Peter as the Rock

[Brendan]

The Construction of St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome began in 1506 A.D.

FYI, what you are talking about is actually the Renovation of St. Peter’s Basilica. The original one was built on that spot by Constantine begining in 330

That building stood until the 16th century, when it was rebuilt.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_St._Peter%27s_Basilica

 

[Hesychios]

then how do you explain one of the popes telling the Church in Corinth to put back a validly ordained bishop that the local church tossed out?

Actually, the author of that letter is not named, people assume it is Clement, but no one knows. It is not even clear that the author was a bishop.

He also did not order the church of Corinth to return it’s bishop. The letter attempted to persuade them.

If you guys don’t know that a counsel has put itself in judgement of the orthodoxy of popes, then you are the ones that need to read more history.

I have to wonder what you mean by this.

The orthodox stopped developing dogma because without the Pope and the Magisterium you can’t develop dogma.

This is very flawed reasoning.

In the first place Holy Orthodoxy has the magisterium. It has the teaching authority.

Holy Orthodoxy neither adds to the faith nor subtracts from it, it preserves and conserves the faith, teaching it continually. There is no expectation of new dogmas because none are needed, the Apostolic Faith saved souls in the first century and saves souls today.

What right have you to expect to know more about the faith than saint Peter or saint James?

What makes you think your grandchild could know more about the faith than you can know? What makes you think that the future generations will be more knowledgeable and better prepared for salvation than the past generations? It seems rather, that the newer generations are forgetting what Truth they have been given, and clouding it over with myths and fables.

The received teaching is a finite body of knowledge, it comes to us from Jesus Christ and the Apostles. The Paraclete is not some oracle whispering new things in your ear, the Spirit of Truth is not some cosmic fortune cookie.

The age of Revelation is closed, the church declared that when it condemned the Montanists. You have to make do with what was taught by Christ to the Apostles, not imagine you know better than them.

 

[Hesychios]

Hi Brendan,

FYI, what you are talking about is actually the Renovation of St. Peter’s Basilica. The original one was built on that spot by Constantine beginning in 330

That is right.

Saint Constantine built the original church over saint Peter’s grave. He used public funds and probably used mostly pagan workmen to level the hill the cemetery was on and erect the once magnificent structure.

He also donated the Lateran palace to the bishop of Rome, and donated other public buildings to the holy church around the empire.

Saint Constantine also built the original Church of the Resurrection over the tomb of Jesus Christ. Most western Christians would know it as the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.

 

[benedictus2]

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.

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.

But that does not address Rinnie’s point. If Christ promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit until the age, why should we think that that guidance would not be given in the development of doctrine in ages past the 4th Century.

If there is fear of imagination corrupting faith, then it was equally possible of it corrupting the faith in the 4th century.

As a matter of fact, it was the Eastern Churches that fell into heresy.

Either we can take Christ at His word or we can’t. We fear our own limitedness but trust in God’s promise.

 

[Hesychios]

But that does not address Rinnie’s point. If Christ promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit until the age, why should we think that that guidance would not be given in the development of doctrine in ages past the 4th Century.
If there is fear of imagination corrupting faith, then it was equally possible of it corrupting the faith in the 4th century.

As a matter of fact, it was the Eastern Churches that fell into heresy.

Either we can take Christ at His word or we can’t. We fear our own limitedness but trust in God’s promise.

The century does not matter. Fourth, third, first, tenth it makes no difference. You misunderstand the meaning of the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It was not to introduce new doctrines that Jesus Christ somehow neglected to tell us.

It was to help us hold fast to the Truth.

Jesus is the Master, the Teacher.

The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, the Advocate. The Holy Spirit is not with us to reveal new mysteries over time (as if the earlier generations were ‘not ready’).

It is heretics who drive the development of doctrine, the councils acted as a remedial measure to limit the damages and prune out the dross. They were never called with the intention of defining new doctrines, but were often called to fight errors. In early times only heretics thought to define doctrine on their own authority, and we know them by name as the sources of their errors. No Orthodox bishop, not even the bishop of Rome ever tried it. Now it seems to be claimed as a right, and people even organize petition drives to encourage the Pope to name new dogmas.

If you open up to the possibility, even the expectation, that there will be more doctrine and new teachings coming along you potentially place yourself into the hands of heretics and false prophets. You are no better off than the JW’s with their ‘New Light’.

As to your other comments, heresies arose in the east and the west alike. And yes, there were more heresies arising in the east than the west in the early centuries, for it was in the east that the intellectual life and culture was the most advanced at the time, and where most of the Christians dwelled. It was the Orthodox who battled them all, won back the multitudes, endured the persecutions and survived.

We know the dangers, we have seen them all come and go. We have also seen the western church shatter into 30,000 pieces in spite of the confidence it has in itself, all due to this intellectual hubris, this thinking it has the monopoly on ‘the Rock’ and can do as it pleases.

 

[benedictus2]

The century does not matter. Fourth, third, first, tenth it makes no difference. You misunderstand the meaning of the promise of the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

It was not to introduce new doctrines that Jesus Christ somehow neglected to tell us.

It was to help us hold fast to the Truth.

Jesus is the Master, the Teacher.

The Holy Spirit is the Comforter, the Advocate. The Holy Spirit is not with us to reveal new mysteries over time (as if the earlier generations were ‘not ready’).

No one is saying that the Holy Spirit reveals new mysteries over time but He does shed light and guidance towards a deeper understanding of these mysteries. Otherwise we are left with a static Church.

It is heretics who drive the development of doctrine, the councils acted as a remedial measure to limit the damages and prune out the dross.

But the councils had to mull the propositions that were put forth before them. It was not like, oh we know that God is a trinity and then heresies sprouted to say that God is not.

The springing of these heresies is what brought up the “finetuning” of the doctrines according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

They were never called with the intention of defining new doctrines, but were often called to fight errors.

True, but at each council, as they define the doctrines they come to understand it better because the Holy Spirit is guiding them.

In early times only heretics thought to define doctrine on their own authority, and we know them by name as the sources of their errors. No Orthodox bishop, not even the bishop of Rome ever tried it.

But there were Eastern bishops who bought into the error.

Now it seems to be claimed as a right, and people even organize petition drives to encourage the Pope to name new dogmas.

No it is never claimed as a right. That some people petition the Pope to declare new dogmas does not mean that some even consider it a right.

But yes, it makes sense that the head of the Church should be deemed infallible with and apart from the magisterium.

If you open up to the possibility, even the expectation, that there will be more doctrine and new teachings coming along you potentially place yourself into the hands of heretics and false prophets.

How? If Christ promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit then Christ promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If we cannot trust Christ to keep that promise then who can we trust.

You are no better off than the JW’s with their ‘New Light’.

But the JW do not have apostolic succession. It is not the Church that Christ established on earth.

As to your other comments, heresies arose in the east and the west alike. And yes, there were more heresies arising in the east than the west in the early centuries, for it was in the east that the intellectual life and culture was the most advanced at the time, and where most of the Christians dwelled. It was the Orthodox who battled them all, won back the multitudes, endured the persecutions and survived.

We know the dangers, we have seen them all come and go. We have also seen the western church shatter into 30,000 pieces in spite of the confidence it has in itself, all due to this intellectual hubris, this thinking it has the monopoly on ‘the Rock’ and can do as it pleases.

So then my earlier comment is I think very apt. Faith stopped seeking understanding in fear of being contaminated by imagination. Because of the East having fallen into heresy they became so afraid they decided not to seek understanding at all.

 

[GaryTaylor]

“Jesus is the Master, the Teacher.”

The synoptic gospels all reach the same conclusion. they recognize the time of the gentiles: and the end time can only be achieved when the Gospel has been given to all people worldwide.

St. Paul believed He could do this in his time and set out to accomplish this. “Necessity is laid upon me, Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel” 1Cor.

The end of time can only come when the Gospel has been bought to all people. "And this Gospel of the Kingdom will be preached throughout the world, as a testimony to all Nations, and then the end will come. Matthew 24:14

The Gospel must be preached to all Nations. Mark 13:10

In this formula we see the Divine Universal Will of God and OUR PURPOSE. And this MUST be obtained if Gods will is to be complete. The fact the early church misunderstood the chronological duration is a non factor. We now understand this especially reading St Pauls writtings. At the end of this Divine will “then” comes the change of heart of Israel and Gods chosen people whom He has not abandoned.

Bernard of Clairvaux reminds his student Pope Eugene III that His duty and Obligation extends to unbelievers, be it Jew Greek or Gentile. Then he corrects himself in regard to the Jews and states, “well as to the Jews a determined time has been fixed”. Which is as referred to above. And what is stated today? The gall of that Pope, who is He to speak for all Christians we do not follow or believe Him? If course you don’t, you don’t follow the context of the Bible either. why in the world you listen to HIm. You follow YOUR pope, leader, and whoever else you have concluded makes the most sense to YOU. However we are stiull waiting for anyone to PROVE they have found the correct path. And you can start right here with Peter and Matthew.

Point is though this intention and purpose seems to lose and regain focus through History, it does NOT change, it becomes distracted. ONE CHURCH, Primacy in Rome and its still there and always will be.

We must all think like St Paul. Everyone is much to quick to state…this may take another 1000 years. When Rome meets our demands. We have too great a difference in Theology. I’m to busy. My education led me to believe…etc. We don’t even agree on what Matthew states in 16. And on and on the distraction goes. However the goal remains the same. And those who set out to acheive this goal are the one’s who stand as bright lights in History and in the Kingdom of God.

Those who choose to stand on a country, island, continent. And in ignorance claiming “HERE WE ARE, WE HAVE THE TRUTH” let us know when you are ready to meet our demands. We cannot change our thinking because we “THINK” its truth and thus refuse to change our hearts.

How quickly we forget our mission and goal, was not Gods instruction clear in the synoptics. Christ built Rome through the Holy Spirit guiding His apostles. Chirst sent Paul to convert gentiles. They didn’t receieve some speacial mesaage that made them correct and superior. They in fact were told by St Paul Rome is the Church where Christ resides. And thats Bible.

The Primacy is in Rome and remains in Rome as the Lord stated it would till the end of time. Man built all the rest and yes much through Gods will. Divine Providence charged Peter thus Rome. There are 30 thousand fractures because man ignores the message set in stone for eternity by God.

What has the Church changed the Holy Spirit gave to the Church? The Church defined Doctrine as we see from Ignatius and the students of the Apostles on-ward. The Apostles defined doctrine. They had no choice. The were left with a mission by God, and instead of sitting is sadness because a KING was murdered, They picked up their Cross and followed the word of God in joy and motivation. And if all groaning and moaning stopped maybe thats what we could once again do. Instead of heretics running around claiming everything from the CC is evil, to sola scriptura reading, to they"they" lost their way, to we hold the truth not them, to the Apostacy at the death of the last apostle, to indulgances. We have heard every possible reason and excuse to why we shouldn’t complete the will of God on Earth. However Gods will still remains, still uncomplete and still being distracted.

These are the most childish arguements and thats imagination. Bible is Bible and its time we acknowledged it and moved this period of social transition a step closer to Biblical reality. Instead of playing here in the sand box another couple decades to no avail as if we have all the time in world.

The Bible state’s One Holy Apostolic Church with Rome as the Primacy. When you are not in communion with Rome you are not following BIBLE. All the rest is rational to justify your state of being though imagination, to deal with the illusion in your mind. Of course your sense’s can do nothing else but confirm this illusion.

Peace

 

[jam070406]

No one is saying that the Holy Spirit reveals new mysteries over time but He does shed light and guidance towards a deeper understanding of these mysteries. Otherwise we are left with a static Church.

But the councils had to mull the propositions that were put forth before them. It was not like, oh we know that God is a trinity and then heresies sprouted to say that God is not.

The springing of these heresies is what brought up the “finetuning” of the doctrines according to the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
True, but at each council, as they define the doctrines they come to understand it better because the Holy Spirit is guiding them.
But there were Eastern bishops who bought into the error.

No it is never claimed as a right. That some people petition the Pope to declare new dogmas does not mean that some even consider it a right.

But yes, it makes sense that the head of the Church should be deemed infallible with and apart from the magisterium.
How? If Christ promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit then Christ promised the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If we cannot trust Christ to keep that promise then who can we trust.
But the JW do not have apostolic succession. It is not the Church that Christ established on earth.

So then my earlier comment is I think very apt. Faith stopped seeking understanding in fear of being contaminated by imagination. Because of the East having fallen into heresy they became so afraid they decided not to seek understanding at all.

 

[Hesychios]

… my earlier comment is I think very apt. Faith stopped seeking understanding in fear of being contaminated by imagination. Because of the East having fallen into heresy they became so afraid they decided not to seek understanding at all.

Holy Orthodoxy already understands. This is why it can challenge heresy, this is why it has the teaching authority … the magisterium.

But your church has introduced new dogmas that were not known to the early church, and continues to entertain the possibility of more such dogmas. Some of these are not universally understood in your own church, and are unknown in the rest of the Apostolic Christian world.

Saint Vincent of Le’rins had some intersting things to say on this very subject, which you seem to contradict:

We said likewise, that in the Church itself regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity, lest we either be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism, or be precipitated from the religion of antiquity into heretical novelties. We said, further, that in this same ecclesiastical antiquity two points are very carefully and earnestly to be held in view by those who would keep clear of heresy: first, they should ascertain whether any decision has been given in ancient times as to the matter in question by the whole priesthood of the Catholic Church, with the authority of a General Council: and, secondly, if some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and of the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and with one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple.
Commonitory cp 29 par 77

The fifth century saint appeals to what was already known, and does not endorse new interpretations nor seek new understandings. New thinking unknown to the rest of the Apostolic church or unknown to other generations cannot be endorsed as doctrine.

 

[jam070406]

Holy Orthodoxy already understands. This is why it can challenge heresy, this is why it has the teaching authority … the magisterium.

But your church has introduced new dogmas that were not known to the early church, and continues to entertain the possibility of more such dogmas. Some of these are not universally understood in your own church, and are unknown in the rest of the Apostolic Christian world.

Saint Vincent of Le’rins had some intersting things to say on this very subject, which you seem to contradict:

We said likewise, that in the Church itself regard must be had to the consentient voice of universality equally with that of antiquity, lest we either be torn from the integrity of unity and carried away to schism, or be precipitated from the religion of antiquity into heretical novelties. We said, further, that in this same ecclesiastical antiquity two points are very carefully and earnestly to be held in view by those who would keep clear of heresy: first, they should ascertain whether any decision has been given in ancient times as to the matter in question by the whole priesthood of the Catholic Church, with the authority of a General Council: and, secondly, if some new question should arise on which no such decision has been given, they should then have recourse to the opinions of the holy Fathers, of those at least, who, each in his own time and place, remaining in the unity of communion and of the faith, were accepted as approved masters; and whatsoever these may be found to have held, with one mind and with one consent, this ought to be accounted the true and Catholic doctrine of the Church, without any doubt or scruple.
Commonitory cp 29 par 77

The fifth century saint appeals to what was already known, and does not endorse new interpretations nor seek new understandings. New thinking unknown to the rest of the Apostolic church or unknown to other generations cannot be endorsed as doctrine.

You reject infallibility yet set up the opinion of one Saint as if infallible.

 

[Hesychios]

You reject infallibility yet set up the opinion of one Saint as if infallible.

No, I am showing the early church’s standard of determing what is true.

Saint Vincent is not himself proclaiming a dogma, he is much too sensible for that. He is explaining the time honored ancient standard by which we can assess the truth.

 

[GaryTaylor]

What is the Canonization of a Saint? Isn’t Pontifical infallibility involved?

 

[jam070406]

No, I am showing the early church’s standard of determing what is true.

Saint Vincent is not himself proclaiming a dogma, he is much too sensible for that. He is explaining the time honored ancient standard by which we can assess the truth.

Yes, appeal to the Church’s authoritative Magisterum. Like what is done today.
Not personal individual opinion or picking and choosing what an individual deems is Truth.

 

[Hesychios]

What is the Canonization of a Saint? Isn’t Pontifical infallibility involved?

Until about the 12th century in the west canonizations were local, and each diocese or synod canonized it’s own saints and kept it’s own calendar. Then the power to canonize was given over to the bishops of Rome.

In the east it still is local, at least for the Orthodox.

 

[jam070406]

No, I am showing the early church’s standard of determing what is true.

Saint Vincent is not himself proclaiming a dogma, he is much too sensible for that. He is explaining the time honored ancient standard by which we can assess the truth.

What of issues like cloning, stem cell research, contraception, abortion, socialism, Freemasonry, etc. etc.
The Orthodox have no authority to speak on regarding these modern pitfalls.
Opinions vary. One can dismiss the opinion of one’s leader because it is his opinion.
Orthodox do it often on these boards.
The Fathers are great but we need a living Magisterum to guide souls to Heaven and avoid the snares of the devil.

 

[GaryTaylor]

In the east it still is local, at least for the Orthodox.

However, your Saints are Saints, is this not a infallible teaching of your church? Is this not Doctrine then of the “local east”? Is it a take it leave it suggestion? What is it? Is it infallible?

 

[Bluegoat]

You know, it strikes me reading this thread, and I few others, that in order to understand another groups religious or world-view takes some imagination. If you can’t imagine yourself taking on the other system as a whole, you can never understand what they believe, because you only see it piecemeal and compare the bits to your own system of belief.

It isn’t clear to me that many people have actually attempted to engage in this type of imagination.

 

[Hesychios]

However, your Saints are Saints, is this not a infallible teaching of your church? Is this not Doctrine then of the “local east”? Is it a take it leave it suggestion? What is it? Is it infallible?

It is not doctrine, I don’t know how that addresses the question of beliefs.

Interestingly, I remember the Roman Catholic church deleting a few saints from it’s calendar in the past.

 

[pritchard85]

The Bible is without error yes or no?

Did Peter write Scripture yes or no?

Is Paul infallible?

 

[pritchard85]

And if you read the Bible properly, you will see that Christ gave that authority to Peter, that He consistently singled out Peter.

Ok, and we do not ever see Peter as Supreme anywhere. We keep going in these circles. It simply isn’t there.

If you have a problem with Peter’s primacy, it is not Peter you have an issued with but Christ who chose to give Peter this primacy.

But that is how you get Peter being Supreme; one verse. I do read all of Scripture and it doesn’t equate to Catholicism. Just saying…