Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Nine_Two]

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?

Quite right it’s modalism, as I posted in every other post I made. Also interesting, I nearly said “Quote right”, clearly a horrible mistake which would have rendered everything else in this post irrelevant.

If you wish to continue, alright, it means that Christ is God and shares his essence with God the Father, however it does not mean they are identical.

We’ll find out.

I doubt it. These things never reach that point.

edit: And of course I apologize and then make another post in a row. Clearly it is everyone elses fault for posting while I’m writing!

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Fr Ambrose (ROCOR) used to post here. I had many conversations with him. Much is archived, most of it is not. I remember him saying the ROCOR worldwide was ~150,000 members. As I understand it, the ROC is the largest EO Church. ~150 million worldwide. The OCA is in the U.S, Mexico, Canada, and Australia. Apparant membership is between ~28,000 to 2 million depending as they say, how one counts, whatever THAT means. If the OCA and the ROCOR are at odds with each other, and you mention others as well, what role do patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Constantinople play anymore? And it seems those connected to them, want to become autocephelous.

Where then is

• the patriarchal system today in EO
• the unity in doctrine
• the unity in praxis
• even orthodoxy and who defines it

I see your point, Steve. If you were a Russian coming to the USA and wanted to seek out some Russian EO Church to attend, you would find at least three different EO Churches that were Russian (ROCOR, ROC-MP) or of a Russian heritage (OCA). OCA was granted autocephaly by the EP of Constantinople, but the Moscow Patriarch did not recognize that autocephaly (it still doesn’t, as far as I know). ROCOR was started by the Moscow Patriarch around the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, when the MP sent a Metropolitan abroad, and tasked him to keep the Russian Church alive abroad while the Bolsheviks tried to kill the Church at home. And ROCOR had a very holy man and great miracle worker in it whom I prefer to liken to St. Padre Pio on the Catholic side - he was St. John Maximovitch of Shanghai and San Francisco - died in 1966, his incorrupt relics repose at ROCOR’s Cathedral in San Francisco. Sure, some EO posters are quick to call ROCOR fringe and lunatic, because ROCOR was at odds with almost everyone else, but I’m not sure the average Russian person would feel that way. Then, the MP also emerged after the fall of Communism in Russia (1991), and has churches around the USA. The problem was that ROCOR would not agree to reestablish communion with the MP for 15 years until the fall of Communism in Russia (until 2006). Now, I learn from other posters that ROCOR recently reestablished communion not only with the MP and also with OCA. But ROCOR, the MP, and OCA will all retain their separate and parallel structures in the USA. The ROC in the USA will answer to the Patriarch of Moscow, ROCOR will answer to the Metropolitan in NYC, and OCA I guess has a Patriarch of its own - I’m not sure about OCA. But the MP does not recognize the autocephaly of OCA, that’s for sure.

My Russian acquaintances would have different attitudes towards the great choice of Russian Churches on the soil of the USA. One of them would attend and would commune at any and all available Russian or non-Russian EO Churches, notwithstanding that they were not in communion with each other. This guy even traveled to the Mount of Athos on a pilgrimage. ROCOR and the monks of Athos were surely at odds and out of communion with the EP over the issues of the New Calendar and ecumenism, the monks of Mount Athos even stopped remembering the EP of Constantinople in their dyptychs. But that wouldn’t bother this guy - he would commune on Mt. Athos, at ROCOR, and he would commune at OCA and other New Calendar Churches. Other Russians had a different attitude. The woman I was dating even considered asking to be rebaptized at ROCOR, because previously she had only been baptized at a Russian church in Moscow, with the MP. ROCOR left that decision up to her, but they would surely rebaptize any converts from Catholic and mainline Protestant Churches (Baptist, Methodist).

I also know that the Greek EO Church rebaptizes converts, but the Russian EOC did not rebaptize, during the past 300 years. I mention this in reply to your observation - is there unity of praxis, and doctrine, in the EO Churches? Similarly, I learned recently from an EO Archbishop in New Orleans, affiliated with the Society of Clercks of Saint Basil Secular (this Society is also of Russian heritage), that the Synod of the Russian OC specifically examined the question of validity of Catholic Sacraments in the 19th century, and came to the conclusion that the Catholic Eucharist was valid. They obviously also considered the Catholic baptism valid, that’s why they didn’t rebaptize in times past. But if you would ask the Russian and Greek EO Churches today, they would give an agnostic answer about the Catholic Eucharist, and they rebaptize Catholic converts.

Regarding EO Churches attitudes to autocephaly (see OCA, granted autocephaly by the EP, but not recognized by the MP), similar situations exist with the autocephalous EOC of Ukraine (Kiev Patriarch), and Estonia. The EP of Constantinople granted them autocephaly, but the MP will not recognize it. On the other side, the MP granted autocephaly to the EOC of Cyprus, but the EP will not recognize that. I don’t know much about the Macedonian EOC, but jam070406 says it’s trying to gain independence - I guess from the EP of Constantinople, or perhaps from the Serb Patriarch. Then, we have an Orthodox poster telling us that Macedonia is not a real nation, it’s just a Communist invention. Yet, the Macedonians probably see this otherwise, that’s why they want their own independent Church.

It surely gets very convoluted, with certain EOC trying to gain autocephaly/independence, and their current Patriarchs not letting them go. But I read from history that it has been like that, even when Moscow tried to become independent from the EP, back in the 15th century. Moscow set up its own Patriarch after the fall of Constantinople and after the Union of Florence, a Patriarch whom the EP would not recognize, but finally the EP caved and recognized him.

I guess it’s like teenagers trying to gain independence from their parents.

 

[bkovacs]

Ridiculous. The Russian Orthodox Church during Soviet times joined the World Council of Churches with the Kremlin’s approval to preach the Soviet peace line on an international stage open to anti-Americanism. You think they would have done this without the Kremlin’s instruction? You should know this.

And the man approached to do that as the Russian Orthodox Church rep to the World Council was one young K.G.B. codename Mikhailov according to the Times Online. This “Mikhailov” is the current Moscow Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church! (Even ROCOR, the Russian Orthodox Church outside Russia has complained bitterly about all these old Soviet apparatchiks still running the Russian Orthodox Church in the homeland and never recanting their Soviet past or even accounting for it, Russian Orthodox themselves).

And how has “Holy Orthodoxy” been charitable to the Ukrainian Greek Catholics who were liquidated in 1946 at Stalin’s orders with the assistance of the at-the-time Russian Orthodox Church and forced to become Russian Orthodox at gunpoint. Apparently, the current Russian Orthodox Church in Moscow still sees that K.G.B. pseudo-council which sent my Catholic Church’s hierarchy to the gulags as still correct. During the Soviet Union, the Cardinal of our Ukrainian Catholic Church in the free West even wrote an open letter to the Russian Patriarch for mutual forgiveness, even though our church was in the underground in Ukraine. Did “Holy Orthodoxy” ever respond in your words in “cordial and very charitable” fashion to this act of Christian humility from a man whose church was suffering? Nothing. nada. zilch. Even after the fall of the Soviet Union. Wow.

Even today apparently the Pope wishes to visit the millions of faithful Catholics in Ukraine, but the Russian Orthodox Patriarch apparently is objecting because of the very existence of the Ukrainian Catholic Church. Should the Pope visit Ukraine like this, the Russian Orthodox Patriarch would apparently nullify any possible meeting with the Pope. What charity. This is called blackmail.

And I do find charity among many truly Christian Russian Orthodox. Father Gleb Yakunin for one. While the current Moscow Patriarch was living the high-life Soviet style because of his collaboration with the Soviet regime, this poor Russian Orthodox priest was sitting in the Gulag for insisting that the Russian Orthodox Church not serve the Communist Party. When the Soviet Union collapsed, did Kirill ever apologize to this innocent religious Russian Orthodox man for his efforts at keeping Christ’s message pure. No. What’s more, Gleb Yakunin got excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church for writing of the Church’s suffering under communism and those in the K.G.B… This is grounds for excommunication!? Since then he has joined the Ukrainian Orthodox Autocephalous Church. I always admired Yakunin, and believed he stood for a real orthodox church, not one subservient to Caesar but Jesus Christ. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleb_Yakunin

And Kirill gets to travel to Ukraine to further a political russification campaign in a sovereign country, while our Pope gets blackmailed into not traveling to Ukraine until us pesky Ukrainian Catholics can be dealt with by the Russian Orthodox. Yes, Hesychios, in your words, “very charitable and cordial indeed”. Can you please point me Hesychios to any Russian Orthodox Document condemning or explaining the mass killings of Ukrainian Catholics and forcible coercion into Russian Orthodoxy in 1946. Any Christian outreach on an official level from Moscow to my Ukrainian Catholic Church? I have never found one speck of paper on this subject from the Russian Orthodox, while our hierarchs all the time insist on meeting with their Orthodox counterparts as Christian brothers. Upon receiving no response from the Russian Patriarch for a Christian outreach (at least could have responded), our Cardinal always said don’t worry, we have done the Christian thing and what Christ would have wanted. My Cardinal was right.

And what is political Russification. Is he changing the Orthodox/Byzantine faith some how?. Patriarch Kirill for your information is a close friend to Pope Benedict XVI. Your anger has to do more with your ethnic background than the faith itself. You talk about your Orthodox counterparts. You can learn allot about your Byzantine faith from them. Or do you prefer to replace your icons with statues.

 

[Nine_Two]

Just a note, it is the MP, not the EP that recognizes the OCA as autocephalus. The EP views the OCA as an autonomous. Either way it recognizes full communion with it, unlike cases like the Macedonian Orthodox Church which is seen as schismatic.

No one was ever tasked with setting up ROCOR, St. Tikon decreed that those faithful to the Russian Orthodox Church, outside of Russia, should cease communication with the home Church until such a time as they deemed it safe to resume communication with the Mother Church. Both ROCOR and OCA claimed legitimacy for their break with Moscow based on this (note that it was a break in hierarchical communication). ROCOR itself was founded by White Russian Bishops who fled Russia in the wake of the Communist takeover, while OCA was a continuation of the Russian Metropolis of North America.

 

[Joseph_L_Varga]

Just a note, it is the MP, not the EP that recognizes the OCA as autocephalus. The EP views the OCA as an autonomous. Either way it recognizes full communion with it, unlike cases like the Macedonian Orthodox Church which is seen as schismatic.

No one was ever tasked with setting up ROCOR, St. Tikon decreed that those faithful to the Russian Orthodox Church, outside of Russia, should cease communication with the home Church until such a time as they deemed it safe to resume communication with the Mother Church. Both ROCOR and OCA claimed legitimacy for their break with Moscow based on this (note that it was a break in hierarchical communication). ROCOR itself was founded by White Russian Bishops who fled Russia in the wake of the Communist takeover, while OCA was a continuation of the Russian Metropolis of North America.

Thanks for the corrections and clarifications!

 

[josie_L]

And what is political Russification. Is he changing the Orthodox/Byzantine faith some how?. Patriarch Kirill for your information is a close friend to Pope Benedict XVI. Your anger has to do more with your ethnic background than the faith itself. You talk about your Orthodox counterparts. You can learn allot about your Byzantine faith from them. Or do you prefer to replace your icons with statues.

This post makes absolutely no sense.

 

[KyivAndrew]

And what is political Russification. Is he changing the Orthodox/Byzantine faith some how?. Patriarch Kirill for your information is a close friend to Pope Benedict XVI. Your anger has to do more with your ethnic background than the faith itself. You talk about your Orthodox counterparts. You can learn allot about your Byzantine faith from them. Or do you prefer to replace your icons with statues.

What are you talking about? I know quite much about my Byzantine faith so thanks for your condescension. I’ve studied much of Metropolitan Sheptytsky taking our Church back to its Eastern roots. You keep on going about the Eastern Catholic Church not having Latinizations, and our Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church wants to keep our Eastern tradition fully in place and have a Ukrainian Greek Catholic Patriarchate in Ukraine.

Guess who is against it? The Russian Orthodox Church! Their Patriarch keeps on refusing to meet with the Pope personally unless the Ukrainian Catholic problem is taken care of. You call this Christian? For a Church that lost tons of martyrs for the faith under communism like the Ukrainian Catholic? Tell me, do you in the least bit care for what the martyrs for the faith in the Ukrainian Catholic Church went through? I haven’t seen anything from you. Again, do you hold the recently beatified martyrs of the Ukrainian Catholic Church as martyrs for the faith? ugcc.org.ua/35.0.html?&L=2

And I do care about Orthodoxy. I have Ukrainian Orthodox family. As a matter of fact, those parts of the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, such as the Kyivan Patriarchate, which head has renounced any K.G.B. past, unlike the Moscow Patriarch, concelebrate services with Ukrainian Catholics in Ukraine all the time! Just recently the Major Archbishop of our Ukrainian Catholic Church sent out a letter for union in one Kyivan Church with the Kyivan Orthodox Patriarchate and with the Orthodox Church loyal to Moscow which never had a kind word to say of Eastern Catholics! To work towards such a goal God willing, Cardinal Husar stated… We keep on reaching out! One Eastern Church. Moscow doesn’t reply. No reply. They don’t think we should really exist as an Eastern Catholic Church. Do you agree with Moscow on this bkovacs?

I have no wish for argument with bkovacs. The Ukrainian Catholic and Orthodox Churches in the diaspora get perfectly along. Our Cardinal in Ukraine says nothing untoward the Moscow Patriarch. But millions of ORTHODOX (10+) in Ukraine do not wish to see the Patriarch of Moscow as the head of their Orthodox Church. They see him as a tool of a political project on President Putin’s part where the Church furthers the Russian State’s goals. Again, these are Ukrainian Orthodox who sincerely believe this, so I guess these millions too know little of the Byzantine faith. I don’t think you have much expertise in the History of the Church in Ukraine.

Tell me, bkovacs, if the Patriarch of Moscow demanded that half the Ukrainian Catholic Churches in Ukraine be taken away from the Catholics in order to remove an impediment to the Russian Patriarch meeting with the Pope, would you agree? Cut the Ukie Catholics in half and prevent them proselytizing. Which side would you take, the Catholics or Orthodox; I’m beginning to wonder.

And I have up until that last post purposefully avoided this thread. I don’t enjoy these threads. If you want to cast aspersions my way, I’ll try and do the Christian thing. This is the history of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church with Moscow, warts and all. Why don’t you try learning some of it? Indeed, what exactly do you know about the Ukrainian Catholic Church and what works have you studied to learn its complicated history?

 

[KyivAndrew]

This post makes

Hi josie. I’m glad you’re on here. bkovacs got mad at me on another thread when I merely tried to give my sincere position and I said: “sorry, for responding to your thread” as best I could. No answer from him. Now another shot. I’m out of this for tonight. Hope your doing well at least.

Andrew.
Better to go in sleep in peace than worry about arguing.

p.s. talk to you soon.

GOD BLESS!

 

[rben20]

Hello All,

I tried finding it somewhere but I was unsuccessful so I decided to post in a thread already on the topic. I know there are great strides being made to reunification and part of that has been talks about the papacy and how Orthodox are to view it. The pope recently said something about the papacy and how it would be talked about, how it may even change in the future, but I don’t know exactly what he was talking about. Does anyone know what I’m trying to say? Sorry, it was a very vague thing I heard the pope say, but it had to do with his role now and allowing change in the future when having talks with Orthodox.

 

[prodromos]

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

I don’t understand what relevance this has towards what I posted.
Someone had made reference to the 410AD Council of Selecia-Ctesiphon as having produced a creed which contained the “filioque”. I am merely pointing out that since the Persian creed does not state that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” either from the Father or the Son, it is not in fact an early example of the “filioque” as some Catholics have claimed it to be.
See here, footnote 25 of page 93We acknowledge the living and holy Spirit, the living Paraclete, who [is] from the Father and the Son.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Quite right it’s modalism, as I posted in every other post I made. Also interesting, I nearly said “Quote right”, clearly a horrible mistake which would have rendered everything else in this post irrelevant.

LOL. That’s called ‘leading with your chin.’ But I’ll refrain.

If you wish to continue, alright, it means that Christ is God and shares his essence with God the Father, however it does not mean they are identical.

Not ''shares." They are One in being. They are of the same essence. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jn. 1:1. To the procession of the Spirit, the Lord breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (citation omitted.) The procession of the Spirit to the Apostles is from the Son.

I doubt [Scripture will help you]. These things never reach that point.

Do you mean Scripture is never conclusive? Does ALL your doctrine come from tradition?

edit: And of course I apologize and then make another post in a row. Clearly it is everyone elses fault for posting while I’m writing!

That’s funny. Don’t worry about it. As long as it’s relevant and not boring, post all you want. So far you’re not boring.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

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

You should let people make their point before making it for them.

I do not presume to define conclusively the mystery of the Trinity. I have always held that’s exactly what the Orthodox do when they deny the validity of the filioque. We can guess at it, we can strain for a definition, we can express the mystery in contradictory terms, but it’s always an ineffable mystery. When you say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and not the Son, you claim you have solved the mystery.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

And what is political Russification. Is he changing the Orthodox/Byzantine faith some how?. Patriarch Kirill for your information is a close friend to Pope Benedict XVI. Your anger has to do more with your ethnic background than the faith itself. You talk about your Orthodox counterparts. You can learn allot about your Byzantine faith from them. Or do you prefer to replace your icons with statues.

Any time you want to respond to the specifics, we are ready to listen. Until then, it appears you have nothing to say.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I don’t understand what relevance this has towards what I posted.
Someone had made reference to the 410AD Council of Selecia-Ctesiphon as having produced a creed which contained the “filioque”. I am merely pointing out that since the Persian creed does not state that the Holy Spirit “proceeds” either from the Father or the Son, it is not in fact an early example of the “filioque” as some Catholics have claimed it to be.

If you’re talking about the quote I posted, it came from Orthodox Wiki, not ‘some Catholics.’

 

[prodromos]

If you’re talking about the quote I posted, it came from Orthodox Wiki, not ‘some Catholics.’

I’m not. I’ve heard this claim primarily made by Catholics.

John

 

[Contarini]

If you’re talking about the quote I posted, it came from Orthodox Wiki, not ‘some Catholics.’

Yes, and with no help from you I tracked down the probable source of the quote and explained why I don’t think it’s reliable. Not only did you not provide documentation in the first place (a “wiki,” even one presumably biased against your position, is less than satisfactory in controversial questions unless you figure out where its editors got the information), but you have ignored the evidence I took the trouble to dig up.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

And where did I ever once say the church is just the pope?

Of course you don’t say that. But in discussions about authority, that’s what it comes down to. If you say that the Pope is both necessary and sufficient to establish doctrine, then you say that for purposes of doctrinal authority nothing else matters. And with regard to the Filioque that’s all that seems to matter to you. The Pope approved of the change (even though a previous Pope had opposed it), so “the Church” acted. Well, not so fast. It’s not at all clear that “the Church” as a whole can be said to have acted here, unless you reduce the Church to the Pope. In all fairness, you could be reducing the Church to just its Western half, but I’m assuming that you wouldn’t do that.

If you want to say “the Church is the Pope and whoever agrees with him,” I’ll emend my accusation that way. That implies that someone else must agree with the Pope for “the Church” to be acting, which seems to me to conflict with Vatican I. But if that’s what you believe, it’s fine with me! I don’t believe in Vatican I anyway. . . .

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

Perhaps you can show me where the Western Church protested this change?

I think a lot of the problem here is that members of your Communion tend to reduce everything to legal, procedural issues. So when I say “the doctrinal truth of the Filioque isn’t necessarily the issue–the issue is the change in the Creed,” you assume that I’m saying that there’s some objectively describable process that should be gone through to change the Creed. But that’s not the point at all. The point is that the Creed reflects the faith of the whole Church. The Western Church agreed that the dogmatic decrees of II Constantinople reflected the faith of the whole Church, even though the West didn’t have quite the same need to state these truths dogmatically. With the establishment of the Visigothic kingdoms, the situation changed, and it was the West that primarily faced issues concerning the Trinity. So naturally the West underwent some doctrinal development to face this crisis. So far so good. I don’t even blame the Spaniards for adding the Filioque in the first place. Local creeds are quite in keeping with early Christian practice. But when the Eastern Church said “that doesn’t reflect our belief”; when Pope Leo III agreed that this was a valid objection and that the Creed should be used in its earlier form; and when two hundred years had passed during which the original Trinitarian issues that prompted the change in the Creed had passed into oblivion–then it was clearly wrong for the Popes of the eleventh century to introduce the Filioque into the Creed.

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

For the reason I stated already. If people in one part of the Church have to believe something, but people in another part don’t, then the Church doesn’t have one faith.

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

I’m not offended exactly. I’m more annoyed that you resort to empty insults instead of dealing with the substantive issues.

The issue I mentioned actually hasn’t been going on for centuries. Since the Latin Rite used Latin until a few decades ago, formal liturgical recitation of the Nicene Creed was not done in the vernacular. I can’t see how that’s relevant anyway. The schism has gone on for centuries, and presumably we both agree that it needs to end. The question is: how? Your Communion seems to take the stance that it will all be fine if the Eastern Churches omit the Filioque and the Western Churches use it. I agree with the very ecumenical Orthodox theologian David Hart–that won’t work, because it means that the Church has two Creeds and therefore two different sets of dogmatic requirements. You don’t have one Catholic Faith in that case.

Edwin

 

[Shiranui117]

You should let people make their point before making it for them.

I do not presume to define conclusively the mystery of the Trinity. I have always held that’s exactly what the Orthodox do when they deny the validity of the filioque. We can guess at it, we can strain for a definition, we can express the mystery in contradictory terms, but it’s always an ineffable mystery. When you say the Spirit proceeds from the Father and not the Son, you claim you have solved the mystery.

And likewise, if you claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, you also claim to have solved the Mystery. Heck, the Orthodox (well, at least the resources I’ve seen, IDK much about Orthodoxy as a whole; Nine_Two or Joe can clarify further on this one) even refrain from using the term “transubstantiation” when referring to how the Real Presence comes upon the gifts of bread and wine, precisely BECAUSE it slaps a dictionary definition on one of God’s greatest Mysteries. I won’t get too heavily on the debate of filioque, but I will make a few short points:

1: The Filioque’s meaning depends primarily on what “proceeds/procedit” mean
2: The Filioque, if understood incorrectly (i.e. double procession) then it upsets the balance of the Trinity, putting the Holy Spirit below the Father and Son, and arguably upsetting the Arche of the Father (begets the Son, is source of Holy Spirit) and attributes qualities of the Father’s person to the Son (ability to be source of HS, which is a characteristic of being Father)
3: The Filioque was never added in by an ecumenical council, so really, it was an illegal addition, as far as I can see

Not ''shares." They are One in being. They are of the same essence. “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Jn. 1:1. To the procession of the Spirit, the Lord breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit.” (citation omitted.) The procession of the Spirit to the Apostles is from the Son.

Yes. They share the same essence, they are of the same essence, whatever. Moreover, the second verse does not prove that the Son is a SOURCE of the Holy Spirit, just that the Holy Spirit can proceed (GO FORTH, not ORIGINATE) from the Son. I believe you’ve heard the torch metaphor and the spring and river metaphor, as well as possibly the lightbulb and glass window metaphor before?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Yes, and with no help from you I tracked down the probable source of the quote and explained why I don’t think it’s reliable. Not only did you not provide documentation in the first place (a “wiki,” even one presumably biased against your position, is less than satisfactory in controversial questions unless you figure out where its editors got the information), but you have ignored the evidence I took the trouble to dig up.

Edwin

Patience, Edwin. As you may have guessed, I’m not a scholar. I don’t have primary sources at my fingertips and I’m doing other things. I appreciate the digging. I will respond when I have a response.

My citation of Orthodox Wiki is not meant to be conclusive, scholarly or the last word. It’s meant to be what it is and nothing more. If you shot it down, good shot. Like most Protestants, you seem to have a chip on your shoulder when talking to Catholics. It’s unbecoming.

 

[Contarini]

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?

The last clause is confusing–and touches on the point at issue between Allison and the Catholic Church. Allison (and most other Biblical scholars, including most Catholics when they are just looking at what the text most probably meant in its original context) doesn’t see warrant for supposing that Peter is being given some kind of office in the Church in which he will have successors. (And yes, I know that Isaiah 22 can be used to argue otherwise.) If Peter is “Rock” because of his role in salvation history, then he doesn’t necessarily have successors.

I myself think that there are strong probable reasons for thinking that this passage does have something to do with the Papacy. But the argument “if Rome erred then Jesus lied” simply cannot be established from this passage–the evidence is not that conclusive, and infallibility cannot reasonably be deduced from it anyway. (It strains credulity to argue that any doctrinal error must constitute “the gates of hell prevailing.”) What I’m objecting to is the use of this passage to beat down any argument against the Papacy. Catholic apologists such as Ferde use their simplistic interpretation of this passage to allow themselves to turn a blind eye to all the evidence indicating that the Papacy may have gone wrong. It just can’t be true, you see, because if it were then Jesus lied. This is not an honest use of Scripture.

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.

Indeed. And you may remember what Jesus said to people who thought that being the “children of Abraham” meant that their position was secure. You may also remember what Paul says about Abraham’s heirs being those who share his faith. The Abraham connection works against you.

Edwin