Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[Randy_Carson]

You are right St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. However, he did not unilaterally make the decision on the matter of what parts of the Jewish law Gentile converts had to follow. Just because the Apostolic Council agreed with St. Peter does not mean that it had to agree with him. The point is that St. Peter did not have the authority to unilaterally make the decision, but submitted the matter to a council of the Apostles and Priests in Jerusalem for a decision and that the letter conveying the decision of the Council was not written in the name of St. Peter but in the name of the Council. All major decisions of the pre-schism Church was made by a council. Take the Tome of Leo. Pope St. Leo submitted the statement to the Council of Chalcedon which heard it and agreed. He did not make a unilateral decision on the matter of Monophysitism.

Archpriest John W. Morris

A point that the Church in Rome often glosses over. Thank you for pointing that out, Father.

Gentlemen:

The letter came from the “Council” because those who had been harassed by the Judaizers already knew what Peter, Paul and Barnabas thought on the matter. So, the letter assured them that James’ boys would leave them alone in the future because the Judaizers from Jerusalem and environs would have James quoted to them if they tried to stir up any more trouble.

And by the way, notice that James slips in a few provisions about strangled animals, etc…why do you suppose he did that? He was throwing a bone to the Judaizers who had just suffered a stinging doctrinal defeat under Pope Peter’s authority.

 

[spina1953]

I knew of the Book of Concord and that it held the beliefs as acceped by te Elector of Saxony and Lutheran princes and nobility in 1577. Yes, I did mean Acts Chapter 15. However, I saw it as James agreeing with Peter not the one deciding the decision but that there was an agreement concerning Jewish deitary laws and whether or not Gentiles had to follow it… I also think what James dicussed was a seperate issue from Paul and Barnabas wanting to address the assembly. I am not sure that Peter spoke first as it seemed to me that there was quite a bit of discussion going on before Peter spoke. I think that there were other issues being talked about that we do not know as Luke did not write about as he only wrote to tell what he knew of at that time he was writing about. It also my undersatanding that if not all, then most of the Apostles were in the assembly and if so they would have backed up Peter as their leader. I also think that Peter would have listened to all before speaking. We all know from the Gospels that Peter sometimes got it wrong and was corrected. If the assembly agreed with Peter then they were in union with him, which is the whole point of a Pope decreeing the decisions he makes which is always as I understand it bishops in union with Pope.

 

[spina1953]

Randy Carson: Good call on your part. I did not think of that but it sure sounds right on to me concerning the Council and James and Peter and the letter James wrote on behalf of Paul and Barmabas.

 

[frjohnmorris]

BTW, John Cardinal Newman says yes:

“Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore** it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later**.”

I would not be surprised to read that from the writings of a liberal Protestant, because that is an illustration of their basic attitude that they know more than the Fathers or even the Holy Scriptures because they live in an “enlightened” age. The result of that attitude in Protestantism has been the total surrender to the secular culture that has resulted in the total rejection of traditional Christian doctrinal and moral positions and has led to all sorts of heresies, including the rejection of the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the denial of the incarnation, women’s ordination, and the blessing of same sex unions. I am shocked to read such sentiments expressed by a person defending Roman Catholicism. Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ is the full and complete revelation of God to mankind. There is no development of doctrine beyond that expressed by the Holy Tradition of the Church which is the preservation of the revelation of Christ to His Apostles as manifested by the consensus of the Fathers and the Church speaking through the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris:thumbsup:

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would not be surprised to read that from the writings of a liberal Protestant, because that is an illustration of their basic attitude that they know more than the Fathers or even the Holy Scriptures because they live in an “enlightened” age. The result of that attitude in Protestantism has been the total surrender to the secular culture that has resulted in the total rejection of traditional Christian doctrinal and moral positions and has led to all sorts of heresies, including the rejection of the divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures, the denial of the incarnation, women’s ordination, and the blessing of same sex unions. I am shocked to read such sentiments expressed by a person defending Roman Catholicism. Orthodox believe that Jesus Christ is the full and complete revelation of God to mankind. There is no development of doctrine beyond that expressed by the Holy Tradition of the Church which is the preservation of the revelation of Christ to His Apostles as manifested by the consensus of the Fathers and the Church speaking through the 7 Ecumenical Councils.

Archpriest John W. Morris:thumbsup:

But Cardinal Newman was an high-Church Anglican, and his book was written as he evaluated the claims of Catholicism. The more he studied, the more he realized that he had to become a Catholic. And since he was elevated to Cardinal, I think it is fair to say that he was no liberal Protestant.

If there is no development of doctrine, Father, then what are Orthodox theologians doing with all their free time?

However, you make a strong case for Vladimir Soloviev’s assessment that Orthodoxy has ossified.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Gentlemen:

The letter came from the “Council” because those who had been harassed by the Judaizers already knew what Peter, Paul and Barnabas thought on the matter. So, the letter assured them that James’ boys would leave them alone in the future because the Judaizers from Jerusalem and environs would have James quoted to them if they tried to stir up any more trouble.

And by the way, notice that James slips in a few provisions about strangled animals, etc…why do you suppose he did that? He was throwing a bone to the Judaizers who had just suffered a stinging doctrinal defeat under Pope Peter’s authority.

What you are doing is eisegesis. That is you are reading your own opinion into the Biblical text. I think it is clear from the actual text, that St. Peter submitted his opinion to a council of the Apostles for ratification. You are giving St. Peter much more authority than is justified by the actual Biblical text. If the ancient Apostolic Church had recognized St. Peter as possessing the authority of a modern Pope, St. Peter would have simply issued a decree and the matter would have been settled. We also have the examples of the 7 Ecumenical Councils which alone had the authority to make decrees on doctrine and practice binding on the whole Church. There is no incident during the time of the ancient undivided Church in which the Bishop of Rome resolved a doctrinal dispute by issuing papal decree or speaking “ex cathedra.” Once again I point to the Tome Leo. For it to have ecumenical authority, it had to be ratified by an Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the 4th Ecumenical Council. Pope St. Leo did not have the power to resolve the dispute over Monophysitism on his own authority, but had to submit his Tome to an Ecumenical Council for approval.

Archpriest John W. Morris

 

[Peter_J]

But Cardinal Newman was an high-Church Anglican, and his book was written as he evaluated the claims of Catholicism. The more he studied, the more he realized that he had to become a Catholic.

Certainly, statements like “We are not fishing in the Anglican pond” (Cardinal Kasper) were not being made in the 19th century. Don’t think you need to convince any of us of that.

In fact, if I’m not mistaken, the term “ecumenism of return” didn’t exist back then because Catholics generally didn’t conceive of any kind of ecumenism that wasn’t about non-Catholics becoming Catholic.

 

[Randy_Carson]

What you are doing is eisegesis. That is you are reading your own opinion into the Biblical text. I think it is clear from the actual text, that St. Peter submitted his opinion to a council of the Apostles for ratification. You are giving St. Peter much more authority than is justified by the actual Biblical text. If the ancient Apostolic Church had recognized St. Peter as possessing the authority of a modern Pope, St. Peter would have simply issued a decree and the matter would have been settled. We also have the examples of the 7 Ecumenical Councils which alone had the authority to make decrees on doctrine and practice binding on the whole Church. There is no incident during the time of the ancient undivided Church in which the Bishop of Rome resolved a doctrinal dispute by issuing papal decree or speaking “ex cathedra.” Once again I point to the Tome Leo. For it to have ecumenical authority, it had to be ratified by an Ecumenical Council, the Council of Chalcedon in 451, the 4th Ecumenical Council. Pope St. Leo did not have the power to resolve the dispute over Monophysitism on his own authority, but had to submit his Tome to an Ecumenical Council for approval.

Archpriest John W. Morris

I’m familiar with the term “eisegesis”, Father, and no, I am not engaging in it. Elsewhere, I have provided you with a lengthy explanation of the events surrounding the Jerusalem Council. Unless I missed it, I do not think you have provided any reply other than your fall-back position regarding “7 ecumenical councils…etc, etc.”.

Let’s review:

• I have provided scriptural evidence showing the Jesus established Peter as the head of the Church: Peter is the Rock, the keeper of the keys, the Vicarious Shepherd of the One Flock, and the Royal Stewart in the household of Jesus, the Eternal King; (and let me say here that how anyone can ignore the obvious connection between Mt. 16:18 and Is. 22:20-22 is beyond me);
• I have demonstrated how Peter established the doctrine followed by the Council of Jerusalem and, significantly, I explained why James had to speak as he did to silence his own local flock;
• I have offered Bl. John Cardinal Newman’s crystal-clear explanation of “why” the “ancient Apostolic Church [did not recognize] St. Peter as possessing the authority of a modern Pope” - an explanation which which silences all other arguments, IMO.

All I have received in return is dismissive comments suggesting that my arguments are “adolescent” and “7 Councils”, “7 Councils”, “7 Councils” over and over and over again.

Let me ask you this question: We both agree that Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brethren, correct? And after the stoning of Stephen, persecution of the Church broke out in Jerusalem, and the apostles were scattered, right? So, if one apostle went to India and another traveled into Gaul or even England, and ran into trouble, Peter would still be responsible for strengthening them, wouldn’t he? And if disputes broke out in those Churches established by those Apostles, Peter would still have the burden of travelling to those distant locales and strengthening and supporting his brothers including their successors after they were martyred, wouldn’t he?

So, exactly when and where were the boundaries of Peter’s jurisdiction mapped out?

Can you show me a single verse of scripture which suggests that Peter was NOT the head of the Universal Church?

 

[RyanBlack]

But Cardinal Newman was an high-Church Anglican, and his book was written as he evaluated the claims of Catholicism. The more he studied, the more he realized that he had to become a Catholic. And since he was elevated to Cardinal, I think it is fair to say that he was no liberal Protestant.

If there is no development of doctrine, Father, then what are Orthodox theologians doing with all their free time?

However, you make a strong case for Vladimir Soloviev’s assessment that Orthodoxy has ossified.

Why don’t you actually bother to read some of them, and find out for yourself?

 

[spina1953]

The Apostolic Council falls as I see it, designelly in the middle of Acts, for it is the turning point of Lukes story, when the apostolic and presbyteral college of Jerusalem officially reconizes the evangelization of the Gentiles, which has been initiated by first Peter, and Paul and Barnabas. So the Christian Church officially breaks out of its Jewish matrix. This last act that Luke records of Peter and the apostolic college; the 12 now disperse and the mother Church of Jerusalem will continue under the direction of James. Luke in presenting the events of the Jerusalem Council, the council handled two issues; circumcision and the dietary problems. Luke has this so that he might stress the break with Judaism without any condition bring laid on Gentile converts by the apostolic and presbyteral college of Jerusalem. Luke presents Peter as the one whose voice prevails in the question of circumcisim through the appeal to his experiences (Cornellius episode). The Lucan formulation to see the Apostles and elders in Jerusalem; The officials of the Jerusalem Church are clearly specified, they are distingushed from the whole Church. The sedes apostolica was to consulted.

 

[josie_L]

I’m glad you’re enjoying your book, but is that any reason to make up terms in order to pretend that Eastern Orthodox are Protestants just because you are more comfortable trying to fit others into that binary way of looking at the world (where everything that isn’t Catholic is “Protestant” by default)?

Also, if the East has never convened an ecumenical council, why are the 7 that Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox both agree to the pronouncements of (with some variations, e.g., the different number of accepted canons at Constantinople I) considered ecumenical in both traditions? **This is true despite the fact that they were all convened by Eastern emperors, and none were presided over by, nor attended by, the Roman Pope. So that’s a little odd, don’t you think? **When did they stop being ecumenical for Rome and those within her? I would have thought they still are.

First, emperors did summon bishops to appear on some theological matter in some part of the empire at some point in time (because they had the means to do so), however, this does not mean that the emperor did not do so at the behest of particular bishops, i.e., “convening” a council does not preclude initiating one. Second, ecumenical councils were “presided over” by Roman legates who represented the Pope, here’s an excerpt from Chalcedon:

Paschasinus the bishop of Lilybaeum, in the province of Silicia, and holding the place of the most holy Leo, archbishop of the Apostolic see of old Rome, said in Latin what being interpreted is as follows: It is well known to this beloved of God synod, that divine (1) letters were sent to the blessed and apostolic pope Leo, inviting him to deign to be present at the holy synod. But since ancient custom did not sanction this, nor the general necessity of the time seemed to permit it, our littleness in the place of himself he ta ths agias sunodou , and therefore it is necessary that whatever things are brought into discussion should be examined by our interference ( dialalias ). [The Latin reads where I have placed the Greek of the ordinary text, thus, “commanded our littleness to preside in his place over this holy council.”] Therefore let the book presented by our most beloved-of-God brother, and fellow-bishop Eusebius be received, and read by the beloved of God archdeacon and primicerius of the notaries, Aetius.

It was customary (ancient) for popes to send legates to councils to preside over, in fact, the first session of Chalcedon further confirms this:

EXTRACTS FROM THE ACTS.

SESSION I.

(Labbe and Cossart, Concilia, Tom. IV., col. 93.)

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, stood up in the midst with his most reverend colleagues and said: We received directions at the hands of the most blessed and apostolic bishop of the Roman city, which is the head of all the churches, which directions say that Dioscorus is not to be allowed a seat in this assembly, but that if he should attempt to take his seat he is to be cast out. This instruction we must carry out; if now your holiness so commands let him be expelled or else we leave. (1)

The most glorious judges and the full senate said: What special charge do you prefer against the most reverend bishop Dioscorus?

Paschasinus, the most reverend bishop and legate of the Apostolic See, said: Since he has come, it is necessary that objection be made to him.

The most glorious judges and the whole senate said: In accordance with what has been said, let the charge under which he lies, be specifically made.

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place. (2)

Paschasinus the most reverend bishop, holding the place of the Apostolic See, said: We cannot go counter to the decrees of the most blessed and apostolic bishop “Pope” for “bishop” in the Latin], who governs the Apostolic See, nor against the ecclesiastical canons nor the patristic traditions.

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp

 

[Misplaced_Book]

But Cardinal Newman was an high-Church Anglican, and his book was written as he evaluated the claims of Catholicism. The more he studied, the more he realized that he had to become a Catholic. And since he was elevated to Cardinal, I think it is fair to say that he was no liberal Protestant.

If there is no development of doctrine, Father, then what are Orthodox theologians doing with all their free time?

However, you make a strong case for Vladimir Soloviev’s assessment that Orthodoxy has ossified.

Praying, Randy. That is what they were doing. Theologians are people illumined by the Spirit, people of prayer. The idea of Theology as a scholarly pursuit is foreign to us (Although many theologians we also scholars). Sadly the word has become synonymous with religious scholar but this is a recent development (theres that word again)

How have we ossified? What else is there besides what God has revealed to us? Is Revelation and Apostolic Tradition not enough? Why this obsession with novelty?

 

[RyanBlack]

First, emperors did summon bishops to appear on some theological matter in some part of the empire at some point in time (because they had the means to do so), however, this does not mean that the emperor did not do so at the behest of particular bishops, i.e., “convening” a council does not preclude initiating one. Second, ecumenical councils were “presided over” by Roman legates who represented the Pope, here’s an excerpt from Chalcedon:

It was customary (ancient) for popes to send legates to councils to preside over, in fact, the first session of Chalcedon further confirms this:

fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp

Papal legates presided at some of the ecumenical councils, and weren’t even present for all of them.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Praying, Randy. That is what they were doing. Theologians are people illumined by the Spirit, people of prayer. The idea of Theology as a scholarly pursuit is foreign to us (Although many theologians we also scholars). Sadly the word has become synonymous with religious scholar but this is a recent development (theres that word again)

How have we ossified? What else is there besides what God has revealed to us? Is Revelation and Apostolic Tradition not enough? Why this obsession with novelty?

The answers are in these three short paragraphs:

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
from The Map of Life by Frank J. Sheed
ewtn.com/library/spirit/maplif.txt

The Church then, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case she would have been a preserver of truth–but scarcely a teacher [ossification]. She would have been a piece of human machinery, but not a living thing, not the Mystical Body of Christ.** In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.**

A rough comparison may make the position clear: a man brought into a dark room begins by distinguishing little: then he sees certain patches of shadow blacker than the rest: bit by bit he sees these as a table and chairs: then, as his eyes grow accustomed to the obscurity, he sees things smaller still–pictures, books, ash trays–and so on to the smallest detail. Nothing has been added to the contents of the room: but there has been an immense growth in his knowledge of the contents. So with the Church. She has, generation by generation, seen deeper and deeper. This development in the Church’s understanding of what has been committed to her is not like anything else in the world. Science, for instance, progresses, but its progress consists to a large extent in discovering and discarding its own errors. The teaching of the Church develops by seeing further truths. At every stage the Church adds something: but not at the cost of discarding anything. At every stage all she teaches is true: at no stage does she teach all that is contained in the Truth.

This development–which we find in theology and nowhere else–combines two things: the work of men’s minds, the over-ruling protection of God. In theology, as in science, progress comes by the minds of men working on what they have been taught: but left to themselves, men may simply make further mistakes. In science they do so. In the teaching of the Church they do not: and the reason is that God intervenes, to prevent the teaching of error by His Church. God’s actions–whether revelation or sacrament or miracle-- are never labour-saving devices: God does not do them to save men the trouble of doing what they can very well do for themselves. In revelation, for instance, God teaches men what they could not (at any rate could not with absolute sureness) find out for themselves: but having given them that, He leaves it to them to meditate upon it and arrive at a clearer understanding of it. He does not do their thinking for them.

+++

So, it’s not an “obsession with novelty”. It’s an awareness that development happens as we (your own theologians included) think about and pray about what God has revealed to us.

 

[josie_L]

Papal legates presided at some of the ecumenical councils, and weren’t even present for all of them.

Because they were not ecumenical when convened at the time (the first council of Constantinople was meant to be a regional council) or they were irregular in their set up. I think part of the excerpt I quoted from Chalcedon mentions this:

Lucentius, the most reverend bishop having the place of the Apostolic See, said: Let him give a reason for his judgment. For he undertook to give sentence against one over whom he had no jurisdiction. And he dared to hold a synod without the authority of the Apostolic See, a thing which had never taken place nor can take place. (2)

 

[Misplaced_Book]

The answers are in these three short paragraphs:

DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
from The Map of Life by Frank J. Sheed
ewtn.com/library/spirit/maplif.txt

The Church then, by the time the last apostle died, had all the mass of truth the apostles had taught, the whole of it by word of mouth, a part of it in writing. She might have simply gone on, through the nineteen centuries since, repeating what had been taught, reading what had been written. In this case she would have been a preserver of truth–but scarcely a teacher [ossification]. She would have been a piece of human machinery, but not a living thing, not the Mystical Body of Christ.** In fact, she not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.**

A rough comparison may make the position clear: a man brought into a dark room begins by distinguishing little: then he sees certain patches of shadow blacker than the rest: bit by bit he sees these as a table and chairs: then, as his eyes grow accustomed to the obscurity, he sees things smaller still–pictures, books, ash trays–and so on to the smallest detail. Nothing has been added to the contents of the room: but there has been an immense growth in his knowledge of the contents. So with the Church. She has, generation by generation, seen deeper and deeper. This development in the Church’s understanding of what has been committed to her is not like anything else in the world. Science, for instance, progresses, but its progress consists to a large extent in discovering and discarding its own errors. The teaching of the Church develops by seeing further truths. At every stage the Church adds something: but not at the cost of discarding anything. At every stage all she teaches is true: at no stage does she teach all that is contained in the Truth.

This development–which we find in theology and nowhere else–combines two things: the work of men’s minds, the over-ruling protection of God. In theology, as in science, progress comes by the minds of men working on what they have been taught: but left to themselves, men may simply make further mistakes. In science they do so. In the teaching of the Church they do not: and the reason is that God intervenes, to prevent the teaching of error by His Church. God’s actions–whether revelation or sacrament or miracle-- are never labour-saving devices: God does not do them to save men the trouble of doing what they can very well do for themselves. In revelation, for instance, God teaches men what they could not (at any rate could not with absolute sureness) find out for themselves: but having given them that, He leaves it to them to meditate upon it and arrive at a clearer understanding of it. He does not do their thinking for them.

+++

So, it’s not an “obsession with novelty”. It’s an awareness that development happens as we (your own theologians included) think about and pray about what God has revealed to us.

You still haven’t answered the question of how we have ossified. I know Rome’s understanding of development but we too have gone through the Centuries…there is no stagnation here.

 

[RyanBlack]

Because they were not ecumenical when convened at the time (the first council of Constantinople was meant to be a regional council) or they were irregular in their set up. I think part of the excerpt I quoted from Chalcedon mentions this:

Even you accept this reasoning (and I’m not sure that I do), it does not change the fact that your statement needs to be qualified with the word “some.” It’s a matter of historical that not everyone who presided over an ecumenical council was a papal delegate.

 

[Randy_Carson]

You still haven’t answered the question of how we have ossified. I know Rome’s understanding of development but we too have gone through the Centuries…there is no stagnation here.

MB-

First, I would be delighted to learn that you have not “ossified”. This idea was presented by Vladimir Soloviev, and his ideas and book are being discussed a little in another thread as you know.

My Own opinion would be the same as Sheed’s which you just read; namely, I don’t see how it would be possible for folks NOT to develop new ideas and make new connections as they reflect on the Divine Revelation.

However, many EO posting in these threads over the past few weeks have pointedly told me with obvious pride that they cling to the Old Faith in contradistinction to the Novelties of Rome. (They might be surprised that Catholics do both.) So, it seems to me that EO take great pains to “preserve” the faith of the fathers while looking upon theological development with disdain or distrust. Since ossify means “cease developing”, it is the perfect word for what many EO seem to aspire to.

Again, I’m not saying it is the case, but that’s what I’m HEARING from EO, and that’s what Soloviev observed as an EO himself apparently.

BTW, I have no basis for this other than a wild guess, but I wonder if our SSPX are of similar mindset?

 

[frjohnmorris]

You still haven’t answered the question of how we have ossified. I know Rome’s understanding of development but we too have gone through the Centuries…there is no stagnation here.

The whole idea of development of doctrine is foreign to Eastern Orthodoxy. Our sincere belief is that we must reject any doctrine that is not based on the Holy Tradition as expressed by the consensus of the Fathers and the dogmas proclaimed by the 7 Ecumenical Councils. Besides that we must study and analyze any doctrine to see if it is simply a modern way of expressing the Holy Tradition or is a distortion of Holy Tradition. I cannot accept the papacy as currently constituted as a legitimate expression of the Holy Tradition of the Church. I believe that our conciliar model is much more faithful to the Holy Tradition than giving all power to one man who is not accountable to the higher authority of a Holy Synod of the other Bishops in his Patriarchate or the whole Church gathered in Ecumenical Council. I can accept the Pope as having a position like that of the Ecumenical Patriarch in the Orthodox Church, but cannot ever accept the absolute monarch like rule of the Pope as it is in the modern Catholic Church.

Archpriest John W. Morris

Archpriest John W. Morri

 

[Randy_Carson]

MB-

There is the confirmation of what Soloviev said. Unfortunately, it flies in the face of reason. As Frank Sheed pointed out,

[The Catholic Church] not only repeated what the apostles had been taught: she thought about it, meditated on it, prayed by it, lived it. And, doing all this, the Church came to see further and further depths of truth in it. And, seeing these, she taught these too. Everything was contained in what Christ had given the apostles to give the Church: but though everything was there, it was not all seen explicitly–not all at once.

Since the Orthodox were members of the Catholic Church (that name having first been recorded by Ignatius of Antioch), it stands to reason that ALL Catholics (including those who now choose to go by another name) would have been perfectly content with Sheed’s description prior to 1054 (or whatever date you prefer).

However, in order to avoid the obvious implications of doctrinal development of the papacy, the modern day EO are forced to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and say, “We will go this far and no farther.”

Can you imagine this principle at work in the early Church? An early Christian might have argued, "No, I cannot accept (the canon, the hypostasis, the theotokos, the trinity, etc.) because THAT did not come directly from Peter, Paul, Polycarp, Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp, or Irenaeus. Really? The idea is absurd - or should I say, “adolescent”.

The Church spent a LOT of time considering the revelation delivered once for all to the Apostles, etc., and they - what’s that? - they DEVELOPED their understanding of that revelation as needed. The papacy is no different. It has developed as the need for understanding has arisen. The papacy is different because the world is different.

But let’s be clear: some put their fingers into their ears saying, “Lalalalalalalalalal…I’m not listening…lalalalalalala” because the ecclesiological implications of this are profound.