Peter the Rock

[jonathan_hili]

This is a point in which I am in a somewhat disagreement with the catholic church.
It is clear to me that the scriptures does grant some kind of special standing to Peter.
But I don’t see why that must have the implications that Rome alone must be the sole authority within the church of Christ. The Bible doesnt say that the city in which Peter will die is the sole heir to the highest authority within the church of Christ.
St. Peter was also the first Patriarch of Antioch and served as bishop there for 7 years. Because of this the Orthodox churches hold they are in communion with the successor of St. Peter.

But lets say that the Roman Bishop is the rightful heir to the position held by St. Peter in the early church. St. Peter was held to be the “First among equals”. This expression implies that decisions in matters of dogma and faith was to be worked out between hierarchs in communion as equals with the final say in case of conflict or controversies given to the Bishop of Rome.

So the Orthodox Church I believe is actually further away from union with the catholic church than is most protestant denominations. The dogmatic development of the western catholic church (who is also apparent in protestantism) has gone int a separate direction from the Orthodox church who has not made any new dogmas but instead developed a spirituality around the existing dogmas from the 7 ecumenical councils. The biggest difference that has most ramifications to my mind is the doctrine of original sin. The catholic position on original sin is also present within protestantism (inherently sinful humanity) and I see the doctrine of Marys immaculate conception as a logical consequence of this position. So the orthodox church will never submit to this view of original sin (and therefore lack the need to define a dogma on Marys conception) while the catholic church has to hold that the developments of new dogmas is a natural development of the already recieved dogmas who have only been understood more deeply and can not “return” to a position more in line with the 7 ecumenical concils and the orthodox. This would not be possible because catholic believe the Pope to be infalliable when stating a new Dogma and that the church is protected from teaching error.

Hi Shamati, I agree with you: you won’t get the authority of the bishop of Rome from Scripture.

The Catholic Church doesn’t hold that Rome is the sole authority. All the bishops in the Church have authority, not only in influence (which is considerable) on the bishop of Rome (in fact, one of these bishops may very well be the bishop of Rome one day!), in Church Councils and also in their own diocese.

It’s not so much about the city where Peter died but the “office” which he passed on, which has been historically understood in the Catholic Church to have been to the next episcopos or bishop of Rome. This is why we see lists of Roman bishops being presented very early by apologists and theologians. For instance, Irenaeus - who is a bishop in Lyons - doesn’t even bother listing any other succession of bishops but essentially says, “I’m going to list Rome because that’s the all-important one”.

And yes, the bishop of Rome is “first among equals” but the question is: what does first mean. If it only means “honour”, then why? What’s the point? Why should the bishop of Rome have more honour than the others, unless there is some authority attached?

As for the Orthodox Church - I can only speak about the Greek Orthodox Church, with which I’m quite intimately familiar - they believe in Original Sin, though it isn’t articulated in precisely the same way as the Catholic Church does. Furthermore, they do believe that Mary was without sin though they don’t have the precise doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I don’t honestly think these two issues would create much water for Orthodox Christians. Papal infallibility, however, is definitely more of a problem.

 

[Shamati]

And yes, the bishop of Rome is “first among equals” but the question is: what does first mean. If it only means “honour”, then why? What’s the point? Why should the bishop of Rome have more honour than the others, unless there is some authority attached?

As for the Orthodox Church - I can only speak about the Greek Orthodox Church, with which I’m quite intimately familiar - they believe in Original Sin, though it isn’t articulated in precisely the same way as the Catholic Church does. Furthermore, they do believe that Mary was without sin though they don’t have the precise doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I don’t honestly think these two issues would create much water for Orthodox Christians. Papal infallibility, however, is definitely more of a problem.

The Orthodox view of original sin is almost exactly like the jewish one. Orignal Sin or Ancestral sin as they call it is the Sin comitted by Adam and Eve. The consequences of this act in history is such that Man will act more irrational because of the fear of death present among all men. But it’s not an inherently sinful nature that has been transmitted but rather the consequences of the breaking of Gods command that will result in mankind having an apparent inclination towards sin.
The difference then becomes that Mary didnt have to be conceived “without sin” in the orthodox view because there is nothing sinful transmitted trough the act of Sex.
This is also rooted in a deep difference in theology between the eastern and western churches. In Byzantium, the classical Greek philosophers were always studied and the theologians took great care to not mix up philosophical standpoints with apparant pagan doctrines with the Hebraic/Judaic roots of christianity. For example the view of the body/flesh to be inherently sinful in its nature is an ancient pagan belief and one of the new things about christianity it brought with it from judaism was that the Body is also to be sanctified and plays an integral part in the salvation of Man. The orthodox makes no clear distinction between christian mysticism and christian theology and it is still said in the west that you can not call yourself a “theologian” without having actually seen the “uncreated light of God” (Theoria) and thus achieved the Mystical Union. It is not an intellectual science which any man can fathom by earning degrees in other words. In the west the aristotelean philosophy made a huge impact and inspired the likes of Thomas Aquinas & Augustine of Hippo to set the stage for western theology to develop more as an purely intellectual discipline as opposed to spiritual. The so called Palamas / Hesychast controversy shows this clash quite well where the Greeks maintained that even the illiterate “fool” could maintain a personal knowledge of God by experience in this life as opposed to the at the time consensus in the west that God could only intellectually be studied. Easterners prefer not to make certain dogmatic statements of God (negative theology) where as the west prefer to philosophically speculate and from the conclusions of this speculation calculate its dogmas.
I believe these 2 ways are complementary to eachother but that the fact that the western dogmas have now been elaborated so much has made it hard if not impossible for the west to be able to reunite with the east without making adjustments to certain dogmas. Purgatory is a good example… The east acknowledges a process after death and have many thological theories but generally refuses to issue dogmas on it.

As I understand it, the Bishop of Rome DID have primacy. However this primacy was understood quite differently. For example the eastern churches did not think it was up to the Bishop of Rome to add the Filioque to the creed without it being brought up with the rest of the patriarchs. That the Bishop of Rome did this is evidence that the view on the primacy of the Pope had developed in the west. The historically heavy focus on earthly power in the west, along with all justifications for why the Pope is to have such authority honestly turns me off quite a bit. Sure he has primacy, but that doesnt mean he “should” issue dogmas or variations in the creed without an ecumenical council. If he does (which he did with the filioque) it is seen as the westerners are abusing their position of primacy.

The optimal situation would be a compromise with the mystical theology & very alive monasticism and ascetic spirituality of the Orthodox with the best of western organisation. But for this to happen the Catholic Church would need to return to having a theological foundation of what was agreed upon on the ecumenical councils (and make marys immaculate conception, orginal sin and assumption part of the western rite). But unfortunately because of the dogmas on infalliability ex cathedra this would probably be viewed as a “admission” that error has been taught by many traditiona catholic. I believe the Vatican II was a step in the right direction but was unfortunately hijacked by “the world”.

So for me the question has developed into a theological disagreement where I agree with the Orthodox position.

The eastern fathers said in early times that the development of rationalism in the west was dangerous and would result in a fragmentation fo the faith. And low and behold, we have got protestantism and militant atheism because of it.

 

[jonathan_hili]

The Orthodox view of original sin is almost exactly like the jewish one. Orignal Sin or Ancestral sin as they call it is the Sin comitted by Adam and Eve. The consequences of this act in history is such that Man will act more irrational because of the fear of death present among all men. But it’s not an inherently sinful nature that has been transmitted but rather the consequences of the breaking of Gods command that will result in mankind having an apparent inclination towards sin.
The difference then becomes that Mary didnt have to be conceived “without sin” n the orthodox view because there is nothing sinful transmitted trough the act of Sex.

The Catholic Church’s teaching isn’t that “Original Sin” is transmitted during sex - it’s not like an STD (or are they called STIs now?). This was certainly the speculation of some theologians but it isn’t the doctrine of the Church. Rather, Adam and Eve lost preternatural grace and as a result, we couldn’t inherit it and so have “fallen”, including the inclination towards sin. As such, it really doesn’t conflict all that much with the Orthodox position and I think could be reconciled.

As I understand it, the Bishop of Rome DID have primacy. However this primacy was understood quite differently. For example the eastern churches did not think it was up to the Bishop of Rome to add the Filioque to the creed without it being brought up with the rest of the patriarchs. That the Bishop of Rome did this is evidence that the view on the primacy of the Pope had developed in the west. The historically heavy focus on earthly power in the west, along with all justifications for why the Pope is to have such authority honestly turns me off quite a bit. Sure he has primacy, but that doesnt mean he “should” issue dogmas or variations in the creed without an ecumenical council. If he does (which he did with the filioque) it is seen as the westerners are abusing their position of primacy.

Yes, I think that sums it up nicely.

The eastern fathers said in early times that the development of rationalism in the west was dangerous and would result in a fragmentation of the faith. And low and behold, we have got protestantism and militant atheism because of it.

I think you need a balance. I don’t think rationalism led to Protestantism or militant atheism. If anything did, it was scepticism, yet that wasn’t the result of rationalism but - in my opinion - nominalism.

 

[Nicea325]

For a protestant to say the Peter the man is irrelevent to Matt 16:18 would be theological gymnastics. For a protestant to say that John 6 doesn’t at least in some way predict the Eucharist is also gymnastics. For a protestant to say that works have no value, or are not necessary in the godly life would be theological gymnastics.
All true.
To say that Matthew 16:18 is evidence for universal jurisdiction and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome is, too, theological gymnastics.

Jon

What I find most troubling is how many Protestants struggle with one man having universal jurisdiction. Why? Does not our President have complete jurisdiction over the military? He may not declare war unless approved by Congress,but nonetheless, he is the Commander in Chief. The only problem I have with the Protestant view is the assumption all received the keys,which is not the case. The all have the power to bind and loose,but no where is there evidence of the rest receiving keys. If they did,then please kindly show where Jesus gave the others keys. The keys in the OT were given to one man alone,not to a group.

 

[guanophore]

What is a prottie pride parade?

Jon

I believe it is an inappropriate, insulting comment that is strictly a violation of the forum rules.

Catholics must be charitable in their discussions about non-Catholic belief and practice.

Karl_Keating:

Some members are using derogatory terms for people they are criticizing: “Prots,” “Fundies,” “Trads,” “Demorats,” and the like.

Aside from being contrary to the rules and spirit of the forums, these terms are counter-productive. They do nothing to further the discussion, and they make the writer look like a boor.

We welcome lively discussion, but it needs to be done in good taste and with civility.

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=371&highlight=prots

 

[guanophore]

This is a point in which I am in a somewhat disagreement with the catholic church.

It is clear to me that the scriptures does grant some kind of special standing to Peter.
But I don’t see why that must have the implications that Rome alone must be the sole authority within the church of Christ.

You are right, but since Rome has never claimed such a thing, it is a moot point.

The Bible doesnt say that the city in which Peter will die is the sole heir to the highest authority within the church of Christ.

No, but we are not limited to the Bible as to how Jesus wanted His Church to run, either.

St. Peter was also the first Patriarch of Antioch and served as bishop there for 7 years. Because of this the Orthodox churches hold they are in communion with the successor of St. Peter.

There is a valid line of bishops in the East originating and continuous from Peter in Antoich of Syriah. However, they do not claim to be in union with the successor of Peter which was left in Rome.

But lets say that the Roman Bishop is the rightful heir to the position held by St. Peter in the early church. St. Peter was held to be the “First among equals”. This expression implies that decisions in matters of dogma and faith was to be worked out between hierarchs in communion as equals with the final say in case of conflict or controversies given to the Bishop of Rome.

Yes.

So the Orthodox Church I believe is actually further away from union with the catholic church than is most protestant denominations.

No, I think not.

The dogmatic development of the western catholic church (who is also apparent in protestantism) has gone int a separate direction from the Orthodox church who has not made any new dogmas but instead developed a spirituality around the existing dogmas from the 7 ecumenical councils.

Yes. In many ways, it has not grown in the last 1000 years.

The biggest difference that has most ramifications to my mind is the doctrine of original sin. The catholic position on original sin is also present within protestantism (inherently sinful humanity)

The Orthodox concept of original sin is not antithetical, though framed differently, the result is the same.

and I see the doctrine of Marys immaculate conception as a logical consequence of this position.

How is that?

So the orthodox church will never submit to this view of original sin (and therefore lack the need to define a dogma on Marys conception) while the catholic church has to hold that the developments of new dogmas is a natural development of the already recieved dogmas who have only been understood more deeply and can not “return” to a position more in line with the 7 ecumenical concils and the orthodox.

I can see your point, but it is not a matter of “returning”, since there has not been a departure. The development of doctrine presumes the foundations of the previous.

This would not be possible because catholic believe the Pope to be infalliable when stating a new Dogma and that the church is protected from teaching error.

Yes, and the Orthodox believe the same prinicple of infalliblity, just applied through councils.

 

[JonNC]

What I find most troubling is how many Protestants struggle with one man having universal jurisdiction. Why? Does not our President have complete jurisdiction over the military? He may not declare war unless approved by Congress,but nonetheless, he is the Commander in Chief. The only problem I have with the Protestant view is the assumption all received the keys,which is not the case. The all have the power to bind and loose,but no where is there evidence of the rest receiving keys. If they did,then please kindly show where Jesus gave the others keys. The keys in the OT were given to one man alone,not to a group.

Well, it isn’t just protestants that have trouble with this, but Orthodoxy, too, but universal jurisdiction and power of the keys. And to this point I have always been quite clear: if the other patriarchates were to accept it, in any form, then I would too.

But even if we were all to say the power of the keys were Peter’s alone (gosh, there’s that word again ), why is it simply with the patriarch in Rome?

Jon

 

[Shamati]

You are right, but since Rome has never claimed such a thing, it is a moot point.

No, but we are not limited to the Bible as to how Jesus wanted His Church to run, either.

There is a valid line of bishops in the East originating and continuous from Peter in Antoich of Syriah. However, they do not claim to be in union with the successor of Peter which was left in Rome.

Yes.

No, I think not.

Yes. In many ways, it has not grown in the last 1000 years.

The Orthodox concept of original sin is not antithetical, though framed differently, the result is the same.

How is that?

I can see your point, but it is not a matter of “returning”, since there has not been a departure. The development of doctrine presumes the foundations of the previous.

Yes, and the Orthodox believe the same prinicple of infalliblity, just applied through councils.

Because the idea of original sin being “transmitted” to each person by birth. (Cathecism 404-406) is foreign to orthodoxy an judaism. Because it os transmitted each child is immediately stained or separated from god. This makes it necessary for the catholic church to issue a Dogma on the “clean” conception of Mary, to withhold the stain from her. This is simply foreign to the orthodox view. The difference is that in catholicism and subsequently all of western christendom the flesh is sinful. This all originates in the pious St. Augustine and the phrases that in latin read something like “because in Adam all have sinned” instead of its original Greek “because of Adam all have sinned”. Thus ancestral sin in the orthodox sense is simply Death and the parasitical fear of it that makes men inclined to sin. Instead of the notion of Original Sin which is inherited and affecting man from birth. This is clearly present within almost all western christendom and has been an especially important factor in the development of the in todays protestantism very common notion that by simply believing the Gospel story to be true and accepting Jesus Christ as ones “personal Lord and Saviour” all past, present and even future (!!) sins are forgiven as the individual becomes “clothed” in Christs righteoussness at the time of his judgement and thus granted eternal life. This heretical doctrine presupposes that Man cannot help himself but is inherently sinful and has no real chance of achieving true righteossness in this life and thus needs the sacrifice of the sinless God the Son become Flesh to atone for Mans inherent wickedness before an angry God the Father who seeks Justice for all the sins of man.
I firmly believe that this development would not have been possible in the east because the dualism was not as present. All dualism separatibg the body and soul is seen as pagan in origin and this is why many orthodox learned view protestantism as a “Gnostic sect”. This developmen was only possible because the Catholic Church had so emphasized the interpretations of St. Augustine in their development of catholic theological tradition.

The orthodox has stuck with a “hebraic” view of this matter and this no such dualism is evident in its theological tradition today. The orthodox also view St. Dionysus Mystical Theology tractate as the foundation for it theological principles from where the view has been drawn and developed that Apophatic (Negative) theological statements are superior to and always have to accompany ANY Cataphatic (positive) statements ie. “God is everywhere (positive) yet we do not know everywhere where god exists (Negative)”. The emphasis in the western church has been on positive statements “Mary was bodily assumed ino Heaven” which is to be held as divinely authored fact by all catholics. Period.

Take these very different developments, which in fact would benefit from being in communion with eachother (Blessed JP 2’s notion of the church having 2 lunges to breath properly) in theory and you realise it simply is not possible as long as the “new” dogmas are to be held as facts for all in communion with the Roman Bishop and the fact that the Orthodox view the definitions on the authority and nature of the Pope of Rome to be heretical.

For these reasons I believe it to be impossible for the eastern and western church to reunite, if the teachings on the papal authority and new dogmas are not withdrawn, which we all know they cannot be since all catholics view any dogmatic statement to be protected from error by God himself.

Note that I am not yet orthodox nor catholic but these are the most fundamental “problems” and differences i have found between the two and I mean bo harm by anything i write above as this is only what I have been told and have read in orthodox theological works.
Personally I have great trust in orthodox theology because they are so sparse on new dogmas and that basically all theologians have been ascetics who became theologians after they had achieved the “mystical union” / theosis and the “Theoria” / vision of God (view of Christs transfiguration. St. Pauls vision of Christ in orthodox theology).

 

[Nicea325]

Well, it isn’t just protestants that have trouble with this, but Orthodoxy, too, but universal jurisdiction and power of the keys. And to this point I have always been quite clear: if the other patriarchates were to accept it, in any form, then I would too.

But even if we were all to say the power of the keys were Peter’s alone (gosh, there’s that word again ), why is it simply with the patriarch in Rome?

Jon

Well my friend, early church history does not display the same current sentiments. I simply cannot find one ECF (West or East) expressing the same positions as Protestants and Orthodoxs. Where are the protests from others about the Bishop of Rome possessing the primacy? This is where it gets rather cloudy in terms of historical support.

Why Rome? Because it is where Peter spent the rest of his days. If those who claim Peter never resided or lived at Rome, then they must provide historical sources presenting Peter living and dying somewhere else? What other ancient city has made the same claims as Rome? I do not hear much from Antioch claiming Peter lived his last days there?

Again, my issue is with the on-going concern of today with Protestants and Orthodoxs and their issues or concerns with universal jurisdiction;then I would love to read the ancient sources supporting such a position? As I once said: Is it not plausible that an ancient Tradition did not need constant written reminders and written support to confirm a supported belief?

Is it not plausible?

 

[JonNC]

=Nicea325;10454334]Well my friend, early church history does not display the same current sentiments. I simply cannot find one ECF (West or East) expressing the same positions as Protestants and Orthodoxs. Where are the protests from others about the Bishop of Rome possessing the primacy? This is where it gets rather cloudy in terms of historical support.

But neither do they express a level of supremacy, of universal jusrisdiction, much less infallibility ex cathedra.

Why Rome? Because it is where Peter spent the rest of his days. If those who claim Peter never resided or lived at Rome, then they must provide historical sources presenting Peter living and dying somewhere else? What other ancient city has made the same claims as Rome? I do not hear much from Antioch claiming Peter lived his last days there?

Oh, I’m not denying he was there, but I’m sure where he was his last days is the determining factor in this way.

Again, my issue is with the on-going concern of today with Protestants and Orthodoxs and their issues or concerns with universal jurisdiction;then I would love to read the ancient sources supporting such a position? As I once said: Is it not plausible that an ancient Tradition did not need constant written reminders and written support to confirm a supported belief?

Plausible? Perhaps. But the early Church spoke on jurisdiction - Nicea canon 6 - and does not speak of or even imply a universal jurisdiction for any bishop, or see. This is why I have said that something this important, this critical to the unity of the Church and its ministry on Earth, should be explicit in Tradition, since it is not in scripture, and determined in ecumenical council.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

But neither do they express a level of supremacy, of universal jusrisdiction, much less infallibility ex cathedra.

Oh, I’m not denying he was there, but I’m sure where he was his last days is the determining factor in this way.

Plausible? Perhaps. But the early Church spoke on jurisdiction - Nicea canon 6 - and does not speak of or even imply a universal jurisdiction for any bishop, or see. This is why I have said that something this important, this critical to the unity of the Church and its ministry on Earth, should be explicit in Tradition, since it is not in scripture, and determined in ecumenical council.

Jon

I am sorry,but you are incorrect. There is plenty of ECF who clearly voice who has the primacy in the universal church. There is much more evidence for it then against it. As for infallibility? Again, a doctrine already in place, but later defined and ratified. No different than the Trinity, always taught, yet later challenged,thus explained and ratified in 325 AD.

As for Canon 6? As once stated, if that is the case, then why is there numerous cases where bishops from one See go directly to Rome to resolve serious issues? Why weren’t those issues resolved by their local patriarch,if Rome has no jurisdiction over others? Where are the protests from other Sees or Rome itself saying: Sorry, we cannot assist you because we hav no jurisdiction over any other See. Canon 6 may not imply it,but the practice sure was in place long before.

 

[Hasire]

I am sorry,but you are incorrect. There is plenty of ECF who clearly voice who has the primacy in the universal church. There is much more evidence for it then against it. As for infallibility? Again, a doctrine already in place, but later defined and ratified. No different than the Trinity, always taught, yet later challenged,thus explained and ratified in 325 AD.

As for Canon 6? As once stated, if that is the case, then why is there numerous cases where bishops from one See go directly to Rome to resolve serious issues? Why weren’t those issues resolved by their local patriarch,if Rome has no jurisdiction over others? Where are the protests from other Sees or Rome itself saying: Sorry, we cannot assist you because we hav no jurisdiction over any other See. Canon 6 may not imply it,but the practice sure was in place long before.

Primacy =/= Supremacy of a single See, nor Universal Jurisdiction, nor Infallibility.

 

[Nicea325]

Primacy =/= Supremacy of a single See, nor Universal Jurisdiction, nor Infallibility.

As of 1054 AD. History does not favor non-universal jurisdiction prior to 1054 AD.

 

[Shamati]

As of 1054 AD. History does not favor non-universal jurisdiction prior to 1054 AD.

Definitively NOT in the way the catholic church has exercises the Office. Ie. changing the creed without the consensus of the patriarchs. The pope of Rome has at times acted as an spiritual dictator. Not as the first among equals. It seems to lie in the nature of the western church to read into the “first among equals” description the divine authority to decided whatver the learned of catholicism and the pope feels like. The emphasis always seems to be on the right to Universal Power. Thus we are faced with a peculiar situation for us outside bot orthodoxy and catholicism. Roman catholicism presides over the xhair of St Peter and thus the authority of final say in case of disputes and maintains that the additions of dogmas and extreme centralization and Papal infalliability is only the development of the “understanding if the faith”. Orthodoxy has kept their faith pure to the ecumenical councils but for the developments of the understanding of the faith has separated from the see of Rome because they view the roman developments concerning papal authority and execution and dogmas to be heretical.

How can one decide without the feeling of betraying either the original faith or the wish if Christ for St. Peter and unity? I choose to concentrate on spirituality and mysticism which seems to be the treasures embedded in every aspect of orthodoxy whereas catholicism seems more embedded in legalism and rationalism. Both are complementary for a fuller understanding but due to the definitions of the vatican 1 among others on the papacy a union is absolutely impossible.

 

[guanophore]

 The pope of Rome has at times acted as an spiritual dictator.

One must not confuse the hubris of certain men with the office they occupy.

Not as the first among equals. It seems to lie in the nature of the western church to read into the “first among equals” description the divine authority to decided whatver the learned of catholicism and the pope feels like.

This is simply false. There is no such “nature” in the Western Church.

Certainly any individual person has the capacity to fall into hubris, but no matter how lacking in sanctity a pope may have been, there has NEVER been any notion that he has the divine authority to to whatever he “feels like”. Granted, Popes are not impeccable, and many have done whatever they felt like doing (to the great shame of the office). However, sin is never a right, nor does it occur under “divine authority”.

The emphasis always seems to be on the right to Universal Power.

Yes, I think this is the crux of the matter.

Roman catholicism presides over the xhair of St Peter

You have it backwards. The successor of Peter presides over Catholicism. Not just the Roman rite, but all 23 of them.

and thus the authority of final say in case of disputes and maintains that the additions of dogmas and extreme centralization and Papal infalliability is only the development of the “understanding if the faith”.

Yes. Jesus gave to Peter the feeding and care of His flock. How that is to be exercised has been understood differenly over time.

due to the definitions of the vatican 1 among others on the papacy a union is absolutely impossible.

No, it is not. The Eastern Catholic Churches have Orthodox faith, and yet, are on communion with the successor of Peter. Instead of pressuring them to accept Latin concepts of theology such a IC and purgatory, which are not part of their tradition, the agreement was made that they would just not take issue on those points, and go on with their own traditions which are entirely compatible.

Unity is possible, and it is something Jesus wants for HIs One Church. It is incumbent upon us to work toward that unity by resolving the divisions that have occurred through pride, misinderstandings, and sins.

 

[Shamati]

One must not confuse the hubris of certain men with the office they occupy.

This is simply false. There is no such “nature” in the Western Church.

Certainly any individual person has the capacity to fall into hubris, but no matter how lacking in sanctity a pope may have been, there has NEVER been any notion that he has the divine authority to to whatever he “feels like”. Granted, Popes are not impeccable, and many have done whatever they felt like doing (to the great shame of the office). However, sin is never a right, nor does it occur under “divine authority”.

Yes, I think this is the crux of the matter.

You have it backwards. The successor of Peter presides over Catholicism. Not just the Roman rite, but all 23 of them.

Yes. Jesus gave to Peter the feeding and care of His flock. How that is to be exercised has been understood differenly over time.

No, it is not. The Eastern Catholic Churches have Orthodox faith, and yet, are on communion with the successor of Peter. Instead of pressuring them to accept Latin concepts of theology such a IC and purgatory, which are not part of their tradition, the agreement was made that they would just not take issue on those points, and go on with their own traditions which are entirely compatible.

Unity is possible, and it is something Jesus wants for HIs One Church. It is incumbent upon us to work toward that unity by resolving the divisions that have occurred through pride, misinderstandings, and sins.

I claim Roman Catholicism presides over the chair of Peter. It is impossible to hold orthodox beliefs AND be in communion with Rome therefore either the catholic church tolerate heterodoxy or you submit to the dogmas of the latin hierarchy. The orthodox simply cant be in communion with Rome because it would render heretics and semi-pagans. Ask any orthodox theologian. How many percent of the roman hierarchy is of another rite? How many of the christians of the middle east are in communion with Rome? Its impossible for them to be in communion with Rome and not change religions in their view. Rome must first conquer the earth to be able to conquer the hearts of the orthodox because for te orthodox the catholic church is heretical and schismatic and this view wont go away by imagining the two are much closer than they really are.

Because of this and the complete continuity of orthodox theology with judaism/hebraic beliefs about the non dual nature of man I reject the christianity of Europe and embrace the ancient church of Christ which has kept the elements of hellenic judaism while rome has not

 

[guanophore]

I claim Roman Catholicism presides over the chair of Peter.

Ok. People claim all kinds of things. There is a city here in the Southwest (Roswell) that claims an alien ship crash landed there, and they have a museum and all sorts of tourist trinkets. Maybe it’s true?

 It is impossible to hold orthodox beliefs AND be in communion with Rome

I think you mean Eastern Orthodox beliefs?

Of course I will disagree, since up until 1054 the East and the West were in communion. I believe

Matt 19:26
6 But Jesus looked at them and said, “For mortals it is impossible, but for God all things are possible.”

The Church belongs to Jesus, and He is able, and He desires unity, therefore, it is possible for His grace to heal our differences and return us to the One Church He founded and over which He presides. Frankly, it seems to me that saying this is “impossible” is a direct contradiction of the Scriptures. However, I respect your right to make claims and hold beliefs that are contrary to what Jesus taught.

therefore either the catholic church tolerate heterodoxy or you submit to the dogmas of the latin hierarchy.

No. I don’t think either of these is the answer. I think that each must respect the traditions of the other, the East will need to understand why certain dogmas were proclaimed (to fight heresies) and the West will need to respect that the East never struggled with such heresies, so did not have a need for those dogmas.

The East and the West were separated for almost a milennia by war, economic, and political conditions. There are vast differences in language and culture that need to be surmounted. This reconciliation is supported by things such as each side withdrawing their excommunications of each other.

The orthodox simply cant be in communion with Rome because it would render heretics and semi-pagans.

LOL.

Receiving brethren who think, dress, and speak differently does not change the essence of who one is. There is no obligation for the Orthodox to become “Latin” to be in communion with the successor of Peter.

But, if you believe that Latin Catholics are “heretics and semi-pagans”, then it is clear that you certainly cannot be in communion with the successor of Peter.

Ask any orthodox theologian.

I have done quite a bit of dialogue with the Orthodox here, and on their own forum, as well as reading Orthodox writings on the issue. I know there are Orthodox who feel as you do. I also know that there are some who do not suffer from such strident bigotry and ignorance.

How many percent of the roman hierarchy is of another rite?

This factoid is irrelevant. It would not matter if there were only one country, one congregation that espoused another Rite. What matters is that all 22 of the non-Latin Rites are valid, accepted, and in communion with Rome. They are not forced to express their liturgy and theology in a way that is inconsistent with their own Traditions.

How many of the christians of the middle east are in communion with Rome?

Not enough, yet!

Its impossible for them to be in communion with Rome and not change religions in their view.

Again you are saying that Jesus is weak.

Rome must first conquer the earth to be able to conquer the hearts of the orthodox

I am sorry, Shamati, but this is not how the unity of Christ is achieved. Unity emanates out of adherance to the Truth. All those who are in unity with He who is Truth will come into unity with one another. This does not happen by power, ego, weapons. “Conquering hearts” comes with love, not war.

because for te orthodox the catholic church is heretical and schismatic and this view wont go away by imagining the two are much closer than they really are.

I agree with you on this point. However, the fact that there are divisions does not subtract from the reality that we share more of the One Faith than either of us do with anyone in the “denominations”. We must begin with the points of unity, and work out our differences. We must pray for one another,and for unity, and I would add, not contradict the teaching of Jesus that such unity is “impossible”.

Because of this and the complete continuity of orthodox theology with judaism/hebraic beliefs about the non dual nature of man I reject the christianity of Europe and embrace the ancient church of Christ which has kept the elements of hellenic judaism while rome has not

I commend you in your faith journey, Shamati. I also will pray that you will someday come to know that your prejudices do not actually have a basis in fact, and that what you believe the CC teaches is not what she teaches. In being able to overcome your own ignorance and prejudice, you will come more completely into the unity of the One Faith that Jesus founded. I recommend John Paul II Theology of the Body as a good place to start, if the ability ever comes to you that enables you to read a book by someone you think is a semi-pagan hereticical schismatic.

 

[jpaul1953]

Part of the problem with using “pebble” in the Greek is that Jesus did not speak Greek – he spoke Aramaic. In Aramaic, the word is “Cephas” which is sometimes used in the New Testament. There is no abiguity in the original language, only in the translation. The “Rock” that Jesus built his Church upon is Peter.
There is a great tract that explains this more thoroughly

catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

there is also a video that explains this passage gramattically:

catholic.com/video/is-peter-the-rock-in-matthew-1618

Fredystairs,

BINGO. BINGO. BINGO! Kephas or Cephas either way. Like in the Bill Murray movie somethings get lost in translation. St Jerome was translating into Greek so he had no choice but to use the only word for rock available in Greek.

Who would have thought that by translating it into English the translation would worsen even further basically setting up the Protestant Reformation all on its own. If rock of any size in Greek was of the masculine gender I believe the Reformation would have never had the right to question the Church’s authority. My opinion but I truly believe this.

I would like to know what the German translation from Greek defines the words Petras and Petros to mean, which helped Martin Luther to fight hard against the Holy Mother Church.

Respectfully

JPaul1953

 

[guanophore]

Fredystairs,

BINGO. BINGO. BINGO! Kephas or Cephas either way. Like in the Bill Murray movie somethings get lost in translation. St Jerome was translating into Greek so he had no choice but to use the only word for rock available in Greek.

Who would have thought that by translating it into English the translation would worsen even further basically setting up the Protestant Reformation all on its own. If rock of any size in Greek was of the masculine gender I believe the Reformation would have never had the right to question the Church’s authority. My opinion but I truly believe this.

I would like to know what the German translation from Greek defines the words Petras and Petros to mean, which helped Martin Luther to fight hard against the Holy Mother Church.

Respectfully

JPaul1953

Actually I think Jerome was translating Greek into Latin. However, I agree that, if the Reformers had the original Aramaic of Matthew that exists in some ancient Syriac texts things might have been different. But the reframing of the meaning of Peter the Rock at the Reformation was only a small pebble of the avalanche of rebellion. Most importantly, the Reformers wanted to get rid of the corrupted clergy that were in Europe at that time. I am not sure that any of them thought much about Catholicism in other areas of the world. If it was just about Peter’s role, why didn’t they all become Orthodox?

 

[JonNC]

Actually I think Jerome was translating Greek into Latin. However, I agree that, if the Reformers had the original Aramaic of Matthew that exists in some ancient Syriac texts things might have been different. But the reframing of the meaning of Peter the Rock at the Reformation was only a small pebble of the avalanche of rebellion. Most importantly, the Reformers wanted to get rid of the corrupted clergy that were in Europe at that time. I am not sure that any of them thought much about Catholicism in other areas of the world. If it was just about Peter’s role, why didn’t they all become Orthodox?

guan,
How active was Orthodoxy in central Europe at the time? While the contacts by the Tubingen Lutherans met with rebuke from Orthodoxy, there’s no reason to believe that any other outcome might have been possible.

Jon