Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Contarini]

How should Matthew 16:18 be interpreted (literally/historically), i.e., is Jesus not making it clear that Peter is the rock?

I think that the best way to read the passage is that Peter is indeed the Rock. But no literal/historical interpretation would see this as applying directly to the Papacy. You have to bring in a theological, tradition-centered hermeneutic to get that meaning. Elsewhere I quoted Dale Allison saying that Peter is the Rock by virtue of his role in salvation history. That’s certainly one way to read it.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Interpolation? Sorry,but what many Orthodoxs fail to comprehend is that the church had and has the authority to make changes when deemed necessary.

Yes, and what you don’t seem to understand is that the Church is not just the Pope.

The Creed was changed in 381 A.D. from the original in 325 A.D. Is that an interpolation? Do heretics ring a bell? The Western Church made changes due to heretical challenges,not because it wanted to be distinct from its eastern faithful.

But you shouldn’t change the Creed of the Universal Church unilaterally because of local heretical challenges. There are better ways to do it. That’s why you call Ecumenical Councils.

That’s why the present ecumenical position of the Catholic Church–admirable as it is–doesn’t work theologically. It’s not tolerable to have the Creed recited one way in Western churches and another way in Eastern churches. And the linguistic argument (it’s orthodox in Latin but not in Greek) won’t work either, because of course there are many languages in which both Western and Eastern Christians say the Creed (English for starters).

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Interpolation? Sorry,but what many Orthodoxs fail to comprehend is that the church had and has the authority to make changes when deemed necessary.

Yes, and what you don’t seem to understand is that the Church is not just the Pope.

And where did I ever once say the church is just the pope? Where has the CC taught the church is just the pope? You assume that is what that Catholics believe the church is just the pope and you are incorrect.

Quote:
The Creed was changed in 381 A.D. from the original in 325 A.D. Is that an interpolation? Do heretics ring a bell? The Western Church made changes due to heretical challenges,not because it wanted to be distinct from its eastern faithful

.

But you shouldn’t change the Creed of the Universal Church unilaterally because of local heretical challenges. There are better ways to do it. That’s why you call Ecumenical Councils.

And that is precisely what happened in 381 A.D. when it was changed from its original form in 325 A.D.

That’s why the present ecumenical position of the Catholic Church–admirable as it is–doesn’t work theologically.

Present ecumenical position of the CC? Elaborate precisely why it is not theologically?

It’s not tolerable to have the Creed recited one way in Western churches and another way in Eastern churches. And the linguistic argument (it’s orthodox in Latin but not in Greek) won’t work either, because of course there are many languages in which both Western and Eastern Christians say the Creed (English for starters).

And issue which has been going on for centuries. No offense,but you seem to have a grudge against the CC.

 

[josie_L]

But I hear the argument made in here that it infallibility was understood and a no-brainer from day one in the Church? If it were such a no-brainer and a given and a key piece of Christianity, in fact, the central issue of Christianity, why were there SO MANY people outraged and opposed to infallibility? Why did the Council of Constance advocate a strict conciliar church polity and scoffed at papal supremacy and infallibility? Why did the Orthodox rail at the idea from day one? Why did it take this long to get defined? And if it’s such a given, either they should’ve defined it centuries before or not at all since it’s so obvious? And furthermore, one can find catechisms that existed in the 1800’s pre-Vatican I that actually claim that the infallibility of the pope was a VICIOUS LIE cooked up by Protestants to discredit the Church!!!? Why were there so many varying opinions and tons of conciliar advocates and catechisms denying something that should be a no-brainer?

I don’t think anyone can rightly say that infallibility as dogmatically delineated in the 19th century was present in like manner in the first century, however, in light of the fact that Rome was made arbiter and/or a final court of appeals in matters of faith and morals would suggest (implicitly) infallibility on the part of the bishop of Rome (holder of the petrine office). Now, you state that “SO MANY” people were opposed to infallibility and papal supremacy (highest form of ecclesial authority), i.e., advocating conciliarism in its stead, yet it is papal infallibility/supremacy that has truimphed despite “SO MANY” opposing it (was there ever a doctrine or dogma of the Church which has not encountered opposition). I also believe that the prestige/authority of the papacy suffered (in the eyes of the Church) as a result of the “Western Schism”, and that combined with modern nationalism gave rise to some of the decrees issued during the the Council of Constance (which are not part of Catholic canon law). Nevertheless, the Council of Florence upheld papal supremacy, in fact, we fleetingly established reunion with the Orthodox. Now, as to why it took “so long” for the Church to define papal infallibility/supremacy, I can’t really answer that question anymore than I can answer why the Church waited more than 1500 years to definitively confirm biblical canon. That being said, there are viable reasons for why it was pronounced at the time it was, i.e., rise in Protestantism, Gallicanism, increase in state power and Nationalism . . . . .

Edit: I recollect you opening a thread concerning said “catechism”, and remembered that the answers in that thread adequately dealt with this anomaly.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

And what does that prove? All over Chicagoland Catholics are passing by other Catholic parishes to reach the SSPX chapel, and sometimes these types are the first ‘Catholics’ an inquirer will come to know…

Little anecdotal stories like this are not helpful at all.

I see one major difference between schism in Catholicism and schism in Orthodoxy.

In Catholicism, the presence of Pope as reference point makes it very clear who is in and who is out. If I meet SSPX, sedevacantist groups, Old Catholics, liberation theologists, dissident Catholics, etc, I only have to find out whether they have been censored or excommunicated by the Vatican.

With Orthodoxy, there’s no reference point. To continue with Old Calendar Churches, as an example, there was ROCOR, not in communion with New Calendar Churches. And there are Old Calendar Churches in Greece, and Romania, too, not in communion with their New Calendar counterparts. They will insist that the Gregorian Calendar was condemned three times by pan-Orthodox councils since the 16th century, and that the condemnation is still in effect. In their mind, the EP of Constantinople has apostasized, and all New Calendar Churches have apostasized. These Old Calendar Churches have validly consecrated Bishops and valid Sacraments. And I didn’t find a reference point to decide, who was right and who was wrong: ROCOR (while it was out of communion with the New Calendar Churches) and the various Old Calendar Churches who reject communion with the New Calendar Churches, or the New Calendar Churches who regard them as fringe groups and lunatics? Who decides? Applying the Orthodox logic, all Bishops are equal, and an Old Calendar Bishop in Greece or Serbia has just as much authority as the EP of Costantinople and others who adopted this innovation of New Calendar starting with 1923.

Moreover, I recall The Iambic Pen’s post about the OO who rejected the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. Without the Pope as reference point, who decides who was right and who was wrong? The Bishops who accepted it, or the Bishops who rejected it?

And how about the Union of Florence? The EO Patriarch of Constantinople and Metropolitan of Moscow who accepted it, died as Catholics. They never reversed their decision. The Metropolitan of Moscow, Isidore, was deposed and jailed by the Czar, and he still insisted on the Union. Later he died in exile, still faithful to the Union. There was also a later Patriarch of Moscow, converted to Catholicism by no other than St. Josaphat Kuncevyc. And, of course, let’s not forget the EO Metropolitan of Kiev and the five EO Bishops in Poland/Lithuania (now Ukraine), who accepted the Union of Brest. Who are the rest of the Orthodox to decide that all these Bishops were wrong to accept the Union with Rome? And why should I believe them (the anti-Unionists), rather than the Unionists?

 

[Nine_Two]

Of course. That’s a given. The point is, it’s not the Western invention you claim it is

Adding it to the creed is the innovation.

As to whether it should be accepted, what do the passages “Anyone who has seen the Father, has seen me.”; “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” and “The Father and I are One.” mean to you?

Are you suggesting that the Father and the Son are one and the same, and that by that logic the Filioque is correct? Because that is Modelism, something which the Catholic Church has condemned as heresy. Are you sure you want to proceed with that argument?

This is a theological matter which deserves far, FAR more importance than I’ve seen it given by any Orthodox layman and most Orthodox clergy on this or any site. All you guys seem to want to do is point fingers, score points and make accusations. Let’s bring Scripture into the game and have a serious discussion.

Funny, usually it is the Catholics who say we put far more emphasis on the Filioque than it warrants.

Bring up all the scripture you want, I’m not sure how that will help you.

 

[josie_L]

I think that the best way to read the passage is that Peter is indeed the Rock. But no literal/historical interpretation would see this as applying directly to the Papacy. You have to bring in a theological, tradition-centered hermeneutic to get that meaning. Elsewhere I quoted Dale Allison saying that Peter is the Rock by virtue of his role in salvation history. That’s certainly one way to read it.

Edwin

How is this dissimilar to how Catholics interpret Matthew 16:18, in that, being declared rock by Christ He was signifying that Peter has a special role (name changes involved a change in status) to play in salvation history, moreover, if that role is unique than it cannot simply die out but continue on?

Edit: The only other person in the Bible who was designated “rock” was Abraham (whose name literally means “father of the multitude”) who like Peter (who is also a “father of the multitude”) had his name changed, and with whom God established a covenant with.

 

[Nine_Two]

Yes, but because it was not ecumenically determined the subject of what was biblical canon was still debatable (in universities and such), until Trent.

I don’t follow Trent, yet I still use the same Canon my Church has used for well over a thousand years.

The “Western Schism” weakened no doubt the prestige of the papacy (as the present scandals would seem to undermine the CC’s moral authority), but any opposition towards papal primacy/infallibility was never more espoused then after the Reformation (by hostile Protestants and Gallicanism). Moreove, the council of Florence reaffirmed papal primacy (amongst Latins and Greeks), i.e…, “the Roman Pontiff was the foremost ecclesiastical authority in Christendom”.

I said infallibility, not primacy. They are not the same thing, I’d think you were making a strawman if not for the fact that primacy, as modern Catholics recognize it, also didn’t exist, as France, and Spain (under his most Catholic Emperor Charles V) demonstrated quite well.

 

[josie_L]

Are you suggesting that the Father and the Son are one and the same, and that by that logic the Filioque is correct? Because that is Modelism, something which the Catholic Church has condemned as heresy. Are you sure you want to proceed with that argument?

Ferde is not saying that the father and the son are one and the same PERSON with respect to the Holy Trinity, but rather they are of the same substance (light from light, true God from true God . . .etc.).

 

[Nine_Two]

I don’t think anyone can rightly say that infallibility as dogmatically delineated in the 19th century was present in like manner in the first century, however, in light of the fact that Rome was made arbiter and/or a final court of appeals in matters of faith and morals would suggest (implicitly) infallibility on the part of the bishop of Rome (holder of the petrine office). Now, you state that “SO MANY” people were opposed to infallibility and papal supremacy (highest form of ecclesial authority), i.e., advocating conciliarism in its stead, yet it is papal infallibility/supremacy that has truimphed despite “SO MANY” opposing it (was there ever a doctrine or dogma of the Church which has not encountered opposition). I also believe that the prestige/authority of the papacy suffered (in the eyes of the Church) as a result of the “Western Schism”, and that combined with modern nationalism gave rise to some of the decrees issued during the the Council of Constance (which are not part of Catholic canon law). Nevertheless, the Council of Florence upheld papal supremacy, in fact, we fleetingly established reunion with the Orthodox. Now, as to why it took “so long” for the Church to define papal infallibility/supremacy, I can’t really answer that question anymore than I can answer why the Church waited more than 1500 years to definitively confirm biblical canon. That being said, there are viable reasons for why it was pronounced at the time it was, i.e., rise in Protestantism, Gallicanism, increase in state power and Nationalism . . . . .

Edit: I recollect you opening a thread concerning said “catechism”, and remembered that the answers in that thread adequately dealt with this anomaly.

Wait, you’re saying they were made infallible by virtue of being appointed final court of appeal? Do you believe the Supreme Court of your country to be infallible? They have been appointed final court of appeal. What about when they disagree with what another final court of appeal in another country say? What if that country happens to be Vatican City? Which one gets to keep infallibility?

 

[Nine_Two]

Ferde is not saying that the father and the son are one and the same PERSON with respect to the Holy Trinity, but rather they are of the same substance (light from light, true God from true God . . .etc.).

And that has what relevance to the filioque? Either he’s trying to create a strawman, or he’s a modalist.

 

[Shiranui117]

Wait, you’re saying they were made infallible by virtue of being appointed final court of appeal? Do you believe the Supreme Court of your country to be infallible? They have been appointed final court of appeal. What about when they disagree with what another final court of appeal in another country say? What if that country happens to be Vatican City? Which one gets to keep infallibility?

The answer to that is obvious: Concede to the Americans or Obama may consider slapping you on the wrist.

All jokes aside, to continue this line of thought, the US Supreme Court has been known to overturn previous rulings, the most notable being overturning the notion that “separate but equal” is constitutional. Being the final court of appeal proves nothing, just that Old Rome was held in high regard. A primacy of honor, as understood by the Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Nine_Two]

I see one major difference between schism in Catholicism and schism in Orthodoxy.

In Catholicism, the presence of Pope as reference point makes it very clear who is in and who is out. If I meet SSPX, sedevacantist groups, Old Catholics, liberation theologists, dissident Catholics, etc, I only have to find out whether they have been censored or excommunicated by the Vatican.

Many of those groups appoint a “pope” as well. How do you tell the difference between them and yourself? I assume you do the same thing we do when determining who are schismatic and who are not, we look at who has legitimacy. I guess they are the same.

With Orthodoxy, there’s no reference point. To continue with Old Calendar Churches, as an example, there was ROCOR, not in communion with New Calendar Churches. And there are Old Calendar Churches in Greece, and Romania, too, not in communion with their New Calendar counterparts. They will insist that the Gregorian Calendar was condemned three times by pan-Orthodox councils since the 16th century, and that the condemnation is still in effect. In their mind, the EP of Constantinople has apostasized, and all New Calendar Churches have apostasized. These Old Calendar Churches have validly consecrated Bishops and valid Sacraments. And I didn’t find a reference point to decide, who was right and who was wrong: ROCOR (while it was out of communion with the New Calendar Churches) and the various Old Calendar Churches who reject communion with the New Calendar Churches, or the New Calendar Churches who regard them as fringe groups and lunatics? Who decides? Applying the Orthodox logic, all Bishops are equal, and an Old Calendar Bishop in Greece or Serbia has just as much authority as the EP of Costantinople and others who adopted this innovation of New Calendar starting with 1923.

First, let’s distinguish between Old Calendar and Old Calendarist. Old Calendar Churches are those which still use the Old Calendar. Old Calendarist churches are those which believe anyone who uses the New Calendar is a heretic. The Old Calendarist Churches, without exception, are all founded by individual bishops who rebelled against the Authority of the Church. Exactly like your schismatic churches.

Moreover, I recall The Iambic Pen’s post about the OO who rejected the Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon. Without the Pope as reference point, who decides who was right and who was wrong? The Bishops who accepted it, or the Bishops who rejected it?

The Ecumenical Council of all the bishops from all over ruled as much. They hold ultimate authority.

And how about the Union of Florence? The EO Patriarch of Constantinople and Metropolitan of Moscow who accepted it, died as Catholics. They never reversed their decision. The Metropolitan of Moscow, Isidore, was deposed and jailed by the Czar, and he still insisted on the Union. Later he died in exile, still faithful to the Union. There was also a later Patriarch of Moscow, converted to Catholicism by no other than St. Josaphat Kuncevyc. And, of course, let’s not forget the EO Metropolitan of Kiev and the five EO Bishops in Poland/Lithuania (now Ukraine), who accepted the Union of Brest. Who are the rest of the Orthodox to decide that all these Bishops were wrong to accept the Union with Rome? And why should I believe them (the anti-Unionists), rather than the Unionists?

You’ll need some sources that the EP died a Catholic. As for Isidore, he was placed on the throne by the Poles during the Time of Troubles, when they were busy raping the Grand Duchy of Moscow and Holy Orthodoxy. He has never been recognized by the Church. As for that later Patriarch, do you have a name? I don’t remember any of the Patriarchs going over to Rome when I was recently reading a chronology of the Russian Church.
As for the five who accepted union with Rome, who is to decide they were wrong? Five individuals have never meant much, so that would be the Church.

As to why we should believe the Orthodox over the “Unionists” as you call them, probably because they were bribed with status and equal rights. Too bad the Poles reneged on that and made them second class citizens, which I suppose was better than the Orthodox got, having all the Bishops driven out and the sees left vacant, the people persecuted into accepting second class status. It is actually quite amazing the faith held out long enough for the Russians to recapture the territory during the Deluge.

 

[Nine_Two]

The answer to that is obvious: Concede to the Americans or Obama may consider slapping you on the wrist.

All jokes aside, to continue this line of thought, the US Supreme Court has been known to overturn previous rulings, the most notable being overturning the notion that “separate but equal” is constitutional. Being the final court of appeal proves nothing, just that Old Rome was held in high regard. A primacy of honor, as understood by the Ecumenical Councils.

Which was my point exactly, thank you.

 

[Hesychios]

In Catholicism, the presence of Pope as reference point makes it very clear who is in and who is out.

Not when the Pope is out, it doesn’t.

 

[josie_L]

I don’t follow Trent, yet I still use the same Canon my Church has used for well over a thousand years.

Not everyone in Orthodoxy has the same amount of books in their Bible, perhaps it’s high time they formally establish uniformity with respect to scripture, i.e., the infallible Word of God.

I said infallibility, not primacy. They are not the same thing, I’d think you were making a strawman if not for the fact that primacy, as modern Catholics recognize it, also didn’t exist, as France, and Spain (under his most Catholic Emperor Charles V) demonstrated quite well.

I know that you said “infallibility” but infallibility and primacy are not mutually exclusive terms, hence my papal primacy/infallibility, i.e., papal primacy entails infallibility.

“It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter’s successors in the primacy. . .”

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

 

[josie_L]

Wait, you’re saying they were made infallible by virtue of being appointed final court of appeal? Do you believe the Supreme Court of your country to be infallible? They have been appointed final court of appeal. What about when they disagree with what another final court of appeal in another country say? What if that country happens to be Vatican City? Which one gets to keep infallibility?

No, they (the pontiffs) were infallible by virtue of the primacy, i.e., holding the petrine office, as such they were (by divine right) the final court of appeal or arbiter par excellence.

Edit: Not too many pages ago (pg 19) I quoted some church fathers delineating the role of the bishops of Rome vis a vis ecumenical councils, you may want to read it.

 

[josie_L]

And that has what relevance to the filioque? Either he’s trying to create a strawman, or he’s a modalist.

Or maybe you have too little knowledge of the filioque to understand his meaning?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Are you suggesting that the Father and the Son are one and the same, and that by that logic the Filioque is correct? Because that is Modelism, something which the Catholic Church has condemned as heresy. Are you sure you want to proceed with that argument?

It’s ‘modAlism.’ I’d like to proceed with the question: what do the passages “Anyone who has seen the Father, has seen me.”; “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” and “The Father and I are One.” mean to you?

Bring up all the scripture you want, I’m not sure how that will help you.

We’ll find out.

 

[Nine_Two]

Or maybe you have too little knowledge of the filioque to understand his meaning?

Since you are educated, please, explain. As far as I can see he’s saying that since the Father and Son are the same, then it must logically proceed from both. This is modalism.

No, they (the pontiffs) were infallible by virtue of the primacy, i.e., holding the petrine office, as such they were (by divine right) the final court of appeal or arbiter par excellence.

Why does the Petrine office hold infallibility?

Edit: Not too many pages ago (pg 19) I quoted some church fathers delineating the role of the bishops of Rome vis a vis ecumenical councils, you may want to read it.

I believe I did. We could have quote offs all day. They are rather useless, especially since by definition a quote doesn’t hold context, and we can all quote the same people apparently backing both of us.

Not everyone in Orthodoxy has the same amount of books in their Bible, perhaps it’s high time they formally establish uniformity with respect to scripture, i.e., the infallible Word of God.

You’re right, funny how it doesn’t cause us issues since we see the bible as simply a part of Holy Tradition (mind you a very important part). I challenge you to find a time when that has actually caused Orthodox Communion a problem (I see this as a no lose situation for myself, because if anyone can answer the challenge, I learn something new), in fact it seems the Eastern Catholic Churches don’t all use the “standard” Bible, so it would seem your communion is as bad as us, if not worse, in regard to a standard bible.

I know that you said “infallibility” but infallibility and primacy are not mutually exclusive terms, hence my papal primacy/infallibility, i.e., papal primacy entails infallibility.

“It should be observed in conclusion that papal infallibility is a personal and incommunicable charisma, which is not shared by any pontifical tribunal. It was promised directly to Peter, and to each of Peter’s successors in the primacy. . .”

I agree that infallibility and primacy are not mutually exclusive, either are bread and superman, doesn’t make them relevant to a discussion of each other. Additionally, the conclusions of Catholic Encyclopedia has zero ethos to any Orthodox person, and quoting or linking to it on the topic of the Papacy does not help an argument anymore than my linking you to articles on orthodoxinfo will help my argument.

As a side note, I want to apologize to everyone for making so many posts in a row earlier, I didn’t realize I’d posted that much. I’ve made the effort in this post to answer everything in one, which hopefully makes it more readable.