Ecumenical Synod of Nice and of the second Ecumenical Synod at Constantinople, as imperfectly expressing what relates to the Son and Holy Ghost, as if they had been silent respecting the peculiar property of each Person of the Godhead, when it was necessary that all their divine properties should be expressed against the Arians and Macedonians.

v. It reproaches the Fathers of the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, and seventh Ecumenical Councils, which had published over the world a divine Creed, perfect and complete, and interdicted under dread anathemas and penalties not removed, all addition, or diminution, or alteration, or variation in the smallest particular of it, by themselves or any whomsoever. Yet was this quickly to be corrected and augmented, and consequently the whole theological doctrine of the Catholic Fathers was to be subjected to change, as if, forsooth, a new property even in regard to the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity had been revealed.

vi. It clandestinely found an entrance at first in the Churches of the West, "a wolf in sheep's clothing," that is, under the signification not of procession, according to the Greek meaning in the Gospel and the Creed, but under the signification of mission, as Pope Martin explained it to the Confessor Maximus, and as Anastasius the Librarian explained it to John VIII.

vii. It exhibits incomparable boldness, acting without authority, and forcibly puts a false stamp upon the Creed, which is the common inheritance of Christianity.

viii. It has introduced huge disturbances into the peaceful Church of God, and divided the nations.

ix. It was publicly proscribed, at its first promulgation, by two ever-to-be-remembered Popes, Leo III and John VIII, the latter of whom, in his epistle to the blessed Photius, classes with Judas those who first brought the interpolation into the Creed.

x. It has been condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East.

xi. It was subjected to anathema, as a novelty and augmentation of the Creed, by the eighth Ecumenical Council, congregated at Constantinople for the pacification of the Eastern and Western Churches.

xii. As soon as it was introduced into the Churches of the West it brought forth disgraceful fruits, bringing with it, little by little, other novelties, for the most part contrary to the express commands of our Savior in the Gospel—commands which till its entrance into the Churches were closely observed. Among these novelties may be numbered sprinkling instead of baptism, denial of the divine Cup to the Laity, elevation of one and the same bread broken, the use of wafers, unleavened instead of real bread, the disuse of the Benediction in the Liturgies, even of the sacred Invocation of the All-holy and Consecrating Spirit, the abandonment of the old Apostolic Mysteries of the Church, such as not anointing baptized infants, or their not receiving the Eucharist, the exclusion of married men from the Priesthood, the infallibility of the Pope and his claim as Vicar of Christ, and the like. Thus it was that the interpolation led to the setting aside of the old Apostolic pattern of well nigh all the Mysteries and all doctrine, a pattern which the ancient, holy, and orthodox Church of Rome kept, when she was the most honored part of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church.

xiii. It drove the theologians of the West, as its defenders, since they had no ground either in Scripture or the Fathers to countenance heretical teachings, not only into misrepresentations of the Scriptures, such as are seen in none of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church, but also into adulterations of the sacred and pure writings of the Fathers alike of the East and West.

xiv. It seemed strange, unheard of, and blasphemous, even to those reputed Christian communions, which, before its origin, had been for other just causes for ages cut off from the Catholic fold.

xv. It has not yet been even plausibly defended out of the Scriptures, or with the least reason out of the Fathers, from the accusations brought against it, notwithstanding all the zeal and efforts of its supporters. The doctrine bears all the marks of error arising out of its nature and peculiarities. All erroneous doctrine touching the Catholic truth of the Blessed Trinity, and the origin of the divine Persons, and the subsistence of the Holy Ghost, is and is called heresy, and they who so hold are deemed heretics, according to the sentence of St. Damasus, Pope of Rome, who says:

Continued…

 

[josephdaniel29]

“If any one rightly holds concerning the Father and the Son, yet holds not rightly of the Holy Ghost, he is an heretic” (Cath. Conf. of Faith which Pope Damasus sent to Paulinus, Bishop of Thessalonica). Wherefore the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, following in the steps of the holy Fathers, both Eastern and Western, proclaimed of old to our progenitors and again teaches today synodically, that the said novel doctrine of the Holy Ghost proceeding from the Father and the Son is essentially heresy, and its maintainers, whoever they be, are heretics, according to the sentence of Pope St. Damasus, and that the congregations of such are also heretical, and that all spiritual communion in worship of the orthodox sons of the Catholic Church with such is unlawful. Such is the force of the seventh Canon of the third Ecumenical Council.

1. This heresy, which has united to itself many innovations, as has been said, appeared about the middle of the seventh century, at first and secretly, and then under various disguises, over the Western Provinces of Europe, until by degrees, creeping along for four or five centuries, it obtained precedence over the ancient orthodoxy of those parts, through the heedlessness of Pastors and the countenance of Princes. Little by little it overspread not only the hitherto orthodox Churches of Spain, but also the German, and French, and Italian Churches, whose orthodoxy at one time was sounded throughout the world, with whom our divine Fathers such as the great Athanasius and heavenly Basil conferred, and whose sympathy and fellowship with us until the seventh Ecumenical Council, preserved unharmed the doctrine of the Catholic and Apostolic Church. But in process of time, by envy of the devil, the novelties respecting the sound and orthodox doctrine of the Holy Ghost, the blasphemy of whom shall not be forgiven unto men either in this world or the next, according to the saying of our Lord (Matt. xii. 32), and others that succeeded respecting the divine Mysteries, particularly that of the world-saving Baptism, and the Holy Communion, and the Priesthood, like prodigious births, overspread even Old Rome; and thus sprung, by assumption of special distinctions in the Church as a badge and title, the Papacy. Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, and another to Sphendopulcrus, by the hands of Methodius, Bishop of Moravia. The greater part, however, of their successors, the Popes of Rome, enticed by the antisynodical privileges offered them for the oppression of the Churches of God, and finding in them much worldly advantage, and “much gain,” and conceiving a Monarchy in the Catholic Church and a monopoly of the gifts of the Holy Ghost, changed the ancient worship at will, separating themselves by novelties from the old received Christian Polity. Nor did they cease their endeavors, by lawless projects (as veritable history assures us), to entice the other four Patriarchates into their apostasy from Orthodoxy, and so subject the Catholic Church to the whims and ordinances of men.

1. Our illustrious predecessors and fathers, with united labor and counsel, seeing the evangelical doctrine received from the Fathers to be trodden under foot, and the robe of our Savior woven from above to be torn by wicked hands, and stimulated by fatherly and brotherly love, wept for the desolation of so many Christians for whom Christ died. They exercised much zeal and ardor, both synodically and individually, in order that the orthodox doctrine of the Holy Catholic Church being saved, they might knit together as far as they were able that which had been rent; and like approved physicians they consulted together for the safety of the suffering member, enduring many tribulations, and contempts, and persecutions, if haply the Body of Christ might not be divided, or the definitions of the divine and august Synods be made of none effect. But veracious history has transmitted to us the relentlessness of the Western perseverance in error. These illustrious men proved indeed on this point the truth of the words of our holy father Basil the sublime, when he said, from experience, concerning the Bishops of the West, and particularly of the Pope: “They neither know the truth nor endure to learn it, striving against those who tell them the truth, and strengthening themselves in their heresy” (to Eusebius of Samosata). Thus, after a first and second brotherly admonition, knowing their impenitence, shaking them off and avoiding them, they gave them over to their reprobate mind. “War is better than peace, apart from God,” as said our holy father Gregory, concerning the Arians. From that time there has been no spiritual communion between us and them; for they have with their own hands dug deep the chasm between themselves and Orthodoxy.

Continued…

 

[josephdaniel29]

1. Yet the Papacy has not on this account ceased to annoy the peaceful Church of God, but sending out everywhere so-called missionaries, men of reprobate minds, it compasses land and sea to make one proselyte, to deceive one of the Orthodox, to corrupt the doctrine of our LORD, to adulterate, by addition, the divine Creed of our holy Faith, to prove the Baptism which God gave us superfluous, the communion of the Cup void of sacred efficacy, and a thousand other things which the demon of novelty dictated to the all-daring Schoolmen of the Middle Ages and to the Bishops of the elder Rome, venturing all things through lust of power. Our blessed predecessors and fathers, in their piety, though tried and persecuted in many ways and means, within and without, directly and indirectly, “yet confident in the LORD,” were able to save and transmit to us this inestimable inheritance of our fathers, which we too, by the help of God, will transmit as a rich treasure to the generations to come, even to the end of the world. But notwithstanding this, the Papists do not cease to this day, nor will cease, according to wont, to attack Orthodoxy,—a daily living reproach which they have before their eyes, being deserters from the faith of their fathers. Would that they made these aggressions against the heresy which has overspread and mastered the West. For who doubts that had their zeal for the overthrow of Orthodoxy been employed for the overthrow of heresy and novelties, agreeable to the God-loving counsels of Leo III and John VIII, those glorious and last Orthodox Popes, not a trace of it, long ago, would have been remembered under the sun, and we should now be saying the same things, according to the Apostolic promise. But the zeal of those who succeeded them was not for the protection of the Orthodox Faith, in conformity with the zeal worthy of all remembrance which was in Leo III., now among the blessed.

1. In a measure the aggressions of the later Popes in their own persons had ceased, and were carried on only by means of missionaries. But lately, Pius IX., becoming Bishop of Rome and proclaimed Pope in 1847, published on the sixth of January, in this present year, an Encyclical Letter addressed to the Easterns, consisting of twelve pages in the Greek version, which his emissary has disseminated, like a plague coming from without, within our Orthodox Fold. In this Encyclical, he addresses those who at different times have gone over from different Christian Communions, and embraced the Papacy, and of course are favorable to him, extending his arguments also to the Orthodox, either particularly or without naming them; and, citing our divine and holy Fathers (p. 3, 1.14-18; p. 4, 1.19; p. 9, 1.6; and pp. 17, 23), he manifestly calumniates them and us their successors and descendants: them, as if they admitted readily the Papal commands and rescripts without question because issuing from the Popes is undoubted arbiters of the Catholic Church; us, as unfaithful to their examples (for thus he trespasses on the Fold committed to us by God), as severed from our Fathers, as careless of our sacred trusts, and of the soul’s salvation of our spiritual children. Usurping as his own possession the Catholic Church of Christ, by occupancy, as he boasts, of the Episcopal Throne of St. Peter, he desires to deceive the more simple into apostasy from Orthodoxy, choosing for the basis of all theological instruction these paradoxical words (p. 10, 1.29): “nor is there any reason why ye refuse a return to the true Church and Communion with this my holy Throne.”

1. Each one of our brethren and sons in Christ who have been piously brought up and instructed, wisely regarding the wisdom given him from God, will decide that the words of the present Bishop of Rome, like those of his schismatical predecessors, are not words of peace, as he affirms (p. 7,1.8), and of benevolence, but words of deceit and guile, tending to self-aggrandizement, agreeably to the practice of his antisynodical predecessors. We are therefore sure, that even as heretofore, so hereafter the Orthodox will not be beguiled. For the word of our LORD is sure (John x. 5), A stranger will they not follow, but flee from him, for they know not the voice of strangers.

Continued…

 

[josephdaniel29]

1. For all this we have esteemed it our paternal and brotherly need, and a sacred duty, by our present admonition to confirm you in the Orthodoxy you hold from your forefathers, and at the same time point out the emptiness of the syllogisms of the Bishop of Rome, of which he is manifestly himself aware. For not from his Apostolic Confession does he glorify his Throne, but from his Apostolic Throne seeks to establish his dignity, and from his dignity, his Confession. The truth is the other way. The Throne of Rome is esteemed that of St. Peter by a single tradition, but not from Holy Scripture, where the claim is in favor of Antioch, whose Church is therefore witnessed by the great Basil (Ep. 48 Athan.) to be “the most venerable of all the Churches in the world.” Still more, the second Ecumenical Council, writing to a Council of the West (to the most honorable and religious brethren and fellow-servants, Damasus, Ambrose, Britto, Valerian, and others), witnesseth, saying: “The oldest and truly Apostolic Church of Antioch, in Syria, where first the honored name of Christians was used.” We say then that the Apostolic Church of Antioch had no right of exemption from being judged according to divine Scripture and synodical declarations, though truly venerated for the throne of St. Peter. But what do we say? The blessed Peter, even in his own person, was judged before all for the truth of the Gospel, and, as Scripture declares, was found blamable and not walking uprightly. What opinion is to be formed of those who glory and pride themselves solely in the possession of his Throne, so great in their eyes? Nay, the sublime Basil the great, the Ecumenical teacher of Orthodoxy in the Catholic Church, to whom the Bishops of Rome are obliged to refer us (p. 8, 1.31), has clearly and explicitly above ( 7) shown us what estimation we ought to have of the judgments of the inaccessible Vatican:—“They neither,” he says, “know the truth, nor endure to learn it, striving against those who tell them the truth, and strengthening themselves in their heresy.” So that these our holy Fathers whom his Holiness the Pope, worthily admiring as lights and teachers even of the West, accounts as belonging to us, and advises us (p. 8) to follow, teach us not to judge Orthodoxy from the holy Throne, but the Throne itself and him that is on the Throne by the sacred Scriptures, by Synodical decrees and limitations, and by the Faith which has been preached, even the Orthodoxy of continuous teaching. Thus did our Fathers judge and condemn Honorius, Pope of Rome, and Dioscorus, Pope of Alexandria, and Macedonius and Nestorius, Patriarchs of Constantinople, and Peter Gnapheus, Patriarch of Antioch, with others. For if the abomination of desolation stood in the Holy Place, why not innovation and heresy upon a holy Throne? Hence is exhibited in a brief compass the weakness and feebleness of the efforts in behalf of the despotism of the Pope of Rome. For, unless the Church of Christ was founded upon the immovable rock of St. Peter’s Confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God (which was the answer of the Apostles in common, when the question was put to them, Whom say ye that I am? (Matt. xvi. 15,) as the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, interpret the passage to us), the Church was built upon a slippery foundation, even on Cephas himself, not to say on the Pope, who, after monopolizing the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, has made such an administration of them as is plain from history. But our divine Fathers, with one accord, teach that the sense of the thrice-repeated command, Feed my sheep, implied no prerogative in St. Peter over the other Apostles, least of all in his successors. It was a simple restoration to his Apostleship, from which he had fallen by his thrice-repeated denial. St. Peter himself appears to have understood the intention of the thrice-repeated question of our Lord: Lovest thou Me, and more, and than these?. (John xxi. 16 for, calling to mind the words, Thou all shall be offended because of Thee, yet will 1 never be offended (Matt. xxvi. 33), he was grieved because He said unto him the third time, Lovest thou Me? But his successors, from self-interest, understand the expression as indicative of St. Peter’s more ready mind.

Continued…

 

[josephdaniel29]

1. His Holiness the Pope says (p. viii. 1.12.) that our LORD said to Peter (Luke xxii. 32), I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and when thou art converted, strengthen thy brethren. Our LORD so prayed because Satan had sought to overthrow the faith of all the disciples, but the LORD allowed him Peter only, chiefly because he had uttered words of boasting, and justified himself above the rest (Matt. xxvi. 33): Though all shall be offended, because of thee, yet will I never be offended. The permission to Satan was but temporary. He began to curse and to swear: I know not the man. So weak is human nature, left to itself. The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak. It was but temporary, that, coming again to himself by his return in tears of repentance, he might the rather strengthen his brethren who had neither perjured themselves nor denied. Oh! the wise judgment of the LORD! How divine and mysterious was the last night of our Savior upon earth! That sacred Supper is believed to be consecrated to this day in every Church: This do in remembrance of me (Luke xxii. 19), and As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup, ye do show the LORD’s death till he come (1 Cor. xi. 26). Of the brotherly love thus earnest1y commended to us by the common Master, saying, By this shall all men know that ye are my disciple, if ye have love one to another (John xiii. 35), have the Popes first broken the stamp and seal, supporting and receiving heretical novelties, contrary to the things delivered to us and canonically confirmed by our Teachers and Fathers in common. This love acts at this day with power in the souls of Christian people, and particularly in their leaders. We boldly avow before God and men, that the prayer of our Savior (p. ix. l.43) to God and His Father for the common love and unity of Christians in the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, in which we believe, that they may be one, ever as we are one (John xvii. 22), worketh in us no less than in his Holiness. Our brotherly love and zeal meet that of his Holiness, with only this difference, that in us it worketh for the covenanted preservation of the pure, undefiled, divine, spotless, and perfect Creed of the Christian Faith, in conformity to the voice of the Gospel and the decrees of the seven holy Ecumenical Synods and the teachings of the ever-existing Catholic Church: but worketh in his Holiness to prop and strengthen the authority and dignity of them that sit on the Apostolic Throne, and their new doctrine. Behold then, the head and front, so to speak, of all the differences and disagreements that have happened between us and them, and the middle wall of partition, which we hope will be taken away in the time of is Holiness, and by the aid of his renowned wisdom, according to the promise of God (St. John x. 16): "Other sheep I have which are not of this fold: them also 1 must bring and they shall hear my voice (Who proceedeth from the Father "). Let it be said then, in the third place, that if it be supposed, according to the words of his Holiness, that this prayer of our LORD for Peter when about to deny and perjure himself, remained attached and united to the Throne of Peter, and is transmitted with power to those who from time to time sit upon it, although, as has before been said, nothing contributes to confirm the opinion (as we are strikingly assured from the example of the blessed Peter himself, even after the descent of the Holy Ghost, yet are we convinced from the words of our LORD, that the time will come when that divine prayer concerning the denial of Peter, “that his faith might not fail for ever” will operate also in some one of the successors of his Throne, who will also weep, as he did, bitterly, and being sometime converted will strengthen us, his brethren, still more in the Orthodox Confession, which we hold from our forefathers;—and would that his Holiness might be this true successor of the blessed Peter! To this our humble prayer, what hinders that we should add our sincere and hearty Counsel in the name of the Holy Catholic Church? We dare not say, as does his Holiness (p. x. 1.22), that it should be done “without any delay;” but without haste, utter mature consideration, and also, if need be, after consultation with the more wise, religious, truth-loving, and prudent of the Bishops, Theologians, and Doctors, to be found at the present day, by God’s good Providence, in every nation of the West.

Continued…

 

[josephdaniel29]

1. His Holiness says that the Bishop of Lyons, St. Irenaeus, writes in praise of the Church of Rome: “That the whole Church, namely, the faithful from everywhere, must come together in that Church, because of its Primacy, in which Church the tradition, given by the Apostles, has in all respects been observed by the faithful everywhere.” Although this saint says by no means what the followers of the Vatican would make out, yet even granting their interpretation, we reply: Who denies that the ancient Roman Church was Apostolic and Orthodox? None of us will question that it was a model of orthodoxy. We will specially add, for its greater praise, from the historian Sozomen (Hist. Eccl. lib. iii. cap. 12), the passage, which his Holiness has overlooked, respecting the mode by which for a time she was enabled to preserve the orthodoxy which we praise:—“For, as everywhere,” saith Sozomen, “the Church throughout the West, being guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, was delivered from contention and deception concerning these things.” Would any of the Fathers or ourselves deny her canonical privilege in the rank of the hierarchy, so long as she was guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers, walking by the plain rule of Scripture and the holy Synods! But at present we do not find preserved in her the dogma of the Blessed Trinity according to the Creed of the holy Fathers assembled first in Nicea and afterwards in Constantinople, which the other five Ecumenical Councils confessed and confirmed with such anathemas on those who adulterated it in the smallest particular, as if they had thereby destroyed it. Nor do we find the Apostolical pattern of holy Baptism, nor the Invocation of the consecrating Spirit upon the holy elements: but we see in that Church the eucharistic Cup, heavenly drink, considered superfluous, (what profanity!) and very many other things, unknown not only to our holy Fathers, who were always entitled the catholic, clear rule and index of Orthodoxy, as his Holiness, revering the truth, himself teaches (p. vi), but also unknown to the ancient holy Fathers of the West. We see that very primacy, for which his Holiness now contends with all his might, as did his predecessors, transformed from a brotherly character and hierarchical privilege into a lordly superiority. What then is to be thought of his unwritten traditions, if the written have undergone such a change and alteration for the worse ? Who is so bold and confident in the dignity of the Apostolic Throne, as to dare to say that if our holy Father, Sr. Irenaeus, were alive again, seeing it was fallen from the ancient and primitive teaching in so many most essential and catholic articles of Christianity, he would not be himself the first to oppose the novelties and self-sufficient constitutions of that Church which was lauded by him as guided purely by the doctrines of the Fathers? For instance, when he saw the Roman Church not only rejecting from her Liturgical Canon, according to the suggestion of the Schoolmen, the very ancient and Apostolic invocation of the Consecrating Spirit, and miserably mutilating the Sacrifice in its most essential part, but also urgently hastening to cut it out from the Liturgies of other Christian Communions also,—his Holiness slanderously asserting, in a manner so unworthy of the Apostolic Throne on which he boasts himself, that it “crept in after t.he division between the East and West” (p. xi. 1.11)—what would not the holy Father say respecting this novelty ? Irenaeus assures us (lib. iv. c. 34) “that bread, from the ground, receiving the evocation of God, is no longer common bread,” etc., meaning by “evocation” invocation: for that Irenaeus believed the Mystery of the Sacrifice to be consecrated by means of this invocation is especially remarked even by Franciscus Feu-Ardentius, of the order of popish monks called Minorites, who in 1639 edited the writings of that saint with comments, who says (lib. i. c. 18, p. 114,) that Irenaeus teaches “that the bread and mixed cup become the true Body and Blood of Christ by the words of invocation.” Or, hearing of the vicarial and appellate jurisdiction of the Pope, what would not the Saint say, who, for a small and almost indifferent question concerning the celebration of Easter (Euseb. Eccl. Hist. v. 26), so boldly and victoriously opposed and defeated the violence of Pope Victor in the free Church of Christ? Thus he who is cited by his Holiness as a witness of the primacy of the Roman Church, shows that its dignity is not that of a lordship, nor even appellate, to which St. Peter himself was never ordained, but is a brotherly privilege in the Catholic Church, and an honor assigned the Popes on account of the greatness and privilege of the City. Thus, also, the fourth Ecumenical Council, for the preservation of the gradation in rank of Churches canonically established by the third Ecumenical Council (Canon 8),—following the second (Canon 3), as that again followed the first (Canon 6), which called the appellate jurisdiction of the Pope over the West a Custom,—thus uttered its determination: “On account of that City being the Imperial City, the Fathers have with reason given it prerogatives” (Canon 28). Here is nothing said of the Pope’s special monopoly of the Apostolicity of St. Peter, still less of a vicarship in Rome’s Bishops, and an universal Pastorate. This deep silence in regard to such great privileges—nor only so, but the reason assigned for the primacy, not “Feed my sheep,” not “On this rock will I build my Church,” but simply old Custom, and the City being the Imperial City; and these things, not from the LORD, but from the Fathers—

Here is the link for the rest.

Please take the time to respond carefully and don’t cop-out.

 

[josephdaniel29]

will seem, we are sure, a great paradox to his Holiness entertaining other ideas of his prerogatives. The paradox will be the greater, since, as we shall see, he greatly honors the said fourth Ecumenical Synod as one to be found a witness for his Throne; and St. Gregory, the eloquent, called the Great (lib. i. Ep. 25), was wont to speak of the four (Ecumenical Councils [not the Roman See] as the four Gospels, and the four-sided stone on which the Catholic Church is built.

1. His Holiness says (p. ix. 1.12) that the Corinthians, divided among themselves, referred the matter to Clement, Pope of Rome, who wrote to them his decision on the case; and they so prized his decision that they read it in the Churches. But this event is a very weak support for the Papal authority in the house of God. For Rome being then the center of the Imperial Province and the chief City, in which the Emperors lived, it was proper that any question of importance, as history shows that of the Corinthians to have been, should be decided there, especially if one of the contending parties ran thither for external aid: as is done even to this day. The Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, when unexpected points of difficulty arise, write to the Patriarch of Constantinople, because of its being the seat of Empire, as also on account of its synodical privileges; and if this brotherly aid shall rectify that which should be rectified, it is well; but if not, the matter is reported to the province, according to the established system. But this brotherly agreement in Christian faith is not purchased by the servitude of the Churches of God. Let this be our answer also to the examples of a fraternal and proper championship of the privileges of Julius and Innocent Bishops of Rome, by St. Athanasius the Great and St. John Chrysostom, referred to by his Holiness (p. ix. 1. 6,17), for which their successors now seek to recompense us by adulterating the divine Creed. Yet was Julius himself indignant against some for " disturbing the Churches by not maintaining the doctrines of Nice" (Soz. Hist. Ec. lib. iii. c. 7), and threatening (id.) excommunication, “if they ceased not their innovations.” In the case of the Corinthians, moreover, it is to be remarked that the Patriarchal Thrones being then but three, Rome was the nearer and more accessible to the Corinthians, to which, therefore, it was proper to have resort. In all this we see nothing extraordinary, nor any proof of the despotic power of the Pope in the free Church of God.

1. But, finally, his Holiness says (p. ix. l.12) that the fourth Ecumenical Council (which by mistake he quite transfers from Chalcedon to Carthage), when it read the epistle of Pope Leo I, cried out, “Peter has thus spoken by Leo.” It was so indeed. But his Holiness ought not to overlook how, and after what examination, our fathers cried out, as they did, in praise of Leo. Since however his Holiness, consulting brevity, appears to have omitted this most necessary point, and the manifest proof that an Ecumenical Council is not only above the Pope but above any Council of his, we will explain to the public the matter as it really happened. Of more than six hundred fathers assembled in the Counci1 of Chalcedon, about two hundred of the wisest were appointed by the Council to examine both as to language and sense the said epistle of Leo; nor only so, but to give in writing and with their signatures their own judgment upon it, whether it were orthodox or not. These, about two hundred judgments and resolution on the epistle, as chiefly found in the Fourth Session of the said holy Council in such terms as the following:—“Maximus of Antioch in Syria said: 'The epistle of the holy Leo, Archbishop of Imperial Rome, agrees with the decisions of the three hundred and eighteen holy fathers at Nice, and the hundred and fifty at Constantinople, which is new Rome, and with the faith expounded at Ephesus by the most holy Bishop Cyril: and I have subscribed it.”

Continued…

 

[josephdaniel29]

“Theodoret,the most religious Bishop of Cyrus: 'The epistle of the most holy Archbishop, the lord Leo, agrees with the faith established at Nice by the holy and blessed fathers, and with the symbol of faith expounded at Constantinople by the hundred and fifty, and with the epistles of the blessed Cyril. And accepting it, I have subscribed the said epistle.”’

And thus all in succession: “The epistle corresponds,” "the epistle is consonant,“the epistle agrees in sense,” and the like. After such great and very severe scrutiny in comparing it with former holy Councils, and a full conviction of the correctness of the meaning, and not merely because it was the epistle of the Pope, they cried aloud, ungrudgingly, the exclamation on which his Holiness now vaunts himself: But if his Holiness had sent us statements concordant and in unison with the seven holy Ecumenical Councils, instead of boasting of the piety of his predecessors lauded by our predecessors and fathers in an Ecumenical Council, he might justly have gloried in his own orthodoxy, declaring his own goodness instead of that of his fathers. Therefore let his Holiness be assured, that if, even now, he will write us such things as two hundred fathers on investigation and inquiry shall find consonant and agreeing with the said former Councils, then, we say, he shall hear from us sinners today, not only, “Peter has so spoken,” or anything of like honor, but this also, “Let the holy hand be kissed which has wiped away the tears of the Catholic Church.”

1. And surely we have a right to expect from the prudent forethought of his Holiness, a work so worthy the true successor of St. Peter, of Leo I, and also of Leo III, who for security of the orthodox faith engraved the divine Creed unaltered upon imperishable plates—a work which will unite the churches of the West to the holy Catholic Church, in which the canonical chief seat of his Holiness, and the seats of all the Bishops of the West remain empty and ready to be occupied. For the Catholic Church, awaiting the conversion of the shepherds who have fallen off from her with their flocks, does not separate in name only, those who have been privily introduced to the rulership by the action of others, thus making little of the Priesthood. But we are expecting the “word of consolation,” and hope that he, as wrote St. Basil to St.Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (Epis. b6), will “tread again the ancient footprints of the fathers.” Not without great astonishment have we read the said Encyclical letter to the Easterns, in which we see with deep grief of soul his Holiness, famed for prudence, speaking like his predecessors in schism, words that urge upon us the adulteration of our pure holy Creed, on which the Ecumenical Councils have set their seal; and doing violence to the sacred Liturgies, whose heavenly structure alone, and the names of those who framed them, and their tone of reverend antiquity, and the stamp that was placed upon them by the Seventh Ecumenical Synod (Act vi.), should have paralyzed him, and made him to turn aside the sacrilegious and all-daring hand that has thus smitten the King of Glory. From these things we estimate into what an unspeakable labyrinth of wrong and incorrigible sin of revolution the papacy has thrown even the wiser and more godly Bishops of the Roman Church, so that, in order to preserve the innocent, and therefore valued vicarial dignity, as well as the despotic primacy and the things depending upon it, they know no other means shall to insult the most divine and sacred things, daring everything for that one end. Clothing themselves, in words, with pious reverence for “the most venerable antiquity” (p. xi. 1.16), in reality there remains, within, the innovating temper; and yet his Holiness really hears hard upon himself when he says that we “must cast from us everything that has crept in among us since the Separation,” (!) while he and his have spread the poison of their innovation even into the Supper of our LORD. His Holiness evidently takes it for granted that in the Orthodox Church the same thing has happened which he is conscious has happened in the Church of Rome since the rise of the Papacy: to wit, a sweeping change in all the Mysteries, and corruption from scholastic subtleties, a reliance on which must suffice as an equivalent for our sacred Liturgies and Mysteries and doctrines: yet all the while, forsooth, reverencing our “venerable antiquity,” and all this by a condescension entirely Apostolic!—“without,” as he says, “troubling us by any harsh conditions”! From such ignorance of the Apostolic and Catholic food on which we live emanates another sententious declaration of his (p. vii. 1. 22): “It is not possible that unity of doctrine and sacred observance should be preserved among you,” paradoxically ascribing to us the very misfortune from which he suffers at home; just as Pope Leo IX wrote to the blessed Michael Cerularius, accusing the Greeks of changing the Creed of the Catholic Church, without blushing either for his own honor or for the truth of history. We are persuaded that if his Holiness will call to mind ecclesiastical archaeology and history, the doctrine of the holy Fathers and the old Liturgies of France and Spain, and the Sacramentary of the ancient Roman Church, he will be struck with surprise on finding how many other monstrous daughters, now living, the Papacy has brought forth in the West: while Orthodoxy, with us, has preserved the Catholic Church as an incorruptible bride for her Bridegroom, although we have no temporal power, nor, as his Holiness says, any sacred “observances,” but by the sole tie of love and affection to a common Mother are bound together in the unity of a faith sealed with the seven seals of the Spirit (Rev. v. 1),

Continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

Here is the link for the rest.

Please take the time to respond carefully and don’t cop-out.

Thanks for the letter, I’ve never read that before. I’ll only respond to a couple of points (unfortunately, the reply thread won’t let me quote the relevant portions for some reason, so bear with me).

First, the letter spends a lot of time denouncing the filioque clause. I’d rather not get into a discussion about that here, since it deserves it’s own thread and I don’t feel qualified to debate it (though I certainly believe it, if for no other reason than it has been infallibly declared as dogma in the Catholic Church).

Second, I’d like to address the final point made in the letter (or, at least, the portion of the letter you quoted). It is seems to admit that the Fathers recognized a kind of Roman primacy, but suggests that this primacy was based, not on Peter’s authority transmitted to the papacy, but rather on the civil greatness of Rome, the capital of the empire. Under this line of reasoning, it is argued, Rome’s primacy is not a permanent mark of the true church. I’d like to address this in a little detail.

Usually the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) is invoked to support this view, which is exactly what this letter cites. The 28th canon of Chalcedon reads as follows:

“Following in every way the decrees of the holy Fathers and recognising the canon which has recently been read out—the canon of the 150 most devout bishops who assembled in the time of the great Theodosius of pious memory, then emperor, in imperial Constantinople, new Rome—we issue the same decree and resolution concerning the prerogatives of the most holy church of the same Constantinople, new Rome. The Fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of older Rome, since that is an imperial city; and moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of new Rome, reasonably judging that the city which is honoured by the imperial power and senate and enjoying privileges equaling older imperial Rome, should also be elevated to her level in ecclesiastical affairs and take second place after her. The metropolitans of the dioceses of Pontus, Asia and Thrace, but only these, as well as the bishops of these dioceses who work among non-Greeks, are to be ordained by the aforesaid most holy see of the most holy church in Constantinople. That is, each metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses along with the bishops of the province ordain the bishops of the province, as has been declared in the divine canons; but the metropolitans of the aforesaid dioceses, as has been said, are to be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, once agreement has been reached by vote in the usual way and has been reported to him.”

At Chalcedon, then, there was a clear recognition of papal primacy, but the bishops thought that this primacy was based on the fact that Rome was the “imperial city.” Consequently, now that the capital of Rome had been moved to Constantinople, that see should enjoy some of the “privileges” of Old Rome.

I reject this theory. The hypothesis presented is that the pope owed his ecclesiastical authority to the fact that his see was in the capital of the empire. Now, while certainly Rome’s prestige as the imperial city contributed to the honor given to it in the patristic era, this hypothesis is far from explaining everything. First of all, while the bishops of Chalcedon do base Rome’s authority in part on its civil greatness, we must not forget that the council Fathers said that Peter continued to speak through the pope. Thus, even these bishops attributed Rome’s authority, at least in part, to Peter’s primacy.

Second, none of the earliest testimonies to Roman primacy grounds that primacy in political realities. Quite the contrary. In fact Ignatius, Irenaeus, Cyprian, Pope Stephen, Optatus, and Pope Julius state that Rome’s privileges derive either from her preeminence in faith or from her apostolic foundation by Peter and Paul. These are supernatural grounds, not natural ones. It is the Chalcedonian claim, then, which is more likely to be the innovation.

Third, Rome vigorously rejected the 28th canon of Chalcedon as an innovation. Now this
rejection cannot easily be dismissed, for the Eastern bishops and emperors had a motive to elevate their own central see at Constantinople. Actually, the emperors since Constantine had worked to hinder the activities of the papacy in the East. This observation alone casts a shadow of doubt on the Eastern attempt to minimize Rome’s authority, for it emerged from biased men with a motive to increase their own power in direct violation of the ancient canons of the church.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

Finally, Constantinople withdrew canon 28 in response to Rome’s urging. The historian Pierre Batiffol explained the process as follows:

“Can we forget that Pope Leo protested with such energy against the Canon; that the Emperor Marcian, in order to reconcile Pope Leo and Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, the originator of this contentious Canon, promised the Pope that the Bishop would give him all satisfaction; that Leo pressed the matter with the Emperor, saying specifically what Anatolius had to do to make satisfaction for his offense against the very laws of the Church; that the Emperor persuaded Anatolius to submit, and that in the end Anatolius wrote to Pope Leo that he had played no part in the drawing-up of the twenty-eighth Canon, that no one was responsible excepting the clerics who had proposed it, and the Bishops who had passed it, and that, besides, the confirmation of all the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon was reserved to the Pope, ‘since all the force and confirmation of its Acts have been reserved for the authority of your Holiness.’ The Bishop of Constantinople gave up the twenty-eighth Canon, …] and the last word was left to Pope Leo. Is this what we are to call [merely] ‘an honorary presidency?’” (“Catholicism and Papacy” 40-41).

Hence, I would suggest that the evidence sides with the more traditional view of Roman authority. Chalcedon retracted its canon and, in doing so, admitted that the pope alone had the authority to ratify and confirm the decrees of the ecumenical council.

 

[josephdaniel29]

Finally, Constantinople withdrew canon 28 in response to Rome’s urging. The historian Pierre Batiffol explained the process as follows:

“Can we forget that Pope Leo protested with such energy against the Canon; that the Emperor Marcian, in order to reconcile Pope Leo and Anatolius, Bishop of Constantinople, the originator of this contentious Canon, promised the Pope that the Bishop would give him all satisfaction; that Leo pressed the matter with the Emperor, saying specifically what Anatolius had to do to make satisfaction for his offense against the very laws of the Church; that the Emperor persuaded Anatolius to submit, and that in the end Anatolius wrote to Pope Leo that he had played no part in the drawing-up of the twenty-eighth Canon, that no one was responsible excepting the clerics who had proposed it, and the Bishops who had passed it, and that, besides, the confirmation of all the Acts of the Council of Chalcedon was reserved to the Pope, ‘since all the force and confirmation of its Acts have been reserved for the authority of your Holiness.’ The Bishop of Constantinople gave up the twenty-eighth Canon, …] and the last word was left to Pope Leo. Is this what we are to call [merely] ‘an honorary presidency?’” (“Catholicism and Papacy” 40-41).

Hence, I would suggest that the evidence sides with the more traditional view of Roman authority. Chalcedon retracted its canon and, in doing so, admitted that the pope alone had the authority to ratify and confirm the decrees of the ecumenical council.

I’ll respond by reposting one of my responses from a recent thread addressing the same issue.

Even if that is the case just the fact that the Canon was ratified by the Council and that the rest of the Church continued to operate as though the Canon were in effect is a fatal blow to modern papal claims. It shows unequivocally that the only people who had the inflated ideas of the papacy were the Pope himself and those in his Patriarchate (just like today). That flies in the face of the contention that papal authority was always accepted by the early Church. This Canon shows clearly that was not the case.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Ignatius33]

Continued…

In point 11, the letter makes the following statement “For, unless the Church of Christ was founded upon the immovable rock of St. Peter’s Confession, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God (which was the answer of the Apostles in common, when the question was put to them, Whom say ye that I am? (Matt. xvi. 15,) as the Fathers, both Eastern and Western, interpret the passage to us), the Church was built upon a slippery foundation.”

I gather the Eastern Fathers are here asserting that the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is not Peter himself (or his successors, the Popes), but rather, Peter’s confession of faith. I wonder, do the Orthodox still maintain this argument as a majority view today? Protestant scholars have basically given up on denying that Peter is the rock upon which Jesus built His Church. One is hardpressed to find any respected Protestant scholar that continues to make that argument.

In any event, I find this assertion completely unpersuasive on Scriptural grounds. Matthew 16:18-19 reads: “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build by church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” A number of things in this passage stick out to the Catholic.

First, Jesus here changes Simon’s name to Peter, which literally means “rock.” Any time God renames a person in the Bible, the name change signifies a new designation, a new commission and a new status (e.g., Abram “father”] to Abraham “father of nations”]; Sarai to Sarah; Jacob to Israel). Remarkably, Jesus (i.e., God) here gives the name “rock” to a man when, up to that point (as far as I know), only God Himself had been called “rock.” It is also worth pointing out that until that moment, the name “Peter” didn’t even exist – Jesus took the word for “rock” and turned it into a name for the first time in history (so far as we know). Furthermore, given Peter’s vacillating personality and human weaknesses and failings (e.g., Matt. 16:22-23; Matt. 26:69-75; Gal. 2:11-14), the term “rock” couldn’t have been meant to describe Peter’s personal character. Rather, Catholics believe that the term “rock” describes Peter’s special role in the Church (as well as that of his successors, the bishops of Rome). This is not to say that Catholics believe that Peter somehow “replaced” God as the ultimate rock or cornerstone. Rather, they believe that God allowed Peter to have a significant subordinate role in the earthly Church. Catholics believe that God is the head of the Catholic Church, but also believe that God gave the bishop of Rome – functioning as one body with all the other bishops (the successors of the Twelve Apostles) (Eph. 2:20) – actual authority over the Church on earth. In this sense, Peter, and by extension, the bishop of Rome, is the rock or touchstone of unity within the Body of Christ. Elsewhere, Jesus prayed that the Church would be “one” (Jn. 17:21). Such unity is impossible absent a tangible leadership. And because the prayers of a righteous person are “very powerful” (James 5:16) – and Jesus was perfectly righteous – it follows that His prayer must have come to pass. Today, worldwide unity exists in only one Christian church – the Catholic Church.

Second, it is clear from the context that Peter himself is the rock on which Jesus promised to build His Church. Initially, the grammatical structure of the passage establishes that Peter was the rock. The passage, read as a whole, involves a series of “you’s,” with Jesus repeatedly saying “But who do you say that I am?”; “Blessed are you”; “For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you”; “And I say to you”; you are Peter . . .” It would be odd for Jesus to be referring to Peter over and over again, but then to refer to something else entirely (e.g., Peter’s confession of faith or Jesus Himself) when He says “upon this rock.” Additionally, as a simple matter of grammar, the word “this” ordinarily refers back to the word immediately preceding it. Hence, the most sensible reading is that “this rock” refers to “Peter,” the noun immediately preceding the phrase.

Furthermore, the original Greek refers to Peter as “petros” and the rock as “petra.” Some non-Catholics posit that the difference in words proves that Jesus had two separate meanings, i.e., “petros” meaning “stone” or “little rock” and “petra” meaning “rock” or “big rock.” But the problem with that view is that it would have been entirely inappropriate to refer to Simon as “petra” (the ordinary word for rock in Greek), because one would never give a man a name using a feminine ending (“a”). It would be like calling Peter “Petrina,” a ridiculous transliteration. Rather, a masculine form would have to be used (ending in “os”), even if it meant using a less precise word, like “petros,” which was not normally used in Koine Greek. Therefore, it is only logical that the author employs the words “petros” and “petra” – he had no other choice based on the limitations of the Greek language. In any event, it would be confusing, to say the least, for Jesus to rename Simon to “rock” in that very passage, only to use the word “rock” again three words later intending to convey a completely different meaning.

continued…

 

[Ignatius33]

More importantly, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, not Greek, and thus He would have called Peter “Kepha,” which has only one form. Hence, when He actually spoke the words, He would have said: “You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha I will build my church” (some believe that the Gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew and only later translated into Greek, such that the petros/petra distinction wouldn’t have existed in the original text). We know for a fact that Jesus called him “Kepha” because both John and Paul refer to him as “Cephas” – the English transliteration of Kepha (Jn. 1:42; 1 Cor. 1:12).

Third, although Jesus later gives the Twelve Apostles the authoritative power of binding and loosing (Matt. 18:18), He gives the “keys to the kingdom of heaven” (i.e., the keys to the Church) to Peter alone. Catholics believe that these keys connote primacy and authoritative teaching. Jesus’ bestowal of the keys to the kingdom of heaven on Peter is a clear allusion to Isaiah 22:20-22, where God gave a similar “key” to Eliakim, granting him authority as the chief steward of the kingdom of Israel, second in power only to the king himself. In Isaiah 22:22, God says: “I will place a key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.”

Aside from conveying the idea of authority, the imagery of keys also denotes both an office and a succession. In the old Davidic kingdom, when the chief steward – the key holder – died, a successor took over his role as the next steward. Given that the Gospel of Matthew repeatedly employs “kingdom” imagery, a first century Jewish audience would have readily understood Jesus’ bestowal of keys on Peter as an analogy to the passage in Isaiah. Indeed, inasmuch as the Old Testament merely prefigures the New and contains types and shadows of the better things to come, the office of chief steward can be seen as a mere foreshadowing or prefiguring of the pope’s role in the Church. The pope therefore functions as a sort of chief steward or prime minister in the restored Davidic kingdom, under the King who reigns in Heaven. It makes no sense to think that God gave Peter these keys, with all they entail, intending that they should be buried with Peter upon his death. God certainly foreknew that Jesus’ Second Coming would not occur immediately (even if the disciples didn’t realize it) and, therefore, it is no great leap to believe that He intended for Peter’s keys to be held by his successors, the bishops of Rome. Certainly, the Church would be in greater (not less) need of a physical leader to maintain the unity of the Church over the course of time, after the original Apostles were long gone.

Finally, it cannot be overemphasized that Jesus intertwined the indefectibility of the Church with the rock, Peter, in the *very same *verse of the Bible (Matt. 16:18). On this point, the Bible seems pretty clear (to me anyway) that Peter was the leader of the Apostles. If that is so, and if apostolic succession is true (as the Orthodox maintain), why is it such a stretch to believe that Peter’s leadership position would extend to his apostolic successors?

I think it is worth quoting St. Thomas Aquinas again here: “But if any will have it that the one Head and one Shepherd is Christ, that being the one Spouse of the one Church, his view is inadequate to the facts. For clearly Christ Himself gives effect to the Sacraments of the Church – He it is who baptizes, He forgives sins, He is the true Priest who has offered Himself on the altar of the cross, and by His power His Body is daily consecrated at our altars – nevertheless, because He was not to be present in bodily shape with all His faithful, He chose ministers and would dispense His gifts to His faithful people through their hands. And by reason of the same future absence it was needful for Him to issue His commission to some one to take care of the universal Church in His stead. Hence He said to Peter before His Ascension, ‘Feed my sheep’ (Jn. 21:1) and before His Passion, ‘Thou in thy turn confirm thy brethren’ (Lk. 22:32); and to him alone He made the promise, ‘To thee I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 16:19) . . . Nor can it be said that although He gave this dignity to Peter, it does not pass from Peter to others . For Christ instituted His Church to last to the end of the world, according to the text: ‘He shall sit upon the throne of David and in his kingdom, to confirm and strengthen it in justice and judgment and henceforth, now, and forever’ (Is. 9:7). Therefore, in constituting His ministers for the time, He intended their power to pass to posterity for the benefit of His Church to the end of the world, as He Himself says: ‘Lo, I am with you to the end of the world’ (Matt. 28:20) . . . Hereby is cast out the presumptuous error of some, who endeavor to withdraw themselves from obedience and subjection to Peter, not recognizing his successor, the Roman Pontiff, for the pastor of the Universal Church” (Summa Contra Gentiles Book IV, ch. 76).

 

[prodromos]

Thanks for the letter, I’ve never read that before. I’ll only respond to a couple of points (unfortunately, the reply thread won’t let me quote the relevant portions for some reason, so bear with me).

Just copy the relevant text and paste in a text editor (like notepad if using windows) before clicking the “Quote” button, then copy/paste the relevant bits of the text you wish to refer to into your reply surrounded by quote ] /quote] tags (without the spaces)

John