Orthodoxy and the Papacy.

[ForeverAdam]

Why, which post schism Pope has taught error or anything that contradicts Catholic teaching to the universal Church?

I’ve posted earlier the Roman Catholic evidence revealing the possibility of Papal heresy. This principle is clearly that of the ancient Church and renders moot any discussion on whether Popes have actually erred (a subjective and endless discussion in any case). All that needs to be proven in order to refute claims of the Bishop of Rome functioning as the final arbiter of truth in the ancient Church is to show that the early Church believed that Popes could err. This possibility, even without evidence of application, shows that the Bishop of Rome could not have possessed the absolute power he is often claimed to have, as the Faith of the ancient Church would have been in the hands of a possible heretic- something the early Christians would not have allowed. Furthermore, it would reveal that the Bishop of Rome held no more doctrinal authority than any other bishop, as he could err like any bishop.

God bless,

Adam

 

[josephdaniel29]

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).

Like I said in an earlier post we can play dueling quotes if you like…

St Cyprian

For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, **and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another **(council of Carthage 256 AD)

St Cyprian

But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and **vainly pretend the authority of the apostles **(The Epistles of Cyprian Letter LXXIV.6)

Origen

But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? (Origen commentary on Matthew)

St Augustine

So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ…Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. (St Augustine sermons)

St Augustine

Well, let us suppose that those** bishops who decided the case at Rome were not good judges**; there still remained a plenary Council of the universal Church, in which these judges themselves might be put on their defense; so that, if they were convicted of mistake, their decisions might be reversed (Confessions)

St John Chrysostom

”For the Son of thunder, the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven, who drank the cup of Christ, and was baptized with His baptism, who lay upon his Master’s bosom, with much confidence, this man now comes forward to us now” (Homilies on the Gospel of John, Homily 1.1)

St John Chrysostom

Do you not see that the headship was in the hands of these three, especially of Peter and James? This was the chief cause of their condemnation by Herod (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, Homily XXVI)

I have more if you like but the only thing either of us will prove is that we both have too much time on our hands.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[chrisb]

Just stopping by to say that I love my Orthodox Brothers and Sisters! God Bless them!

They may be a bit nuttie with their Calendars and a touch too rigorist in their traditions but I love them regardless! Again God Bless All of Them!

Cherry picking Early Church documents to support claims on either side is ‘weak’ by-the-way. For Shame on both sides!

Regardless Pax!

 

[josephdaniel29]

Cherry picking Early Church documents to support claims on either side is ‘weak’ by-the-way. For Shame on both sides!

I agree, that’s why I posted the quotes I did. Both sides can trot out quotes that supposedly prove their position, with the same saint often quoted by both sides. But, what they said is of little value, it’s how they behaved that tells you the truth of the matter.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[Nicholas82]

He was fun for a Troll. Probably the most fun Troll on the net.

He was also much more learned than yourself. Not that he was in any way a troll, he posted here much longer and way more coherantly than you.

 

[zagjames]

I have more if you like but the only thing either of us will prove is that we both have too much time on our hands.

Yours in Christ
Joe

This may indeed be the reason for many of the discussions on this forum, way to much times on our hands. A passer by would have to assume that this forum is populated by a bunch of jobless amatuer theologians, thanks to all the threads with continually recycled arguments constantly being used.

May God Bless you and all of the Holy Orthodox Church, and may God bring you to us and us to you. I hope one day we will belong to one united church.

 

[josephdaniel29]

A passer by would have to assume that this forum is populated by a bunch of jobless amatuer theologians

Well I’m not jobless but it doesn’t get much more amatuer than me.

Yours in Christ
Joe

 

[ForeverAdam]

This may indeed be the reason for many of the discussions on this forum, way to much times on our hands. A passer by would have to assume that this forum is populated by a bunch of jobless amateur theologians, thanks to all the threads with continually recycled arguments constantly being used.

Haha. I agree, the constant debates are a bit taxing.

May God Bless you and all of the Holy Orthodox Church, and may God bring you to us and us to you. I hope one day we will belong to one united church.

Amen. May the Lord increase our love for him and for each other.

God bless us all,

Adam

 

[bobzills]

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.

I don’t know, but as I mentioned on the other thread on this topic, Father Hans Kung, who on September 26, 2005, had a friendly discussion about Catholic theology over dinner with His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI, has rejected the doctrine of papal infallibility. See his book: Infallible? An Inquiry (1971). He claims the the doctrine of infallibility is man-made (and thus reversible) rather than instituted by God. He was not excommunicated and remains a Roman Catholic priest and has had a friendly dinner and discussions with the present Pope.

 

[holdencaulfield]

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.

Pope St. Innocent I (408 AD)

“In seeking the things of God . . . following the examples of ancient tradition . . . you have strengthened . . . the vigor of your religion with true reason, for you have acknowledged that judgment is to be referred to us, and have shown that you know what is owed to the Apostolic See, if all of us placed in this position are to desire to follow the apostle himself [Peter] from whom the episcopate itself and the total authority of this name have emerged. Following him, we know how to condemn evils just as well as we know how to approve what is laudable. Or rather, guarding with your priestly office what the Fathers instituted, you did not regard what they had decided, not by human but by divine judgments, as something to be trampled on. They did not regard anything as finished, even though it was the concern of distant and remote provinces, until it had come to the notice of this See [Rome], so that what was a just pronouncement might be confirmed by the authority of this See, and thence other churches—just as all waters proceed from their own natal source and, through the various regions of the whole world, remain pure liquids of an incorrupted head. . . .” (Letters 29:1)

 

[Mickey]

They may be a bit nuttie with their Calendars and a touch too rigorist in their traditions…

Let us hope that you say this tongue-in cheek because many Eastern Catholic Churches hold the same calendar and are just as rigorous in defending Holy Tradition.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

I read this on Orthodoxwiki.org and was wondering what the view of Orthodox here and those Catholics holding sympathies with regard to the Orthodox position thought about it? I hear a lot of divisive polemics, I hear a few Catholics worn out and exhausted because of this issue but I would say be careful trusting in your own desires on this issue. I wound say be careful trusting in your own reasonings on this issue and prayerfully hope that our Bishops will be empowered to put unity over division and heal the One, Catholic, Apostolic, Church. Amen.

Primacy

When John Paul II proposed the question, “Do not many of those involved in ecumenism today feel a need for such a ministry?” in 1995, many Orthodox answered strongly in the affirmative. The question of primacy is not only an important ecumenical topic, but a need to examine the issue is keenly felt within Orthodoxy. Fr. Meyendorff states:

A united witness of the universal episcopate of the Church is not simply a pragmatic necessity, but a sign that the Holy Spirit did not abandon the Church… the unity and coherence of [the Church’s] witness, the service to the world which it implies, the common action which it requires, can be assured only if the episcopate remains one. The function of the “first bishop” is to serve that unity on the world scale, just as the function of a regional primate is to be the agent of unity on a regional scale. The need for a united witness of the Church is a primary consideration. Many have called for renewed thinking about the very concept of primacy itself.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hesychios
This is dangerous, and no Ortthodox church will come close to these people as long as they persist in that kind of thinking. Modern RC churchmen and followers like Holden are guaranteeing that there will be no reconciliation with Holy Orthodoxy.

anyone standing against unity of the Body of Christ is considered demonic. *** Fulton Sheen.***

 

[Mickey]

anyone standing against unity of the Body of Christ is considered demonic. Fulton Sheen.

Pope St Gregory the Great (540-604)
“I say it without the least hesitation, whoever calls himself the universal bishop, or desires this title, is by his pride, the precursor of anti-Christ, because he thus attempts to raise himself above the others. The error into which he falls springs from pride equal to that of anti-Christ; for as that wicked one wished to be regarded as exalted above other men, like a god, so likewise whoever would call himself sole bishop exalteth himself above others”

 

[chrisb]

Let us hope that you say this tongue-in cheek because many Eastern Catholic Churches hold the same calendar and are just as rigorous in defending Holy Tradition.

Grace and Peace Mickey,

Brother I know you and many have a lot of intellect invested in your identities here and elsewhere. If ‘true orthodoxy’ was intellectual ascent to ‘calendars’ and ‘traditions’ we would all be very ‘poor’ disciples indeed.

Far too often, here and elsewhere, our ‘spiritual goods’ are used very badly and as C.S. Lewis once wrote, “Evil is Good done badly”.

Through our fears we have allowed our ‘spiritual goods’ to elevate our pride and to puff up our intellect, to bear the fruit of ridicule and arrogance, confusion and uncertainty. These are not the fruits of the Spirit. For some such fruit borne among the faithful of the See of Rome this is a delight. For the bruised fruit which falls by the shaking of the tree will be gathered into their own house. We know, through the Biblical testimony, that the Law of God was used in a similar fashion during the days that our God walked among us and called us back to that True Way. These ‘spiritual goods’ again were misused during the days of our Blessed Saint Paul and again the faithful calls us back to that True Law in Love. I tremble when one attempts to rationalize the use of our ‘spiritual goods’ to sow division and doubt, uncertainty and confusion. When calendars are used to cause stumbling among the faithful then it’s ‘spiritual good’ has been made ‘evil’. When the observance of days cause some to be puffed up and others to be scandalized, then its ‘spiritual good’ has been made ‘evil’ by it’s use. When our traditions are used to puff up and not nourish the Body of Christ, then our traditions, which true are a spiritual good, has been made ‘evil’.

Laws, Precepts, Traditions, Words… all these things can be misused, misunderstood, a means of wounding and not as a means of healing. When such ‘spiritual goods’ are use in such way they have ‘lost’ their purpose, their original intent has been set aside by the wielder and they no longer serve the Will of God but the Master of Lies and Deception.

As individuals engaged in that Unseen Warfare we must be ever vigilant for there security as ‘spiritual goods’.

You may desire to capitalize ‘Traditions’ and affirm their ‘Holiness’ but in doing so you cloud the fact that in doing so you cannot insure their proper use in the building up the Man of God by ‘your’ use of them in ‘this’ way. This gives the appearance that love’s reign has been abandoned to pride and not good can then be wielded with wisdom.

 

[wisdomseeker]

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

the keys was given to one man only, Peter. obviously all the all the others had some authority because they were in communion with Peter i doubt very much if they refuse obedience to the teachings they would have any authority among them. they were all instructed to go out and teach the Word of god. we have to realize back then the ways of communication was difficult.is not like now we are one phone call away. but they all knew that Peter had authority over them not as a tyrant but as servant among them to settle dispute and other issues. it was the beginning of the Church, troubles would come later. heresies begin to arise as the Church grew, dissentions, enviness, disobidience, false teachings. if there was no authority over them, if everyone claimed authority for themselves then who could say anything that the other was wrong if they all had the same authority? they couldnt. see my point? since no one was over nobody then one could just follow whatever. if they were all equals who is to say who is wrong? it cant. we believe the Church is the Kingdom of God on earth, how many kings do we have? One.( Jesus) whom we cannot see. therefore it makes sense that Jesus would have somebody in charge not to reign by himself but with his cabinets.
the bishops in communion with him. (Isaiah 22).
infallibility is necessary not that Peter was infallible as man neither as any pope can be considered infallibe as man. but infallibility to us as the assurance that Jesus has chosen someone in His church whom He uses to give His mensage in truth. do you understand the confusion in christianity today, we are being mocked by the world. because everyone is buyng a Bible and open a church, there is no authority, why? they are all equals among themselves who can tell them no. nobody.
i just remember the argument between oral roberts and joel osteen. oral roberts says that osteen can not be a pastor he has no education, olsteen tells on tv he is not only a pastor but a reverend now.
PEACE

 

[Mickey]

If ‘true orthodoxy’ was intellectual ascent to ‘calendars’ and ‘traditions’ we would all be very ‘poor’ disciples indeed.

I’m sorry my brother in Christ–but calendars and Tradition are much more than mere “intellectual ascent”.

Far too often, here and elsewhere, our ‘spiritual goods’ are used very badly

I think most of the amateur apologists here are sincere and do the best they can. Do not judge us too harshly.

Through our fears we have allowed our ‘spiritual goods’ to elevate our pride and to puff up our intellect, to bear the fruit of ridicule and arrogance, confusion and uncertainty. These are not the fruits of the Spirit.

Pride is a terrible passion. We are all guilty of it. It is something that we must wage spiritual warfare against on a daily basis.

When calendars are used to cause stumbling among the faithful then it’s ‘spiritual good’ has been made ‘evil’.

I think you are being a bit dramatic (in my opinion). I am confident that in my lifetime, all of Holy Orthodoxy will return to the true calendar–the Julian calendar.

You may desire to capitalize ‘Traditions’ and affirm their ‘Holiness’

Sacred Tradition is part of the Holy Orthodox faith–I will continue to capitalize its importance and affirm its holiness.

This gives the appearance that love’s reign has been abandoned to pride and not good can then be wielded with wisdom.

If you think that I am motivated by pride and seek division–I am saddened. I understand that I am weak and I repent daily. I receive the Mystery of Reconciliation on a weekly basis so that I may receive Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the most Holy and Precious Gifts.

We all have that pesky log in our eye.

This sinner asks for your forgiveness for any offense I may have caused you.

 

[chrisb]

I’m sorry my brother in Christ–but calendars and Tradition are much more than mere “intellectual ascent”.

Please know that debates, such as these, referencing and proof-texting 1000 years of built up resentment, bigotry, bias and hubris, on both sides, will not heal the breach which has been built up there of.

I think most of the amateur apologists here are sincere and do the best they can. Do not judge us too harshly.

If only our pursuit of that union with God in our participation in the Divine Nature were done with such zeal… the whole world would be One.

Pride is a terrible passion. We are all guilty of it. It is something that we must wage spiritual warfare against on a daily basis.

We are all called to Christian Perfection and perhaps we are all guilty of falling short of the call but as our Blessed Saint Paul spoke in his Epistle to the Romans: *“But do you suppose this, O man, when you pass judgment on those who practice such things and do the same yourself, that you will escape the judgment of God?” *Reflecting on this do we think by admitting the guilt of the whole world we can somehow justify our failure?

I think you are being a bit dramatic (in my opinion). I am confident that in my lifetime, all of Holy Orthodoxy will return to the true calendar–the Julian calendar.

“One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord, and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God; and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.” ~ the ‘spiritual good’ is in our union with God not in Calendars. When we participate in that Divine Nature, we will all be One in Him.

Sacred Tradition is part of the Holy Orthodox faith–I will continue to capitalize its importance and affirm its holiness.
If you think that I am motivated by pride and seek division–I am saddened. I understand that I am weak and I repent daily. I receive the Mystery of Reconciliation on a weekly basis so that I may receive Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ in the most Holy and Precious Gifts.

I am saddened as well. When exterior observances take pride of place to that interior kingdom we have lost sight of the Way.

We all have that pesky log in our eye.

In meekness, let us see with each others eyes.

This sinner asks for your forgiveness for any offense I may have caused you.

Pardon me brother for throwing such a wide net. It was not meant simply to capture your. The only offense I hold is toward myself and my endless failure to decrease so that He might increase within me but in so reflecting I call us all to the same.

God Bless you.

 

[Mickey]

In meekness, let us see with each others eyes.

The fact that I believe post-schism Rome has veered from the path of Orthodoxy; The fact that I believe post-schism Rome has embraced doctrinal innovation; The fact that I do not agree with much of the Thomistic theology of the Latin Church;

Does not mean that I seek division.

I seek truth.

Truth cannot be compromised.

May God bless you on your journey.

St Mark of Ephesus pray for us.

 

[Tomster]

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

That belief in the pontifical infallibity has always been alive in some form or another in the depths of the heart of the Church appears in a twofold outward sign observable by historians. Firstly, from the earliest centuries difficult and capital causes were referred to the Bishop of Rome. This, undoubtably, directly establishes only the primacy of the Bishop of Rome, not his infallibilty; but this primacy had to make decisions that concerned Christian faith and life - it was a primacy in the realm of truth; and that is why, in the highest causes, it was incompatible with error. Secondly, without the confirmation, at least tacit, of the Pope, no Council, even general, has ever been held to be valid.

Oriental Catholicism recognized in the Roman Church a juridical competence, a superior authority to which recourse could be had to reform sentences pronounced, whether regularly or otherwise, by the oriental Councils. The oldest known case of such recourse was in 340 A.D., that of St. Athanasius and the bishops deposed by the Arian faction of Eusebius, formerly of Nicodemia and then of Constantinople. This precedent became law, and this law of resort to Rome remained in force till the rupture of 1054.

Oriental Catholicism inaugurated, with the Council of Nicea, the institution of the ecumenical Council, an embodiment of the authority of the universal episcopate. It is to be noted that the first seven ecumenical Councils were held in the East, and had been convoked to settle differences about the faith that troubled the East - Arianism, Macedonianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Three Chapters, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm. The East had seen many other Councils, some even, in Arian days, that claimed to be ecumenical, such as those of Rimini-Seleucia. However, it recognized only those Councils as ecumenical to which the Church of Rome had been invited and had either taken part in or subsequently approved. One principle dominates the theory of every ecumenical Council; no decision involving the Catholic faith is taken without the Roman Church, and none can be ecumenical without her.

Catholicism is the communion in unity of faith and institutions of all the Churches of the Oikoumene. This unity is assured by the association of the Churches on the one hand, and on the other by an authority of universal scope which may be seen in operation long before Constantine took the initiative of convoking the first ecumenical Council. This authority is that of the Apostolic See par excellence, the See of Rome. What is true of the second century, of the third century, is true for the Greek East, and true till the schism of the eleventh century, which could justify itself only by repudiating, as far as this point is concerned, the doctrine of the ten preceding centuries.