H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Good point. If the Bishop of Rome did have universal jurisdiction then how to we know.
- Status
V
Volodymyr
Guest
This all is quite strange. I am not sure what is “throne” of Peter. I have heard of such “keys” and even a simple “chair”, but now Peter had a “throne”.
Now also Mr. Holdencaufield starts with quotes and then is dismayed that we can “get no where” with quotes because he finds not the complete presentation of Early Church by reading so-called Catolic Apologias with a few random quotes out of context. No we will get no where until Bishop of Rome, can be separated from such concepts as “infallibity”, “vicaricy of Christ”, “Pontifex Maximus”. Only to realize he is fallible vicar (successor) of Peter who never was a Pagan priest.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
St. Clement of Rome
“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, our hope resting on Your name which is primal cause of every creature” (First Epistle 59)
“If, however, any shall disobey the words spoken by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and serious danger; but we shall be innocent of this sin, and, instant in prayer and supplication, shall desire that the Creator of all preserve unbroken the computed number of His elect in the whole world through His beloved Son Jesus Christ, through whom He called us from darkness to light, from ignorance to knowledge of the glory of His name, our hope resting on Your name which is primal cause of every creature” (First Epistle 59)
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
What quotes have I taken out of context? May I ask?
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
T
The_Iambic_Pen
Guest
Indeed. Plus, everyone brings their own private interpretations with them when reading the Church Fathers. Catholics and Orthodox often criticize Protestants for applying private judgment to Scripture. Of course, Catholics and Orthodox do the very same thing when it comes to the Early Church Fathers. Plus, the early Christians were themselves fallible, and just because they held a particularly opinion about the Roman see does not mean they were correct.
Catholics and Orthodox (and some Protestants) accept the seven (first seven for Catholics) Ecumenical Councils. Perhaps there is something in the official conclusions of the Councils that can shed some light on the papal debate?
Personally, I love the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, and I am a great admirer of Pope Benedict XVI. I wish there was a way for all of us to be one again.
God bless!
E
East_and_West
Guest
He was fun for a Troll. Probably the most fun Troll on the net.
H
holdencaulfield
Guest
Thank You. Great Post. This is why I can’t discern whether the Catholic or Orthodox Church is the historical church.
PS Thanks for serving our country. My prayers are with you.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
that is why i believe that the chair of Peter is what define the True Church. if we think about it, the Lord did chose Peter in many ways and just because some people do not accept it does not make untrue. the keys given to Peter is an important clue. things are not as easy as we think it is for us to see clear from the Bible but yet what it is? it is not spelled out to us that way we want it to be. the catholic church is not making this up . she could not. it is just common sense. if the catholic church is wrong then all of us is wrong including teh Bible. can anybody prove for sure that before the scism there was no pope or his authority was questionable?
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
Can anyone prove that before the Schism the Pope had supreme universal ordinary jurisdiction over the entire Church? It seems to me that since it is the Catholic Church that is making these exalted claims about itself the the onus falls on Catholics to prove that these things are true.
Yours in Christ
Joe
J
josephdaniel29
Guest
So then how are we to determine what’s the truth of the matter. We are removed from these Church Fathers by many centuries. They lived in a different culture in which language and the way you used it were very different from what we do today. Flowery rhetoric was the norm so just the fact that someone speaks of the Pope or any other bishop for that matter using exalted language really doesn’t prove much.
I think the key to understanding the role of the papacy in the early Church is to look at how these people behaved rather than what they said. If we look at the history of the Church what we see is a papacy that looks and behaves very differently than the one we see today.
We have no instances of a Pope unilaterally declaring dogma that was binding on the Church. Of all the Ecumenical Councils not a single one takes place in Rome. Then there is this from The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. XIV…
Is it really possible that an Ecumenical Council could be convoked without even consulting the infallible supreme ruler of the entire Church? If the Pope was indeed those things no one else was acting like it.
How about the fact that a North African council excommunicated the Pope? They certainly didn’t seem to realize he was infallible. Or the fact that Pope Vigilius’s name was struck from the diptychs in Constantinople or the fact that Pope Honorius was anathematized by an Ecumenical Council?
All of these are instances of the Church not behaving as though the Pope was an infallible, supreme universal ordinary.
What would happen today if a council of Catholic bishops attempted to excommunicate the Pope, or call an ecumenical council without consulting him? We can’t imagine those things happening today because the papacy as it is currently constructed bears little resemblance to the papacy of the first centuries of Christianity.
Yours in Christ
Joe
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
what is the problem? you cant prove it? can you?
we all know that the popes always existed since the beggining, dont we?. it was more emphasized later due to heresies that arose from the denial of those who reject authority. Peter is the prove and confirmed by the early christians. Our Lord said to Peter that He was going to build His Church He did not say to all but to Peter only, according to the Word. Now you can deny truth all you want, the protestants can deny all they want, Our Lord knows what He said and so do those who believe on Him. It is just like we believe the Eucharist is the true Body and tru Blood of Our Lord yet many deny it. so i am not surprise that some also deny the pope. the pope is not a tyrant ruler he is just a servant to us all. he is the least of all ,yet he was given the keys. if you read Isaiah 22 you will see what the keys means. dont tell the jews did not understand what it meant. the catholic church has everything that everybody wants, they come take what they like and leave what they dont like. ( i believe GK chesterton said that.) PEACE!
J
jam070406
Guest
How bout St. Maximus the Confessor?
Not just flowery talk either.
St. Maximos or Maximus the Confessor (580-662 AD)
„The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed. For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High.” (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)
„How much more in the case of the clergy and Church of the Romans, which from old until now presides over all the churches which are under the sun? … And so when, without fear, but with all holy and becoming confidence, those ministers [the popes] are of the truly firm and immovable rock, that is of the most great and Apostolic Church of Rome.“ (Maximus, in J.B. Mansi, ed. Amplissima Collectio Conciliorum, vol. 10)
„If the Roman See recognizes Pyrrhus to be not only a reprobate but a heretic, it is certainly plain that everyone who anathematizes those who have rejected Pyrrhus also anathematizes the See of Rome, that is, he anathematizes the Catholic Church. I need hardly add that he excommunicates himself also, if indeed he is in communion with the Roman See and the Catholic Church of God …Let him hasten before all things to satisfy the Roman See, for if it is satisfied, all will agree in calling him pious and orthodox. For he only speaks in vain who thinks he ought to persuade or entrap persons like myself, and does not satisfy and implore the blessed Pope of the most holy Catholic Church of the Romans, that is, the Apostolic See, which is from the incarnate of the Son of God Himself, and also all the holy synods, according to the holy canons and definitions has received universal and supreme dominion, authority, and power of binding and loosing over all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world.” (Maximus, Letter to Peter, in Mansi, x, p. 692).
A
Alexius
Guest
That was uncalled for…
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
Orthodoxy neither denies the primacy of St. Peter nor the fact that he is often singled out in the Gospels and early Church as being the foundation and key-holder of the Church. However, these prerogatives must be understood correctly by reviewing other patristic writings, which provide further clarification on the meaning of the quotes you provided.
St. Augustine:
“I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19)” - St. Augustine, Sermon 26, 1-4.
And
“Its clear, you see, from many places in scripture that Peter can stand for, or represent, the Church; above all from that place where it says, To you will I hand over the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Mt. 16:19). Did Peter receive these keys, and Paul not receive them? Did Peter receive them, and John and James and the other apostles not receive them? Or are the keys not to be found in the Church, where sins are being forgiven every day? But because Peter symbolically stood for the Church, what was given to him alone was given to the whole Church. So Peter represented the Church; the Church is the body of Christ” – St. Augustine, Sermon 149, 6-7.
These quotes reveal that the entire Church, through her shepherds, receive what was given to St. Peter. This is possible because Christ singled out St. Peter in the apostolic commission in order to represent the oneness of the Church and its gifts and not to give St. Peter something that isn’t given to the rest of the Church. This belief is mirrored in other patristic writings, such as those of St. Cyprian of Carthage and St. Gregory of Nyssa, which see in St. Peter the beginning of the oneness of the episcopacy. This is also implicitly affirmed by the fact that the Fathers never apply Matt. 16:18-19 to Rome in an exclusive sense, but extend its interpretation to the entire Church, built firmly on the rock of St. Peter through confession of the true Faith.
As you know, the ancient Church looked on any apostolic church as being a solid benchmark for determining orthodoxy. The Roman Church, being the capital of the ecume and possessing a double apostolic origin in Sts. Peter and Paul, is often singled out for emphasis as bearing witness to the common Tradition. However, this emphasis cannot be interpreted as claiming for the Roman Church something the other apostolic Churches lack until you explain why in other locations, St. Irenaeus, Tertullian, St. Vincent of Lerins, St. Augustine and other Fathers direct seekers to other apostolic churches with the same confidence that they do the Roman See.
God bless,
Adam
J
jam070406
Guest
What you state is true, but only when the churches are in communion with the See of Peter (Rome). Many Fathers have stated this as necessary.
You really have to jump through hoops to show Peter is somehow symbolic to a perogative given to all the church, which seems to also include the laity in modern Orthodoxy.
If this were the case I also don’t see how you could deny Protestants or any other group that confesses Jesus as the Christ, the son of the living God, as the church. If this confession is what you believe the Church to be founded on, and not Peter, then they also are the church, no?
Z
zagjames
Guest
It is good that you will not be the one to decide reconcilliation.
It is equally good that I will not be in that position either.
Thanks be to God that the reconcilliation (when/if) it comes will be through the great Bishops of the Church that God has given us. Reconcilliation will come about only in such a way that Christ would disire.
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
The Roman Church was always known for its great doctrinal and disciplinary conservatism in the ancient Church. Read these words of St. Leo the Great, Pope of Rome:
“But this most holy firmness of the rock (the solid rock of St. Peter in Matt. 16:18), reared, as we have said, by the building hand of God, a man must wish to destroy in over-weaning wickedness when he tries to break down its power, by favoring his own desires, and not following what he received from men of old: for he believes himself subject to no law, and held in check by no rules of God’s ordinances and breaks away, in his eagerness for novelty, from your use and ours, by adopting illegal practices, and letting what he ought to keep fall into abeyance” - St. Leo the Great, Letter 10, concerning Hilary, Bishop of Arles.
It is sad that I don’t see the same conservatism in your comments, my brother.
I can understand the desire to have an infallible leader to look to for all the answers. Such a system is simple and quite attractive. However, we need to recognize that the Bishop of Rome is very fallible, as even many Roman Catholic sources affirm. The only infallibility that Catholicism ensures for the Roman Pontiff is the infallibility adjacent to proclaiming dogmas (a very debated power, itself). It doesn’t extend beyond this, thus causing the wise Roman Catholic, like the Orthodox Christian, to look to Holy Tradition as the final arbiter of their Faith.
God bless,
Adam
J
jam070406
Guest
Why, which post schism Pope has taught error or anything that contradicts Catholic teaching to the universal Church?
F
ForeverAdam
Guest
This is necessary only insofar as the Roman See holds the same truth as all other apostolic churches. When other sees err, they are pointed back to sees, which have retained the spotless purity of their apostolic faith, which often was the Roman See in the ancient Church. There is nothing unorthodox about this. In fact, it is a prime way to maintain the faith. However, in order for the Roman Church to judge the orthodoxy of other Churches regardless of circumstance, her bishop (the one who gives a local church her active voice) would have to be incapable of erring. This is not reflected in Church history, as even Popes have stated that Popes can fall into heresy. This oft-repeated principle found in both of our Churches ensures that Rome, through her bishop, could not have been the final arbiter of orthodoxy in the ancient Church, for fallible men can not hold such an absolute office. At most, they could be a conditional defender and arbiter of orthodoxy, as is every bishop. However, they couldn’t rise above this common episcopal duty without being promoted to incompetence.
Well, the laity are part of the Church in Orthodoxy.
However, as you know, we do believe the Church is a sacramental organism, build around the bishop. This is reflected in the quotes of St. Augustine, which I provided, as he states that this power passes to the Church through the apostles (and, by extension, their successors in the episcopal office). Btw, why do I get the impression that instead of embracing the words of St. Augustine, you seem to be displaying doubt about the possibility of his words being applicable?The confession of St. Peter has always been understood in the Church as referring to the totality of the true Faith. Those who profess this true Faith are successors of St. Peter, with a special successor existing in the Bishop who inherits Peter’s throne of apostolic confession.
God bless,
Adam
- Status