F
Ferde_Rombola
Guest
Thanks for this link, JD. It’s a brilliant piece. I have no hopes it will convince anyone opposed to the papacy, but that’s another, separate story.
- Status
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, the Pope was reaffirming (part of) the traditional teaching. Humanae Vitae wasn’t the best example, perhaps, since I accept the Pope’s authority to do just what he did there–reaffirm the traditional view against modern challenges. The point I was arguing when I cited Humanae Vitae was that collegiality is not seen as necessary–and HV demonstrates this nicely. Since the Pope clearly had tradition on his side, a good case can be made that he didn’t need to be collegial in that case. But the fact is that he wasn’t.
You have a tendency to assume that if someone does not phrase things the way you consider proper it is out of ignorance. Perhaps you could consider the possibility that sometimes people put things differently because they have a different perspective.
At any rate, I don’t recall ever claiming to “know so much.” I do have a Ph.D., but Ph.D’s are regrettably narrow. My Ph.D. didn’t teach me anything about the modern papacy–that I learned on my own. It did teach me something about using sources, but even then it’s easy to get sloppy in an Internet discussion like this one.
I am quite aware that there is much I do not know.
Edwin
P
patricius79
Guest
Contrarini wrote:
As I recall, in the 100s St. Irenaeus said that the Church is handed on through Apostolic Succession, and that it is the Roman Succession which has the Tradition of the Apostles pre-eminently.
Sounds like it might be made up.
As I recall, in the 100s St. Irenaeus said that the Church is handed on through Apostolic Succession, and that it is the Roman Succession which has the Tradition of the Apostles pre-eminently.
C
Contarini
Guest
I found a reference to it in Roberto di Mattei’s biography (Gracewing, 2004), p. 144, n. 39, citing Giacomo Martina’s biography, 3:205-9. Martina would seem to be the best source for the story. All the sources use language like “allegedly said,” so we clearly have no proof that he said it (absent recording technology!). But it seems to be taken seriously by scholarly biographers–it isn’t some kind of slur made up by anti-Catholics!
Irenaeus pointed to Rome as the best place to look to find the Tradition. Exactly. That’s Roman primacy as it should be.
The problem arises when you simply assume that whatever comes out of Rome is the Tradition.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Agreed so far!
The Holy Spirit does not need to act through a created instrument. The Holy Spirit chooses as a rule to act through created means. But it does not follow that there is a particular means marked out in advance which, if employed in a very specific way, can be invariably assumed to be the mouthpiece of the Holy Spirit. You assume that this is true. Why do you do so?
The argument I’ve heard more often from Catholics is that the Holy Spirit has promised to act through certain specific means. That’s a very different issue. You tacitly give up that ground by granting that the promise is given to the Church as a whole, and then arguing that there is some intrinsic necessity that the promise must have an infallible organ through which to work (I know you didn’t use the word infallible, but that’s what you seem to mean by saying that there is a particular instrument which we can expect always to be used by the Holy Spirit).
No, “for you” there must be such a means in the first place. This is not granted on the other side and you cannot assume it. If there is such a means, then of course it involves the Papacy. From my perspective that *can *be granted. Of course no other See is infallible, and of course there is no objective method by which an Ecumenical Council can be determined to be valid other than Papal approval.
If you really think this is an argument for your side, then how about you explain what objective method you have to determine who the true Pope is? (Election by cardinals has no more divine origin than the Pentarchy does–it’s a human method developed in the eleventh century in response to a crisis.) It is theoretically possible that there might be no valid Pope for some time. It is theoretically possible that the ostensible Pope might be an antipope. The search for such an “objective method” is absurd from the start.
This entire line of argument by Roman Catholics is an attempt to avoid the necessity of discernment. It’s pretty easy to discern who the true Popes have been for most of the history of the Church. It’s a bit harder to discern which of the four “apostolic” Communions is the true Church, admittedly. But if you want to make the argument not one of relative ease or difficulty but of absolute *possibility *or impossibility, then it is impossible to judge Chalcedon to be correct and Florence incorrect only in the same sense that it’s impossible to judge that the post-Vatican-II Popes are in fact valid popes (that is to say, a sense that bothers no reasonable person).
This argument doesn’t make sense to me. Scripture is a “visible organ/instrument” as much as anything is. If you say that Scripture needs a “visible organ/instrument” by which to work, then the instrument needs an instrument and so on ad infinitum. Sola Scriptura is wrong, but this isn’t a good argument showing why. Sola Scriptura is shown to be wrong by its *fruit–*and by the fact that in its strongest form it is self-refuting, as Catholic apologists love to point out!
As I understand it, the Orthodox approach isn’t quite the same as Western conciliarism, precisely because Western conciliarism did see Councils as infallible juridical organs replacing (or rather having superior authority to) the Papacy.
C
Contarini
Guest
How do we know anything? This kind of pseudo-epistemological question is a sham from beginning to end, unless it has a specific issue in mind (and then it should be phrased “what grounds do we have for believing X”). As a general question it’s worthless, because it can be used all the way back until it disproves the Christian Faith as a whole. You say we know when the Spirit has spoken because of the Papacy? But how do we know that the Papacy can be trusted so implicitly? Because of Matt. 16, you say. Apart from the fact that the exegetical steps leading from Matt. 16 and similar passages to your belief in the papacy are themselves at most probable (not entirely certain), the fact is that apart from a faith commitment there is no way to be certain that Jesus ever said the words recorded in Matt. 16. All non-Christians scholars, and many Christian scholars (even including some Catholics, though you may deny that they’re “real” Catholics), think He didn’t. Contra Karl Keating (and the Old Princetonian Calvinist theologians whose argument he has adapted for Catholic use–if you don’t know what I’m talking about we can leave it there, but I refer to the argument to save time in case you want to bring it up), there is no way to prove with certainty the general historical accuracy of the New Testament in the first place.
In short, the assumption that we need complete certainty about any matter of faith destroys the faith. It leads inevitably to agnosticism, at least with regard to all matters of divine revelation. (I’m leaving open the question of whether we can prove the existence of God with certainty or not–but I have Aquinas and most other Christian theologians on my side in saying that we can’t prove the specific claims of the Christian Faith with certainty.) Faith takes a matter that rationally is only probable and gives it certainty (this is Aquinas’s definition). All we need to believe in one version of Christianity over another is probable reasoning, because that’s all we have for Christianity as a whole.
Protestants are not in the same boat for two reasons:
- The Reformation’s break with the previous teaching of the Church meant that Protestants had to adopt a doctrine of Sola Scriptura in the negative sense: that is to say, they could now only place their faith in Scripture as the “visible means” through which the Spirit spoke and could not place it in any concrete definition of the Church, even the one that they thought was the purest in its doctrines. Furthermore,
- The division and confusion of Protestantism have now become such (I don’t think this was the case from the beginning) that there is no reasonable ground for considering one version of Protestantism to be the True Church even in the truncated sense made possible by Sola Scriptura. I recognize that a sizeable number of confessional Protestants continue to disagree with me on this point.
Through whomever He chooses. (See John 3:8.)
Where you can be sure, there is no need for faith.
I agree with William Abraham that Western Christianity has mixed up the theological question of canon (i.e., what is our rule or norm of truth) and the epistemological question of criterion, and that this has been a disastrous mistake. (I disagree with Abraham’s analysis of the Western Middle Ages, but that’s another issue.)
In the ancient Church, “the criterion [of truth] was always truth itself, and not a visible organ of infallibility.” But the truth has to be articulated by someone. It does not suddenly appear out of the blue, perfectly apparent and clear to everyone.
And the unjustified assumption here is that the Spirit must have a specific, institutional “designated mouthpiece.”
It’s called heresy!
Again, as soon as you ask “how do we know” instead of “what reasonable grounds do we have for believing” you are making any religion that goes beyond Deism impossible.
Edwin
J
josie_L
Guest
So basically what you’re saying is that there is no primary source we can access in order to verify if this is true?
C
Contarini
Guest
Josie, I didn’t say not to use them. I said not to use them exclusively instead of actually looking at the primary sources and at secondary sources that don’t share your bias.
I sent you to some sources that explain the Orthodox view well, and give reasons for it. Bear in mind that I myself am not Orthodox. Two issues have become confused here, and that’s one reason why my response did not satisfy you. One issue is what I see as the fairly basic question of whether it makes sense to appeal to “Tradition” while routinely dismissing historical appeals to the ancient Church. Because I find that Catholics have a tendency to engage in this questionable practice, and justify it by the “three-legged-stool” approach (Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium), and also because of my own reading of the patristic sources, I tend to favor the more unified Orthodox approach (the second, related but distinct issue). But it was only recently that I read the texts that I recommended to you, and they have brought me to a better understanding and appreciation of the Orthodox position. I sent you to them not as authoritative proofs but as sources that would help you better understand the Orthodox position and what might be said for it. I understand that what you were looking for was a more substantive argument. But I’m not sure that one can “prove” one approach over the other. I would support the more “unified” view primarily from the second-century writers, who seem to speak of Tradition and Scripture interchangeably (Irenaeus is an excellent example of this). But do we really want to get into that at this point?
For the purposes of this discussion, I hope that we could all agree that Tradition is the ongoing transmission of the Christian Faith by the Church (this is basically Vatican II’s definition). The point that I think divides me from some of you is that I’m unwilling to accept “development” as an excuse without further discussion of why the “developments” that have taken place in the West were really necessary. In other words, I assume that in a discussion of what Tradition is, the historical examination of what the early Church did and believed plays an important role, though it doesn’t have the last word. So if I can show that early Christians believed in “one bishop, one city,” Catholics need to do more than say “that was the infancy of the Church”–they need to show just what it is about the Church’s maturity that justifies such a significan shift in how we define the Church’s unity.
I don’t think we need to settle the question of the Orthodox vs. the Catholic definition of Tradition–especially since, apart from the role of the Magisterium, the distinction is largely one of semantics–in order to establish this principle. Hence my hasty response to your question.
Are you honestly, in good faith, accusing me of relying solely on non-Catholic secondary sources? In the Honorius debate, I referred you to not one but two Catholic sources (Hefele and Nichols) of which you did not seem to be aware. One of them (Hefele) contained the fullest form of the primary sources I was able to find on the Internet. With regard to the question of Tradition–by all means read Congar as well as the Orthodox sources, and of course Dei Verbum. (Congar may be closer to the Orthodox than you like!) If you have Catholic scholarly sources that you think I should look at to give an alternative view, please mention them. (I do, of course, frequently refer to the CE, which is a good source for older Catholic scholarship.)
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
I’m sure there are eyewitness reports. I don’t have access to them, so I gave the best documentation I could.
That is why I used cautious language and did not claim that he said it for sure. But there certainly seems to be good reason to believe that he said it.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
It’s not baseless. You do in fact do these things. To be fair, we ought to have one standard–either we treat each other with courtesy and tolerance, recognizing that this is a fairly informal discussion, or we each hold ourselves to normal scholarly standards with regard to the use of sources. That will slow down the discussion for both of us quite a bit, but that might not be a bad thing. The problem is that you have no compunction about simply regurgitating standard Catholic online apologetics. I don’t trust the Protestant equivalents of the sources you are using (Webster, etc.), and frankly I don’t necessarily trust the Orthodox equivalents either (though to the credit of the Orthodox, they don’t have as many handy compendia of polemical talking points!). I do my own research, within time constraints and mostly relying on online sources or what I have in my office. When I don’t have the time or interest to go into something for myself, I refer you to serious scholarly sources that do. If you find that approach unreasonable, then perhaps we should stop trying to have a dialogue, and you and the Protestants and the Orthodox can all throw your rival prooftexts at each other until Jesus comes back.
I do apologize for the “higher standard” remark. It was snooty and patronizing.
Thanks for pointing that out. My updated Internet server doesn’t like blogspot and crashes when I go to that site, but I did find what seems to be the PG source–you can apparently download PG volumes if you have something called emule, which I don’t.
Yes, and what if he wasn’t? What if won’t get us far. What do the actual sources suggest? Does anything about Honorius’s letter actually suggest that he’s only talking about “one will” for Jesus’ human nature? Does anything actually suggest that his intentions are radically different than those of the Eastern Monothelites?How about this novel idea Edwin, what if Maximus was defending Honorius because the pope was actually orthodox in his use of the term “one will”?
The most reasonable defense of him (offered by Hefele and Nichols) is that he was talking about “moral unity.” But I don’t see any reason to believe that he was thinking on that level.
Irenaeus said otherwise (Eusebius 3.24.13):
Apostolic traditions are by definition legitimate. Irenaeus, as cited in Eusebius, clearly agrees that this was an apostolic tradition.
Irenaeus did not agree–he said:
You have not provided proof that the practice itself was considered heretical even at I Constantinople. (Note by the way the very different standard of proof that you use here than when you were putting any possible construction on Honorius’s words to avoid having to say that he was a heretic!) We don’t know for sure that the term is being used in the same sense after the lapse of two centuries (Epiphanius might help), and if it is, they may have been condemned as disturbers of the Church’s unity in the wake of I Nicea.
Actually, it was about what the Fathers believed and practiced. Irenaeus is often cited as a believer in Roman primacy. For my purposes, it isn’t necessary to show that he was right–my point is simply that his words in Against Heresies should be interpreted in the light of his willingness to disagree with the Pope on the question of what practices should be considered heresy. That’s why I cited Cyprian as well–we both agree that he was wrong, but again, Catholics cite him all the time as a supporter of Papal primacy. It’s a suspicious pattern. I agree that I shouldn’t have cited the Maximus story without verifying where it came from.
It was 1 Nicea that settled the question regarding Easter–this put the Quartodecimans at odds with the rest of the Church. That’s assuming that the only “error” of the group mentioned in 2 Nicea was to continue celebrating Easter on 14 Nisan.
Still, I’m willing to say that Irenaeus’s method was better.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Even if true (I don’t think that medicine can prove such matters), that’s not relevant to the point I was making. I was asked for evidence that Popes don’t think they have to act collegially.
Because Irenaeus’s position appears to have been that they shouldn’t be excommunicated at all.
“My source” (Irenaeus’s letter reproduced in Eusebius) is the primary source. It’s not a rival to the secondary source you’ve cited–it’s the source on which that source is drawing.
I never said your source contradicted the primary source–but it goes beyond it. It puts a spin on Irenaeus’s actions in order to make his disagreement with Victor seem less.
Not quite. They all decided that Easter should be celebrated on Sunday, and on “no other day.” Whether that “condemns” the Quartodecimans depends on whether unity in this matter is seen as a necessity or not. It would appear to condemn the Quartodecimans, which is why Pope Victor proceeded to act on that assumption. But Irenaeus’s letter (and Eusebius says that he wasn’t alone) took a different approach, arguing that even though the Asian practice was less than desirable and differed from that of the rest of the Christian world, it should not be tampered with because the Asian Christians had good reason to believe it to be apostolic. The principle is that a rite that has been continuously practiced for as long as we are aware of should be given the benefit of the doubt.
The implication of 3.24.18 is that Irenaeus succeeded, but it isn’t entirely clear.
Actually Eusebius says that he “tried to.” To me that indicates that without the consent of the rest of the Church his action was not considered binding. Note the difference between your language and Eusebius. You say that Victor excommunicated them and the other bishops tried to persuade him to take it back. Eusebius says that Victor tried to excommunicate and the other bishops rebuked him sharply!
You have a different ecclesiology than the one reflected in Eusebius’s account.
I’d say Your bias caused you to respond precipitately
No, I pointed out that the ancient sources do not support some of the claims made in your modern secondary source. Nothing precipitate about it.
Edwin
C
Contarini
Guest
Yes, and with why the Orthodox later accused you guys of heresy for using unleavened bread!
One of the things I admire about your Communion is its greater tolerance for legitimate diversity in such matters.
How could he condemn subsequent councils? This makes no sense. Irenaeus certainly banned the practice in his part of the Christian world. But he recognized that the Asians had a right to follow their ancient traditions.
Of course Rome can break communion with other parts of the Christian world!
Rome has both the authority and the duty to speak on behalf of the Church as a whole. But when Rome fails to express the consensus of the Church, it can be rebuked. As we see here. Victor hastily assumed that a consensus about the most desirable practice constituted a consensus about the heretical nature of any other practice. Irenaeus set him straight.
Indeed. But in this case Irenaeus seems to have thought that Victor was causing division in the Church.
There is no reason (except your anachronistic assumptions) to suppose that if Victor had broken communion with Asia, Irenaeus would have followed suit.
We have the example of Basil in the Meletian Schism as a later example of a great saint and Doctor of the Church who was willing to stand up to Rome in such an instance.
You’re confusing the Monophysites and the Monothelites. The Monothelites did not reject Chalcedon. They tried to find a way to persuade the Monophysites to accept Chalcedon.
He doesn’t claim that Cyprian’s practice was an innovation. He says that there were two practices going on at the same time. There’s no way to be sure which of them was more ancient (that’s my judgment but is consistent with what your source says).
I agree that Cyprian was wrong, of course.
Sorry–I’m out of time.
Edwin
J
JohnVIII
Guest
J
josie_L
Guest
Hmmm, I’m pretty certain that Caiaphas prophesied that Jesus would die in order that Israel should be saved.
Really, then let me quote Isaiah 22:20-22 for you so we can put this in perspective:
“On that day I will call for my servant (this by the way is the Lord God of Hosts speaking), Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and tie your sash around him. I will put your authority into his hand, and he will be like a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one can close; what he closes, no one can open. I will drive him like a peg, into a firm place. He will be a throne of honor for his father’s house. They will hang on him the whole burden of his father’s house: the descendants and the offshoots - all the small vessels, from bowls to every kind of jar.”
Now, the Lord God of Hosts is saying that what the steward (second in command in the kingdom) opens NO ONE can shut, and what he shuts NO ONE can open, i.e., this is God giving an authority that seems rather “absolute” to the key bearer even though there were other ministers in the kingdom. He is in fact the PRIME (primacy) minister. That the Lord God of Hosts/Son of David/heir to the Kingdom bestows on Peter the key, is an attempt to show the Apostles who as Jews would understand the significance of the keys, who the steward/prime minister in the kingdom would be (Catholic ecclesiology). And if you still remain unconvinced that Peter was made steward, I will let St. Ephraem the Syrian speak for me:
In fact, even St. Maximus the Confessor alludes to Isaiah 22:22 when he associates Rome with the keys and the power to open and shut:
to be continued. . . . .
J
josie_L
Guest
Since we’re on the subject of the keys I wanted to prolong our discussion of Matthew 16:18, i.e., in scripture Peter is given the power to loose and bind in a singular manner, that is, separated from the rest of the group, but he also is given the power to loose and bind within a group as per Matthew 18:18, thus signifying collegiality. I think that scriptures allow for Peter to loose and bind separately (papacy) as well as in a group (magisterium in communion with Rome). And since we’re on the subject of infallibility I want to emphasize the importance of Simon Peter’s name change to Rock, which the fathers make a great deal of, in fact, I want to relay two quotes emphasizing just this:
St. Asterius. Bishop of Amasea in Pontus (387 A.D.)
" The only-begotten denominates Peter the foundation of the Church. . . ‘Other foundation no man can lay but that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ But with a like appelation (to His own) did He adorn also that first disciple of His, denominating him a rock of the faith. Through Peter, therefore. . . . the stability of the Church is preserved incapable of fall and unswerving . . . Peter is called the rock of faith, and the foundation and substructure of the Church of God." (Asterius, Homily 8 in SS. Pet. et Paul tom. ii. p. 127, seq. Combefis. Paris, 1648; Migne, Patr. Graec. tom. xl. pp. 268, 280), in Charles F. B. Allnatt, ed., Cathedra Petri - The Titles and Prerogatives of St. Peter, (London: Burns & Oates, 1879), 21-22.
St… Ambrose (ca. 385-389 A.D.):
“Peter is called the ‘rock’ because, like an immovable rock, he sustains the joints and mass of the entire Christian edifice.” Ambrose, Sermon 4, in The Great Commentary of Cornelius Lapide, II, Catholic Standard Library, trans, Thomas Mossman, (John Hodges & Co, 1887), 220, in Michael Malone, ed., The Apostolic Digest, (Irving, TX: Sacred Heart, 1987), 248.
"Christ is the Rock, “For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ,’ and He did not refuse to bestow the favour of this title even upon His disciple, so that he, too, might be Peter [or Rock], in that he has from the Rock a solid constancy, a firm faith.” (Ambrose, Expos. in Luc. Ib. I. vi. n. 97, pp. 1406-7), in Colin Lindsay, The Evidence for the Papacy, (London: Longmans, 1870), 37.
I would like to know what you think and/or how you would interpret these quotes from Tradition/Scripture?
J
josie_L
Guest
Perhaps you misunderstood me (yet again), my intention was not to convince you of the fact that Catholicism is an extension of Judaism, but simply that you might learn why Jews convert to the Catholic faith, i.e., maybe you might be able to see a parallel you had not heretofore seen.
On Amazon, but may I make some other suggestions, like, “The Russian Church and the Papacy” by Vladimir Soloviev, “Called to Communion” by Cardinal Ratzinger, “The Early Papacy” by Adrian Fortescue, and if you can follow that up with “Upon this Rock” by Stephen Ray, so to further develop what Adrian Fortescue started. These will in my opinion help you to understand Catholic ecclesiology.
J
josie_L
Guest
Wrong, yet again Edwin, in fact, the pope was speaking on behalf of all bishops (their mouthpiece if you will), just like Peter did in Scriptures:
“Peter, that Leader of the choir, that Mouth of the rest of the Apostles, that Head of the brotherhood, that One set over the entire universe, that Foundation of the Church.” (Chrysostom, In illud, hoc Scitote, n. 4, p. 282).
No, you made a mistake which I corrected, i.e…, you used the word “binding” for those things spoken/written in the ordinary magisterium, which is incorrect (binding is reserved for dogma), the correct term is submission of mind and will for those things mentioned in the ordinary magisterium.
Then I am telling you what you have learned about the papacy is wrong.
Then start acting like it.
J
josie_L
Guest
Whoa, I think you misunderstood me I am not trying to create an either/or situation as I can admit quite freely that the Holy Spirit works in ways more mysterious than I described. For example, even though Nicea dogmatically proclaimed Jesus as God (through the creed) it still could not root out Arianism, i.e., it took many a person (guided by the Holy Spirit) within the Church to eventually bring about its demise. What I was trying to make you understand is that the Holy Spirit does also work in ways that are visible to the Church (how could the people know the mind of the Church were it not for ecumenical councils). Moreover, the Orthodox like Catholics do believe in infallible councils therefore we know for a fact that an ecumenical council is or can be a (visible) organ of infallibility.
You are setting up a strawman argument because I never argued against the Holy Spirit working through the whole Church (in fact I believe I mentioned that their understanding of ecclesiology, i.e., the Orthodox, is more or less true but incomplete).
I think you’ve drastically taken this argument to another level, Edwin.
Did the Bible drop out of the sky Edwin, or did it “appear” as a result of the Church gathered in council while guided by the Holy Spirit?
What Western conciliarism are you refering to per se?
Note: When you speak of Orthodox ecclesiology understand that there is no consistent or defined theology for it as yet (there are still many theories floating around).
J
JohnVIII
Guest
I was taught as an Orthodox that the bishops of the Church did not succeeded the apostles in the sense that each individual bishop succeeded another bishop who succeeded another until the first bishop of that line succeeded an apostle. Instead I was taught that all the bishops, as a body, succeeded all the apostles, as a body. In other words it wasn’t until the last of all the apostle had died that the bishop became then the chief leaders of the Church in the stead of the apostles. And I should add that I was taught to believe that all bishops are equal.
Now that I have come to accept the papacy and have entered into communion with Rome I have tried to reconcile the supremacy of the Pope together with the views I just expressed above. I think I have come to just such a reconciliation and I would like to hear from you all to see what you may think. Here’s what I have come to:
The Pope is a bishop, but this is a secondary thing. The primary thing is that he is an apostle. I believed before that no bishop ever directly succeeded an apostle; but now there is one exception, Clement directly succeeded Peter. But this was not a bishop succeeding an apostle, it was an apostle succeeding an apostle. Rome is called “The Apostolic See”, so it only makes sense that the man sitting there be an apostle, right? Now an apostle outranks a bishop, just as a bishop outranks a priest. So now all the bishops can still be equal, but that one apostle is above all the bishops. This would give Rome universal jurisdiction without making any bishop unequal with any other bishop.
So, what do you all think? Any flaws in this train of thought?
Perhaps Jesus intended that there only be but one apostle in the Church anyway. Perhaps “The 12 Apostles” were only a temporary thing that represented the 12 tribes of Israel. But the only continuing apostle was from Peter, the Rock, the holder of the Keys. :newidea:
:idea: JohnVIII
Now that I have come to accept the papacy and have entered into communion with Rome I have tried to reconcile the supremacy of the Pope together with the views I just expressed above. I think I have come to just such a reconciliation and I would like to hear from you all to see what you may think. Here’s what I have come to:
The Pope is a bishop, but this is a secondary thing. The primary thing is that he is an apostle. I believed before that no bishop ever directly succeeded an apostle; but now there is one exception, Clement directly succeeded Peter. But this was not a bishop succeeding an apostle, it was an apostle succeeding an apostle. Rome is called “The Apostolic See”, so it only makes sense that the man sitting there be an apostle, right? Now an apostle outranks a bishop, just as a bishop outranks a priest. So now all the bishops can still be equal, but that one apostle is above all the bishops. This would give Rome universal jurisdiction without making any bishop unequal with any other bishop.
So, what do you all think? Any flaws in this train of thought?
Perhaps Jesus intended that there only be but one apostle in the Church anyway. Perhaps “The 12 Apostles” were only a temporary thing that represented the 12 tribes of Israel. But the only continuing apostle was from Peter, the Rock, the holder of the Keys. :newidea:
:idea: JohnVIII
J
josie_L
Guest
Edwin, I asked you to refer to Tradition and Scripture to uphold the Orthodox view, I did not ask for you to give me an Orthodox secondary source, therefore do not go blandishing your complaints about Catholics not using primary sources. Moreover, do not pretend that you do not have biases of your own, in fact, I am convinced that you do, as such, don’t bother giving me books to uphold your position, if one, I don’t have access to those books, and two, you cannot provide a direct answer which I can respond to.
And I know that the Anglicans have a three-legged stool of their own: Scripture, Tradition and History, as such, I noticed that many Anglicans here overemphasize history while downplaying Scripture and Tradition. And although you state Tradition often enough you never give us a clear picture of what that Tradition is, i.e., you don’t mention or quote the fathers in order to make your point about your theological views. It would help enormously if you attempted to do this in future so that we Catholics can know what to argue against instead of having to eternally defend our postion from your attacks. In other words I find you to be vague in your attempts to uphold your position.
I believe that answer was provided by Jmcrae.
No, I’m not accusing you of relying solely on non-Catholic secondary sources, however, were you not complaining that Steve B was not using primary sources?
Note: By the way, Nichols mentioned that Honorius alludes to Romans in his letter (which was mentioned in my source as well), i.e., it deals with the conflict humans have concerning mind and flesh (a conflict which Jesus with his pre-fallen human nature did not have to contend with).
“So then, with my mind I myself am a slave to the law of God, but with my flesh, to the law of sin.”
- Status