Sola Concilium and the Eastern Orthodox

[GaryTaylor]

Hey Father we “all” agree V-I needs to be reconciled. You see I don’t venture into the “Traditional” area. I could debate that at home and listen to all that. I disagree with them. And there TLM is a front for their agenda. I grew up in the TLM, yes, yes, yes, its beautiful. I “disagree” if I don’t attend I’m condemned by Christ. And I disagree if I don’t attend the Divine Liturgy. I’m condemned by Christ. That’s the nut and bolts of the conversation for me.

 

[spina1953]

3
I doubt that any informed and knowledgable Catholic thinks that the Donation of Constantantine is an authentic document.

 

[GaryTaylor]

3

I doubt that any informed and knowledgable Catholic thinks that the Donation of Constantantine is  an authentic document.

That was a reach, a chase of the wind.

 

[frjohnmorris]

CONCLUSION ON “KEYS” OF MATTHEW 16:19

(A) The keys of the kingdom represent authoritative teaching, and Peter’s role as holder of the keys is fulfilled now on earth as Christ’s chief teacher;

(B) The keeper of the keys, according to the background of Matthew 16:19, has authority within the house as administrator and teacher (cf. Isaiah 22);

(C) The authority of the keys is likened to that of the teachers of the Law in Jesus’ day, and the correct interpretation of the Law given by Jesus is accessible to the early community (the Church) through the tradition of Peter;

(D) The authority of the keys of the kingdom (Matt 16:19) are not different from the key of David (Isaiah 22:22; Rev 3:7), since Jesus controls and is in possession of both;

(E) Therefore, the keys (or “key” singular) represent FULL authorization, FULL authority, PLENARY authority, SUPREME authority;



(F) The keys of the kingdom are NOT to be understood as merely entrance keys (or “opening the door of faith” to the Gentiles), but rather to the bundle of keys carried by the chief steward who regulated the affairs of the entire household (cf. Isaiah 22), which in the New Covenant is Christ’s universal Church (cf. Matt 16:18; 1 Tim 3:15);

(G) Peter, as holder of the keys, is not merely the “gatekeeper of heaven” or “doorkeeper” but is therefore the Chief Steward of the Kingdom of Heaven (the Church) on earth;

(H) Further, the power of the keys can represent baptismal or penitential discipline, excommunication, exclusion from the Eucharist, legislative powers or the power of governing the affairs of the Church;

(I) The language of “binding” and “loosing” is Rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching or a teaching function (or “Halakhic” pronouncements), denoting the authoritative declaration that an action is permitted or forbidden by the law of Moses, and in the Church the authority to pronounce judgment on unbelievers and promise forgiveness to believers;

(J) The “binding” and “loosing” refers to the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the early community, which Jesus was establishing through His apostles in His Church) to declare a commandment or teaching binding or not binding, forbidden or allowed, and God in heaven will ratify, seal, or confirm that decision made on earth (cf. Matthew 16:19; 18:18).

I think that it is rather clear that the prophecy in Isaiah 22 applies to Christ, not to St. Peter. It is a real stretch to apply this prophecy to St. Peter who never acted in the way described in Isaiah.
The Keys of the Kingdom that Our Lord mentions in St. Matthew 16 is the authority to pronounce absolution. In St. Matthew 16: 19 Our Lord spoke in the future tense. The promise He made to St. Peter was fulfilled when Our Lord gave the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins to all His Apostles after His Resurrection. St. John 20:20-23. It should be obvious that the power to bind and loose applies to the words of Our Lord to all the Apostles, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." The Prayer of Absolution in the Eastern Orthodox funeral expresses this with the words, “Our Lord Jesus Christ by his divine grace, as also by the gift and power vouchsafed unto his holy Disciples and Apostles, that they should bind and loose the sins of men…” shows that the power to bind and loose refers to the authority given by Christ to His Apostles to pronounce the forgiveness of sins.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

“I RESPOND: I disagree. If a person has authority to do something, there would be historical examples of him doing it and there would also be recognition by others that he had that authority. The ancient Popes did not have the authority to resolve issues by papal decree and there is no evidence from the practice of the Church that the consensus of the Fathers believed that the Bishop of Rome had such authority. However, there are plenty of examples of Bishops who did not hesitate to tell the Bishop of Rome that they disagreed with him as St. Paul did with St. Peter in Antioch.”

BUT you still have no response for the very quotes from the eastern Bishops mentioned. You are wrong about the Popes authority. Obvious if you can’t concede the Church was built on the “person” of Peter which indeed it was. As to the Pope acting unilaterally I refer you to the “Traditional Forum”

BUT the consensus of the Fathers indeed reflects my own thinking as detailed. Who disagreed with whom is evident and how consensus was sought. Peter and Paul only indicate the authority of each Bishop to veto, which you claimed didn’t exist historically.

 

[Bballer32]

I think that it is rather clear that the prophecy in Isaiah 22 applies to Christ, not to St. Peter. It is a real stretch to apply this prophecy to St. Peter who never acted in the way described in Isaiah.
Fr. John

Eliakim is the governor of the King of Hilkiah. As governor, he was given a handed-on authority. And, even if this authority was pointed towards Christ, then why did he specifically tell St. Peter that he would hand him the keys of the kingdom? He is demonstrating the handed down authority by appointing Peter as the governor once Christ leaves the earth.

 

[spina1953]

I think that it is rather clear that the prophecy in Isaiah 22 applies to Christ, not to St. Peter. It is a real stretch to apply this prophecy to St. Peter who never acted in the way described in Isaiah.
The Keys of the Kingdom that Our Lord mentions in St. Matthew 16 is the authority to pronounce absolution. In St. Matthew 16: 19 Our Lord spoke in the future tense. The promise He made to St. Peter was fulfilled when Our Lord gave the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins to all His Apostles after His Resurrection. St. John 20:20-23. It should be obvious that the power to bind and loose applies to the words of Our Lord to all the Apostles, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained." The Prayer of Absolution in the Eastern Orthodox funeral expresses this with the words, “Our Lord Jesus Christ by his divine grace, as also by the gift and power vouchsafed unto his holy Disciples and Apostles, that they should bind and loose the sins of men…” shows that the power to bind and loose refers to the authority given by Christ to His Apostles to pronounce the forgiveness of sins.

Fr. John

You will have to forgive me but no where did it say that Jesus said in Matt. 16 the authority to pronounce absolution. While in John 20:20-23 Jesus did give authority to all His Apostles for the forgiveness of sins but was not Peter there also? Why would Jesus not say to Peter you have the authority to forgive sins and also tell the rest of the Apostles the same thing at that time Matt. 16 is talking about? I think the passages are talking about two important but different things.

 

[frjohnmorris]

“I RESPOND: I disagree. If a person has authority to do something, there would be historical examples of him doing it and there would also be recognition by others that he had that authority. The ancient Popes did not have the authority to resolve issues by papal decree and there is no evidence from the practice of the Church that the consensus of the Fathers believed that the Bishop of Rome had such authority. However, there are plenty of examples of Bishops who did not hesitate to tell the Bishop of Rome that they disagreed with him as St. Paul did with St. Peter in Antioch.”

BUT you still have no response for the very quotes from the eastern Bishops mentioned. You are wrong about the Popes authority. Obvious if you can’t concede the Church was built on the “person” of Peter which indeed it was. As to the Pope acting unilaterally I refer you to the “Traditional Forum”

BUT the consensus of the Fathers indeed reflects my own thinking as detailed. Who disagreed with whom is evident and how consensus was sought. Peter and Paul only indicate the authority of each Bishop to veto, which you claimed didn’t exist historically.

As I have already written, Eastern Bishops like St. John Chrysostom appealed to Rome, but he also appealed to Milan and several other powerful Western Bishops.
Roman Catholics are very good at taking statements of the Fathers out of context to try to prove their argument. However, if one looks at the actual texts in context, they have a very different meaning than Roman Catholics attribute to them. You also have to consider the fact that according to Eastern Orthodox theology all Bishops are in a sense successors to St. Peter. St. Cyprian expresses this when he wrote that the episcopate is one. Roman Catholics take St. Irenaeus out of context, and then neglect to mention that he did not hesistate to reprimand Pope Victor for exceeding his authority when he tried to force the Churches in what is now Turkey to follow the Roman practice for the dating of Easter.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

I think that it is rather clear that the prophecy in Isaiah 22 applies to Christ, not to St. Peter. It is a real stretch to apply this prophecy to St. Peter who never acted in the way described in Isaiah.

That’s addressed above

The Keys of the Kingdom that Our Lord mentions in St. Matthew 16 is the authority to pronounce absolution.

But only according to you against a good amount of evidence. What supports your thinking with patristic writing in the early Church pre schism 1054?

In St. Matthew 16: 19 Our Lord spoke in the future tense.

Upon this Rock “I will” build my Church.

The promise He made to St. Peter was fulfilled when Our Lord gave the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins

Bind and Loose? It was given in the same verse, “then” to the other Apostles with no mention of Church or Keys. That’s called “spin”.

to all His Apostles after His Resurrection. St. John 20:20-23.

And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord.

Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you

And with that he breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Spirit

If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained."

Christ directed the apostles to declare the only method by which sin would be forgiven, nothing more. And by HIs breath that authority is given.

It should be obvious that the power to bind and loose applies to the words of Our Lord to all the Apostles, “If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained."

Has no relation to the Keys or the Church built on the person of Peter. Its not there.

The Prayer of Absolution in the Eastern Orthodox funeral expresses this with the words, “Our Lord Jesus Christ by his divine grace, as also by the gift and power vouchsafed unto his holy Disciples and Apostles, that they should bind and loose the sins of men…” shows that the power to bind and loose refers to the authority given by Christ to His Apostles to pronounce the forgiveness of sins.

Doesn’t change the issue I present.

 

[GaryTaylor]

As I have already written, Eastern Bishops like St. John Chrysostom appealed to Rome, but he also appealed to Milan and several other powerful Western Bishops.

I’m talking about the quotations mentioned which Nick addressed.

Roman Catholics are very good at taking statements of the Fathers out of context to try to prove their argument.

I don’t see where we did that in what we are relating about here at least. I could say the same about the polemical Eastern sights on Original Sin-Augustine and guilt? And this Biblical understanding? Its non existent historically or are you going to prove your point?

Just google Eastern Orthodoxy and Original Sin and watch the EO tell us what we believe.

However, if one looks at the actual texts in context, they have a very different meaning than Roman Catholics attribute to them.

I’m listening and waiting for you to show me.

You also have to consider the fact that according to Eastern Orthodox theology all Bishops are in a sense successors to St. Peter. St. Cyprian expresses this when he wrote that the episcopate is one.

St Cyprian affirmed the primacy in Unity its a fact. No father all Bishops are successors to the line of succession in their See.

Roman Catholics take St. Irenaeus out of context, and then neglect to mention that he did not hesistate to reprimand Pope Victor for exceeding his authority when he tried to force the Churches in what is now Turkey to follow the Roman practice for the dating of Easter.

I have all his writings, in fact they are on line books 1-5. I haven’t discussed him but once when he clearly cited Romes power and principality. He didn’t mention this in relation to anyone else, did he?

Much Roman Catholics do this and that chant here. Yet look at the mythical EO sights on Augustine and guilt. Its a “myth”. Two sides to the charge? The Bible history to coincide with your understanding I’ll assume is forthcoming?

 

[Bballer32]

As I have already written, Eastern Bishops like St. John Chrysostom appealed to Rome, but he also appealed to Milan and several other powerful Western Bishops.
Roman Catholics are very good at taking statements of the Fathers out of context to try to prove their argument. However, if one looks at the actual texts in context, they have a very different meaning than Roman Catholics attribute to them. You also have to consider the fact that according to Eastern Orthodox theology all Bishops are in a sense successors to St. Peter. St. Cyprian expresses this when he wrote that the episcopate is one. Roman Catholics take St. Irenaeus out of context, and then neglect to mention that he did not hesistate to reprimand Pope Victor for exceeding his authority when he tried to force the Churches in what is now Turkey to follow the Roman practice for the dating of Easter.

Fr. John

The Orthodox also tend to overlook what St. Peter Chrysologus said in his letter to Eutyches about submitting to his superiors especially to Rome. The significance of this section of the letter is that Chrysologus is unaware of the contact made between Pope Leo 1 and Eutyches and yet somehow he still tends to explain the authority upon which Rome has been given.

We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to head obediently what has been written by the Most Blessed Pope of the City of Rome; for Blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the City of Rome. [Letter no. 25 A.D. 449]

The Orthodox also overlook what St. Optatus said when writing to the Donatists about their disconnection from the cathedra of St. Peter which just so happens to be in Rome and no where else.

You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rom the episcopal Chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head- that is why he is also called Cephas-of all the Apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do other Apostles proceed individually on their own; and anyone who would set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. It was Peter, then, who first occupied that chair, the foremost of his endowed gifts. He was succeeded by Linus, Linus was succeeded by Clement, clement by Anencletus…Damasus by Siricius, our present incumbent…I but ask you to recall the origins of your chair, you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of Holy Church. [The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 A.D. 367]

 

[frjohnmorris]

That’s addressed above

But only according to you against a good amount of evidence. What supports your thinking with patristic writing in the early Church pre schism 1054?

Upon this Rock “I will” build my Church.
Bind and Loose? It was given in the same verse, “then” to the other Apostles with no mention of Church or Keys. That’s called “spin”.
And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord.
Again Jesus said, "Peace be with you! As the Father has sent me, I am sending you
And with that he breathed on them and said, “Receive the Holy Spirit
If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
Christ directed the apostles to declare the only method by which sin would be forgiven, nothing more. And by HIs breath that authority is given.

Has no relation to the Keys or the Church built on the person of Peter. Its not there.

Doesn’t change the issue I present.

On that we disagree. The Church is built on the faith confessed by St. Peter not the person of Peter.
The Fathers agree that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. However, that does not mean that they accorded to him the authority claimed by modern Popes.
Fathers who write that the Church is built on Faith in Christ include St. John Chrysostom wrote. St. Athanasius, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. St. John of Damascus’ “On the Orthodox Faith” is considered the best summary of the Fathers. He makes no mention of Petrine authority or of the authority of the Popes. If papal authority were an essential doctrine of the Church, St. John of Damascus would have mentioned it.
The Keys of the Kingdom refer to the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins given to all the Apostles.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

On that we disagree. The Church is built on the faith confessed by St. Peter not the person of Peter.
The Fathers agree that St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles. However, that does not mean that they accorded to him the authority claimed by modern Popes.
Fathers who write that the Church is built on Faith in Christ include St. John Chrysostom wrote. St. Athanasius, and St. Cyril of Jerusalem. St. John of Damascus’ “On the Orthodox Faith” is considered the best summary of the Fathers. He makes no mention of Petrine authority or of the authority of the Popes. If papal authority were an essential doctrine of the Church, St. John of Damascus would have mentioned it.
The Keys of the Kingdom refer to the authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins given to all the Apostles.

Fr. John

Well my friend from the land of the Crossroads and Delta Blues. We will have to disagree. But I think the preponderance of evidence sides with me, and its hard to read those verses as you suggest and I showed you.

St Cyril and St John? No, no, no. Where’s this with St Athanasius? The letter from Julius is clear evidence how the Primacy indeed functioned. You have the book.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I’m talking about the quotations mentioned which Nick addressed.

I don’t see where we did that in what we are relating about here at least. I could say the same about the polemical Eastern sights on Original Sin-Augustine and guilt? And this Biblical understanding? Its non existent historically or are you going to prove your point?

Just google Eastern Orthodoxy and Original Sin and watch the EO tell us what we believe.

I’m listening and waiting for you to show me.

St Cyprian affirmed the primacy in Unity its a fact. No father all Bishops are successors to the line of succession in their See.

I have all his writings, in fact they are on line books 1-5. I haven’t discussed him but once when he clearly cited Romes power and principality. He didn’t mention this in relation to anyone else, did he?

Much Roman Catholics do this and that chant here. Yet look at the mythical EO sights on Augustine and guilt. Its a “myth”. Two sides to the charge? The Bible history to coincide with your understanding I’ll assume is forthcoming?

Do you mean to say that the Roman Catholic Church does not consider original sin the inheritance of guilt from the Sin of Adam? I just read the decree on original sin from the Council of Trent. It uses the phrase original guilt.
I am much more familiar with the Lutheran doctrine which cites Blessed Augustine as teaching that we inherit guilt from the sin of Adam. I have read enough Augustine to know that he does write that, but Augustine is inconsistent and contradicts himself.
The Eastern Orthodox doctrine on ancestral sin is not a polemic. It is based on a correct reading of the original Greek text of Romans 5:12. Blessed Augustine developed his teaching of inherited guilt on an incorrect translation of Romans 5:12. In the original Greek the text reads, “Therefore as sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned” However, the Latin translation incorrectly read, “Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned." From “in whom all have sinned,” which is an incorrect translation of the Greek “ep ho,” which means “because” or “in that.” Augustine developed the idea that we are all born guilty of the sin of Adam. The Council of Trent used the Latin incorrect translation in its decree on original sin and mentioned the guilt of original sin. history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct05.html
The Eastern Fathers, able to read the original Greek text of Romans 5:12 never developed the concept of inherited guilt. Instead, they teach that we inherit the consequences of the sin of Adam, which as is recorded in Genesis 3:17-19 is mortality. Because we are mortal we are corrupt and because we are corrupt we sin and earn our own guilt.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

No guilt. Augustine was sent, and knew he was thrown out there way too often. I could only imagine. Augustine quoted the Bible and said we should be slow to speak and quick to listen, he wasn’t afforded the opportunity. To Augustine the original sin was pride. We covered this above on the Eastern forum and here. There’s a thread up their now on it. I don’t see any difference East West, emphasis in the Grace.

 

[frjohnmorris]

No guilt. Augustine was sent, and knew he was thrown out there way too often. I could only imagine. Augustine quoted the Bible and said we should slow to speak and quick to listen, he wasn’t afforded the opportunity. To Augustine the original sin was pride. We covered this above on the Eastern forum and here. There’s a thread up their now on it. I don’t see any difference East West, emphasis in the Grace.

Of course the original sin was pride. Is not pride the root of all sin?
I am just beginning to learn that my view of Augustine was shaped by the way that Lutherans and Calvinists use him. They claim to get their doctrine of inherited guilt and total depravity from Augustine. I have read sections from Augustine that do advocate the doctrine of predestination. However, he also printed a series of retractions that admitted that he may have gone too far on some issues.
Orthodox believe that we are saved by grace, but that we can use our free will to accept or reject God’s grace. We totally reject the Calvinist teaching that God decides who to save and who to damn and that we play no role in our own salvation. To be saved we have to use our free will to cooperate with God’s grace. However, God rejects no one who comes to Him in faith and repentance.

Fr. John

 

[GaryTaylor]

Double Predestination was Calvins take on Augustine. Rejected, St Robert Bellarmine contended with that period. Predestination is a developed apostolic teaching which Augustine was part of. I agree with you.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Double Predestination was Calvins take on Augustine. Rejected, St Robert Bellarmine contended with that period. Predestination is a developed apostolic teaching which Augustine was part of. I agree with you.

Total depravity and the denial of free will was Luther’s take on Augustine.
What do you mean that Predestination is a developed apostolic teaching?
Orthodox define predestination as God’s foreknowledge based on Romans 8:29 “For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the first-born among many brethren.”

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Orthodox also tend to overlook what St. Peter Chrysologus said in his letter to Eutyches about submitting to his superiors especially to Rome. The significance of this section of the letter is that Chrysologus is unaware of the contact made between Pope Leo 1 and Eutyches and yet somehow he still tends to explain the authority upon which Rome has been given.

The Orthodox also overlook what St. Optatus said when writing to the Donatists about their disconnection from the cathedra of St. Peter which just so happens to be in Rome and no where else.

All these writers show is that the Bishop or Rome was the senior Bishop and successor to St. Peter. It is still quite stretch to take these words and use them to justify the authority now claimed by the Popes.
You can assemble all the quotes that you can, but what you cannot do is deny history. The historical fact is that no Pope exercised anything like the authority claimed by modern Popes during the days before the schism. Every major decision was made by a council. None were made by the Bishop of Rome on his own authority.

Fr. John

 

[Cavaradossi]

Father this reasoning is flawed. You make it seem as if just because one has authority to do something, that that person HAS to use it.

To paraphrase the philosopher David Stove, it is logically possible to defend that anything may possess a hidden capacity but chooses never to exercise it (indeed, I might make a similar claim about myself, that I possess the capacity to jump twenty feet in the air, but am currently impeded by several factors from exercising this capacity, or perhaps less convincingly, that I am simply choosing not to exercise it). This defense is rather akin to one arguing that a coin is truly fair, even though out of ten thousand trials, it has come up heads 5500 times. We should in fact expect to see that the Pope’s own declaration should have settled the matter by fiat. Why then was a council called?

With the rise of Protestantism the ecumenical Council of Trent was called even though the pope had the authority to issue a papal decree and leave it at that. I don’t know why they don’t do it that way but popes tend to go with ecumenical councils rather that issuing a decree, EVEN post-schism

There is a good reason why the Pope did not do that. Because at that time, the papacy was weak politically, and issuing a proclamation on the matter would have been about as effective as the bull Unam Sanctam.