Orthodoxy, Papacy

[steve_b]

The dominant position within modern exegesis seems to be that Peter is the Rock, certainly. (And I agree.) But do you want to base your claims on that?

Some tried to say it wasn’t Peter but Peter’s faith as if Peter’s faith was different and seperate from Peter. Peter and his faith are one. THAT’s the dominant view.
C:

The dominant position in modern exegesis also holds that this passage was probably added by Matthew to the account he took from Mark.

Where’s the proof that

• Matthew copied from Mark,
• OR that Matthew added something that the HS didn’t want said

C:

You clearly don’t believe that. So you pick and choose from scholarly exegesis.

If you reduce Irenaeus and ECF’s to “exegete” I plead guilty.

Since I’M expected to give evidence for my positions, I try and pick from primary sources directly.
C:

Dale Allison (a very respected contemporary Protestant exegete). Note that he rejects both the traditional Protestant view (Peter is just a representative believer/disciple) and the Catholic claim that Peter is the first holder of a church office.

Dale can prove Peter wasn’t the first holder of a Church office?
C:

(indeed, Peter’s the only one for whom such individual succession is generally considered important, though some of the others are claimed by other Sees or regions of the Church, generally with much less solid basis), Peter cannot be talking about exactly what we mean when we say that bishops are successors of the Apostles.

apostolic succession is clear in scripture. Therefore Peter would have a successor too.
C:

Furthermore, there’s no evidence that Matthias took over Judas’s responsibilities as treasurer, so it’s not clear that he was a successor to Judas specifically rather than someone chosen to fill up the empty place among the Twelve.

“Let his (Judas) office (bishoprick) another take.” [Acts 1:20] And Matthias was chosen. And notice who called for Judas replacement? It was Peter.
C:

Note: I don’t have a problem saying that the choosing of Matthias points toward the practice of choosing bishops as successors to the apostles. I’m just saying that it’s not quite the same thing, since Matthias was chosen to be an apostle and not just to be a successor to the Apostles, and since the dominant reason for choosing him was clearly that they needed twelve Apostles to proclaim the Resurrection. Hence, you can’t use this to prove that Peter has successors to this day in whatever special role Jesus gave him. If Allison is right, Peter is being chosen to have a particular role in salvation history–a once-for-all role that does not have successors.

And Allison proves Peter has no successor how?
C:

You’re assuming that it must mean either a physical rock or a person who can be called a rock–that it couldn’t mean faith or the confession of Jesus’ Messiahship or something like that. That’s petitio principii–begging the question. (Note: I’m not necessarily arguing for these views. I’m just pointing out that the passage is not crystal clear.)

It’s clear which Rock Jesus is speaking of. That whole argument is long been settled.
C:

Exactly. In the context of later Catholic teaching. You are begging the question again.

Stop with this begging the question. You’ve got 10,000 + posts here. This ain’t your first rodeo. You know the points I made are backed up by solid evidence. At some point where does one not have to continually repeat themself
C:

You’re just paraphrasing. You haven’t shown how you get from this to infallibility.

If Peter wasn’t infallible in his teaching why believe anything he wrote? Same with Paul, or any of the books of scripture?

If you say scripture is inspired by the HS, I would say how do you know this? You say it’s mentioned in scripture, I would say that’s circular reasoning, or you would say, it comes from Peter. Yes it DOES come from Peter, to which I say, but you don’t believe Peter is infallible, so maybe he made a mistake. See where this is going?

Infallibility isn’t new.
C:

This is confusing. Your basis for saying that the earlier passage (describing the humility that is to characterize the “hegemon”) refers to Peter is precisely this passage here. So I don’t get what you are saying here.

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

Who was Jesus referring to?

• Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? NO.
• Did He say one would NOT (hegiomai), be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No,
• He confirmed that one would

Right after Jesus says this Jesus said to Peter

31"Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you (plural) as wheat. 32 But I have prayed for you (singular), Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers."

Peter was to (hegeomai) over the Church. And Jesus confirms it again in [Jn 21:15…] But we already new that from [Mt 16:16…]

 

[steve_b]

There’s no evidence that Paul ever refused to eat with Gentile believers. But you may be right that Paul came to see that Peter wasn’t as completely wrong as he had thought!

Jerome in his discussion with Augustine, had an interesting analysis of this episode in Gal 2 where Paul rebukes Peter.

St Jerome observes that,

1. 
   *]Peter was well aware of the law of Moses, but was playing to those who were weak in their faith and out of fear that he might lose them, did what he did so like the Good Shepherd, would not lose ANYONE given to him. Now look at what Paul did
   *]In Acts 16:1-3 Paul took a disciple named Timothy… and on account of the Jews of that region, Paul had Timothy a gentile, circumcised. Then
   *]Acts 18:18, Acts 21: 18-26 Paul shaved his head, purified himself and made sacrifice according to the Mosaic law, which he had previously said is no longer to be followed.
   
   Catch that? PaulrebukesPeter while giving himself a pass on far more. But actually, Paul learned from Peter in this exercise that he would enjoin later in his ministry… Because Paul later in his travels explains HIS behavior by saying, to the Gentiles he becomes as a Gentile, to win them over, as to the Jews he became a Jew so that some might be saved. [1 cor 9:20] This is exactly what Peter did earlier with the gentiles and was rebuked by Paul for it. Then Paul embraces this behavior for himself…
   
   St Jerome points out.
   
   “O blessed Apostle Paul, who has rebuked Peter
   for hypocrasybecause he withdrew himself from the
   Gentiles for fear of the Jews who’ came from
   James, why are you, not withstanding your own
   doctrine, compelled to circumcise Timothy, the son of a
   Gentile, for he was not a Jew, having not been circumcised? Will you answer, ‘Because of the Jews which are in these quarters.? If so, then forgive yourself the circumcision of a disciple coming from the Gentiles, and forgive Peter also, who has precedence above you, his doing some things of the same kind through fear of the believing Jews.”
   
   Jerome continues, “Why did you [Paul] shave your head, why did you walk barefoot according to the Jewish ceremonial law, why did you offer sacrifices, why were victims slain for you according to the law? Will you answer, ‘To avoid giving offense to those of the Jews who had believed.’ To gain the Jews, you did pretend to be a Jew”. [snip]
   
   I tried to highlight and compress ( albeit a poor job on my part) what Jerome writes to Augustine concerning this subject. I focused particularly on paragraphs 4-18 of his letter. Here is Jerome’s full letter. Please read it. Forget my inept job at trying to summarize. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1102075.htm
   C:
   

   Anyway, that’s not the point here. The point I’m making is that Jesus lays out certain qualifications for the “hegemon.” If you want to argue that this is another passage pointing to Peter as leader (which seems like a legitimate interpretation to me), then there’s baggage that comes with that. It doesn’t sound, on the face of it, as if Jesus is saying “follow the hegemon blindly.” What if the hegemon acts just like the rulers of the Gentiles? What then?

   Wasn’t this all addressed over time? Yes.
   C:
   

   You assume–without argument–that the hegemon retains authority in that case.

   You have to admit, Jesus told Peter to rule before Peter denied Jesus. Even though Jesus knew Peter would deny Him, and He told Peter in advance what Peter would do, did Jesus reverse what He did for Peter because of the denial? No. Jesus knew Peter would turn around.
   C:
   

   but here you’re willing to say that his description of what the hegemon is supposed to be like is merely good advice which the hegemon can ignore and still retain authority!

   I never said that

 

[steve_b]

(That’s the only way you can argue that the Papacy has unconditional authority based on this passage.) Your hermeneutical principle seems to be: “any passage that seems to give the papacy authority is to be interpreted in its strongest sense; any passage that seems to limit that authority is to be watered down or ignored.”

I gave passages from Matthew, Luke and John. Not to mention ECF’s writings. The message is strong as is the evidence for those who want to see it.
C:

So do the Orthodox. In the eleventh century the Orthodox said, “Wait a minute–the Papacy is claiming authority like that of an emperor–authority that it has not had until now.” You are willing simply to dismiss this. I’m not.

Oh c’mon. We know what happened.
C:

Put this in context of the broader debate: apologists for your Communion often criticize the Orthodox precisely because they don’t have a central authority with “real” power.

Well?
C:

Similarly, many folks (including me) have concerns about the Orthodox history of subservience to the state.

Don’t forget the Sultan too. For 500 years the patriarch of then Constantinople, served at the pleasure of the Sultan.
C:

What I meant to say was this: it’s logically possible for the Church to be indefectible and not infallible.

I prefer infallible

 

[Contarini]

Some tried to say it wasn’t Peter but Peter’s faith as if Peter’s faith was different and seperate from Peter. Peter and his faith are one. THAT’s the dominant view.

I agree that no one would have thought to separate Peter and Peter’s faith except for the polemical context, in which your Communion was claiming that the promise came to Peter-as-forerunner-of-the-Papacy. That’s why, in a less polemical context, exegetes like Allison are happy to say, “Sure, Peter is the Rock.”

The question really is: is the promise made to Peter-as-office-holder, Peter-as-believer, or Peter-as-something-else (Allison’s “salvation history” view, for instance).

Where’s the proof that

• Matthew copied from Mark,

No proof. You keep talking about proof. It’s hard to prove anything in NT scholarship–that’s one reason Ferde’s claim that “the passage doesn’t need interpretation” is particularly absurd. But there are good reasons to believe that Mark was written first and that Matthew used Mark as a source. The dominant view among contemporary scholars is that Matthew probably elaborated on Mark’s account, because Matthew’s community (perhaps based in Antioch) gave particular importance to Peter. I agree that this is highly speculative, but many Catholic scholars endorse it.

OR that Matthew added something that the HS didn’t want said

Indeed. That’s why I don’t find this a particularly important point. I mentioned it to be thorough, and because it’s something that Catholic scholars (such as Raymond Brown) typically see the need to address in their discussions of this passage.

If you reduce Irenaeus and ECF’s to “exegete” I plead guilty.

Then why did you say that few dispute the identification of Peter with the Rock now? That led me to think that you were talking about contemporary exegesis.

Dale can prove Peter wasn’t the first holder of a Church office?

Of course not. But as a scholar trying to discern the most likely interpretation, he doesn’t think the evidence favors that one. In my opinion that’s not much of an argument against the Catholic position–but it is very strong evidence against the claim that this passage is perfectly clear and that exegetes now generally accept the Catholic interpretation.

apostolic succession is clear in scripture.

No, it isn’t. If it were, then it wouldn’t be so controversial among Protestants. Protestantism exists because Scripture is not clear, and it exists in many different forms because Scripture is not clear. That is a strong point in favor of Catholicism–usually the first weapon in the Catholic apologist’s arsenal–and hence I find it odd that you and Ferde are arguing for the perspicuity of Scripture. If Scripture were perspicuous, then either Protestantism would not exist or we would all be Protestants, and Protestants of more or less the same sort. (Or, as some silly Protestants think, the people who really believe the Bible would be Protestants of the “right kind” and the ones who follow human traditions wouldn’t! You and Ferde appear to hold the mirror image of that absurd and demeaning view.)

I do believe that apostolic succession is found in Scripture–most clearly in the Pastoral Epistles. But obviously it’s not perfectly clear, or so many Protestants would not fail to see it.

Therefore Peter would have a successor too.

So Matthias was the successor of Judas specifically? What signals this? What characterizes a successor of Judas as distinct from a successor of Andrew or John? If nothing does, plainly Acts 1 is no evidence for Peter having specific successors. And you did not answer my point about the number twelve. Since there are far more than twelve bishops, and since all bishops are successors of the Apostles, it follows that what was going on in Acts 1 was something rather different from the succession of apostles by bishops.

Stop with this begging the question. You’ve got 10,000 + posts here. This ain’t your first rodeo. You know the points I made are backed up by solid evidence.

If I knew that, why would I be arguing with you? If you think that my experience on this forum indicates that I have hardened my heart and am not worth arguing with, then you are free not to respond to me, of course. But it is odd to engage in an argument with me and then expect me continually to accept the Catholic point as already proven, simply because I’ve heard it many times before.

In this particular case, I understand “binding and loosing” to refer both to authoritative teaching and to the Sacrament of Reconciliation–and possibly also, as Protestants have historically maintained, to the preaching of the Word of God.

At some point where does one not have to continually repeat themself

Perhaps, instead of repeating yourself, you might try making better arguments. In particular, you might try making more nuanced arguments and avoiding “leaving hostages to fortune” by stating your point more strongly than the evidence will allow.

There is a fairly strong probable case to be made for the Papacy from Matt. 16. Matt. 16 is one of the reasons I have qualms about accepting the common Orthodox view that the Papacy is purely a matter of human order. But when Catholic apologists use the absurd “if we are wrong then Jesus lied” argument, I will (so far as time allows) oppose them every time. The passage does not have to mean what you say it means. Why not be content with probability?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

If Peter wasn’t infallible in his teaching why believe anything he wrote?

Non sequitur. There is no rational reason to believe only those things one thinks are infallible. Instead, one should believe those things one thinks are true.

If you say scripture is inspired by the HS, I would say how do you know this?

The Church teaches so.

The point about Luke 22 is becoming too confusing, and it isn’t hugely important. But one more time: your case for Peter being the “hegemon” comes from the precise passage where the “sifting” was mentioned. You interpreted it in such a way as to assume that Peter had already been singled out as the “hegemon” at that point. But as I said, it’s not a point of huge importance.

Jerome in his discussion with Augustine, had an interesting analysis of this episode in Gal 2 where Paul rebukes Peter.

Jerome thinks that Paul and Peter didn’t really disagree, but just pretended to in order to make a point about the abrogation of the Law. Jerome sanctions pious fraud and was rightly rebuked by Augustine on this point. Jerome’s view that the Law could not be practiced even by Jews without sin after the coming of Christ was also the foundation for later Christian anti-Judaism, while Augustine’s view was a restraint on anti-Judaism because it treated the Torah more positively. You are on the wrong side here. As I said earlier, it’s not true that Paul was doing the same thing he repeated Peter for doing, since Paul did not segregate himself from Gentiles. Note that one of the reason Paul was attacked in the Temple was that people had seen him in the street with Gentiles, and mistakenly assumed that he had brought them into the Temple. That is quite different from Peter’s attempt to make the Jewish believers think he didn’t eat with Gentiles, when in fact he did so when they weren’t around.

But this is not relevant to the question, as you pointed out. You’re the one who brought this up. See, there are some arguments you *don’t *have to repeat.

You have to admit, Jesus told Peter to rule before Peter denied Jesus. Even though Jesus knew Peter would deny Him, and He told Peter in advance what Peter would do, did Jesus reverse what He did for Peter because of the denial? No. Jesus knew Peter would turn around.

Indeed. I’m not sure how that helps your position, since if anything it strengthens the view that the authority given Peter was conditional (on Jesus’ knowledge that Peter would “turn around”–but of course Jesus says that He has prayed for just this; the fact that this is talking about Peter’s denial weakens your claim that it’s talking about papal infallibility).

Edwin

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Don’t try and take the absolute that if the Catholic Church=/=the Church of the first millennium, then Jesus lied. You have no way to objectively prove that.

Of course I do. “I will be with you ALWAYS until the end of the world.” “Always” means from the time He said it to the end of the world. If you can prove otherwise, I’m open to consider it.

If you believe it and have room for the deviations that have occured since the 11th Century, you’ll have to show me how Jesus stayed with His Church while it wandered off the rails. The history of the Church shows clearly the Catholic Church is the Church that evolved from Pentecost. I’ve challenged Edwin to show us any evidence of an ‘Orthodox Church’ before the 11th Century. I offer the same challenge to you.

Otherwise, the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox would have never left, and likely, the Protestants wouldn’t have, either. Some, anyway.

That doesn’t scan for me, I’m afraid. It’s pure conjecture. As Steve has noted, Satan is always enticing people away from the Catholic Church. He hates the Church and is the Church’s greatest, most powerful enemy. Much of his army comes from the human race.

On the flip side, show me that the Church of the first millennium was objectively and without question the Catholic Church we know today?

I’ll do that if you can show me they had electricity and running water in the first millennium.

Using a quote with small c catholic won’t do it; as others have said, the Orthodox consider their church Catholic and us Catholics consider our church orthodox. (in fact, I think it might have been mentioned, but a name for the EOC is Orthodox Catholic Church)

Exactly. I explained this in my first post on this thread. I believe it’s message #121 at the top of p. 9.

But, can you prove that Peter was infallible? Can you prove that he was absolute ruler over the Twelve, a “bishop of bishops” of sorts?

Steve has covered that in his dialogue with Edwin.

What’s your understanding of the doctrine of infallibility? That’s for you, too, Edwin if you want to share.

So, even though there were questions about the nature of Christ in the early Church, there DEFINITELY wasn’t any question that the Roman See was absolutely dominant, and what Rome said went every single time?

It’s not quite that simple. If you’re really confused, try reading the history of the early Church. Read the early Fathers about this subject. You’ll find much of it on this site. Telling the whole story here would take up far too much space.

I covered your last statements above. No sense repeating it.

BTW, I think the grandiose claim is that the truths taught by the Catholic Church are not the truth. Jesus came to build one Church. No two, not five, not five thousand. One. As regards the truth, ditto.

See above. Don’t try and use an absolute; it’s far too grandiose a claim to make, and falls flat on its face when you can line up quotes from the Fathers to say just about anything you like. ONE of the Churches here is right. But it doesn’t mean that “If the Catholic Church is wrong then Jesus lied.” You cannot objectively prove that the Catholic Church was without question the Church of the first millennium. If you say it is, fine. If you say it’s not and it’s either the Oriental Orthodox or the Eastern Orthodox, I can dig that. But if you say that if one of these Churches is wrong then Jesus must have lied, then I can’t take you seriously.

 

[Shiranui117]

Of course I do. “I will be with you ALWAYS until the end of the world.” “Always” means from the time He said it to the end of the world. If you can prove otherwise, I’m open to consider it.

I’m not saying that Jesus would break His promise to us. But again, you are trying to go for an absolute here. Just because Jesus would be with us until the end of the ages, doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is objectively correct.

If you believe it and have room for the deviations that have occured since the 11th Century, you’ll have to show me how Jesus stayed with His Church while it wandered off the rails. The history of the Church shows clearly the Catholic Church is the Church that evolved from Pentecost. I’ve challenged Edwin to show us any evidence of an ‘Orthodox Church’ before the 11th Century. I offer the same challenge to you.

Deviations occurred, but on whose side? You can’t say that we have the EXACT same teachings as what we did during the first millenium. “Development” at some point adds more to the mix, while removing the nasty stuff. The deposit of faith, even if it is refined, either gains purity or loses impurities. In this regard, I believe that both East and West have “refined” their teachings, but in different directions, with the Western Church opting more for legalistic definitions of things and a more authoritarian hierarchy, and the East for collegiality and leaving things a Mystery to be contemplated, as no human definition can capture the whole of God’s Mysteries, (as far as this greenhorn rookie can tell )

That doesn’t scan for me, I’m afraid. It’s pure conjecture. As Steve has noted, Satan is always enticing people away from the Catholic Church. He hates the Church and is the Church’s greatest, most powerful enemy. Much of his army comes from the human race.

Granted. Though, to what end?

I’ll do that if you can show me they had electricity and running water in the first millennium.

Har-har. You know precisely what I mean. Don’t dodge the question.

Exactly. I explained this in my first post on this thread. I believe it’s message #121 at the top of p. 9.

I don’t see how that gives any objective proof that the Catholic Church was the Church of the first millenium. That’s not a point any which way.

What’s your understanding of the doctrine of infallibility? That’s for you, too, Edwin if you want to share.

A user on this site has given a description of papal infallibility that I believe to be tenable… I can’t remember his exact definition, but as far as I recall, it basically states what Apostolic Canon 34 says:

Canon XXXIV. (XXXV.)

The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit [some mss. read: through the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Father through the Lord by the Holy Spirit, even the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit].

…In other words, while Rome is the Apostolic See and the Pope is Peter’s successor, the Pope is infallible when with the collegiality of his brother bishops. And, frankly, that’s the only palatable view for me; the day when it is mandated that the Pope become the be-all, end-all and put his brother bishops beneath his feet and, as Luke puts it, lord power over everyone, is the day when I leave the Catholic Church; I cannot stomach someone who acts as if he had God’s knowledge or authority, as that flies utterly in the face of Luke 22:24-30, and every other call Jesus made for us to be humble and serve.

It’s not quite that simple. If you’re really confused, try reading the history of the early Church. Read the early Fathers about this subject. You’ll find much of it on this site. Telling the whole story here would take up far too much space.

Though, it seems that, for every would-be conclusive quote from the Fathers, that very same quote can often be put back into its proper context and nullify any connotation to the modern-day arguments we see for the Papacy, while various interpretations will put it towards one view or the other. As you say, it’s not quite that simple.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

…The Orthodox claim to be the Catholic Church, and that’s what this dispute is about. Therefore, your argument is a blatant example of the logical fallacy called “petitio principii,” or begging the question.

I was flipping through the files and came across this. If the Orthodox claim to be the Catholic Church, why to they call themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church? Why don’t they call themselves “The Catholic Church?”

 

[Hesychios]

I was flipping through the files and came across this. If the Orthodox claim to be the Catholic Church, why to they call themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church? Why don’t they call themselves “The Catholic Church?”

But the Orthodox do!

This line of thinking is among the least substantive of any I have seen, and it comes up a lot, like a bad penny.

It is the wider world that uses the shorthand expression, and Orthodox accept that gracefully without ever denying their own Catholicity. After all, the term ‘orthodox’ itself is not incorrect, the word means ‘right belief’ or ‘correct thought’ so certainly one would never say “no, we are not!”.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

And your evidence for this is? Clearly the Orthodox disagree!

That’s in answer to my claim the ECFs came to the same conclusion re: the primacy of Peter. The evidence, fr openers:

St. Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: …which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer vs. Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair, and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

Eusebius of Caesarea
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Pope Julius I
“Judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).

Council of Sardica
“*f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).

Continued…*

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

And your evidence for this is? Clearly the Orthodox disagree!

Continuing…

Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas ‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

St. Jerome
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).

“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).

“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).

…
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).

Continued…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

And your evidence for this is? Clearly the Orthodox disagree!

Continuing…

“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).
Ambrose of Milan
“[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]” (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).

St. Augustine
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

Council of Ephesus
“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Pope Leo I
“As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter” (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).

“Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]” (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).

Peter Chrysologus
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).

Council of Chalcedon (accepted by most Protestants in other areas)
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

But the Orthodox do!

They do not. They (you) call themselves The Orthodox Church. You just referred to them as “The Orthodox.” You identify your religion as “Orthodox in communion with other Orthodox.”

I do not deny the catholicity of the Orthodox, but they do not call themselves The Catholic Church and they never did, no matter how fervently you want to have it so.

 

[josephdaniel29]

I was flipping through the files and came across this. If the Orthodox claim to be the Catholic Church, why to they call themselves the Orthodox Catholic Church?

To distinguish ourselves from the heterodox (i.e. Roman) Catholic Church.

 

[JimCBrooklyn]

They do not. They (you) call themselves The Orthodox Church. You just referred to them as “The Orthodox.” You identify your religion as “Orthodox in communion with other Orthodox.”

I do not deny the catholicity of the Orthodox, but they do not call themselves The Catholic Church and they never did, no matter how fervently you want to have it so.

You’re making good arguments, or at least worthwhile arguments, in every other case. This one is not of that class, and it diminishes everything else that you say. It’s like saying that Canada is not in Americas, because the word “America” does not appear in the official title of the nation. The two labels were attached to the two churches over the years since the split in order to distinguish one from the other, period.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You’re making good arguments, or at least worthwhile arguments, in every other case. This one is not of that class, and it diminishes everything else that you say. It’s like saying that Canada is not in Americas, because the word “America” does not appear in the official title of the nation. The two labels were attached to the two churches over the years since the split in order to distinguish one from the other, period.

“One new heresy arose after another, and the former ones always passed away, and now at one time, now at another, now in one way, now in other ways, were lost in ideas of various kinds and various forms. But the splendor of the catholic and only true Church, which is always the same, grew in magnitude and power, and reflected its piety and simplicity and freedom, and the modesty and purity of its inspired life and philosophy to every nation both of Greeks and of Barbarians.”

		Eusebius, History of the Church, Book IV, ch.7

This is the first time ‘catholic’ and ‘church’ appear together in Eusebius’ history.

“About this time Ambrose, who held the 1. heresy of Valentinus, was convinced by Origen’s presentation of the truth, and, as if his mind were illumined by light, he accepted the orthodox doctrine of the Church.”

                                                            Id. Book V, ch. 18

This is an example of how the word ‘orthodox’ was used by the ECFs.

"Chapter 29. Paul, having been refuted by Malchion, a Presbyter from the Sophists, was excommunicated.

1. 1. During his reign a final synod composed of a great many bishops was held, and the leader of heresy in Antioch was detected, and his false doctrine clearly shown before all, and he was excommunicated from the **Catholic Church **under heaven."
      

        		   Id.  Book VII, ch. 29

This is the first use of ‘Catholic Church’ in Eusebius’ history.

"1. The pastors who had assembled about this matter, prepared by common consent an epistle addressed to Dionysius, 1. bishop of Rome, and Maximus of Alexandria, and sent it to all the provinces. In this they make manifest to all their own zeal and the perverse error of Paul, and the arguments and discussions which they had with him, and show the entire life and conduct of the man. It may be well to put on record at the present time the following extracts from their writing:

1. To Dionysius and Maximus, and to all our fellow-ministers throughout the world, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, **and to the whole Catholic Church under heaven, **Helenus, Hymenæus, Theophilus, Theotecnus, Maximus, Proclus, Nicomas, Ælianus, Paul, Bolanus, Protogenes, Hierax, Eutychius, Theodorus, Malchion, and Lucius, and all the others who dwell with us in the neighboring cities and nations, bishops, presbyters, and deacons, and the churches of God, greeting to the beloved brethren in the Lord."
   

    			  Id.  Ch. 30

"17. Afterwards, at the close of the epistle, they add these words:

1. Therefore we have been compelled to excommunicate him, since he sets himself against God, and refuses to obey; and to appoint in his place another bishop for the Catholic Church."
   Id.

Eusebius wrote his history in the 4th Century. The Catholic Church was called the Catholic Church by the 4th Century at the latest. There is no mention of ‘The Orthodox Church’ in the 4th Century. Or the 5th, 6th 7th, 8th, etc.

What is it going to take, Joe???

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Non sequitur. The Orthodox may be correct. Or the Spirit might still be at work guiding the Church to all truth–we might not be there yet!

Nonsequitur. I fully agree with you, but that doesn’t mean the Spirit hasn’t guided the Church to the truth to this day.

No. First of all, the Orthodox might be the true Church.

And they might not. If fact, I’m certain they’re not, but let me say the same thing you said to me re Scripture – don’t tell me, show me. (You can’t, so you might not want to spend too much time on it.) I know you said “might be” but if you’re going to make the inference, you ought to come up with something to support it, huh?

And in the second place, as I have pointed out several times, the promise that “the gates of hell will not prevail” can mean a lot of things. It might mean that eventually the Church will overcome the powers of evil. It might mean that there will always be true Christians in the world. It might mean a lot of things. You can’t just assume that it means “the bishops of Rome are successors of Peter and thus will never err when they teach faith and morals ex cathedra or in company with a gathering which they have declared to be an Ecumenical Council.” Especially given the ambiguities about just what is ex cathedra, what counts as a “teaching of the Church,” etc.

It means all those things. Satan attacks the Church in many ways, 24/7/52.

Does it make sense to you that the Lord would build a Church then turn it out on the world with no guarantee it will teach the truth?

Petitio principii. You claim to be the sole heirs of the Catholic Church of the first millennium.

You’re welcome to disprove it if you can, bearing in mind the Lord came to form one Church.

I take issue with ‘sole heirs.’ The Orthodox are clearly a body of believers within the true Church. If they’d stop sulking and join hands with us, we could get a lot accomplished together.

And your saying that the second-millennium body in communion with Rome is exactly the same as (and/or the sole heir to) the first-millennium Catholic Church won’t do it either.

I never said it was EXACTLY the same. The doctrine is consistent, there have been additions and clarifications as required and as guided by the Spirit, but it’s the same Church and the Papacy is the longest continuous seat of authority on the planet. You can look it up. again.

continued…

 

[Contarini]

And they might not. If fact, I’m certain they’re not, but let me say the same thing you said to me re Scripture – don’t tell me, show me. (You can’t, so you might not want to spend too much time on it.) I know you said “might be” but if you’re going to make the inference, you ought to come up with something to support it, huh?

All I need to support it is the prima facie evidence that the Orthodox, like you, stand in continuity with the very earliest Church. To a fair-minded observer, it is not entirely clear which of you has a better claim. You insist otherwise, but of course you are biased. Your silly use of the term “Catholic” as an argument is enough to discredit you as a fair observer of the historical reality.

To break the apparent “tie,” one or the other of you has to come up with conclusive evidence. It is silly to ask someone who is undecided (me) to give a reason for being undecided. Naturally one is undecided until one sees clear evidence for one side or the other.

Does it make sense to you that the Lord would build a Church then turn it out on the world with no guarantee it will teach the truth?

First of all, a lot of things that are clearly true don’t make sense to me. God did not ask my advice when creating the world, or when redeeming us, or when establishing the Church. Indeed, God has yet to ask my advice on anything. Perhaps He has asked you–perhaps you were present with Him at creation and shared your abundant wisdom with Him–but I would need very strong evidence to support such a claim (Note: I engage in this sarcasm because of the loose way you are using the phrase “make sense.” You seem to mean something like “it isn’t the sort of thing I would do if I were God.” If you want to provide an argument beyond the subjective statement that it “doesn’t make sense to you,” I am happy to listen. I do not think that God’s actions are irrational.)

In the second place, I believe that God has guaranteed that there would always be a Church teaching the truth. (Just what kind and degree of error in the statements and actions of the Church’s leaders may be compatible with “teaching the truth” is open to debate–see the “When Did Rome Go Wrong” thread for a lengthy and probably fruitless discussion of this point!) That is why I don’t think Protestantism can be true–it has to be either you guys or one of the three Eastern Communions (and of those three, the Chalcedonian Orthodox are overwhelmingly the most likely to be in the right). But this does not help us decide between you and the Orthodox.

I take issue with ‘sole heirs.’ The Orthodox are clearly a body of believers within the true Church.

So what becomes of “Christ established one Church”? The Orthodox certainly don’t *think *they are one with you. Doesn’t it then follow that one of you has separated from the true Church? You want to have your cake and eat it too here. (I find this view very appealing, by the way. I’m just pointing out the problem with it!)

I never said it was EXACTLY the same. The doctrine is consistent, there have been additions and clarifications as required and as guided by the Spirit

Exactly. And the point at issue between you and the Orthodox is whether these “additions and clarifications” were really guided by the Spirit. That’s why you cannot argue, “See, the early Church called itself Catholic and we call ourselves Catholic, so we must be the same!”

Edwin

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Nor does the fact that you call yourselves “the Catholic Church” prove anything.

That’s absurd. We don’t ‘call ourselves.’ It’s what the world has called the Catholic Church from at least the 4th Century to today. How is a body of believers, or anybody or anything to be identified if not by its name? Do you have the same name you had when you were 4 years old? If so, why? If you changed your name, would someone who knew you at 4 and not since think you’re the same person? Why not?

You are not applying reason to facts. This latest is nothing but garden variety denial, perhaps to retain a debating point. Not impressive at all.

The one making the claim shoulders the burden of proof. I’m saying that from my perspective either you or the Orthodox could be the continuation of the first-millennium Catholic Church.

There. You just used the term “The Catholic Church.” Did that name go out of fashion at sometime between the first millennium and the tenth and was then adopted by an entirely different entity or is it a continuous reference to the Catholic Church from then to now? It doesn’t prove anything? To you it doesn’t prove anything, but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t prove anything.

“You call reality to the tribunal of your opinion, and then potentially full of objections, having become too shrewd to accept its most gratutious and surprising evidence and suggestions, you only admit what suits you.” Luigi Giussani, The Religious Sense, pp. 122-123.

“When we see this activev in us, it is truly pathetic: People who insist there are no facts, because they are not willing to acknowledge them, not because they’re not there.” Fr. Julian Carron, Communion and Liberation Fraternal Exercises, Rimini, April, 2010, commenting on the above quotation.

(Or both–but of course that puts me at odds with both of you–which is why I’m staying Anglican until either you guys unite or I become certain which one of you is right.)

I think you’ve made a decision. I think you’re quite comfortable where you are and have no intention to go anywhere. You like this exercise we’re going through, as do I. It’s entertainment for you and you’re good at it, but anyone with your intelligence, searching for the truth, would have come to a conclusion by now.

Neither of you, at the schism, simply said “we repudiate these things which we used to believe and practice.” The Orthodox have a good case that you guys changed your faith and practice in some significant ways, by adding the Filioque to the Creed…

Can we put that one to bed at last?

“[W]e venerate one God in the Trinity, and the Trinity in oneness. . . . The Father was not made nor created nor begotten by anyone. The Son is from the Father alone, not made nor created, but begotten. The Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son, not made nor created nor begotten, but proceeding” (Athanasian Creed [A.D. 400]).

Augustine

“If that which is given has for its principle the one by whom it is given, because it did not receive from anywhere else that which proceeds from the giver, then it must be confessed that the Father and the Son are the principle of the Holy Spirit, not two principles, but just as the Father and the Son are one God . . . relative to the Holy Spirit, they are one principle” (The Trinity 5:14:15 [A.D. 408]).

“[The one] from whom principally the Holy Spirit proceeds is called God the Father. I have added the term ‘principally’ because the Holy Spirit is found to proceed also from the Son” (ibid., 15:17:29).

“Why, then, should we not believe that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, when he is the Spirit also of the Son? For if the Holy Spirit did not proceed from him, when he showed himself to his disciples after his resurrection he would not have breathed upon them, saying, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’ [John 20:22]. For what else did he signify by that breathing upon them except that the Holy Spirit proceeds also from him” (Homilies on John 99:8 [A.D. 416]).

It is Peter who speaks for the 12 throughout the Gospels; Peter is named more than twice as often as the rest of the Apostles combined; it is Peter who is singled out by the Lord, who is given the keys to the Kingdom, who is told he will be the rock upon which the Lord will build His Church, who is told to feed the Lord’s sheep and who is first into the tomb and the first one out the door on the Day of Pentecost; that it is Peter who is the first to preach the Gospel message; that Peter, and only Peter of the Original Twelve speaks in Acts. We know all about Peter’s denial. We know he called himself a sinful man. The Lord knew it as well. He still gave him the keys and made him shepherd of His sheep.

“It is useful to note that a regional council in Persia in 410 introduced one of the earliest forms of the filioque in the Creed; the council specified that the Spirit proceeds from the Father “and from the Son.” Coming from the rich theology of early East Syrian Christianity, this expression in this context is authentically Eastern. Therefore, the filioque cannot be attacked as a solely Western innovation, nor as something created by the Pope.” Orthodox Wiki

---

The question now is, did the Catholic Church add something or did the Orthodox remove something? It’s clear the filioque was added to the Creed, but all that did was include a doctrine that been left out. It’s not that it isn’t true and wasn’t believed as true by the Church at that time. As for the anathama, Nicea I was called to combat the Arian heresy. The Fathers weren’t about defining the nature of the Trinity and simply overlooked the filioque, IMO. When did it first become an issue? I’m not sure, but I suspect it was some time after the split.

Continued…

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

…and by greatly expanding the Papal claims of authority (and in a number of other subsequent ways–extraliturgical Eucharistic adoration, scholastic theological methodology, Anselmian Atonement theory, etc.). But you would claim that these were developments, not rejections, of previous faith and practice. And on your side, you can point out that the Eastern Church obviously broke communion with Rome, and you can argue that they therefore backpedaled on previous statements they had made about Rome’s authority. (They typically claim that you’re exaggerating the significance of these earlier statements, of course.)

Of course, and since you’ve made the argument, there’s nothing to add to it.

Now if you want to persuade me otherwise, *you *need to make the case. You can’t simply assume that your Church is right and challenge me to prove otherwise. (If I were trying to persuade you to leave the Roman Communion, of course I’d have to do that–but I’m not trying to do any such thing.)

The case has been made to you, by Steve and me, in many different ways and in different forms; empirical evidence, circumstantial evidence, evidence by inference, evidence by deductive reasoning…you’ll have none of it. You sit there and lob “you have the burden” at us and when we bear it, refuse to engage what’s presented to you. As I said, yours are the actions of one who has no real interest in deciding one claim from another.

Yes, we quite obviously are. When you say “it means X” and I say “it means Y,” we are talking about interpretations. When learned and pious people interpret the facts differently, we are talking about interpretations.

Indeed, we are always talking about interpretations. There are no facts that don’t need interpretation. There are facts that are very easy to interpret, and facts that are very hard to interpret. But interpretation is always involved.

You misunderstood me. When I referred to facts I meant things like the following:

It is Peter who speaks for the 12 throughout the Gospels; Peter is named more than twice as often as the rest of the Apostles combined; it is Peter who is singled out by the Lord, who is given the keys to the Kingdom, who is told to feed the Lord’s sheep and to strengthen his brothers; who is first into the tomb and the first one out the door on the Day of Pentecost; that it is Peter who is the first to preach the Gospel message; that Peter, and only Peter of the Original Twelve speaks in Acts. Like it or not, those are facts.

I wonder what you think interpretation is? I am using the word (as I think most people use it) in this sense: “the act of determining what something means.” You seem to think that it means some kind of complex and difficult process that is only required in rare instances. The only way we can say anything about what anything means is through an act of interpretation. Sometimes it is so easy that we don’t stop to think about it, but we are still doing it.

Your definition assumes the determination is correct. We know that’s not always the case. In some instances it does, indeed, involve a complex and difficult process, which is why I defer to 2000 years of Catholic teaching.

And your evidence [that the ECFs arrived at the same conclusion about the primacy of Peter] is? Clearly the Orthodox disagree!

I covered this two days ago and am waiting for your response.