Orthodox View of the Primacy of Peter

[ConstantineTG]

Hey. Constantine and Godseeker; If sacred scripture lists the first 3 Popes; Peter, Linus, Anacletus and then is supported by sacred Tradition from St.Irenaeus apology against heresies see below, wouldn’t this be considered a deposit of faith?

There is nothing in your post that says Peter held the Episcopate. Further, there is nothing that says of any supreme, infallible power being bestowed upon Linus. For example, the Apostolic Constitutions lists Linus as the first Bishop of Rome.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I believe you are missing a key component of my argument. You have conceded that the claim of the Popes (from your view) is that the Papacy was established by Divine right, since the mid 4th century. It is not just a matter of these words being said (and I personally don’t believe the point you made with the Coptic Pope is convincing). But according to you the Roman Popes were teaching heresy since the mid 4th century… how would the East even commune with them if that is so let alone St. Theodore say such things?

I said there was a claim, I never said I’ve conceded to it as fact. It’s true there is a claim, the same way that there is a claim that the Church apostatized after the death of St. John the Apostle and some guy from the 1800s or 1900s (depends which group you belong to) was given divine revelation to restore the True Church. It’s a claim, doesn’t mean its true. Just because a claim is old does not make it more credible or any real.

My argument is not based on the one line I highlighted (nor is that of the Catholic Church.) This one line is though, an example of what I see repeatedly. If you believe the same praise is bestowed upon a Bishop saying his See has being the fountain of orthodoxy from the beginning, I would ask you to cite your source? (Obviously, you know I believe the Pope can’t error when speaking ex cathedra, but perhaps a topic for another thread.) Again, please cite a source where such praises (the fountain of orthodoxy) are bestowed upon another. On top of that, in regards to the Divine Origin of the Papacy, I have cited an Eastern source (Theodore Abu Qurrah) where the Pope was not being spoken to. There was also Pope St Stephen (via Firmilian) and Pope Damasus I (if you accept the attribution of that part of the “Decree of Damasus” to him.)

Here is one Easterner (albeit the laity) speaking to another:

The Empress Placidia to Theodosius:

‘according to the decree of the decision…of the Apostolic Chair, which in like manner we venerate as the head of matters…, the judgment be referred to the synod of the apostolic throne, in which he who was counted worthy to receive the keys of heaven first adorned the episcopal rule…’

(Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott. London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 188).

Just a note: where I have added (…) was me taking out the Greek words given in parenthesis.

Also:

"To the Empress Pulcheria, Placidia also wrote that the question might be referred to [quoting Placidia]

‘the apostolic throne, in which the most blessed of the apostles, Peter, who received the keys of heaven, first adorned the High Priesthood.’"

(Ibid.)

Regarding the 12 thrones, this does not rule out the fact that one has a special office among them. The Sanhedrin sat in an assembly if I’m not mistaken, but did all hold the exact same office?

(I realize that the analogy Placidia and I make to the High Priest is imperfect, but it serves our points nonetheless.)

Well, there is only one high priest in the Church, and it certainly is not the Pope. I hope you know the answer as to who that is. So yes, making an analogy to the high priest is not only imperfect, it is highly inappropriate. Because there is only one high priest, and he is not the pope.

As for the praises, I have to dig up my old readings. But surely it will help us more if we read these things in its entire context, rather than just posting lines which seem to help promote a cause one already believes in.

 

[LionHeart777]

I said there was a claim, I never said I’ve conceded to it as fact. It’s true there is a claim, the same way that there is a claim that the Church apostatized after the death of St. John the Apostle and some guy from the 1800s or 1900s (depends which group you belong to) was given divine revelation to restore the True Church. It’s a claim, doesn’t mean its true. Just because a claim is old does not make it more credible or any real.

I’m sorry if I misunderstood you. All I was expecting was that you would concede that at the very least, you would concede that the Bishops of Rome made the claim that the Papacy was by Divine right, before the East West schism. The validity of that claim is what was under discussion in the broader context (where I did cite Easterners.)

Well, there is only one high priest in the Church, and it certainly is not the Pope. I hope you know the answer as to who that is. So yes, making an analogy to the high priest is not only imperfect, it is highly inappropriate. Because there is only one high priest, and he is not the pope.

As for the praises, I have to dig up my old readings. But surely it will help us more if we read these things in its entire context, rather than just posting lines which seem to help promote a cause one already believes in.

Yes, I know Jesus Christ is our High Priest and it would only be by analogy that the Pope is. I am posting citations which show how how Easterners spoke to other Easterners (or wrote) when not directly addressing the Pope, since the claim was being made that the language was only deferential. How then, does one distinguish between a prooftext and evidence?

Regarding the criticism of making an analogy of the High Priest to anyone other Jesus Christ (who is our High Priest):

We read in the letter of Polycrates of Ephesus to Pope St. Victor:

“‘Moreover, there is also John, who reclined at the bosom of the Lord (2), and who became a priest wearing the high priest’s mitre, and a witness and a teacher.’”

Source: Jurgens, Williams A. “The Faith of the Early Fathers”, The Liturgical Press. Collegeville, Minnesota: 1970. Pg. 82.

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Just for reference, “high priest” (ἀρχιερεύς) is a term which in Greek is used generically for any bishop. I think both quotes are really just pointing out that the city of Rome was first given its episcopacy by St. Peter, which is really nothing that special.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

ConstantineTG;10961663]There is nothing in your post that says Peter held the Episcopate.

Peter is never a bishop he is always an Apostle and eye witness of Jesus Christ who is “sent” to teach and hand on the revelations to his apostolic successors, as Peter by his authority called another to replace Judas Iscariot’s apostolic office from the book of Acts.

Further, there is nothing that says of any supreme, infallible power being bestowed upon Linus.

Lord forbid, because there does not exist no such “supreme, infallible power being” in the Church except Jesus Christ himself. I know of no supreme, infallible power being in the Catholic Church, this person does not exist.

For example, the Apostolic Constitutions lists Linus as the first Bishop of Rome.

Scripture names Linus as St.Irenaeus mentions from his apology. He succeeds Peter directly from the Church of Rome followed by Anacletus then Clement who possessed the hearing and teachings of the Apostles still ringing in his ears. The apostolic Constitutions by the Magesterium come later and confirm the Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition, the three together possess in them the full deposit of faith handed down directly from the apostles themselves. While some are made apostles (apostolic successors), prophets, teachers, presbyters, deacons etc… when we follow the scriptures that make mention of these offices within the Church.

St.Irenaeus and St.Ignatius both write about Pope Clement from the Church of Rome instructing and calling the Corinthian Church back to the apostolic Catholic faith, while it is believed that the blessed apostle St.John may have still been alive in Ephesus close to the Corinthian Church and others still living with the hearing of the apostles ringing in their ears. What is interesting is that both of these Catholic Saints only record the actions of the bishop of Rome acting in authority over the whole church.

Your not contesting Apostolic succession and Holy Orders within the Catholic Church are you? Because Linus succeeds Peter and the next 30 + popes (bishop’s of Rome) all suffered the same fate as did Peter, Martyrdom.

Peace be with you

 

[chimo]

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?

The question of authority rests on what authority is defined for the Pope of Rome to enjoy for the whole Church. It is easy for Roman Catholics to accept because for one he is your Pope and two he is the main bishop of the West. That been said it is interesting to see Roman Catholics wondering why the Orthodox cannot claim the Pope with the same authority as Catholics do. The problem as I see it is twofold. First of all there has to be an understanding that the Pope of Rome had no authority over the East whatsoever as he enjoys in the West. This misunderstanding from the Catholic world is what upsets the East. There was no involvement from Rome whatsoever in the affairs of the East except at the highest levels of government. The East always governed on their own. The second point is more obvious. There can be no type of relationship for the Holy Father over the East that he enjoys in the West. It is impossible for the Eastern Patriarchs to hand over their government to the Pope. This will never come. The whole insistence from Rome (at least from the past) that the Pope must have this authority is the real stumbling block to get our unity going.

If the last 1000 years has shown and even the last 2000 years is this. We need to take on another direction. As I said earlier this whole case for unity is not that hard to understand. There must be more understanding not from the East but from the West if this unity is to come. The Orthodox are only responding to something that cannot happen. These past 1000 years has shown us that they are right. If newer understandings will come it must come from the West. If the Pope is to have his rightful place alongside the East it must be done in cooperation from the point of view of the Orthodox. It cannot be done in any other way. This means that the Pope if he is to be welcomed into a relationship with the East must accept a more Pastoral authority than what he enjoys in the West. Perhaps this is what the whole debate will eventually be lead into.

 

[josie_L]

We can easily match you proof text for proof text. How about you explain the Fifth Ecumenical Council’s act of striking the Pope from the diptychs during its eighth session? Does this action not conflict with the type of papal primacy which you are attempting to advocate? Were they all heretics for doing so? How does a council headed by heretics then go on to become ecumenical?

The ecumenical council of Constantinople II still needed papal affirmation, thus the reason why Pope Leo II insisted that Honorius be condemned not as a heretic in the strict sense of the word, but because of his neglect in quelling the heresy, so yes, this too proves papal primacy.

Do you see how you present an unfair fait-accompli here? You present Constantine with a proof-text from St. Leo, and then tell him that he must either accept that St. Leo was an heretic, or that he was correct, and expect him to answer within the constraints of your false dichotomy (a clearly fallacious manner of reasoning). Furthermore, your reading of Pope St. Leo is far from being the only possible reading. In fact, it seems to me that you are equivocating, and taking authority to mean something different from the authority which is held by the episcopacy in general, something which is not obviously obtained from this passage you posted.

Actually, Pope St. Leo was very conscious of his universal responsibility vis a vis the whole church:

The pope was, for Leo, both the legal and sacramental embodiment of the apostle Peter. In the judgment of historian Walter Ullmann, Leo’s “supreme mastery of Roman law enabled him to construct the thesis of Peter’s function, and therefore that of the pope, in so satisfactory a way that it stood the test of time.” [Walter Ullmann, “Papacy: 1–Early Period,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. 10, (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967), 952.] He translated papal claims into the language of law and public policy.

Leo did this by teaching that a close bond existed between Peter and his
successors in the Roman see. Papal primacy was nothing more than Petrine primacy transferred to the present. The pope’s exercise of his ministry was totally conditioned by reference to Peter. In a sermon preached on the anniversary of his episcopal consecration, this lively awareness of Peter’s continuing power in his successors is very evident: **“He [Peter] continues to carry out with full effect the work which has been entrusted to him; he discharges every duty, every task of his office in Christ and with Christ, and through him he is glorified. So whatever I [Leo] may achieve, whatever effective steps I may take…is done through his work and his merits; his power is still living in his see and his authority is supreme.” **[Sermon 3.3.] Whenever Leo was called upon to intervene in other churches, he always referred to Peter.

By using the Roman legal concept of the heir (haeres), Leo explained the
way in which the pope was linked to Peter. Roman law accorded the haeres the same authority, rights and obligations as the one whom he replaced. The power of the keys which Peter had received from Christ passed undiminished, therefore, to those who succeeded the apostle in the Roman cathedra. As the apostle’s heir, the pope enjoyed the same office as Peter, fulfilling his mission in his absence. [Sermon 94.4.] “What Peter believed in Christ endures,” wrote Leo, “so too what Christ instituted in Peter.” [Sermon 3.2.]

According to the Pope, Peter continues his ministry in the Church through
his visible vicar, who is his sacramental instrument. Unlike a successor,
who receives juridical power from a predecessor, the vicar continues the the presence of the one whom he represents. He takes the place of the living Peter in heaven, who enjoys a special relationship with Christ. Because of this bond, the pope can exercise the Petrine ministry: **“Peter, who was united to Christ, the true founder and the pastor of the Church, in a singular way, continues even now to exercise his primacy over all the
churches; the bishop of Rome, the heir and successor of Peter, renders this primacy visible in the community of all Christians. Just as Christ transmitted his mission to the apostles per Petrum so are the faith and the ecclesiastical order guaranteed by the See of Peter.” **[Leo the Great, Letter, 10.9.] In theological shorthand we can say that the pope is Peter himself (Papa = Petrus ipse).

Leo believed he was responsible for the universal Church, vigorously upholding his predecessor’s conviction that the bishop of Rome has an “anxiety [care] for all the churches” (2 Cor 11:28): “**all parts of the Church are ruled by his care and enriched by his help.” **[Sermon 5.4; translation in Giles, ed., Documents Illustrating Papal Authority, # 239.] While recognizing that each bishop has authority over his local church, he also held that “Peter especially rules all whom Christ has also ruled originally.” [Sermon 4.2.] The Roman church was, for him, “the head of the world.” [Sermon 82.1.] Its bishop was responsible for providing “that love of the whole Church entrusted to him by the Lord.” [Sermon 5.2.] What distinguished Peter’s authority from that of the other apostles was its universality. This universal authority was inherited by the bishop of Rome. Leo is also the first to claim to possess the fullness of authority (plenitudo potestatis) to teach as well as to govern and make laws in the Church. [Leo the Great, Letter, 14; translation in Jalland, Church and Papacy, p. 303.]

catholic-forum.com/members/popestleo/guettee.html

 

[Cavaradossi]

The ecumenical council of Constantinople II still needed papal affirmation, thus the reason why Pope Leo II insisted that Honorius be condemned not as a heretic in the strict sense of the word, but because of his neglect in quelling the heresy, so yes, this too proves papal primacy.

You are confusing your councils. Honorius was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople. At the Second Council of Constantinople, the then hierarch of the Church of Rome, that is, Pope Vigilus, was struck from the diptychs. The Council never gave an indication that it believed that it needed the approval of the Pope (in fact, in its closing session, the council argued just the opposite, that in the face of Pope Vigilius’ refusal to help the council, the council had no option but to act independently of him in order to preserve the orthodox faith), and Pope Vigilius himself writes in his letter to Patriarch Eutychius that the council had convinced him that he was in error, and citing Augustine’s act of writing his Retractions late in life, retracted his own earlier position.

How, pray tell, can a pope retract his own position on a matter of doctrine, when his earlier decision proclaimed by the authority of the Apostolic See that anybody who contradicted his declaration would be stripped of his ecclesiastical rank? And why were the 150 bishops who contradicted Pope Vigilus’ position not immediately stripped of their ecclesiastical rank as heretics who contradicted such a strongly worded statement from the Pope?

Actually, Pope St. Leo was very conscious of his universal responsibility vis a vis the whole church:

Universal responsibility as the first church, as described by the Nicene Canons? Yes. In fact, Pope Leo even makes the claim that it was the Nicene Canons authored by the Holy Spirit working through the Council Fathers, which established the system of Church governance which he held to be inviolate in response to Canon 28 of Chalcedon (See his letters to Emperor Marcian and Patriarch Anatolius in the aftermath of Chalcedon). Now Does that translate into universal responsibility in the sense of the First Vatican Council, which bases itself not upon the canonical tradition of the First Millennium Church? No.

 

[1Tim215Mommy]

You are confusing your councils. Honorius was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople. At the Second Council of Constantinople, the then hierarch of the Church of Rome, that is, Pope Vigilus, was struck from the diptychs. The Council never gave an indication that it believed that it needed the approval of the Pope (in fact, in its closing session, the council argued just the opposite, that in the face of Pope Vigilius’ refusal to help the council, the council had no option but to act independently of him in order to preserve the orthodox faith), and Pope Vigilius himself writes in his letter to Patriarch Eutychius that the council had convinced him that he was in error, and citing Augustine’s act of writing his Retractions late in life, retracted his own earlier position.

How, pray tell, can a pope retract his own position on a matter of doctrine, when his earlier decision proclaimed by the authority of the Apostolic See that anybody who contradicted his declaration would be stripped of his ecclesiastical rank? And why were the 150 bishops who contradicted Pope Vigilus’ position not immediately stripped of their ecclesiastical rank as heretics who contradicted such a strongly worded statement from the Pope?

for the detailed clarification

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Cavaradossi,

I briefly read your comments. I do not have the time right now to reply specifically to what you are claiming with regard to the authority of the Popes, however, let me add the following.

An atheist who is looking at the Catholic Church, who deep inside does not wish to sacrifice his service to logic, reason, historical/empirical evidence, in the pursuit of finding God, can use the same reasons you have been giving to not submit to the Catholic Church. So your reasons are not in anyway necessarily theistic, and can be utilized by believer or unbeliever alike.

Secondly, we know that Jesus gave authority to the “Church”. We know this for a fact because Jesus describes a situation that requires the attention of the Church, the brother in unrepentant sin. If the impenitent sinner refuses to listen to the Church, which implies the Church is giving an authoritative mandate of action, then the impenitent is to be excommunication. Such a binding is not only significant for the man’s earthly relationship to the earthly community of human beings (Church on earth) but also effects an excommunication from God and heaven.

Now, this is a whole lot of authority to give a merely earthly and worldly institute. To give “the Church” the authority to make binding decisions upon the members that can potentially effect their hope of eternal life is a very spectacular thing to do. In some people’s minds, it is not at all intelligent. But we know our Lord is God, and His wisdom exceeds our wisdom. Somehow, Christ intended to build a Church that consisted of human beings who temporarily governed the community of people being prepared for the kingdom of God. Hence, they excercise the keys of the kingdom over the community of people in the kingdom on earth. This is also why the setting for binding and loosing is EARTH, which also has effects correspondingly in HEAVEN.

The bottom line at what I am getting at here is the Christ intended to vest His Church with governing officers who must be listened to or else you are in disobedience to God Himself. Now which Church is this?

You may suggest “Orthodox”! Ahh, but which one? The Oriental? Of which nationality? Where must I go? There is disagreement among the Orthodox themselves. You should read an Orthodox writers Vladimir Soloviev on his “the Russion Church and the Papacy” as he goes through so many centuries of Eastern Heresy and Western Orthodoxy.

Which Church must I go to in order to listen to them in order to fully commune myself with the king of Heaven?

If this question is answered with anything but a specific place, then we are right back into the protestant understanding of earthly authority being something beyond the sense of the normal human being.

 

[chimo]

Cavaradossi,

I briefly read your comments. I do not have the time right now to reply specifically to what you are claiming with regard to the authority of the Popes, however, let me add the following.

An atheist who is looking at the Catholic Church, who deep inside does not wish to sacrifice his service to logic, reason, historical/empirical evidence, in the pursuit of finding God, can use the same reasons you have been giving to not submit to the Catholic Church. So your reasons are not in anyway necessarily theistic, and can be utilized by believer or unbeliever alike.

Secondly, we know that Jesus gave authority to the “Church”. We know this for a fact because Jesus describes a situation that requires the attention of the Church, the brother in unrepentant sin. If the impenitent sinner refuses to listen to the Church, which implies the Church is giving an authoritative mandate of action, then the impenitent is to be excommunication. Such a binding is not only significant for the man’s earthly relationship to the earthly community of human beings (Church on earth) but also effects an excommunication from God and heaven.

Now, this is a whole lot of authority to give a merely earthly and worldly institute. To give “the Church” the authority to make binding decisions upon the members that can potentially effect their hope of eternal life is a very spectacular thing to do. In some people’s minds, it is not at all intelligent. But we know our Lord is God, and His wisdom exceeds our wisdom. Somehow, Christ intended to build a Church that consisted of human beings who temporarily governed the community of people being prepared for the kingdom of God. Hence, they excercise the keys of the kingdom over the community of people in the kingdom on earth. This is also why the setting for binding and loosing is EARTH, which also has effects correspondingly in HEAVEN.

The bottom line at what I am getting at here is the Christ intended to vest His Church with governing officers who must be listened to or else you are in disobedience to God Himself. Now which Church is this?

You may suggest “Orthodox”! Ahh, but which one? The Oriental? Of which nationality? Where must I go? There is disagreement among the Orthodox themselves. You should read an Orthodox writers Vladimir Soloviev on his “the Russion Church and the Papacy” as he goes through so many centuries of Eastern Heresy and Western Orthodoxy.

Which Church must I go to in order to listen to them in order to fully commune myself with the king of Heaven?

If this question is answered with anything but a specific place, then we are right back into the protestant understanding of earthly authority being something beyond the sense of the normal human being.

Godseeker, may I suggest this thought to you. It is to my understanding that if we do not receive God early enough than it is going to be tougher for God to receive you as an adult. The rule of authority well it seems to be more explicit in Rome tends to be that way because the Church of the West is dealing more with adults than with children. In the Eastern Churches the focus is not so much on adults (therefore a more disciplined authority is not as essential for instance as seen in Rome) as it is on children. Here the Eastern Church is more inclined to give to the child more of God so that hopefully the child will retain it once he or she enters the adult world. The emphasis of the East is more towards the rearing of children than it is in the West. Since there is lacking of this rearing of children in the West the focus than was more on authority and discipline as seen for instance coming from the Church of Rome when you become an adult. It would be to everyone’s advantage if we can pick up from both Churches East and West the ability to be disciplined as adults and the nurturing of children from an early age to help develop them more into spiritual adults.

The East has a different discipline than the West because it is centered more on nurturing. The West needs a more authorative discipline because of its own lack in this regard when raising children within the Church. Now I am talking about the services that we have in the Church. The Catholic Child will get to know God more within the comforts of their own homes than it is in Church in the first years of their development. The Eastern child though has this nurturing while he or she is growing up in the Church. With the comforts of a home setting that can also reveal God the Eastern child can have the benefits of both worlds.

 

[Nicea325]

We can easily match you proof text for proof text. How about you explain the Fifth Ecumenical Council’s act of striking the Pope from the diptychs during its eighth session? Does this action not conflict with the type of papal primacy which you are attempting to advocate? Were they all heretics for doing so? How does a council headed by heretics then go on to become ecumenical?

Do you see how you present an unfair fait-accompli here? You present Constantine with a proof-text from St. Leo, and then tell him that he must either accept that St. Leo was an heretic, or that he was correct, and expect him to answer within the constraints of your false dichotomy (a clearly fallacious manner of reasoning). Furthermore, your reading of Pope St. Leo is far from being the only possible reading. In fact, it seems to me that you are equivocating, and taking authority to mean something different from the authority which is held by the episcopacy in general, something which is not obviously obtained from this passage you posted.

Proof-texting? What a cop-out! Providng scores of support for Rome’s pimacy does not constitute proof-texting my friend. Pre-Constantinople support is written all over the place and no amount of denials by Post-Constantinople will not make it go away.

So by all means…go ahead and proof-text all the Post-Constantinople support for Orthdoxy because I find very little support for it the first 1,000 years.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Proof-texting? What a cop-out! Providng scores of support for Rome’s pimacy does not constitute proof-texting my friend. Pre-Constantinople support is written all over the place and no amount of denials by Post-Constantinople will not make it go away.

Ah, this post-Constantinople nonsense. You cannot reject “Post-Constantinople” without rejecting the very ecumenical councils (three of which were held in Constantinople).

So by all means…go ahead and proof-text all the Post-Constantinople support for Orthdoxy because I find very little support for it the first 1,000 years.

Right, because it’s not as if the Second Council of Constantinople happened in the first millennium or anything.

 

[Cavaradossi]

An atheist who is looking at the Catholic Church, who deep inside does not wish to sacrifice his service to logic, reason, historical/empirical evidence, in the pursuit of finding God, can use the same reasons you have been giving to not submit to the Catholic Church. So your reasons are not in anyway necessarily theistic, and can be utilized by believer or unbeliever alike.

Nobody should have to sacrifice his use of reason in order to believe in something. That would be fideism. In fact, the Roman Catholics themselves teach that the proper use of reason should lead one to the truth. You can argue that I reason incorrectly, but to argue that the use of reason itself is inimical to faith is alien to the teachings of the Roman Catholics.

Secondly, we know that Jesus gave authority to the “Church”. We know this for a fact because Jesus describes a situation that requires the attention of the Church, the brother in unrepentant sin. If the impenitent sinner refuses to listen to the Church, which implies the Church is giving an authoritative mandate of action, then the impenitent is to be excommunication. Such a binding is not only significant for the man’s earthly relationship to the earthly community of human beings (Church on earth) but also effects an excommunication from God and heaven.

No, it does not. The Roman Catholics and the Orthodox very clearly teach that excommunications are not binding after death, and that those who died in a state of excommunication may nevertheless still be saved. Excommunication is primarily pastoral in nature, meant to drive to repentance the sinner who refuses to repent, not to cut him off from God.

Now, this is a whole lot of authority to give a merely earthly and worldly institute. To give “the Church” the authority to make binding decisions upon the members that can potentially effect their hope of eternal life is a very spectacular thing to do. In some people’s minds, it is not at all intelligent. But we know our Lord is God, and His wisdom exceeds our wisdom. Somehow, Christ intended to build a Church that consisted of human beings who temporarily governed the community of people being prepared for the kingdom of God. Hence, they excercise the keys of the kingdom over the community of people in the kingdom on earth. This is also why the setting for binding and loosing is EARTH, which also has effects correspondingly in HEAVEN.

You misunderstand what the power of binding and loosing is for. It is for the pastor to use in order to cure his flock of sin. By the application of the power to bind and loose (which includes the authority to forgive sins and the authority to cut off communion with others), the pastor must aim to lead his flock into living righteously in God. An abuse of either power is not guaranteed to be honored. Sins forgiven with the power of binding and loosing, for example, are not truly forgiven if the one being forgiven is not repentant (this is true of both Eastern and Western theology).

The bottom line at what I am getting at here is the Christ intended to vest His Church with governing officers who must be listened to or else you are in disobedience to God Himself. Now which Church is this?

Untrue, because those in power have abused the power given to them by God at times, and when this happens, there is no obedience which is due. Even the popes were not above reproof. Those who abuse the authority given to them by God have no real authority at all.

You may suggest “Orthodox”! Ahh, but which one? The Oriental?

A common canard amongst those who don’t actually want to investigate Orthodoxy. In the olden days, the Oriental Orthodox were not even called by this title, but as the “monophysites” because it was believed by the Chalcedonian Churches that they were in heresy. My answer to you is that you would seriously have to consider the truth claims of each Church. Do you believe that the Council of Chalcedon taught a Christology which is consonant with the Gospel? If yes, then you should limit your considerations to Roman Catholicism, (Mainline) Protestantism, and Eastern Orthodoxy. If no, then you should investigate the Orientals.

The existence of competing Churches which may happen to call themselves by the same title is no valid reason for disqualifying all of them. Should, after all, the Roman Catholics be disqualified because the Orthodox, Old Catholics, Polish National Catholic Church, and even the Lutherans also claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?

 

[Cavaradossi]

Of which nationality? Where must I go?

That is a peculiarity of the new world. Had Orthodoxy not suffered such an organizational blow from the simultaneous assault of the Turks upon ethnic Greeks in the early to mid 20th century, and the communist revolution in Russia, it is quite possible that there would only be one Orthodox jurisdiction in each land, as the canons dictate there should be. At any rate, it does not matter, because the Russians, the Greeks, the Serbians, the Georgians, etc. are in doctrinal agreement

There is disagreement among the Orthodox themselves.

There is also disagreement among the Roman Catholics (or am I to believe that Karl Rahner and Garrigou-Lagrange agreed theologically). That proves nothing.

You should read an Orthodox writers Vladimir Soloviev on his “the Russion Church and the Papacy” as he goes through so many centuries of Eastern Heresy and Western Orthodoxy.

It should stand to reason that the East, being more intellectually developed than the West had more doctrinal disputes in the first millennium. The process reversed during the second millennium, with most doctrinal disputes coming out of the better intellectually-equipped West. I don’t see how that proves anything.

Which Church must I go to in order to listen to them in order to fully commune myself with the king of Heaven?

Any church headed by an Orthodox bishop. The Church Catholic is fully present anywhere where an Orthodox hierarch presides. The West has, unfortunately, lost this understanding of Catholicity, which is why it can only conceive of “particular churches” without being able to recognize fully the Catholicity of each particular church.

If this question is answered with anything but a specific place, then we are right back into the protestant understanding of earthly authority being something beyond the sense of the normal human being.

This is untrue, because the Church Catholic is not contained in any single place despite being manifest in many places simultaneously.

 

[God_Seeker_1]

Cavaradossi,

So are you saying that the power of binding and loosing ultimately boils down to absolutely nothing? If the power itself is ineffective when sinners are interiorly impenitent in confession and the power itself is ineffective when excommunications are invalid, then what good is the power? We are back in the protestant understanding that all that matters is the heart and God, two invisible things. This makes everyone justifiable.

Was any authority conferred upon Peter when he was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven? And if anything authority was conferred, what was that authority? If it is just an “aid” to the already sufficient elements of a repentant heart and confused bishop, then it really is not authority whatsoever.

Lastly, you need to read Joseph Ratzinger “Called to Communion” on this whole popular orthodox understanding of the fullness of the Church being the presence of Christ, bodily, in the local eucharistic assembly. This sort of thinking is extremely reductionistic and anti-apostolic. You see because the office of the apostles was to all nations, and bishops as successors must be careful to make sure that his local diocese is interconnected with the breadth of the whole of which the office of the apostle pertains. We cannot have several autonomous bishops having the church for themselves here or there, and forget about being in communion with the rest in any active functional way.

 

[jimmy]

Cavaradossi,

So are you saying that the power of binding and loosing ultimately boils down to absolutely nothing? If the power itself is ineffective when sinners are interiorly impenitent in confession and the power itself is ineffective when excommunications are invalid, then what good is the power? We are back in the protestant understanding that all that matters is the heart and God, two invisible things. This makes everyone justifiable.

Was any authority conferred upon Peter when he was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven? And if anything authority was conferred, what was that authority? If it is just an “aid” to the already sufficient elements of a repentant heart and confused bishop, then it really is not authority whatsoever.

Lastly, you need to read Joseph Ratzinger “Called to Communion” on this whole popular orthodox understanding of the fullness of the Church being the presence of Christ, bodily, in the local eucharistic assembly. This sort of thinking is extremely reductionistic and anti-apostolic. You see because the office of the apostles was to all nations, and bishops as successors must be careful to make sure that his local diocese is interconnected with the breadth of the whole of which the office of the apostle pertains. We cannot have several autonomous bishops having the church for themselves here or there, and forget about being in communion with the rest in any active functional way.

There is often a disconnect between Catholics and Orthodox in these discussions because the different ecclesiology comes with a different concept of Grace and the action of the Holy Spirit. It comes with a different conception of the experience of Grace and the faith. It comes with a different concept of tradition. You change one of these, and you change the whole context. The context is different, so it is hard to translate things over from one perspective to another. From the Orthodox perspective, the idea of the universal church as defined in Called to Communion doesn’t really make sense. It is an offense against the whole faith.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So are you saying that the power of binding and loosing ultimately boils down to absolutely nothing? If the power itself is ineffective when sinners are interiorly impenitent in confession

This is not some sort of esoteric Orthodox teaching. For the Latin West teaches that if one does not at least have attrition (imperfect contrition), the Sacrament of Penance will be invalid. The power of the keys cannot override certain preconditions on the part of the recipient of the sacrament.

and the power itself is ineffective when excommunications are invalid

Again, this is taught in the West too. If an excommunication is invalid (for reasons like the one who performed it did not properly have jurisdiction, his motives were incorrect, or he used improper form), then no excommunication occurred at all, so no binding ever happened. In the case of one unjustly (but validly) excommunicated, Pope Innocent III teaches, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, that one excommunicated unjustly by the Church remains free in the sight of God, only being bound in the eyes of the Church, because God’s judgment is based upon the truth, while the judgment of the Church is necessarily based on an incomplete amount of information.

then what good is the power?

It is for the salvation of the flock. You almost seem as if you wish for the power to bind and loose to be an absolute, but this proposition would be manifestly false, for even in Western theology there are limitations upon the power to bind and loose due to the possibility that the Church may err on matters of discipline. One unjustly condemned by the Church will not be condemned in heaven by God, and one absolved without contrition will remain bound by his sins in the sight of God in heaven.

We are back in the protestant understanding that all that matters is the heart and God, two invisible things. This makes everyone justifiable.

No, it does not. It simply recognizes that, while the Church is the normative means of salvation, it is possible for God in cases when the Church errs in its application of discipline to judge one to be free who has been declared bound by the Church and vice-versa. If that is “protestant” then you must shove the entire Apostolic East and West into the category of “protestant”.

Was any authority conferred upon Peter when he was given the keys of the kingdom of heaven?

The authority to bind and loose.

And if anything authority was conferred, what was that authority?

It is the power of the sword, to cut some off from the flock, and also the power of loosing, which is the power to absolve those who have committed grievous sins and who return in contrition.

If it is just an “aid” to the already sufficient elements of a repentant heart and confused bishop, then it really is not authority whatsoever.

I did not say it is merely an aid. It is true authority insofar as it is exercised justly and with prudence, and being true authority from God, it is the normative fashion that those under the jurisdiction of the Church are able to work out their salvation with fear and trembling. But the Church may err in its application of discipline, and for this reason, God is not entirely beholden to a decision of the Church, and He may therefore circumvent the normative channels of grace as He sees fit.

Lastly, you need to read Joseph Ratzinger “Called to Communion”

I do not “need” to read his book, though his book is fascinating, I’m sure. Please refrain from presuming to know what I “need.” That is for my own confessor to determine.

on this whole popular orthodox understanding of the fullness of the Church being the presence of Christ, bodily, in the local eucharistic assembly. This sort of thinking is extremely reductionistic and anti-apostolic. You see because the office of the apostles was to all nations, and bishops as successors must be careful to make sure that his local diocese is interconnected with the breadth of the whole of which the office of the apostle pertains. We cannot have several autonomous bishops having the church for themselves here or there, and forget about being in communion with the rest in any active functional way.

Where did I ever say that? The East recognizes the importance of intercommunion, for the Church is in the image of the Trinity, and just as in the Trinity the divine nature subsists fully in each Hypostasis without division, so too the Church Catholic subsists fully (as opposed to partially) in each local church without division. Severing communion unjustly (that is to say, severing communion with others without the cause of them being heretics, schismatics or unlawful congregations, or without some other justifiable grievance) is a sin against the unity of the Church, damaging the Catholicity of the Church which does so. That being said, because of the substantial equality of bishops by reason of their equal inheritance of the Church Catholic, the question of “which jurisdiction do I join” is an iteration of the fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses. While overlapping jurisdictions in the new world are a problem, in the end to join the Russians or the Serbians is no different from joining the Greeks or the Georgians, as they do not differ on matters of faith (though they may differ on matters of theologoumena, just as in the West, bishops may differ on certain matters of theology without either being considered heretical).

 

[God_Seeker_1]

I see,

Well what biblical basis does the Orthodox have to view Church the way they do? I see an immensity of scriptural foundation for the Roman Catholic view, but not the Orthodox. It seems that it is so difficult to understand that they neutral inquirer may feel as though he has to have some “secret knowledge” (sounds familiar hmmm) in order to know where Christ’s Church is.

 

[rinnie]

First, all the Apostles were promised thrones. It wasn’t only Peter who had a throne.

Second, while there is no doubt that Peter has a leadership role with the Apostles, there is no clear scriptural basis regarding the Roman Catholic Claim about Papal authority. Even if we are to assume that all the other Apostles needed to take orders from Peter, again there is nothing in Scripture that says Peter passed on such an authority to anyone else.

But does the bible itself tell us not all is revealed trhough scripture but to go to the Church it is the Church that teaches and leads us to the truth?

Then would not the Church be proof? Is is proved from the time of Peter that he leadership is passed on.

It is Jesus who began the passing on when he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

It is history from the O.T. that the keys were passed on,. Keys meant leadership. Do you ot see that?