Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

  • Thread starter Thread starter God_Seeker_1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
josie_L said:
William Palmer was not wrong, he was as he himself believed, validly baptized and the idea of having to be rebaptized was sacrilege to him (to God as well if validly baptized Christians were being rebaptized). The fact that there was, still is, no uniformity between autocephalous Orthodox churches on such a pertinent issue, even though Pope St. Stephen thought it important enough to use excommunication to attain uniformity, even though the Bible states that there should be only “one baptism” . . . ., even though it would be sacrilege to rebaptize those already marked by God. . . And by uniformity, I mean to be “one”, you know one of the apostolic marks of the true Church. This is why I said initially to seek uniformity through an ecumenical council because it defies all reasoning to accept some Catholics by chrismation (which by the way is still sacrilege) and others by rebaptism. Catholics are Catholics everywhere throughout the world.

Do you notice that it is not some Cathari, or some Novatians, or some Sabbatians who will be received by being sealed or anointed with the holy oil upon the forehead, eyes, . . . but all? There is not vacillation, there is no confusion, the Church affirmatively states what must be done.
Click to expand...
“Rebaptism” isn’t a second baptism, don’t forget that. Those who would “rebaptize” believe that the first baptism is invalid, thus there was no first baptism. Or that the first baptism wasn’t the Baptism into Christ. For example, those who would just accept a Trinitarian Formula baptism may miss the fact that some who do use the Trinitarian formula do not believe in a Baptism for the remission of sins. Evangelicals believe that baptism is just an act commanded by Christ for us to do, but it has no bearing whatsoever in our salvation. Do we accept that baptism? In Roman Catholic theology there is a requirement that the baptism must have the proper intent. If those who baptize have no intention that the baptism is “putting on Christ” and “for the remission of sins,” then how can it be the same baptism? And that is where the debate is today. Because in the past, heretics believed in the same baptism as the Orthodox. There were other theological issues that they disagreed on, but baptism was generally understood clearly. But today there are many congregations who do not view baptism the same way as Orthodox and Catholics do. Is the formula enough to validate a baptism? Some has the opinion that it does not. And that question hasn’t been answered by the Fathers of the Church because this specific question did not arise during their time.
 
God_Seeker said:
ConstanteTG,

Your logic can also pose the question of why the NT does not set up instructions for a post-apostolic government if a post-apostolic government is so essential.

Given that there is no evidence in the NT for a post-apostolic government, and given your logic that such things essential must be written in the new testament, that we can make up our own post-apostolic government based off the elementary knowledge of bishop and deacons, in addition to whatever tradition and rule of faith we like.

Do you see the problem with your logic here?
Click to expand...
We agree that Church ecclesiology developed over time, and that it is not dogmatic. We do know, and this is scriptural, that every Church is headed by a bishop. Now, whether the bishops organize into juridical synods, or a one-world-wide synod, that is something of a development. But having a bishop in each Church is basic to what a Church is because that is based on Scripture and teaching of the Church Fathers.

A quick look at history would show that Metropolitans and Patriarchs were a later innovation, and thus we can always eliminate them today if we think we do not need them anymore.
 
God_Seeker said:
But since knowledge of the truth in our human world is varied and even contradictory when equally holy and pious and traditional people (Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholics), then it must mean that knowledge of truth is either entirely impossible, though partially possible, or there is some means to the knowledge of truth obtained by the methodology of one of these four groups (Anglicans, Lutherans, Orthodox, Catholic), or finally neither of these four have the knowledge of the truth entirely or even partially enough to form unity.

And be sure that unity is something essential to Christ’s Church (Acts 15, 1 Cor 1). Jesus Christ is not divided.
Click to expand...
There is only one truth. That is why we must rely on Tradition to find what the truth is. We cannot know more than what has been handed down to us, that is a simple formula the Orthodox live by. If the Apostles did not teach us anything, either through the Traditions they handed down to us or through Scripture (Orthodoxy sees Scripture as a subset of Tradition), then we cannot know. We believe God handed down the complete set of revelation to the Apostles, that is, all that we need to know. Anything beyond that, either it is error or it is unimportant.

As for unity, St. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 11 that there has to be divisions among the Church to prove who has God’s approval. So while unity is important, unity must be based on truth, not an alliance of compromise. We should never sacrifice truth.
 
josie_L said:
If all history is mythologized than the Bible is bogus. :eek:
Click to expand...
Mythologized doesn’t mean that its bogus. This concept of everything must be told the same exact way it happened to the smallest detail is a modern innovation that can be traced to the Protestant Reformation. Before that, history keeping was different and such profound languages and stories were accepted as part of how history was recorded.
 
ConstantineTG said:
There is only one truth. That is why we must rely on Tradition to find what the truth is. We cannot know more than what has been handed down to us, that is a simple formula the Orthodox live by. If the Apostles did not teach us anything, either through the Traditions they handed down to us or through Scripture (Orthodoxy sees Scripture as a subset of Tradition), then we cannot know. We believe God handed down the complete set of revelation to the Apostles, that is, all that we need to know. Anything beyond that, either it is error or it is unimportant.
Click to expand...
see how much our churches have in common. :amen:
 
ConstantineTG said:
There is only one truth. That is why we must rely on Tradition to find what the truth is. We cannot know more than what has been handed down to us, that is a simple formula the Orthodox live by. If the Apostles did not teach us anything, either through the Traditions they handed down to us or through Scripture (Orthodoxy sees Scripture as a subset of Tradition), then we cannot know. We believe God handed down the complete set of revelation to the Apostles, that is, all that we need to know. Anything beyond that, either it is error or it is unimportant.
Click to expand...
But you see, how can the Church know what has been handed down to us (in full) when a majority of bishops disagree with each other, and then a decision has to be made ratifying a balance view, and when this process repeats itself? This is what we have today in the totality of Orthodoxy. So your commitment to know only what has been handed down is not justified because your ecclesiology allows for all human beings to err grievously, and therefore all are to be viewed with a prepared scan of criticism and correction. This itself is not a bad thing at all, but from the Roman Catholic standpoint, even if a catholic wishes to be prepared to correct, rebuke, etc,etc…he at least still knows that even in the midst of this the Church is the bulwark and foundation of the truth, and therefore he knows he has limits to his authority and divine correctness.

2,000 years ago if you asked St. Ireneaus “Sir, how do I know where to go if I want to worship Jesus Christ in a Church?”. St. Ireneaus would respond “To the Bishop of your region who is Catholic and who succeeds in unbroken ordination back to the 12 apostles”.
It was the bishops which drew the boundary markers of where “church” is. And as Orthodox writers have rightly seen, as Philip Sherrard (The Papacy, The Church, and Schism) written well (including John Zizoulmas- misspell Im sure), this is because it is the function of the bishop to preside over the Eucharistic sacrifice which brings the real presence (spiritual and bodily) of Jesus our Lord into the local spot of the worshippers. This represents the true catholicity of the church, wherever Christ is. Amen.

So we have an established and indisputable fact, namely, that the Catholic Church believed herself to be one visible and outwardly unified holy communion of people who are earthly governed by the bishops of the Church, who are given the sacrament of holy ordination. Now the Orthodox (modern) may have a problem with this word “govern”, since it puts a distinction between the bishop and the laity. However, I will briefly say that for some reason the orthodox today have uninstalled the bishop from a place of ecclesiastical authority to being that of a co-operate member of the laity simply functioning to bring in the Eucharist. But can this be supported by Tradition? That the bishop’s authority is not “over” the local parish but rather is a tool of service in, from, and with, merely? I beg to differ. The Bishop has the role of governing the body of Christ, which includes the power of binding/loosing, excommunication, restoration to communion, etc,etc…
 
So, as the years moved forward, the Bishops understood themselves as representing, not an accidental schematic of ecclesial government, but the divine law of Christ for post-apostolic governance of the one Church of Christ. This fact in and of itself is open to refutation by all protestants (minus Anglicans). But really, I would like to call the Orthodox to explain how they can maintain this fundamental truth? If it is true that the Church understood the bishops to be the visible representation of the post-apostolic governance of the one holy Church, then this means they believed that the Church was visibly one and outwardly unified, and not so on accidental terms.

You see, what I notice in the orthodox view is that the Church is christologically modeled (which catholics would not disagree with). But the orthodox have such a Christological view of the Church that it is possible for the Church on earth to be reduced to one person who has the truth. This is why I sense the same logic of argumentation from ConstantineTG and the writings of Martin Luther. The truth is the truth no matter what. All men can error. Therefore I submit myself to the truth. Martin Luther himself respected tradition (in no degree that the Orthodox do), but felt more compelled by the Scriptures. ConstantineTG seems to suggest this is where the truth comes from ultimately, for how can the bishops have infallibly handed down anything since they are all fallible, open to disagreement, and can schism from one another with no just conviction of sin even touching their conscience? If the truth is some invisible floating word that is only attainable by the individual, and there is no visible marker which guarentees it’s communication to the open world, then we are back into the protestant regime of the primacy of the individual conscience.

St. Augustine believed that the Church was outwardly unified and visibly one, and that such a format was to perpetuate the ages until Christ returns. This is why he argues in his “Sermon to the Catechumen” that the “Holy Church” is an article of faith. We believe in the Holy Church because it is managed by Christ himself who is invisible through the visibility of bishops. For Augustine, schism was immediately identifiable on the basis if you turned away from this one visible communion. But how can the orthodox sustain this ancient traditional view? They are split down many lines from each other, and condemn one another, and write endlessly on a variety of matters where each is open to correction and criticism. As I see this discussion, I see one orthodox commentator after the next saying things like “Ok that quote is not reliable” or “That was not accepted in Ecumenical Council” or “that’s not what it means in context”,etc,etc… Gentleman (and ladies) is this now what we hear from our protestant brothers and sisters when they are debating catholic faith (Of course minus the issue of ecumenical councils).

So here we are today. Where is this one visible outwardly unified communion to which St. Augustine, representing the faith of the faithers, believed to be perpetuated under the management of Jesus Christ until His return? We have three communions which all claim bishopric succession from the apostles but who all disagree with one another and believed that all sides have fallen into grievous error. What does this say to Ireneaus’ insistence on the truth being found in the teaching of the Bishops? Was he mistaken?

The unbiased inquirer has to look at these three communions (Anglicans, Orthodox, and Catholic) and then has to go to the end of the world in study of history, theology, tradition, sacrificing endless nights away from time with the family, avoiding the outside, and growing mad at immensity of the contradictory arguments between equally holy and pious men??? I beg you to know this is not what God intended. If we are to holy to the faith of our fathers, the Church is one and it is visible and therefore schism is clear. The formula is very simple. To argue otherwise, as many orthodox write very difficult and mystical material (almost impossible to understand without years of study), should be done to the repudiation of the doctrine of our catholic ancestors, not to their honor.
 
.As for unity, St. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 11 that there has to be divisions among the Church to prove who has God’s approval. So while unity is important, unity must be based on truth, not an alliance of compromise. We should never sacrifice truth.

St. Paul is not here justifying division in the body of Christ for the sake of the glory of God. I am shocked that an Orthodox would use such a commonly protestant point from this verse. What we mean is that Christ himself is not divided. Well if the church on earth is divided, how is she the body of Christ ConstantineTG? If Christ and the Church are really one thing, how can you hold common faith with the ancients believing that disunity is not just a possibility but a God-glorifying thing? St. Paul is not giving an article to the faith, he is simply saying that within the local body there are people who are being truly obedient to Christ and there are those who are selfish and in sin. Are we really to take what St. Paul said in the first chapter “I beseech you all the be of one mind and to speak the same thing” and then disbelieve this because there “has” to be divisions. What division in Paul’s own mind. Why no make division our common practice? But you will reply, “Of course Paul wishes unity across the board, but that does not mean it will always be a reality, in fact he says there has to be divisions”. Do you not see the degradation in the logic here. Paul argues that the church needs to be unified because Christ himself is unified. And the trinity is unified. The Church will always have sinners and saints, and those who are sinners will always be clear to all because of their far stance from those who are holy. This is the division that Paul says there has to be. Not the overall structure of the one Catholic Church.
 
ConstantineTG said:
“Rebaptism” isn’t a second baptism, don’t forget that. Those who would “rebaptize” believe that the first baptism is invalid, thus there was no first baptism. Or that the first baptism wasn’t the Baptism into Christ. For example, those who would just accept a Trinitarian Formula baptism may miss the fact that some who do use the Trinitarian formula do not believe in a Baptism for the remission of sins. Evangelicals believe that baptism is just an act commanded by Christ for us to do, but it has no bearing whatsoever in our salvation. Do we accept that baptism? In Roman Catholic theology there is a requirement that the baptism must have the proper intent. If those who baptize have no intention that the baptism is “putting on Christ” and “for the remission of sins,” then how can it be the same baptism? And that is where the debate is today. Because in the past, heretics believed in the same baptism as the Orthodox. There were other theological issues that they disagreed on, but baptism was generally understood clearly. But today there are many congregations who do not view baptism the same way as Orthodox and Catholics do. Is the formula enough to validate a baptism? Some has the opinion that it does not. And that question hasn’t been answered by the Fathers of the Church because this specific question did not arise during their time.
Click to expand...
I’ll put these questions to you: How do you explain why (Roman) Catholics are still received wily nily into Orthodoxy despite the fact that our baptism is performed in the same manner with the same intent? And again, if some Orthodox bishops believe that Catholics are validly baptized while others in your church do not, which is it?

p.s. I know re-baptism is not meant to be a second baptism, however, there are I’m sure many cases wherein validly baptized Christians (insert Catholics) have been baptized a second time, thereby contradicting the Word of God.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Mythologized doesn’t mean that its bogus. This concept of everything must be told the same exact way it happened to the smallest detail is a modern innovation that can be traced to the Protestant Reformation. Before that, history keeping was different and such profound languages and stories were accepted as part of how history was recorded.
Click to expand...
The Bible is an account of salvation history (inspired by God), so when someone says “history is mythologized” then, yes, the logical conclusion drawn is that the Bible has also been “mythologized”, i.e., it’s bogus. Myth has very little truth attached to it.

p.s. I’m not saying this is what you meant but be careful the words you choose.
 
I keep hearing about these Orthodox bishops who can’t agree about anything, but no one ever says what they can’t agree about. They sure seem to be in agreement on doctrine.
 
God_Seeker said:
Hello everyone,

Lately I have been giving great attention to the issue which separates Orthodox christians from Roman Catholic, and this attention has caused great concern for the claims which the Roman Popes are making from the point of schism onward. What justification does the Pope have for universal jurisdiction over the whole church? The Orthodox understand that Peter has a primacy of honor, as first among equals, but it remains that he is an equal. It seems as though the teaching that the Pope has universal jurisdiction over the whole church comes later on in the history of the Church, but maybe there is clear justification. Anyone?
Click to expand...
In my humble opinion the reason for continued serperation has nothing to day with the the original schism.
 
God_Seeker said:
As for unity, St. Paul wrote in 1 Cor 11 that there has to be divisions among the Church to prove who has God’s approval. So while unity is important, unity must be based on truth, not an alliance of compromise. We should never sacrifice truth.

St. Paul is not here justifying division in the body of Christ for the sake of the glory of God. I am shocked that an Orthodox would use such a commonly protestant point from this verse. What we mean is that Christ himself is not divided. Well if the church on earth is divided, how is she the body of Christ ConstantineTG? If Christ and the Church are really one thing, how can you hold common faith with the ancients believing that disunity is not just a possibility but a God-glorifying thing? St. Paul is not giving an article to the faith, he is simply saying that within the local body there are people who are being truly obedient to Christ and there are those who are selfish and in sin. Are we really to take what St. Paul said in the first chapter “I beseech you all the be of one mind and to speak the same thing” and then disbelieve this because there “has” to be divisions. What division in Paul’s own mind. Why no make division our common practice? But you will reply, “Of course Paul wishes unity across the board, but that does not mean it will always be a reality, in fact he says there has to be divisions”. Do you not see the degradation in the logic here. Paul argues that the church needs to be unified because Christ himself is unified. And the trinity is unified. The Church will always have sinners and saints, and those who are sinners will always be clear to all because of their far stance from those who are holy. This is the division that Paul says there has to be. Not the overall structure of the one Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
If you would like to read a book that touches upon this subject of unity/universality while taking into regard scripture, read Emeritus Pope Benedict’s book “Called to Communion”; he states that the Church was universal from the moment of her birth (Pentecost):

"Luke expresses with this image the fact that at the moment of her birth, the Church was already catholic, already a world Church. Luke thus rules out a conception in which a local Church first arose in Jerusalem and then became the base for the gradual establishment of other local Churches that eventually grew into a federation. Luke tells us that the reverse is true: what first exists is the one Church, the Church that speaks in all tongues - the ecclesia universalis; she then generates Church in the most diverse locales, which nonetheless are all always embodiments of the one and holy Church. The temporal and ontological priority lies with the universal Church; a Church that was not catholic would not even have ecclesial reality. . . "
 
josie_L said:
I’ll put these questions to you: How do you explain why (Roman) Catholics are still received wily nily into Orthodoxy despite the fact that our baptism is performed in the same manner with the same intent? And again, if some Orthodox bishops believe that Catholics are validly baptized while others in your church do not, which is it?

p.s. I know re-baptism is not meant to be a second baptism, however, there are I’m sure many cases wherein validly baptized Christians (insert Catholics) have been baptized a second time, thereby contradicting the Word of God.
Click to expand...
Again, those who rebaptize do not believe in the validity of the first baptism, so as far as they are concerned, no one is contradicting to God’s word.

Truth be told, I’m not sure of the exact arguments of those who rebaptize Roman Catholics. I was received by Chrismation. My best guess is that it has something to do with the Filioque, and that because of what RCs believe about the Trinity they would conclude that the baptism is not in the name of the True Holy Trinity.

My own priest would “rebaptize” Evangelicals and all those who believe that baptism is not salvific, regardless of formula they use. That is because they do not have the proper “intent”, to spell it out in RC parlance.
 
Peter_J said:
Attacking Orthodoxy is one of the few prejudices that are still acceptable. (Attacking Catholicism is another.)
Click to expand...
Sadly, I’m guessing no one is going to be able to inform me about what the bishops are disagreeing about.
 
God_Seeker said:
But you see, how can the Church know what has been handed down to us (in full) when a majority of bishops disagree with each other, and then a decision has to be made ratifying a balance view, and when this process repeats itself? This is what we have today in the totality of Orthodoxy. So your commitment to know only what has been handed down is not justified because your ecclesiology allows for all human beings to err grievously, and therefore all are to be viewed with a prepared scan of criticism and correction. This itself is not a bad thing at all, but from the Roman Catholic standpoint, even if a catholic wishes to be prepared to correct, rebuke, etc,etc…he at least still knows that even in the midst of this the Church is the bulwark and foundation of the truth, and therefore he knows he has limits to his authority and divine correctness.
Click to expand...
We know what the teachings are. Again, we have tradition. But the Bishops will have to decide today how this tradition applies to today. Our situation today is much different than it was in the early Church. It is much different 100 years ago. For example, in the past we can keep the deepest mysteries of our faith a secret from the rest. If you read the Bible, if you read the Fathers, evangelizing has a certain process where we begin with the basics and teach people about Christ, and we don’t start answering details about Sacraments and Mary and the Saints and all that until that person has been educated enough and ready to learn more about the faith. Today, everyone knows something about ancient Christianity. They know about the Eucharist, they know about the Sacraments, they know about Mary and the Saints. So an inquiring atheist will jump over the basic stuff and start asking about all these things which are easier explained if one has good foundations on the faith. But we have to deal with the situation differently today because the world acts differently. Christianity isn’t a secret anymore and a lot of what we do is known out there, even though the perception may be incorrect, but they have a basic understanding. So, how can the writings of the Fathers apply? And today, there is a general acceptance of the different kinds of Christianity that arose from the Reformation, again, a completely new and different situation. Back then there were no Christians outside of the visible ecclesiology of the Church. Those who would teach heresy are members of the Church who would then eventually be cut off. But today so many “teachers” are out there who talk about the Christian faith one way or another, but they are part of another Christian group. But their influence is far reaching, be it TV, radio, books, magazines, blogs, etc. The Fathers never dealt with anything like this. Back then, once someone is thrown outside the Church, the lines are visible and clear, and regardless of what they do or say, they are not regarded as Christian anymore. Today the lines are blurry, and people are easily confused by all these conflicting messages. We can’t go back to Scripture or Tradition to find a clear word-for-word solution to our current issues. But we can derive from Tradition how this is to be dealt with, and this is where the discussion happens. Is our proposed solution in line with the spirit of what the Apostles and the Fathers taught? That is the most important thing, that we refer back and prove that we are being consistent with the faith despite the new challenges.
God_Seeker said:
2,000 years ago if you asked St. Ireneaus “Sir, how do I know where to go if I want to worship Jesus Christ in a Church?”. St. Ireneaus would respond “To the Bishop of your region who is Catholic and who succeeds in unbroken ordination back to the 12 apostles”.
It was the bishops which drew the boundary markers of where “church” is. And as Orthodox writers have rightly seen, as Philip Sherrard (The Papacy, The Church, and Schism) written well (including John Zizoulmas- misspell Im sure), this is because it is the function of the bishop to preside over the Eucharistic sacrifice which brings the real presence (spiritual and bodily) of Jesus our Lord into the local spot of the worshippers. This represents the true catholicity of the church, wherever Christ is. Amen.
Click to expand...
And that is still true today. Ecclesiology is about governance, not worship. Even the difference between the First and Third Centuries are huge. There weren’t that many Christians in the First Century, but there were a lot by the Third. And Bishops needed a better way to be able to teach the faith in a more consistent basis through constant dialogue among themselves. The Apostles themselves were synodal, and you can see in Acts 15 that a council is used to resolve problems that the Church faces. The ranks basically just organizes the bishops into synods and orders them on who has primacy in the synod.
 
God_Seeker said:
So we have an established and indisputable fact, namely, that the Catholic Church believed herself to be one visible and outwardly unified holy communion of people who are earthly governed by the bishops of the Church, who are given the sacrament of holy ordination. Now the Orthodox (modern) may have a problem with this word “govern”, since it puts a distinction between the bishop and the laity. However, I will briefly say that for some reason the orthodox today have uninstalled the bishop from a place of ecclesiastical authority to being that of a co-operate member of the laity simply functioning to bring in the Eucharist. But can this be supported by Tradition? That the bishop’s authority is not “over” the local parish but rather is a tool of service in, from, and with, merely? I beg to differ. The Bishop has the role of governing the body of Christ, which includes the power of binding/loosing, excommunication, restoration to communion, etc,etc…
Click to expand...
The Orthodox do not have a problem with “govern”, I think that is a better word than “rule”. If you think in football, the quarterback calls the plays and tells his team what they will do on offense. But that doesn’t mean he is more of a player than the other players, it doesn’t mean the other players are subordinate to him. That is how the Orthodox sees the Church. The bishops are leaders, but they are not rulers. At least they are not meant to be.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top