B
Butzi
Guest
You clearly do not know pre-Vatican II ecclesiology. You are applying what VII has taught. They are not the same. I’ll show you later what the Church taught before VII.
- Status
B
benhur
Guest
Good collection . Apparently some overriding was done. For myself all three legs don’t show such papal power. You definitely cut off the council/magisterium leg, at least for the first thousand years.
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree with you in principle, but since these did not cause division before the Schism, they should not be made matters of separation now. We each have a responsibility to respect the Holy Traditions of the other. The EO should not demand that the CC use leavened bread, either, or change the date Easter is celebrated.
This is how you are justifying the demand that the EO should give up their paradosis?!
This is the same kind of attitude that fomented the schism.
I agree if the motives were pride and jealously, but I do not believe they are. Those who have received the faith have an obligation to keep it unchanging.
G
guanophore
Guest
Why is this principle so strange?
“The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.” Luke 10:16.
“If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. 18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” Matt. 18:17
I am sure the EO consider the Church authorative also, do they not?
Why would it seem strange that Catholics see this authority made visible in the Keeper of the Keys?
S
Seraphim73
Guest
Yes the Church is authoritative but it does not rule in Christ’s stead. He is present and perfectly capable of ruling Himself.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Yes the Church is authoritative but it does not rule in Christ’s stead. He is present and perfectly capable of ruling Himself.
P
prodromos
Guest
Certainly no Pope prior to Gregory VII had authority to depose secular rulers, and it seems pretty obvious they no longer have that authority today.That’s an assertion. One not supported from early Church sources.
P
prodromos
Guest
Not even if it was for your benefit?
For the first 8 centuries in the West it was the tradition for the eucharistic offering to be bread baked by the laity as it is still so in the East. Why would you not want to return to such a blessed arrangement?
S
SAVINGRACE
Guest
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
He is capable, sure.Yes the Church is authoritative but it does not rule in Christ’s stead. He is present and perfectly capable of ruling Himself.
But why did He command Peter to tend and feed the sheep of His flock when His fully capable of doing it himself?
And yes, we’re talking about humans, not four-legged woolly critters.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
In that case he was restoring Peter to his Apostleship. Ministering to the faithful is not the same as ruling.He is capable, sure.
But why did He command Peter to tend and feed the sheep of His flock when His fully capable of doing it himself?
And yes, we’re talking about humans, not four-legged woolly critters.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Joey,
We have been over both of these points recently. The Greek word, poimanao, means “to rule” and it is the same word used in reference to Jesus elsewhere. If you deny the meaning of *poimanao *with respect to Peter, then you deny its meaning for Jesus, also. You have to be consistent.
Second, I posted a rebuttal to the “restoration” argument which you can review if you have not already done so.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
The primary meaning of the word ποίμαινε is to feed or tend a herd. To rule is at best a tertiary reading of the word. There is a reason every English translations translates it as “feed” and not “rule.” There are numerous Greek words that have a primary meaning of “rule” or “govern.” None of those are used.
And the interpretation of the event as a simple restoration to Apostleship is one founded on patristics. Do you have any patristic support for your interpretation of the word as “rule”?
G
guanophore
Guest
Although I do understand how the claims of Papal Supremacy are appaling to the ears of the EO (they are to mine as well) I am still confused why the concept of the Vicar of Christ seems so strange and incomprehensible. Look at what Ignnatius writes to the Smyrneans:
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
Chapter 9. Honour the bishop
Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for you are worthy. You have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. You have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while you endure all things, you shall attain unto
“It is becoming, therefore, that ye also should be obedient to your bishop, and contradict him in nothing; for it is a fearful thing to contradict any such person. For no one does [by such conduct] deceive him that is visible, but does [in reality] seek to mock Him that is invisible, who, however, cannot be mocked by any one. And every such act has respect not to man, but to God.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 3)
“Some indeed give one the title of bishop, but do all things without him. Now such persons seem to me to be not possessed of a good conscience, seeing they are not stedfastly gathered together according to the commandment.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Magnesians; Ch 4)
“Wherefore it is fitting that ye also should run together in accordance with the will of the bishop who by God’s appointment rules over you. Which thing ye indeed of yourselves do, being instructed by the Spirit. For your justly-renowned presbytery, being worthy of God, is fitted as exactly to the bishop as the strings are to the harp. Thus, being joined together in concord and harmonious love, of which Jesus Christ is the Captain and Guardian, do ye, man by man, become but one choir; so that, agreeing together in concord, and obtaining a perfect unity with God, ye may indeed be one in harmonious feeling with God the Father, and His beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Ephesians; Ch 4)
“It is therefore necessary that, as ye indeed do, so without the bishop ye should do nothing, but should also be subject to the presbytery, as to the apostle of Jesus Christ, who is our hope, in whom, if we live, we shall [at last] be found. It is fitting also that the deacons, as being [the ministers] of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, should in every respect be pleasing to all …] let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrin of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church …] he who does anything apart from the bishop, and presbytery, and deacons, such a man is not pure in his conscience.” (St. Ignatius: Letter to the Trallians; Chs 2-3, 7)
These early writings of Ignatius reflect the mind of the Church with regard to the office of Bishop. I can see how the EO think that the Bishop of Rome has exceeded liberties, but would you not consider that these statements should apply to all Bishops?
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
Well… goodness!!! Thank fully we have 20th and 21st century Latins to finally explain what a language not used anymore actually means!
And how this was missed for the native speakers of the Early Church and how the Whole Church missed it for more than a thousand years…
Wheeeew!
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
We already discussed this. In John 21, was Jesus really telling Peter to go take care of some woolly creatures out in a pasture somewhere?
If not, then the primary meaning has nothing to do with a herd (technically, a flock).
These quotes come to mind:
John Chrysostom
For it is a laborious thing indeed to have the oversight of a hundred men, and of fifty alone. But to have on one’s hands so great a city, and a population extending to two hundred thousand, of how great virtue and wisdom do you think there is a proof? For as in the care of armies, the wiser of the generals have on their hands the more leading and more numerous regiments, so, accordingly, in the care of cities. The more able of the rulers are entrusted with the larger and more populous. And at any rate this city was of much account to God, as indeed He manifested by the very deeds which He did. At all events the master of the whole world, Peter, to whose hands He committed the keys of heaven, whom He commanded to do and to bear all, He bade tarry here for a long period. Thus in His sight our city was equivalent to the whole world. (Chrysostom, Homily on Ignatius, 4)
He saith to him, “Feed my sheep”. Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say “Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?”, I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world. [St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, “In Ep. ad Rom.”, 5:10; Ephraem Syrus “Hymn. in B. Petr.” in “Bibl. Orient. Assemani”, 1:95; Leo I, “Serm. iv de natal.”, 2].
Leo I - (AD 446)
**From the whole world only one, Peter, is chosen to preside over the calling of all nations, and over all the other Apostles, and over the Fathers of the Church…Peter…rules them all, of whom, too, it is Christ who is their chief ruler. **Divine condescension, dearly beloved, has granted to this man in a wonderful and marvellous manner the aggregate of its power; and if there was something that it wanted to be his in common with other leaders, it never gave whatever it did not deny to others except through him. (Sermons, 4:2; in Jurgens, FEF, vol. 3, 275)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
John 21:15-19
When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things. You know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my sheep. I tell you the truth, when you were younger, you dressed yourself and went where you wanted; but when you are old you will stretch out your hands, and someone else will dress you and lead you where you do not want to go.” Jesus said this to indicate the kind of death by which Peter would glorify God. Then he said to him, “Follow me!”
At the time of Jesus’ arrest, all of the disciples fled. However, Peter had gone further by actually denying three times that he even knew Jesus. This denial had been foretold to all of the disciples by Jesus at the last supper. Therefore, after the resurrection, it was necessary for Jesus to reinstate Peter. The three questions of Jesus parallel the three denials of Peter, and three times Jesus tells Peter to feed or care for his sheep. Throughout his public ministry, Jesus had referred to himself as the Good Shepherd and to those who recognized his voice as his sheep. In this passage describing his last moments on Earth, John records the passing of responsibility for the faithful flock from one shepherd to another.
Historians and scholars believe that John was the only one of the original twelve apostles who was not martyred for his faith and that he died of old age as an exile on the island of Patmos. It is also believed that John’s gospel was the last written, possibly as late as the 80’s or 90’s AD. Therefore, by the time that John wrote, Peter, Paul, and all of the original disciples had been killed. This would explain John’s special insight into Jesus’ prophecy of the death of Peter.
By the time of his writing, John had outlived Peter, Linus, and possibly Cletus – the first three popes of the Catholic Church. The fourth, Clement I, may have been pope when the book of Revelation was being penned. Clearly, if anyone had the apostolic authority to correct any errors in the Church’s understanding of Peter’s role and the role of subsequent popes within the leadership of the early Christian church, it would have been John, the last survivor of the original twelve. But he did not make any corrections; instead, he emphasized Peter’s special commission.
In the passage above, Jesus is speaking with Peter – but in what setting and why? The following verse provides the answer.
John 20:20
Peter turned and saw that the disciple whom Jesus loved was following them.
Jesus and Peter were walking along the beach and John was following behind them. Jesus had called Peter aside because he wanted to be sure that Peter was clear about his role as the shepherd of the fledgling church. Fifty years later, John, the beloved disciple, faithfully recorded Jesus’ words imparting his final instructions to Peter, the first pope.
S
Seraphim73
Guest
I am familiar with St Ignatius. Here is a pastoral and disciplinary epistle. To say we should obey the bishop as Christ Himself is not the same as saying the bishop rules in Christ’s place.
G
guanophore
Guest
It has been claimed that Christ intended for the HS to be His Vicar:
“I did not say these things to you from the beginning, because I was with you. 5But now I am going to him who sent me, and none of you asks me, ‘Where are you going?’ 6But because I have said these things to you, sorrow has filled your heart. 7Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
12“I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. 13When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth,** for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come. 14He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.** 15All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
And although I have provided Patristic support as requested, I would hasten to soften that by saying that Jesus wanted Peter to provide spiritual nourishment (teaching) to the entire flock.
So, rather than arguing for an iron-fisted ruler (which seems to freak so many Orthodox out due to their long years under Ottoman and Communist rule (which prevented them from fulfiling the Great Commission, btw)), I would simply point out that John 21 is clear scriptural support for Peter’s universal jurisdiction (since ALL the sheep would need to be fed) and infallibility (since giving false teaching would not be nourishing).
- Status