Orthodoxy, Papacy

[Contarini]

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.

Ferde.

I don’t have the relevant primary sources at my fingertips either. If I were still at Duke you’d have a point! I used only the Internet.

You and Nicea have both accused me of having a “chip on my shoulder” or a “grudge” against the Catholic Church. You can’t face the possibility that my problems with Catholicism are grounded in a serious study of the issues. That’s immature of you. It would be highly surprising if there were no serious reasons to have doubts about Catholicism. There are certainly serious reasons to have doubts about Christianity as a whole. There are serious reasons to have doubts about nearly everything that matters. A simple recognition of this fact would increase the quality of apologetics by about 1000%!

What is unbecoming is the use of “ad hominem” to distract from the substantive arguments I am making.

Edwin

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde.

I don’t have the relevant primary sources at my fingertips either. If I were still at Duke you’d have a point! I used only the Internet.

At least you know what they are. I’m poking around in a haystack.

You and Nicea have both accused me of having a “chip on my shoulder” or a “grudge” against the Catholic Church. You can’t face the possibility that my problems with Catholicism are grounded in a serious study of the issues. That’s immature of you.

Thank you. I said ‘you seem…’ etc. That’s not an accusation.

Over the course of the past 500 years, many Protestant scholars have engaged in serious study of the issues, Unger, Vos, you and others are the most recent. They have ALL decided against Catholic doctrine on one or another point. ALL agree the Church is wrong about the papacy and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (I know there are some who say they agree, but the agreement is qualified and thus, not the same.) My opinion about Protestant scholars is, they take their doctrine and make the Scriptures fit it.

It would be highly surprising if there were no serious reasons to have doubts about Catholicism. There are certainly serious reasons to have doubts about Christianity as a whole. There are serious reasons to have doubts about nearly everything that matters. A simple recognition of this fact would increase the quality of apologetics by about 1000%!

…and the number of atheists and agnostics by the same amount. Faith doesn’t come from scholarship. Scholarship is, in the hands of the wrong people, the work of Satan and can destroy faith. Faith comes from the Holy Spirit. As you know.

What is unbecoming is the use of “ad hominem” to distract from the substantive arguments I am making.

Edwin

Or any argument, for that matter.

 

[Contarini]

At least you know what they are. I’m poking around in a haystack.

I understand that. It really was an interesting historical point, and I’m glad you raised it.

Over the course of the past 500 years, many Protestant scholars have engaged in serious study of the issues, Unger, Vos, you and others are the most recent. They have ALL decided against Catholic doctrine on one or another point. ALL agree the Church is wrong about the papacy and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. (I know there are some who say they agree, but the agreement is qualified and thus, not the same.) My opinion about Protestant scholars is, they take their doctrine and make the Scriptures fit it.

I think a fairer way to put it is that historical study alone will not solve these issues. I tend to agree with Newman, at least in the modified form: “to be deep in history makes it very hard to be a dogmatic, confessional or fundamentalist Protestant.” But clearly there are folks who are deep in history who disagree with me (they are confessional Protestants–I have yet to meet anyone who managed to become deep in history and still remain a fundamentalist). So in the end, a lot depends on what your prior assumptions are about what is important. It would be easy to psychologize my own deep concern for historical continuity, for instance. One of the major traumas of my childhood was moving from England to the U.S. when I was six. Although in many ways I found America exciting, on some level I’ve always longed for my childhood home, and as a result I find the American worship of newness and change to be downright revolting. That definitely has something to do with the reasons why I find Protestantism unconvincing.

Now before you shout, “Relativist!” I don’t think this means that there is no truth. It just means that we are all approaching the truth with inevitable bias, and we should not be too confident that what we have found *is *the objective truth. Only in the Beatific Vision will we see things truly as they are.

I recognize that most folks on this forum just refuse to see the world that way. And that’s my real disagreement with you and other defenders of Catholicism. It’s less a problem with Catholicism itself, and more with the way you argue for it. My problem is that my own contextual, tradition-based approach to discerning religious truth has left me with an insoluble dilemma. It’s brought me to Anglicanism, but it can’t really get me over the hump to your Communion, as long as the Orthodox are out there in right field shouting, “But Rome has itself broken with the Tradition!” And yet Anglicanism is clearly not a satisfactory resting place.

But hey–that’s reality as I see it. The arguments you and others make to prove that Catholicism is the only option are just plain wrong. And no amount of “surely God would make things simple for us” is going to be convincing. I have no reason to think that God has any interest in making things simple. Absolutely nothing about the real world points in that direction!

…and the number of atheists and agnostics by the same amount.

That’s one of the basic fallacies that fuels conservative apologetics. Honest admissions give the convinced atheists plenty of talking points. But they won’t hurt the Truth. Big-T Truth and small-t truth are not at odds with each other.

Faith doesn’t come from scholarship. Scholarship is, in the hands of the wrong people, the work of Satan and can destroy faith. Faith comes from the Holy Spirit. As you know.

Indeed, that’s another way of putting what I said above

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

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.

Hi Kyiv,

You bring up a good point. WHERE are the Russian Orthodox in particular, inside Russia, on religious freedom and social justice? I don’t hear about it here on CAF. Instead it’s usually involving filioque, the papacy, original sin, etc etc. But IMO, we don’t talk about the lack of religious freedon in their own homeland. We know the late Alexii II wouldn’t allow JPII to visit Russian Catholics.

Could you tell me if the following is true. I’ve read that Alexii II was, (or maybe remained till death) a KGB agent with the codename Drosdov?

And yes, your cardinal is right

 

[KyivAndrew]

Hi Kyiv,

You bring up a good point. WHERE are the Russian Orthodox in particular, inside Russia, on religious freedom and social justice? I don’t hear about it here on CAF. Instead it’s usually involving filioque, the papacy, original sin, etc etc. But IMO, we don’t talk about the lack of religious freedon in their own homeland. We know the late Alexii II wouldn’t allow JPII to visit Russian Catholics.

Could you tell me if the following is true. I’ve read that Alexii II was, (or maybe remained till death) a KGB agent with the codename Drosdov?

And yes, your cardinal is right

Hi steve. Good questions though I hope not to offend any but will state my opinion. Where are the Russian Orthodox on religious freedom in Russia? Well, to use one example, there are millions of Ukrainians in Russia, many of them from those parts of Ukraine Ukrainian Catholic. They are not really allowed to start up any of their own parishes, nor for that matter, schools. Quite unjust. The Russian Orthodox can build churches to their heart’s content in Ukraine or, for that matter, anywhere in the world, and this is good. But in Russia, the 4 formerly recognized faiths are Orthodoxy, Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam. (Catholicism, even Eastern, just doesn’t cut it).

On social justice in Russia. Well, under the current autocrat of Russia, Vladimir Putin, there is no freedom of assembly or the press really allowed. I suggest one go to Radio Free Europe to see what happens when people attempt to demonstrate for democratic elections in Russia, or against having journalists killed by oligarchic or corrupt state forces (the assassinated journalist Anna Politkovskaya). All Russian television stations follow the Kremlin’s line in not being allowed to criticize Putin. (One can only really hear some criticism on the radio on stations like Ekho Moskvy which isn’t great because most Russians get their info. from t.v.)

A young, brave Russian entertainer, Yuri Shevchuk, bluntly confronted Putin on the corruption of the FSB (former K.G.B.) and the Police and the restrictions on freedom of assembly and was told by Putin that to allow demonstrations might restrict Russians from getting to their dachas. Two days later, a protest planned in support of freedom of assembly no less was brutally broken up by the police in St. Petersburg. Many Russians are absolutely fed up with the corruption in the police force, but, to get back to your question, the Patriarch does not really discuss this or criticize Putin or the latter’s efforts to glorify aspects of the Soviet Secret Police from the past.

When those Russian secret agents caught in the West recently were sent back to Russia, Putin partied with them singing old Soviet songs to the Soviet motherland. I wish Russia would throw off this Soviet legacy.

When the Russian Patriarch comes to Ukraine, he demands the Ukrainian state change street names such as Mazepa (a Ukrainian leader who fought the autocratic czar), but says nothing of the countless names of streets in Russia (or Ukraine) named after K.G.B. killers! Indeed, has the Patriarch of Moscow ever openly criticized Putin about the fact that Lenin, the atheist founder of the Soviet Union, is still given pride of place in his mausoleum and is not taken down. Nothing. Lenin doesn’t worry him, but a little street in independent Ukraine does. Putin puts up official state stamps of Soviet Secret Police chiefs from Stalin’s time when the Russian Orthodox who refused to cooperate with communism were brutally murdered, and the Russian Orthodox hierarchy today says nothing, feeding off its symbiosis with the State.

For Alexei and his K.G.B. past (Drozdov) which you asked , read Keston College’s ( a reputable organization) report here:
keston.org.uk/kns/miscnew/KNS%20RUSSIA%20The%20Patriarch%20and%20the%20KGB.html

p.s. and again this is not to say Ukraine doesn’t have its own problems, but it is to say that the current Patriarch of Moscow and the secret police man Putin seem to work hand-in-glove in silencing any dissent to the Kremlin, religious, political, social. I wish this were not so.

So take Moscow’s criticism of secularism over here with a grain of salt. Over there, one doesn’t have some of the elementary freedoms (religion, press, or even trials before an impartial judicial system) we have here and Lenin gets to “sleep” comfortably every night. Kirill should concentrate on his own country.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
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.

Protest? The Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381added the section that follows the words “We believe in the Holy Spirit” or merely a modification.

Quote:
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.

I agree and precisely why I object the scores divisions and splintering of Christ Church.

Quote:
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.

And I am more annoyed when someone has a chip on their shoulder,whether the person cares to admit it or not.Eliminate the chip and I’ll discuss any issue.

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.

Come again? Omit the filioque? Last time I checked the western church added it.

 

[steve_b]

I understand that. It really was an interesting historical point, and I’m glad you raised it.

I think a fairer way to put it is that historical study alone will not solve these issues. I tend to agree with Newman, at least in the modified form: “to be deep in history makes it very hard to be a dogmatic, confessional or fundamentalist Protestant.” But clearly there are folks who are deep in history who disagree with me (they are confessional Protestants–I have yet to meet anyone who managed to become deep in history and still remain a fundamentalist). So in the end, a lot depends on what your prior assumptions are about what is important.

Don’t you think Newman was saying, education dispels ignorance, unless of course one is an unstable individual?

Seems to me, given the power of grace, good education, and a person’s response to it, an individual can respond as follows

• :doh2:The Catholic Church is correct. How did I miss it. :extrahappy: (Newnam paraphrased)
• :dts:there’s gotta be a fool proof offense to use against all this evidence for the CC
• Oh NO!!! Now What!!!
• :coffeeread: No thanks. I’m smarter than all this stuff. I’ll do things my way.
• I’ll get to it later. This ain’t tops on my list.
• :slapfight: no matter what the evidence says, I’ll fight rather than switch to the Catholic Church.

We know who’s behind all the sifting.

 

[Bluegoat]

Don’t you think Newman was saying, education dispels ignorance, unless of course one is an unstable individual?

Seems to me, given the power of grace, good education, and a person’s response to it, an individual can respond as follows

• :doh2:The Catholic Church is correct. How did I miss it. :extrahappy: (Newnam paraphrased)
• :dts:there’s gotta be a fool proof offense to use against all this evidence for the CC
• Oh NO!!! Now What!!!
• :coffeeread: No thanks. I’m smarter than all this stuff. I’ll do things my way.
• I’ll get to it later. This ain’t tops on my list.
• :slapfight: no matter what the evidence says, I’ll fight rather than switch to the Catholic Church.

We know who’s behind all the sifting.

So anyone who rejects Catholicism is uneducated, stupid, or immoral?

That seems unlikely in the face of the evidence.

 

[Contarini]

Protest? The Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381added the section that follows the words “We believe in the Holy Spirit” or merely a modification.

I’m not sure what you mean. I repeat: where did the West protest this? What schism did it cause with the West? The addition clearly represented the Faith of the whole Church. The addition of the Filioque did not–as the reaction of the Orthodox to this day witnesses.

And I am more annoyed when someone has a chip on their shoulder,whether the person cares to admit it or not.Eliminate the chip and I’ll discuss any issue.

So you can justify avoiding the issues by claiming I have a chip. Well, I’ll let others judge whether that’s reasonable.

Come again? Omit the filioque? Last time I checked the western church added it.

I just meant that they don’t use it. And in fact I was speaking of the Eastern Catholic churches (sorry for not being clearer, though I thought it was clear in context), who did take it out after being forced to use it at one time. I’ve seen Eastern Catholic service books with the Filioque whited out (at St. Cyril and Methodius in Cary, NC). So it didn’t happen that long ago.

And my point, again, is that if your Church is really unified there should be one faith. Catholics criticize the Orthodox for having different disciplines on matters such as contraception and the rebaptism of non-Orthodox (and I agree that these are problems), but then propose to have the Creed recited in two different versions. That’s not unity, just because Rome approves of it.

Edwin

 

[josie_L]

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.

The “if Rome erred then Jesus lied” is not as incredulous as you make it out to be, in fact, there is much to be said about this scriptural passage vis a vis Tradition, please let me cite a few examples of what I mean:

St. Theodore the Studite

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see, in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouths of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the consummation, according to the promise of Him who cannot lie. Let the most blessed and apostolic Paschal rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter” (Theodore of Studite, Bk. II Ep. 63, Patr. Graec. 99, 1281)

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed.** For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him, that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. **(Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (575 - 593 A.D.) to the Archbishop of the Georgian monks who had a colony in his city:

“**As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, Chief of the Apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the churches. ‘Thou are Peter, etc.’ **To this same Peter He has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. **Such is, above all, the privilege of those who on the first most holy and venerable See are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.” **

St. Leo the Great

Peter does not cease to preside in his See and his consortium with the Eternal Pontiff never fails. For that steadfastness with which he was endowed, when he was first made the rock, by Christ who is himself the rock, has passed to his successors, and wherever any stability is manifest, it is beyond doubt the might of the supreme pastor which is in evidence. Could anyone consider the reknown of blessed Peter and yet be ignorant or envious enough to assert that there is any part of the Church which is not guided by his care and strenghtened by his succor.

The Petrine primacy was established on the words spoken by Christ to Peter in Matthew 16:18 when Christ designated Peter “rock”, and as such bound Peter to Jesus’s own rock solidness eternally. There is so much alluded to by this one word, in fact, there is a rabbinic saying about Abraham: "when the Holy one wanted to create the world, he passed over the generations of Enoch and of the flood; but when he saw Abraham who was to arise, he said: ‘Behold I have found a rock on which I can build and found the world’. This would no doubt penetrate the minds of Jews upon hearing that Peter was declared rock and that on this rock Christ’s universal Church would be built. Here is an excerpt from “Upon This Rock” delineating the paralells between Peter and Abraham:

“The Jewish listeners would immediately understand the import of Jesus’ words, richly couched in their Jewish heritage. The parallels were drawn between Abraham and Peter: in both cases there are name changes to indicate a new status, a designation as “rock”, and a position at the fountainhead of the two major covenants of God with his people. In each case, God began with one person to achieve a much larger goal.”

Moreover, the keys of the kingdom mentioned in Matthew 16:18 would bring to mind Isaiah 22:22 and with that the succession of the petrine office, i.e., by designating the keys to Peter Jesus was saying this was his steward (an office that was successive). Needless to say, I think the case for the papacy with regard to Matthew 16:18 is quite convincing,

 

[Nicea325]

The “if Rome erred then Jesus lied” is not as incredulous as you make it out to be, in fact, there is much to be said about this scriptural passage vis a vis Tradition, please let me cite a few examples of what I mean:

St. Theodore the Studite

“I witness now before God and men, they have torn themselves from the Body of Christ, from the supreme see, in which Christ placed the keys of the faith, against which the gates of hell (I mean the mouths of heretics) have not prevailed, and never will until the consummation, according to the promise of Him who cannot lie. Let the most blessed and apostolic Paschal rejoice therefore, for he has fulfilled the work of Peter” (Theodore of Studite, Bk. II Ep. 63, Patr. Graec. 99, 1281)

St. Maximus the Confessor (c. 650)

The extremities of the earth, and everyone in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord, look directly towards the Most Holy Roman Church and her confession and faith, as to a sun of unfailing light awaiting from her the brilliant radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers, according to that which the inspired and holy Councils have stainlessly and piously decreed.** For, from the descent of the Incarnate Word amongst us, all the churches in every part of the world have held the greatest Church alone to be their base and foundation, seeing that, according to the promise of Christ Our Savior, the gates of hell will never prevail against her, that she has the keys of the orthodox confession and right faith in Him,** that she opens the true and exclusive religion to such men as approach with piety, and she shuts up and locks every heretical mouth which speaks against the Most High. (Maximus, Opuscula theologica et polemica, Migne, Patr. Graec. vol. 90)

John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (575 - 593 A.D.) to the Archbishop of the Georgian monks who had a colony in his city:

“**As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, Chief of the Apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the churches. ‘Thou are Peter, etc.’ **To this same Peter He has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. **Such is, above all, the privilege of those who on the first most holy and venerable See are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.” **

St. Leo the Great

Peter does not cease to preside in his See and his consortium with the Eternal Pontiff never fails. For that steadfastness with which he was endowed, when he was first made the rock, by Christ who is himself the rock, has passed to his successors, and wherever any stability is manifest, it is beyond doubt the might of the supreme pastor which is in evidence. Could anyone consider the reknown of blessed Peter and yet be ignorant or envious enough to assert that there is any part of the Church which is not guided by his care and strenghtened by his succor.

The Petrine primacy was established on the words spoken by Christ to Peter in Matthew 16:18 when Christ designated Peter “rock”, and as such bound Peter to Jesus’s own rock solidness eternally. There is so much alluded to by this one word, in fact, there is a rabbinic saying about Abraham: "when the Holy one wanted to create the world, he passed over the generations of Enoch and of the flood; but when he saw Abraham who was to arise, he said: ‘Behold I have found a rock on which I can build and found the world’. This would no doubt penetrate the minds of Jews upon hearing that Peter was declared rock and that on this rock Christ’s universal Church would be built. Here is an excerpt from “Upon This Rock” delineating the paralells between Peter and Abraham:

“The Jewish listeners would immediately understand the import of Jesus’ words, richly couched in their Jewish heritage. The parallels were drawn between Abraham and Peter: in both cases there are name changes to indicate a new status, a designation as “rock”, and a position at the fountainhead of the two major covenants of God with his people. In each case, God began with one person to achieve a much larger goal.”

Moreover, the keys of the kingdom mentioned in Matthew 16:18 would bring to mind Isaiah 22:22 and with that the succession of the petrine office, i.e., by designating the keys to Peter Jesus was saying this was his steward (an office that was successive). Needless to say, I think the case for the papacy with regard to Matthew 16:18 is quite convincing,

Josie, does not matter what you post because Contarani will reject it and many have done the same with no avail. What he says is it and everything else and all kinds of circumstantial and empirical evidence are useless.

 

[josie_L]

And likewise, if you claim that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and 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?

Are you suggesting that the filioque implies that the Holy Spirit originates with Jesus as well as the Father???

 

[Contarini]

You’re right that this discussion has reached an impasse. I will note one final thought though (feel free to respond as you wish): Protestants use the same quote-mining procedure to “prove” that the Fathers supported Sola Scriptura. The Fathers were quite capable of saying things like, “Scripture is clear and all necessary doctrine is found in it,” but their practice as a whole shows that they relied on Sacred Tradition as well. Similarly, Fathers who found themselves on Rome’s side in various controversies (mostly the Christological controversies of the East) made statements that sounded like affirmations of Rome’s infallibility. And yet when Rome reached an accommodation with the Monothelites, St. Maximus kept on fighting. The general practice of the Fathers does not support your argument, even though you can come up with isolated quotes that do.

This will be my last post–at least for a while. I get to a point on this forum where I am getting annoyed and I’m annoying everyone else. As many of you know, I’ve done this a number of times before, and each time I hint that I may not be back at all. Same here. I’m going to try to stay away from this forum, certainly until I have learned to manage my time better and accomplish more of the things I really want to do. Going round and round on this isn’t good for anyone.

God bless,

Edwin

 

[steve_b]

So anyone who rejects Catholicism is uneducated, stupid, or immoral?

That seems unlikely in the face of the evidence.

I didn’t say uneducated, stupid, or immoral. We can all be ignorant of many things, even the highly educated.

Once truth is presented, based on ones stability, It’s what one does with truth after that. That was the theme of my last post

Satin is doing a masterful job at sifting.

 

[BrianH]

So if a person believes Rome erred, should they still be a Christian? What do Catholics think?

 

[Shiranui117]

Are you suggesting that the filioque implies that the Holy Spirit originates with Jesus as well as the Father???

NO! Procedit implies a going forth, NOT origination, as I said explicitly in my post, and stated clearly! The Son and the Father are of the same essence, but the Son does not possess any characteristics that make the Father the Father! There’s a difference that NEEDS to be understood! I can go FORTH from my house, but my house does not create me! I can go FORTH from my chair, but the chair doesn’t create me, either!

Perhaps I DO need to help you understand some of those metaphors…

Spring and river metaphor: Say God is the spring, and Jesus is the river, and the Holy Spirit is the water. The water originates from the spring, and then travels downriver. Can you take water from the river? Yes. But can you also get it from the spring? Of course! But which of the two is the source? The spring, of course. (lol, rhyming)

Lightbulb and glass window: The lightbulb is the source of the light, and you can see the light through a window. But can you see the light without looking through the glass window? Yes. (The Holy Spirit is the light, the lightbulb is God the Father, and the window is Jesus)

Torch metaphor: A runner ignites and carries a torch, and passes the torch off to the next runner, who then lights the cauldron. Can runner #1 light the cauldron himself? Sure. But can the second runner take the torch and light the cauldron at the direction of the first runner? Yes. In this case, the first runner is God the Father, the second runner is Jesus, the cauldron is us, and the torch is the Holy Spirit.

As you can see, I was NOT implying that the Son is a SOURCE of the Holy Spirit, just that the Holy Spirit can GO FORTH from Him. Only the Father can be a source of the Holy Spirit, as being able to be a source of the Holy Spirit and beget the Son are qualities that only the Father can have; the Son can SEND the Holy Spirit and make the Holy Spirit GO FORTH from Him, but only the Father can be a SOURCE of the Holy Spirit, due to His nature as Father.

 

[Shiranui117]

So if a person believes Rome erred, should they still be a Christian? What do Catholics think?

It would be better that they remained a Christian than they simply stop believing. If I ever came to leave the Catholic Church, then I wouldn’t give up on Christianity unless I had come to distrust Christianity as a whole (which I don’t believe will ever happen.) I think God would look with favor on someone who tried to find answers in other Christian denominations and Churches moreso than on someone who threw up their hands and gave up on Him entirely.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve. Good questions though I hope not to offend any but will state my opinion. Where are the Russian Orthodox on religious freedom in Russia? Well, to use one example, there are millions of Ukrainians in Russia, many of them from those parts of Ukraine Ukrainian Catholic. They are not really allowed to start up any of their own parishes, nor for that matter, schools. Quite unjust. The Russian Orthodox can build churches to their heart’s content in Ukraine or, for that matter, anywhere in the world, and this is good. But in Russia, the 4 formerly recognized faiths are Orthodoxy, Judaism, Buddhism, and Islam. (Catholicism, even Eastern, just doesn’t cut it).

On social justice in Russia. Well, under the current autocrat of Russia, Vladimir Putin, there is no freedom of assembly or the press really allowed. I suggest one go to Radio Free Europe to see what happens when people attempt to demonstrate for democratic elections in Russia, or against having journalists killed by oligarchic or corrupt state forces (the assassinated journalist Anna Politkovskaya). All Russian television stations follow the Kremlin’s line in not being allowed to criticize Putin. (One can only really hear some criticism on the radio on stations like Ekho Moskvy which isn’t great because most Russians get their info. from t.v.)

A young, brave Russian entertainer, Yuri Shevchuk, bluntly confronted Putin on the corruption of the FSB (former K.G.B.) and the Police and the restrictions on freedom of assembly and was told by Putin that to allow demonstrations might restrict Russians from getting to their dachas. Two days later, a protest planned in support of freedom of assembly no less was brutally broken up by the police in St. Petersburg. Many Russians are absolutely fed up with the corruption in the police force, but, to get back to your question, the Patriarch does not really discuss this or criticize Putin or the latter’s efforts to glorify aspects of the Soviet Secret Police from the past.

When those Russian secret agents caught in the West recently were sent back to Russia, Putin partied with them singing old Soviet songs to the Soviet motherland. I wish Russia would throw off this Soviet legacy.

When the Russian Patriarch comes to Ukraine, he demands the Ukrainian state change street names such as Mazepa (a Ukrainian leader who fought the autocratic czar), but says nothing of the countless names of streets in Russia (or Ukraine) named after K.G.B. killers! Indeed, has the Patriarch of Moscow ever openly criticized Putin about the fact that Lenin, the atheist founder of the Soviet Union, is still given pride of place in his mausoleum and is not taken down. Nothing. Lenin doesn’t worry him, but a little street in independent Ukraine does. Putin puts up official state stamps of Soviet Secret Police chiefs from Stalin’s time when the Russian Orthodox who refused to cooperate with communism were brutally murdered, and the Russian Orthodox hierarchy today says nothing, feeding off its symbiosis with the State.

For Alexei and his K.G.B. past (Drozdov) which you asked , read Keston College’s ( a reputable organization) report here:
keston.org.uk/kns/miscnew/KNS%20RUSSIA%20The%20Patriarch%20and%20the%20KGB.html

p.s. and again this is not to say Ukraine doesn’t have its own problems, but it is to say that the current Patriarch of Moscow and the secret police man Putin seem to work hand-in-glove in silencing any dissent to the Kremlin, religious, political, social. I wish this were not so.

So take Moscow’s criticism of secularism over here with a grain of salt. Over there, one doesn’t have some of the elementary freedoms (religion, press, or even trials before an impartial judicial system) we have here and Lenin gets to “sleep” comfortably every night. Kirill should concentrate on his own country.

Thanks for the verification. The other source I read sourced Keston as well.

I was looking around and found this apology by Alexii II. pages.prodigy.net/frjohnwhiteford/patalexei.htm

• not sure of the date of this apology
• or who it was to
• or the context of the apology. It is short on details

 

[steve_b]

So if a person believes Rome erred, should they still be a Christian? What do Catholics think?

erred in what respect, to cause one to apostacize ?

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

You will need to provide evidence for that claim. If you’re talking about [this citation, note that he is only talking about the question of the theological truth of the Filioque, not about the change to the Creed.

He doesn’t even mention the changing of the Creed, which could be significant. My point is, Bishop Ware seems to be looking for ways to bring the matter to an amicable close.

Also note that I’m not arguing (as the Orthodox traditionally argued) that change to the Creed of 1 Constantinople is automatically wrong…What is so obviously wrong about the change in the Creed is that it was done not only without consulting the Eastern Churches, but against the decision of a previous Pope who had endorsed the unaltered version precisely because of the opposition of the Eastern Churches.

I agree with that, but not with the Orthodox reaction which seems to be personal as opposed to theological. They take the change as a snub, which may be justified, but not to the point of schism.

Furthermore, the change coincided with the development of a new way of understanding and implementing papal authority, and with the beginning of a set of developments which led to Western Christianity becoming markedly different from the East and from its own earlier traditions in liturgy, theology, and popular devotion alike. In other words, to someone looking at the historical record to figure out which of your rival Communions has the best claim to continuity, it looks very much as if your Communion has some serious discontinuities, and as if the addition of the Filioque to the Creed at Rome played a significant role in the break in continuity with the early Church and with the Eastern Churches.

Without specifics I can’t comment. There are continuing demands in this thread that Catholics prove the Church is the same today as it was in the first century. The answer to that is in the parable of the mustard seed (Mt. 13:31-2) which the Lord used to describe the kingdom of God. The large bush bears no resemblance to the tiny seed so I don’t know what it is we’re supposed to prove or why we’re asked to prove it.

There are convincing arguments on both sides, which is one reason it hasn’t been resolved. You know what they are, but you’re taking the Orthodox tack. That’s fine, but it’s not fair to assume they have all the ammo.

See–you are using the word “Catholic” in a convenient, non-theological manner (something you scoffed at me for claiming to do)–in this case to mean “the Western Church.”

I use “Catholic” as a proper noun to identify the one Church the Lord came to build, which proper noun has been in use for that purpose since the second century.

Surely you don’t mean to say that the filioque originated outside the Catholic Church in what both of us would consider the strict and proper sense. You mean that it wasn’t invented by Western Christians.

Of course. And thank you for FINALLY agreeing that early Eastern and Western Christians were all Catholics as opposed to Orthodox. Ergo, you now agree the Orthodox split from the Catholic Church. Good man!!

The core of the Nicene Creed (particularly as emended at Constantinople) is the baptismal profession of faith, and that profession of faith goes back very early (maybe actually to the apostles, though I’m sure many scholars would scoff at me for suggesting that!). But it’s worded in different ways in different sources. The precise form of words that we now call the “Apostles’ Creed” is first found in about the sixth century, I believe.

Found in written form. There are suggestions there was a requirement the Creed existed long before that, had to be memorized and was deliberately not put in writing.

Oh really? So tell me why the Creeds don’t mention the Eucharist? Surely we both agree that the Eucharist is a central doctrine of the Christian Faith?

You’re right. I omitted that omission. In the context of a baptismal profession, it doesn’t fit. Your explanation why it was omitted sounds good to me, but we’ll never know.

The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed simply added teaching on the controversial question of the divinity of Christ (and at Constantinople of the Holy Spirit) to the basic framework of the baptismal profession. Again, there was clearly no intent of framing an exhaustive statement of faith. If nothing else, the continued omission of the Eucharist proves that.

Key word: added. That’s what I said. I agree with your conclusion.