Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[joe371]

I never said the writers wrote infallibly.

How do I discuss this with you without the concept of infallibility clouding your vision?

When teaching and writing via the guidance of the HS, were the apostles immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to His Church?

 

[ConstantineTG]

When teaching and writing via the guidance of the HS, were the apostles immune from fallacy or liability to error in expounding matters of faith or morals by virtue of the promise made by Christ to His Church?

No, they are not. That is why Jesus chose 12, they are checks and balances against each other, equally.

 

[joe371]

No, they are not. That is why Jesus chose 12, they are checks and balances against each other, equally.

Wow. That is just one more reason I am catholic…:shrug:And I am not being flippant…just truthful…BTW, clearly I never said that they were infallible…

 

[Cavaradossi]

Wow. That is just one more reason I am catholic…:shrug:And I am not being flippant…just truthful…BTW, clearly I never said that they were infallible…

The position of Orthodoxy and of the Fathers is that the Scriptures, being inspired by God, were written infallibly and are free from error. It is true that the Apostles themselves could err, but under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, certain writings of theirs, which have been received by the Tradition of the Church, were written infallibly, and are themselves inerrant, containing no errors. The Orthodox do not disagree that the Ecumenical Councils were in some sense inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thereby protected from error. The difference between the popular Roman Catholic understanding of infallibility and the Orthodox understanding is that we do not believe that there are a set of criteria which can allow us to discern what has been taught infallibly (and indeed, the rather constant debating by Roman Catholics even here at CAF over whether doctrine X of Ecumenical Council Y was taught infallibly seems to indicate that the idea is nonsensical), but rather there is a general unfolding or revealing through history (that is to say, the economy of Salvation) which shows forth certain teachings and conciliar decisions to be true and God-inspired (and thus they truly are shown to be ‘catholic’, in the sense of the original Greek, being ‘according to the whole’).

I do not presume to speak for Constantine, but I do not think that the two of you are communicating rather effectively here, seeming instead to be talking past each other. I do not think he wishes necessarily to deny that the Apostles and the Fathers could have been inspired at certain times by gracious acts of the Holy Spirit to write and teach without error, but rather I think he wishes to deny the epistemological claim that we can recognize something to be without error if it matches a certain set of criteria.

 

[Steveabrous]

Did the Church change after Ignatius? If not then the Eucharist is still the bishops primary role.

And ,again, I disagree that the writings of Ignatius support that position.

.

Second stating the truth is different than claiming infallibility.

How do we know who has the truth and who doesn’t? lots of people claim to have the truth

Just because the Orthodox believe that The first seven councils taught the truth, even without error, doesn’t amount to infallibility.

infallibility means without error. If they believe the first 7 councils are without error then they are infallible

Arguing that the truth is unknowable without the pope encourages a systematic doubt. That is a characteristic of many of the arguments around here for papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. Maybe I falsy characterized your argument though.

Again, how do you know who has the truth unless there is an authority with the final say. Your agument would work accept without the Pope christians come up with all kinds of errors that they believe to be the truth.

So yes, truth is unknowable without the system Jesus established to know the truth.

 

[rfournier103]

Orthodoxy is the Christian topic I know the least about.

That being said, is the difference between Orthodoxy and Latin Catholicism (and all of it’s Rites) just a matter of hierarchy? Or is that an over-simplification?

I am just now dipping my toe into the “Orthodox pool”. I wish to learn more about Orthodoxy, because I have had NO exposure to it intil I came to CAF. I am a Latin Catholic of the Roman Rite, and happy to be so, but I wish to learn about Christianity in general, and why we are who we are.

May I assume that the Schism is a result of a dispute over authority? Or is it something else?

If it IS a dispute over authority, is this WHY the Orthodox don’t view the Supreme/Roman Pontiff as supreme?

Also, is there a Patriarch that has authority over most of the Orthodox world? A ‘Patriarch of the East’? If so, where does HE fit into all this?

 

[Boulder257]

I don’t think the OP was directing her question solely to Orthodox.

She asks “what justification does the Pope have for universal jurisdiction over the whole church”?

That is a question for Catholics. Additionally this is the Apologetics Thread for the Catholic faith.

Hah, this is rich considering the number of times someone has asked for a Catholic perspective and you respond with, " The Orthodox view is…"

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Cavaradossi;10916552]The position of Orthodoxy and of the Fathers is that the Scriptures, being inspired by God, were written infallibly and are free from error. It is true that the Apostles themselves could err, but under the guidance and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, certain writings of theirs, which have been received by the Tradition of the Church, were written infallibly, and are themselves inerrant, containing no errors.

When these are handed down to us through the apostolic successors, the Catholic Church references these teachings as being “divinely revealed”, and when they have come under attack the Magesterium (councils) endowed with this charism of Infallibility proposes them as doctrine divinely revealed to be the teachings of Christ. “This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself” CCC 891

The Orthodox do not disagree that the Ecumenical Councils were in some sense inspired by the Holy Spirit, and thereby protected from error.

CCC 892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter…when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner”, they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals…which, thou distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

The difference between the popular Roman Catholic understanding of infallibility and the Orthodox understanding is that we do not believe that there are a set of criteria which can allow us to discern what has been taught infallibly

Be careful that statement can be the blind leading the blind. Criteria? The full deposit of faith begins the criteria. First, the Church is catholic because Christ is present in her. “Where there is Christ Jesus, there is the Catholic Church” (ST.Ignatius of Antioch)

CCC 834 Particular Churches are fully catholic though their communion with one of them, the Church of Rome “which presides in charity”. “For with this church, by reason of it’s pre-eminence, the whole Church, that is the faithful everywhere, must necessarily be in accord” (St.Ignatius of Antioch)

"Let all follow the bishop, as Jesus Christ follows his Father, and the college of presbyters as the apostles; respect the deacons as you do God’s law. Let no one do anything concerning the Church in separation from the bishop" (St.Ignatius of Antioch) writing pre-Constantinople

Once the authoritative source is established Jesus Christ himself, the divine revelations which are written or handed down by Oral and practiced from Sacred Tradition, sets’ up the boundaries from which “infallibility” is sustained. All things are measured from these.

If I proclaim “Christ Crucified” it is not an infallible statement. When Peter and or with the college of bishops proclaim “Christ crucified” it becomes an infallible statement without error for all the faithful to adhere to this infallible Truth.

I don’t pretend to define the criteria here. But I do know that Jesus Christ is Truth infallible. And where Jesus Christ is, there is the catholic Church.

(and indeed, the rather constant debating by Roman Catholics even here at CAF over whether doctrine X of Ecumenical Council Y was taught infallibly seems to indicate that the idea is nonsensical)

I think you miss the point of Councils and pronounced doctrine as definitive divine revelations and teachings of Christ infallible which defeats and has defeated heresies that attacked these infallible teachings of Jesus Christ.

Thus Just like the development of the Trinity doctrine defeated Nestorian’s and Arians. The doctrine of Infallibility was pronounced to defeat Pantheism, naturalism, socialism, communism, freemasonry and other forms of religious liberalism, these were infecting the church from both inside and outside.

Infallibility is not "non-sensical, just as the triinity doctrine is not non-sensical proclaimed by the Church as infallibly without error. These have always been revealed from our catholic faith from the revelations and teachings of Jesus Christ.

but** rather there is a general unfolding or revealing through history (that is to say, the economy of Salvation) which shows forth certain teachings and conciliar decisions to be true and God-inspired **(and thus they truly are shown to be ‘catholic’, in the sense of the original Greek, being ‘according to the whole’).

Your comment agree’s with the Church’s teaching on the progression and development of knowledge and understanding of the already existing infallible teachings and revelations of Jesus Christ that cannot be changed. But our knowledge and understanding of them can develope and grow in and through out ages, through different languages, cultures, understandings. For example; the Trinity doctrine.

If it were not for our apostolic faith coming underattack, we would still be holding to the Trinity doctrine without ever using the word Trinity to define our faith. Trinity, Infallibility, purgatory, Immaculate conception all follow the apostolic Sacred Traditions interpreted by the Church through the Sacred Scripture.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Orthodoxy is the Christian topic I know the least about.

That being said, is the difference between Orthodoxy and Latin Catholicism (and all of it’s Rites) just a matter of hierarchy? Or is that an over-simplification?

It is an oversimplification. There are a lot of doctrinal beliefs that are different.

I am just now dipping my toe into the “Orthodox pool”. I wish to learn more about Orthodoxy, because I have had NO exposure to it intil I came to CAF. I am a Latin Catholic of the Roman Rite, and happy to be so, but I wish to learn about Christianity in general, and why we are who we are.

May I assume that the Schism is a result of a dispute over authority? Or is it something else?

It was a long list of things. Papal Authority was just the needle that broke the camel’s back.

If it IS a dispute over authority, is this WHY the Orthodox don’t view the Supreme/Roman Pontiff as supreme?

Because it never existed in the First Millennium.

Also, is there a Patriarch that has authority over most of the Orthodox world? A ‘Patriarch of the East’? If so, where does HE fit into all this?

No, there is none. People falsely believe the Ecumenical Patriarch is the “Orthodox Pope”. He is not. His “powers” are nowhere near what the Pope has, even in his own autocephalous Church.

 

[bzkoss236]

Because it never existed in the First Millennium.

I believe that this is where the real crux of the debate lies. The Orthodox say it never existed, and the Catholics say it did.

 

[Nicea325]

I reject your understanding of them.

And the ECF reject yours in regards to the See of Rome. You adhere to a Post-Constantinople position-sorry,but you do.

 

[Nicea325]

Originally Posted by ConstantineTG
Because it never existed in the First Millennium.

According to Post-Constantinople Orthodox,but not according to the words of the ECF in the first 1,000 years. If it did not exist, then kindly show us the other tradition that existed in the first 1,000 years?

 

[Boulder257]

I believe that this is where the real crux of the debate lies. The Orthodox say it never existed, and the Catholics say it did.

Exactly.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bzkoss236
I believe that this is where the real crux of the debate lies. The Orthodox say it never existed, and the Catholics say it did.

According to Post-Constantinople Orthodox. The argument revolves around interpretation of specific terms: primacy,supreme,etc,etc.

The real question is:

Do the ECF from the East express the same understanding as current Orthodox?

I find nothing from Pre-Constantinople ECF’s West or East expressing a different understanding. Don’t you think if the ECF’s had a different understanding of the papacy as the head, they would have expressed it in their writings? Their writings would have clashed and contradicted each other? I find nothing of the kind,moreover, I find more unity and cohesiveness,than ambiguity.

 

[TheSufi]

I believe that this is where the real crux of the debate lies. The Orthodox say it never existed, and the Catholics say it did.

How do you prove one side and disprove the other side? What historical document would you need to prove it?

Well there were several churches that were started by disciples of Jesus.

The Greek Orthodox Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Andrew.
The Antiochian/Syrian Orthodox Church back to Peter.
The Ethiopian Orthodox Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Philip.
The Indian (Malankara) Orthodox Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Thomas.
The Coptic Orthodox Churchback to the disciple of Jesus, Mark. (And I believe these Christians have their own Pope as well.)
The Roman Catholic Church back to the disciple of Jesus, Peter as well.

So is there any proof that any of these other Churches recognized the Catholic Papacy before the schism? And how come these other Churches don’t call themselves Catholic?

How come these churches are not united, yet they all recite the Nicene Creed? Perhaps at one time they were communicating since they agree on the Nicene Creed.

It seems like a very complicated issue.

 

[LionHeart777]

Some at least include,

The Bible, the Canons and documents of the Ecumenical Councils (at least those which both sides deem to be Ecumenical), and the writings of the Early Church Fathers.

 

[Nine_Two]

According to Post-Constantinople Orthodox,but not according to the words of the ECF in the first 1,000 years. If it did not exist, then kindly show us the other tradition that existed in the first 1,000 years?

You’re just going to keep repeating the same question over and over until you get the answer you want, aren’t you?

 

[ConstantineTG]

According to Post-Constantinople Orthodox,but not according to the words of the ECF in the first 1,000 years. If it did not exist, then kindly show us the other tradition that existed in the first 1,000 years?

Gladly. It is the one that exists in the Orthodox Church today.

 

[Nicea325]

You’re just going to keep repeating the same question over and over until you get the answer you want, aren’t you?

I beg your pardon? I have yet to get an answer. Again, what other tradition existed?

 

[Nicea325]

Gladly. It is the one that exists in the Orthodox Church today.

Really? I see no such support from any ECF Pre-Constantinople supporting your position the first 1,000 years. I’ll b be more than glad to read their writings supporting the current Orthodox position. If it exised in the first 1,000 years as you claim, how odd the ECF say very little supporting it and leaning towards your argument?