Peter as the Rock

[Bluegoat]

With all due respect,but this is an extemely weak argument and just plain absurd and disingenious. A complete SLAP in the face towards doctrinal development. But I can bet all of my life savings Orthodox,Anglicans and Protestants do not explicitly reject the view ALL other doctrines developed-eh? It is nothing but a case of conflict with “our” traditions,nothing more and nothing less.

Another weak argument. Is the ‘office’ of the U.S. President the same today as it was in 1789? The same domestic issues? Same international issues? If you say yes,then you apparently do not know history or are in deep denial.

I can’t figure out what some your first paragraph means, but indeed development of doctrine is rejected by the Orthodox. Development of doctrine is a phrase with a pretty specific meaning, not some generalized idea.

Your second utterly fails to get the point. If you are willing to say the office has developed, fine. Some have posted here who do not.

 

[KathleenGee]

Development of doctrine happened at the Council of Nicea, in completion of the final revelation of Christ in the science of Christology.

The Church is a living organism, akin to a sacrament. The Church is placed in the world that is constantly changing.

Of course, the Church will always have to re-define its parameters in the times it lives in. It is harder when there is an entrenchment in the way things are done.

Just in the discipline of worship, it is dubious that the Apostles in the beginning of their evangelization, knew such profound significance and theological levels that exist just within the Mass.

The point that is missing is communion. We always need a head to represent Christ, we need bishops, we need priests and the faithful. But it is also about the communion we experience, when we also include the Rock of Peter in our faith.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
With all due respect,but this is an extemely weak argument and just plain absurd and disingenious. A complete SLAP in the face towards doctrinal development. But I can bet all of my life savings Orthodox,Anglicans and Protestants do not explicitly reject the view ALL other doctrines developed-eh? It is nothing but a case of conflict with “our” traditions,nothing more and nothing less.

Another weak argument. Is the ‘office’ of the U.S. President the same today as it was in 1789? The same domestic issues? Same international issues? If you say yes,then you apparently do not know history or are in deep denial.

I can’t figure out what some your first paragraph means, but indeed development of doctrine is rejected by the Orthodox. Development of doctrine is a phrase with a pretty specific meaning, not some generalized idea.

Your second utterly fails to get the point. If you are willing to say the office has developed, fine. Some have posted here who do not.

The development of doctrine is rejected by the Orthodox? Really? So you mean the Orthodox believed from the very beginning the complexity of the Trinity and the three distinct Persons was all layed out and nothing had to be developed? The Canon of the NT? So that being the case,scripture must be very explicit about it and the Apostles themselves must had it all layed it out? Care to show me where Peter or James discuss the canon of the NT? Since the Orthodox REJECT the development of doctrines?

And those who reject it does not change an iota of the truth. Many reject the existence of Hell,does not matter, it exists and one’s personal views does not have an impact on doctrinal truth. I did not miss the point;moreover,perhaps many rejecters have missed the entire boat.

So you mean “offices” do not develop over time? Nothing ever changes?

 

[guanophore]

No, the issue is not that a patriarch would have the power to ordain bishops.  The issue is that the powers the pope claims, now, in this area are different.  In Catholisism, the Pope can appoint - and more importantly perhaps - depose bishops not only on his own, but in the whole Church.

When Jesus entrusted Peter with the care and feeding of the flock, did He include some jurisdictional limits?

Has he ever done this arbitrarily or unfairly in recent times?  I'm not sure, I would not think so.  In the medieval period, I wouldn't be surprised.  But it is impossible to deny that this is a clear change in the understanding of the role of the papacy.

Most definitely there were gross abuses of ecclesiastical offices in the midieval period. One of the reasons that the Pope has exercised the authority is to wrench it from the hands of the emperors, princes, and modern states. Are you familiar with the bishop appointments in China?

One can argue that it is a natural change, and a justifiable change, but one does actually have to make the argument.

One of those “development” issues?

It’s not just personal theology we are talking about here, it is how the Church was going to express itself theologically. If a councel of of Catholic Bishops set itself up to judge the orthodoxy of the Pope’s theological statements as Pope, with every expectation that the decision of the council would be the authoritative voice, wouldn’t that seem quite a reversal of the way the papacy is understood today?

No, I don’t think so. Conciliar decisions have always been made in unity with the successor of Peter, since the first council in Jerusalem recorded in Acts. Why would a valid council NOT be in unity with the successor of Peter?

 

[Bluegoat]

The development of doctrine is rejected by the Orthodox? Really? So you mean the Orthodox believed from the very beginning the complexity of the Trinity and the three distinct Persons was all layed out and nothing had to be developed? The Canon of the NT? So that being the case,scripture must be very explicit about it and the Apostles themselves must had it all layed it out? Care to show me where Peter or James discuss the canon of the NT? Since the Orthodox REJECT the development of doctrines?

And those who reject it does not change an iota of the truth. Many reject the existence of Hell,does not matter, it exists and one’s personal views does not have an impact on doctrinal truth. I did not miss the point;moreover,perhaps many rejecters have missed the entire boat.

So you mean “offices” do not develop over time? Nothing ever changes?

If you are interested on the Orthodox understanding, do a bit of research. There is lots available on the internet. This is one of the big problems Orthodoxy has with Catholicism so it is a worthwhile topic to look into.

 

[Nicea325]

If you are interested on the Orthodox understanding, do a bit of research. There is lots available on the internet. This is one of the big problems Orthodoxy has with Catholicism so it is a worthwhile topic to look into.

:ehh: No need to research,because I have never met one Orthodox who believes doctrines were all layed out from the get-go and nothing developed or needed to be developed. Orthodoxs were part of those developments,so I have no idea where this is coming from? Sounds as though you are feeding off information from poorly instructed or educated Orthodoxs.

 

[Bluegoat]

:ehh: No need to research,because I have never met one Orthodox who believes doctrines were all layed out from the get-go and nothing developed or needed to be developed. Orthodoxs were part of those developments,so I have no idea where this is coming from? Sounds as though you are feeding off information from poorly instructed or educated Orthodoxs.

Since you clearly don’t understand the different views on this and the difference between them, I think maybe you do indeed need some research. You could always start a thread on it - I imagine some of the Orthodox posters here could give you some good resources if you’d rather not look them up yourself.

 

[Rdunbar123]

My understanding is that orthodox believe doctrine stopped developing with the last truly Ecumenical council of the undivided church.

 

[benedictus2]

I didn’t go in depth on Hahn’s article because it didn’t interest me to do so. I was asked for thoughts, so I gave my general impressions. He hadn’t said anything that was not already in this thread or a lot of others. I’m really not interested in convincing people that the modern papacy is beyond the pale somehow. I’d really just like to see people recognize that some quote mines from Scripture and the Fathers don’t help much.

No all it means is you can’t back up your own assessment. Fair enough.

No, it is a distraction. What difference does my personal belief on anything have? Development of doctrine is not the only view on how we understand the history of the Church. As it happens, I don’t accept it, but getting into how Anglicans view this is starting to get very off-topic.

And development of doctrine is not the only explanation we have for infallibility.

And it is not a distraction because it goes to the heart of the issue. If it is okay to develop doctrines in terms of the Trinity, the two natures of Christ, etc, etc, why is it not okay to apply that to other areas of the faith. Why is it okay to develop doctrines in the 4th century but not in the 20th?

As for the Anglican thing, it drive home the point that you are questioning the development of doctrine when you are following a church that has done a fair few corruption of doctrine? Don’t you think that is the pot calling the kettle black.

If you are going to question the development of doctrine in the Catholic Church you should question development of doctrine full stop. Which means you should question your own.

If “development of doctrine” is a questionable idea for the the Catholic Church it must also be a questionable idea for ANY church.

 

[benedictus2]

My understanding is that orthodox believe doctrine stopped developing with the last truly Ecumenical council of the undivided church.

So basically faith stopped seeking understanding.

 

[Hesychios]

So basically faith stopped seeking understanding.

No.

Faith must not be polluted by imagination.

Big difference.

 

[Hesychios]

My understanding is that orthodox believe doctrine stopped developing with the last truly Ecumenical council of the undivided church.

That is not correct.

The faith of the Apostles has the power to save. If one only knew what the Christians of the pre-conciliar church knew it would actually be enough. It is when one adds to it on their own that the danger begins, because one could be worshiping a god that does not exist, a projection from within their own mind, a product of their intellectual pride.

Heretics drive ‘development’. The councils always engaged in pruning back, which is why the language is usually condemnatory.

One has to understand it in terms of apophatic theology. Heretics are usually using their imaginations to add to the deposit of faith, the fathers of the church have to clean up the mess and sweep out the garbage.

Even on such issues as the trinity. Although not specifically called such, was worshipped in the prayers of the liturgy and thus already known (courtesy of our Apostolic predecessors, who learned from Jesus). If all one knew on the subject was what was prayed in the liturgy, that would be enough.

It is when someone wants to ‘explain’ it further that the trouble begins, using their own human intellect (a flawed device) they never can explain it. It would always need further and further ‘clarification’ because God is inexplicable and cannot really be understood. The desire to ‘understand’ can never be quenched, because we can never really understand, just pretend to.

The wisdom of the whole world is foolishness to God.

 

[benedictus2]

No.

Faith must not be polluted by imagination.

Big difference.

So basically stopped seeking understanding in fear of being polluted by the imagination.

 

[rinnie]

No.

Faith must not be polluted by imagination.

Big difference.

But how can you call it being polluted by imagination. Jesus told the Apostles that he would send the Advocate to lead the CC until the end of Age.

He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom.

How can the POPE claim to speak in the name of Christ, do it, and be polluted by imagination when Jesus promised us that hades would not prevail.

Would that not be the same as saying the Pope can speak in the name of Christ and lie. Anotherwards the Pope can over power God, and hades did prevail then

I don’t think so.

You have to answer these questions first.

You need to deny that Peters preeminent position among the Apotles was not s ymbolized at the VERY BEGINNNING of his relationship with Christ. You must DENY that Christ told Simon his name would be thereafter Peter which translates ROCK.

You must also deny that Abraham is called rock in Isaiah.

WHen the Jews names were changed the status of that person was changed.

Read the bible.

Then not only the new and unusual name, look where it was given… IT was clear to the other Apostles, devout Jews knew at once the importance of what was being done. NOT ONE complained.

When Peter revealed who Jesus was, Jesus said it was specially revealed to him and THEN he reiterated and I tell you PETER then he added the PROMISE that the Church would be founded in SOME WAY.

THen he told him Whatever YOU bind is bound in heaven and whatever YOU loose on earth…

Peter ALONE was promised the keys.

Then AFTER his resurrection Jesus said do you love me more then THESE. that was the other Apostles. WHICH completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to Mount of Olives.

Peter was told the devil demanded to have YOU, that he might sift you like wheat but I prayed for you that your FAITH may not fail and WHEN you have TURNED AGAIN (which is after Peters denials) that you will STRENGHTEN YOUR BRETHREN.

It was PETER who CHIRST prayed for and HIS prayer being perfectly eficacious was SURE TO BE FILLED.

Now are you saying that the Prayers of Christ were not answered and he would not have a leader to strengthen the other Apostles?

The gospel is clear It was Simon, weak as he was was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link of the CHAIN of the PAPACY.

You see Christ prayed for the leader of the Church and contiues to pray. He said himself I WILL NOT LEAVE YOU ORPHANS.

And he has not. He is our heavenly Father in heaven, and we have a earthly Father here on earth the Holy Father the Pope.

 

[Hesychios]

But how can you call it being polluted by imagination.

Read Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed.

He was a Roman Catholic apologist, and I think he described the imagination hijacking thinking in a very understandable way.

Jesus told the Apostles that he would send the Advocate to lead the CC until the end of Age.

He has. The Orthodox Catholic church has been truly blessed.

He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. …

The faith of Peter is Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[rinnie]

Read Theology and Sanity by Frank Sheed.

He was a Roman Catholic apologist, and I think he described the imagination hijacking thinking in a very understandable way.
He has. The Orthodox Catholic church has been truly blessed.
The faith of Peter is Holy Orthodoxy.

We are told to listen to the Church Hesychios not a RC apologist. No disrespect. BUt the CHurch teaches that Peter is the Rock. I must go by the teachings of the CHurch not a RC Apologist.

Also are you denying that the RCC has also been truly blessed?

 

[Hesychios]

We are told to listen to the Church Hesychios not a RC apologist. No disrespect. BUt the CHurch teaches that Peter is the Rock.

I didn’t say that Peter is not the Rock.

I said the faith of Peter is Holy Orthodoxy.

 

[rinnie]

I didn’t say that Peter is not the Rock.

I said the faith of Peter is Holy Orthodoxy.

Oh, well then we can agree:thumbsup:

 

[vsedriver]

Or we see Rome being described as having special status due her political power and wealth, not her relation to Peter.

What wealth and political power? The Catholic Church in Rome was viciously persecuted for the first 3 centuries. The religion was outlawed. It operated underground. She had no political power or wealth.

In fact, the political power and wealth of Rome moved to Constantinople as the emperors felt safer there. Rome was being sacked and trashed. So in fact when Christianity became de-criminalized all the power was in the east not in the west.

After the total collapse of the Roman Empire the Church did step into the political vacuum but someone had to and the Church had an organization and educated people to keep the infrastructure operating.

 

[vsedriver]

Honestly guys, when i have more than one person ask how the modern papacy differs from that of the early Church, I kind of throw up my hands. I don’t intend to repeat the reasons I’ve already given in the discussion because someone can’t seem to keep them in mind for more than two posts.