Roman Catholic looking into Orthodoxy

[Fr_Ambrose]

Originally Posted by KFK:
But how do you get individual primacy and universal jurisdiction out of Matthew’s gospel? Even St. Augustine wrote that the Rock referred to Christ, not the person of St. Peter.

Théodred:

I would appreciate you showing me where Saint Augustine wrote this

Augustine wrote several passages which deal with the question of whether Peter was the Rock. His mature conclusion was that the Rock is Christ.

“In one place I said… that the Church had been built on Peter as the Rock… but in fact it was not said to Peter, “Thou art the Rock,” but rather “Thou art Peter.” The Rock was Jesus Christ, Peter having confessed Him as all the Church confesses Him, He was then called Peter, “the Rock”… (ed, for his faith) …Between these two sentiments let the reader choose the most probable.”

St. Augustine, Retractions - 13th Sermon; Contra Julianum 1:13

St. Augustine adds:

"Peter had not a primacy over the apostles, but among the apostles, and Christ said to them “I will build upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee.”

**These comments by Augustine are highly significant. ** They are the fruits of his mature reflection and belong to his work of “Retractions” in which he corrects the former doctrinal errors of his earlier years. These comments totally demolish the Roman Catholic claim that the early Church Fathers taught what is now the modern Catholic teaching as regards the papal office.

Here we have the greatest theologian of the West writing**, after 400 years of the Church’s existence, that Peter is not the rock. ** Augustine allows such an interpretation, but he himself denies it. Would he have been in a position to deny it if the Church had believed it during the preceding 400 years??!

Here we have the man claimed by Rome as their most renowned theologian of the patristic age and yet he gives an interpretation of the most important passage in all the Bible for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church and its authority, and his own interpretation which is diametrically opposed to the Roman interpretation.

How does one explain this?

If there were truly, as Vatican I states, a unanimous consensus in the Church Fathers of interpretation of the Roman meaning of this passage, why do we find Saint Augustine deliberately going against such a consensus?

The answer, quite simply, is that there never was such a consensus in the early Church.

(PS: just to be upfront - I belong to the Orthodox Church.)

 

[GAssisi]

Dear KFK,

I’m more interested in finding out the reason for your spiritual dryness. Are you willing to talk about it?

God bless,

Greg

 

[Theodred]

Fr. Ambrose,

So I take it you also hold for double predestination?

This demonstrates one of the problems with Eastern Orthodoxy. The only real authority they ultimately claim is that of “the Fathers.” The problem with this is that, like Protestant claims to authority being based on the bible alone, one can read just about anything they want into what the Fathers have written to justify a their current position.

Here is an amazingly clear example of doing just that. An Eastern Orthodox takes a Church Father, a Latin Father whom he doesn’t even claim is a saint of his Church, and states that the Catholic Church must be wrong because this one Father disagreed with the position of the Church.

However, is this same standard universally accepted by the Eastern Orthodox? Saint Clement of Rome excersized sui juris authority over the Church of Corinth, but the Eastern Orthodox reject the sui juris authority of the Roman bishop over the Eastern Churches. If Saint Augustine has to be right about Christ being the rock, then Saint Clement must also be right in extending sui juris authority over an Eastern Church!

Saint Augustine was wrong about Christ being the rock, just as he was wrong about double predestination. Augustine, admittedly, did not know as much about language as say a Saint Jerome. It is possible that a great theologian could be wrong, even on more than one point.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear KFK,

Please don’t be taken in too quickly by Father Ambrose’s sensationalistic interpretation of Augustine’s retractation. In fact, Augustine never denied that Peter was the Rock. Otherwise, he would not have left it to his readers to decide what interpretation to choose. Do you suppose Augustine would have actually allowed his readers to believe Peter was the Rock if it was the case that he himself absolutely denied the fact?

In truth, Augustine was only interested in establishing the sacramental basis of the belief that Peter is the Rock. In effect, he wanted his readers to know that Peter is the Rock only because Jesus is the true Rock. Simple as that.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Theodred]

Oh, by the way, thank you Fr. for the references. And thank you Greg. However, neither of those are on my shelf, and I will have to take a trip to Notre Dame library to look them up. That might take awhile (unless someone can post or link them for me) so please lend me your patience for a couple of days so I can read these for myself. Thanks again.

 

[Maccabees]

GAssisi:

Dear KFK,

Please don’t be taken in too quickly by Father Ambrose’s sensationalistic interpretation of Augustine’s retractation. In fact, Augustine never denied that Peter was the Rock. Otherwise, he would not have left it to his readers to decide what interpretation to choose. Do you suppose Augustine would have actually allowed his readers to believe Peter was the Rock if it was the case that he himself absolutely denied the fact?

In truth, Augustine was only interested in establishing the sacramental basis of the belief that Peter is the Rock. In effect, he wanted his readers to know that Peter is the Rock only because Jesus is the true Rock. Simple as that.

God bless,

Greg

Agreed in many instances Augustine refers to Peter as the rock or in reference to the keys of the kingdom. The passage is polyvalent in nature Peter is the Rock as he shares this quality with Christ who is the Rock that enables Peter to be the Rock.
God is the Rock in the OT as is Abraham. God is Father to Israel as Abraham is Father to his people of course Abraham’s has those attributes as God allows Abraham to share in the attributes he has. THese human attributes all point back to its source God but you can seperate a covenant connection that God promissed Abraham and Peter not both had a name change to indicate their new status in covenant. OF course we have Eastern Fathers that say Peter was the Rock as well what are we to suppose then?

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Théodred:

So I take it you also hold for double predestination?

No, nor do I hold to Saint Augustine’s teaching of massa damnata nor the damnation of unbaptized infants.

This demonstrates one of the problems with Eastern Orthodoxy. The only real authority they ultimately claim is that of “the Fathers.”

This betrays a lack of knowledge of Orthodoxy. What is sought is the concensus of teaching among the Fathers. Orthodoxy tests everything against the concensus patrum. Where Augustine betrays a discrepancy with this consensus his errors become visible and require rejection. We are not alone in this. Some important aspects of St Augustine’s teaching are also rejected by the Roman Catholic Church.

Here is an amazingly clear example of doing just that. An Eastern Orthodox takes a Church Father, a Latin Father whom he doesn’t even claim is a saint of his Church

Again you evince a basic lack of knowledge of the Orthodox Church. Saint Augustine is a Saint of the Church. His feastday is 15th June.
oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Feasts-and-Saints/June/Jun-15.html#augustine
His life on a Russian Orthodox site in Russia
days.ru/Life/life1316.htm

I have a small icon of St Augustine with my icons.

and states that the Catholic Church must be wrong because this one Father disagreed with the position of the Church.

You overlook the fact the St Augustine is, as Pope John Paul has said last month in Rome, the greatest of all the Western Fathers. You have also chosen to overlook the fact that St Augstine’s declaration that Peter is NOT the Rock destroys the Roman Catholic contention that this was accepted teaching and enjoys the consensus of the Church Fathers. Saint Augustine’s denial of this, after 400 years of church life, demonstrates convincingly that there waas no such agreed teaching - not even in the West.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Mickey:

KFK,

I was born and raised Roman Catholic. I recently changed to the Byzantine Catholic Church.

That is interesting. What were your reasons for rejecting the practices and piety of Roman Catholicism and adopting those of the Church of Byzantium? What did you find unsatisfactory and lacking in your own religious culture?

 

[Aris]

Before we veer too much off topic.

KFK,

Why do you think you have that dryness?

Personally, in my most trying times, I go back to Mass and I see again the meaning of Catholicism. All things come into perspective because Christ who is really present in the Holy Eucharist.

We will be praying for you.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

memnoch_lover:

if the pope has no authority over the eastern churches, on what basis then pope clement settled the controversy over the church in corinth?

corinth is an eastern church,yet the pope exercise jurisdiction to settle not doctrinal issue but diciplinary one.

Corinth was NOT an Eastern Church. It was linked directly with Rome.

Corinth was re-founded as a Roman colony by Julius Caesar just 44 years before Christ was born.

All its links were with Rome.

Also Corinth was founded by Saint Paul. Saint Clement was a disciple of Saint Paul, as well as Saint Peter. This gave the church in Corinth another very strong connection with Rome. Rome and Corinth shared a common founder.

So it was entirely logical that the church in Corinth, at a time when it was “headless” and going through a tough patch, would turn to Rome for help to solve its internal squabbles.

 

[Edwin1961]

KFK:

I’ve been a devout Roman Catholic for a decade and recently have gone through a period of spiritual desolation. I’ve been looking into the Orthodox Church. I’m having a hard time deciding which one most fully resembles the ancient Church. Any thoughts?

Look into the Byzantine Catholic Church (the Eastern Churches). The Orthodox Church in liturgy and spiritual leanings ARE the same as the Eastern Catholic Churches.
We honor the same Saints too.

Go to this site and listen to the explaination of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
byzantinecatholic.com/radio.htm

God IS with Us!
Edwin

 

[puzzleannie]

It is a general rule of spiritual life never to make drastic decisions or changes, either in your spiritual practice or in your life condition, career etc., during a period of depression, melancholia, or spiritual dryness. It appears from what you have said that you could benefit from an understanding of the psychology of spiritual development. Spiritual Passages by Fr. Groeschel does and excellent job of presenting these stages of development, what common experiences often occur during different phases, the common spiritual problems and how to address them, and most important, what not to do.Changing religions as a response to an inward, individual state of spirituality is likely to be as ineffective and dangerous as changing careers due to a dissatisfaction with one’s job, workplace, boss, coworkers that arises from inward rather than outward causes.

 

[Theodred]

Fr Ambrose:

This betrays a lack of knowledge of Orthodoxy. What is sought is the concensus of teaching among the Fathers.

So, then, how do you justify your interpretation of Matt 16:18 based on one Church Father? You certainly weren’t practicing what you are now preaching.
Fr Ambrose:

Orthodoxy tests everything against the concensus patrum. Where Augustine betrays a discrepancy with this consensus his errors become visible and require rejection. We are not alone in this.

And so does the Catholic Church.
Fr Ambrose:

Some important aspects of St Augustine’s teaching are also rejected by the Roman Catholic Church.

Yes, that’s my point exactly!

But you still continue to plow along with this contradiction to your own principles:
Fr Ambrose:

You have also chosen to overlook the fact that St Augstine’s declaration that Peter is NOT the Rock destroys the Roman Catholic contention that this was accepted teaching and enjoys the consensus of the Church Fathers. Saint Augustine’s denial of this, after 400 years of church life, demonstrates convincingly that there waas no such agreed teaching - not even in the West.

Where is this consensus that you spoke of? This is one Church Father! One Church Father does not equal a consensus.

A tangent: My old seminary mate who is now a Greek Orthodox priest assures me that Saint Augustine is recognized as a holy and blessed man by the Greek Orthodox Church, but he is not recognized as equal to the Greek Fathers, nor to saints such as Saint Maximus the Confessor. “There are simply too many problems revolving around grace and human nature for us to accept him as an authorative voice of the patristic Church.” All I know is what I’m told. I suggest that you Eastern Orthodox iron this out for yourselves, and then you will be better prepared to straighten out us Catholics.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Théodred:

Where is this consensus that you spoke of? This is one Church Father! One Church Father does not equal a consensus.

I apologise. I must be expressing myself badly.

IF THERE HAD BEEN A CONSENSUS among the Fathers of the Church, do you seriously think that Augustine would have gone against it?

He was the sharpest theologian of the Western Church. He ended up in his mature theological teaching denying that Peter was the Rock. He would never have done that if the patristic consensus of the preceding 400 years taught that Peter was the Rock. Obviously it didn’t.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Théodred:

A tangent: My old seminary mate who is now a Greek Orthodox priest assures me that Saint Augustine is recognized as a holy and blessed man by the Greek Orthodox Church, but he is not recognized as equal to the Greek Fathers, nor to saints such as Saint Maximus the Confessor. “There are simply too many problems revolving around grace and human nature for us to accept him as an authorative voice of the patristic Church.” All I know is what I’m told. I suggest that you Eastern Orthodox iron this out for yourselves, and then you will be better prepared to straighten out us Catholics.

But where is the problem? Have I not been saying just what your old mate said? Saint Augustine is indeed problematic with some of his teachings. All the Orthodox are agreed on that. What is there to iron out?

Pope John Paul II has this to say in his Apostolic Letter

**AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO
Apostolic Letter of the Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II August 28, 1986 **

**“Despite this love for truth, Augustine fell into serious errors” **

See the full text
cin.org/jp2ency/augustin.html

 

[Theodred]

Fr Ambrose:

But where is the problem? Have I not been saying just what your old mate said? Saint Augustine is indeed problematic with some of his teachings. All the Orthodox are agreed on that. What is there to iron out?

Pope John Paul II has this to say in his Apostolic Letter

**AUGUSTINE OF HIPPO **
**Apostolic Letter of the Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II August 28, 1986 **

**“Despite this love for truth, Augustine fell into serious errors” **

See the full text
cin.org/jp2ency/augustin.html

I think you misunderstood what I wrote. I’m speaking specifically about your claim that Augustine of Hippo is a saint in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. However, all listings, including the listing from the websites you linked, list him as “Blessed Augustine of Hippo” (click on “home”, then click on June 15th, and you will see that Augustine is clearly entitled “Blessed” not “Saint”).

I emailed this question to my friend and another nearby Greek Orthodox priest. I’ll share their comments when I get replies.

However, you are addressing the tangent, not the main of my post, which was:

You claim:

EO depends on a consensus of the Fathers.
Augustine of Hippo disagrees with CC’s interpretation of Matt 16:18
Therefore, CC’s interpretation is in error

However, Augustine of Hippo does not by himself equal a consensus, and since you, I, the EO and CC agree that Saint Augustine was not right about everything, how does your argument above hold any water?

 

[Theodred]

Fr Ambrose:

I apologise. I must be expressing myself badly.

IF THERE HAD BEEN A CONSENSUS among the Fathers of the Church, do you seriously think that Augustine would have gone against it?

He was the sharpest theologian of the Western Church. He ended up in his mature theological teaching denying that Peter was the Rock. He would never have done that if the patristic consensus of the preceding 400 years taught that Peter was the Rock. Obviously it didn’t.

You are making an assumption about Augustine that does not in any way prove consensus.

Lets apply this argument to Origen. I suppose that the Christian Church taught *apokatastasis. *Origen, like Augustine, would not deny the consensus of the Early Church, thus his intepretation of Scripture leading him to conclude *apokatastasis *must be in full accord with the consensus of the Fathers.Certianly you would consider such a conclusion about Origen and the Fathers to be absurd. Thus the argument must be absurd.

Actually, you are being terribly unfair because I have yet to read the references your provided. It appears that Greg, however, has, and you have yet to address his points regarding Saint Augustine’s interpretation of Matt 16:18.

 

[GAssisi]

Dear Father,

Why you persist in believing that Augustine denied that Peter is the Rock is rather unscholarly, given the context of the passage in his Retractations. Please reread posts #24 and #26 above. And do you recall my suggestion to you in another thread that you must learn to read in context, and sometimes even beyond the immediate context in order to get a true understanding of what is being stated? I would now like to remind you of the Donatist controversy, which occupied Augustine’s awesome energies till the end of his life. One of the main arguments Augustine proferred against the rigorist teachings of the Donatists is the well-known Catholic principle that the efficacy of the priesthood does not consist in the worthiness of a minister, but in Christ himself. It is actually Christ who works in all things through his ministers. I trust the connection between Augustine’s deep involvement in the Donatist controversy and his statement in the Retractations that stressed Jesus as the Rock (while not denying that Peter is the Rock) is not lost on you.

Regarding the Clement issue: First, there were many Roman territories that came to be regarded as the ecclesiastical “East.” So your statement that Corinth was a Roman colony really does not advance your argument.

Second, your mention of being “headless” with an attendant appeal to a church with a “head”, the relationship of Clement as disciple of Paul, and the common foundation you speak of actually weakens your argument, because there was another place quite close to Corinth that satisfies those same conditions – Athens.

Further, no rationale you can propose regarding the reason for Corinth’s appeal to Rome (as opposed to John) can mitigate the authoritative tone of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians.

God bless,

Greg

 

[Mickey]

Fr Ambrose:

That is interesting. What were your reasons for rejecting the practices and piety of Roman Catholicism and adopting those of the Church of Byzantium? What did you find unsatisfactory and lacking in your own religious culture?

Dear Fr Ambrose:

I don’t understand your question. I am still Catholic. I reject NONE of the practice and piety of Roman Catholicism. I received Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation, and Holy Matrimony through the Roman Catholic Church. However, when I was introduced to the Byzantine Catholic Church, I was deeply moved by The Divine Liturgy and the equally rich traditions of the eastern style of Catholicism. I attend Divine Liturgy daily, maintain friendships with Roman Catholic priests, and I am dicerning enrollment at the Byzantine Catholic Seminary for the Diaconate. You make it sound like I have abandoned The Catholic Church. Please clarify.

 

[hlgomez]

KFK,

The writings of the Early Church Fathers are not considered inspired writings. However, they constitute a further development of the dogmas of the Church.

STILL, and I mean still–it is the Church that defines dogmas and doctrines, not the Church Fathers.
But the ECF are useful enough that the Catholic Church qoutes many of them in the Catechism. But you will notice that even Tertullian who have gone into heresy(?) or schism (?) is quoted in the Catechism, but all his writings are not considered inspired. Note that Tertullian was the one who coined the term “Trinity” as referring to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Still, it is the Catholic Church alone that truly has the “unity in diversity” of all the Churches of the East and West in union with the Pope. The Orthodox Churches are totally independent and ethnical. It’s not how the Church should be for she should embrace all peoples of all time, places, and culture. The OC’s first among equal bishop of Constantinople is just a mere decoration. He is first but doesn’t have a teeth to grind when it comes to ultimate decisions that will be involved in the Orthodox Churches. There is no real unity there, nor even ultimate authority to adhere.
Just some grave sins they already cave in are:divorce and contraception. We don’t know what else will follow, unless they comeback to Rome.

Pio