The Eastern Schism - Causes and Characters

[Vico]

…

THE TOME OF ST. LEO. is here:
fordham.edu/halsall/basis/chalcedon.asp

 

[Novocastrian]

A head has been appointed. Schism is bad. Time to re-unite with the head, the Royal Steward of the Kingdom of God.

Of course, even if the Orthodox or orthodox Protestants were to accept the Steward-reading, they’d still hold that Rome has taught untruths. The Eliakim episode is built upon the possibility of a Steward failing to serve and thereby losing authority. You need to articulate (and you may or may not be able to do this) why your typological reading of the Eliakim episode applies to Peter and his successors (whether Roman or otherwise) with regard to authority and office, but not with regard to the possibility of its loss.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Of course, even if the Orthodox or orthodox Protestants were to accept the Steward-reading, they’d still hold that Rome has taught untruths. The Eliakim episode is built upon the possibility of a Steward failing to serve and thereby losing authority. You need to articulate (and you may or may not be able to do this) why your typological reading of the Eliakim episode applies to Peter and his successors (whether Roman or otherwise) with regard to authority and office, but not with regard to the possibility of its loss.

That’s fair.

Eliakim did not serve a divine king with the ability to prevent his steward from falling and who promised to do so in the pages of Holy Writ.

 

[Novocastrian]

That’s fair.

Eliakim did not serve a divine king with the ability to prevent his steward from falling and who promised to do so in the pages of Holy Writ.

Well here’s the issue. Protestants and Orthodox, regardless of whether the accept your Steward argument, are not obliged to see it and the doctrine of Papal infallibility as mutually implicative. If they already have good reasons (which you obviously dispute!) for rejecting the latter, then it doesn’t do you much good to get them to accept the former.

 

[tz620q]

Of course, even if the Orthodox or orthodox Protestants were to accept the Steward-reading, they’d still hold that Rome has taught untruths. The Eliakim episode is built upon the possibility of a Steward failing to serve and thereby losing authority. You need to articulate (and you may or may not be able to do this) why your typological reading of the Eliakim episode applies to Peter and his successors (whether Roman or otherwise) with regard to authority and office, but not with regard to the possibility of its loss.

Thank you for this post. I had truthfully never considered this. My first thoughts are that the keys are taken away by the King, not other laity. So now we would need to find evidence of this happening. Certainly, we should not accept the claims of Papal opponents that further their own agendas by saying that they are not being rebellious to the established authority since that authority has been forfeited without at least some proof that Christ has forsaken the Catholic Church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well here’s the issue. Protestants and Orthodox, regardless of whether the accept your Steward argument, are not obliged to see it and the doctrine of Papal infallibility as mutually implicative. If they already have good reasons (which you obviously dispute!) for rejecting the latter, then it doesn’t do you much good to get them to accept the former.

The Royal Steward was second only to the King in terms of authority which extended to all corners of the kingdom. That’s universal jurisdiction, plain and simple.

Here is the argument I have made:

If the office of Royal Steward is:
a. re-established by Jesus,
b. conveyed by the awarding of literal or symbolic keys,
c. second in authority only to the king,
d. universal in jurisdiction throughout the kingdom (by virtue of c above),
e. perpetual, and
f. ancient (ie., patristic) in origin,
then all Orthodox must admit that the Pope of Rome is everything that Catholics say that he is.

The only points in dispute are (a) and (f) - though both have been supported by the discovery of a quote from St. Ephraim.

 

[guanophore]

And the passage proves too much, for it reads:

But you say, the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, **yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. **

You like the blue (though Jerome has no scripture to support his contention).

I like the red (and have lots of verses to support it).

A head has been appointed. Schism is bad. Time to re-unite with the head, the Royal Steward of the Kingdom of God.

It seems that the blue is the position of St. John’s opponent - "but you say’ just as Protestants today “say” that Jesus giving all the Apostles the power to bind and loose is equal to giving them the keys. I think this is the position St. John is against.

 

[Randy_Carson]

It seems that the blue is the position of St. John’s opponent - "but you say’ just as Protestants today “say” that Jesus giving all the Apostles the power to bind and loose is equal to giving them the keys. I think this is the position St. John is against.

I admit I had not read it that way. I would have punctuated or written the passage slightly differently, but your reading is better than mine.

 

[Cavaradossi]

It seems that the blue is the position of St. John’s opponent - "but you say’ just as Protestants today “say” that Jesus giving all the Apostles the power to bind and loose is equal to giving them the keys. I think this is the position St. John is against.

That reading is untenable, in the greater context of the passage. St. Jerome is disputing the Jovinians’ denigration of virginity. To do this, he counters their argument that the church is built on Peter (who was not a virgin) by contending that the keys were given to all of the apostles, and that Peter was made a leader only so that the apostles would not suffer from want of one. John (who was a virgin), he argues, was greater than Peter in terms of the gifts he received, and on account of His special love for John, the Lord spared him fro
being appointed leader that his youth might not become cause for jealousy.

If, however, Jovinianus should obstinately contend that John was not a virgin, (whereas we have maintained that his virginity was the cause of the special love our Lord bore to him), let him explain, if he was not a virgin, why it was that he was loved more than the other Apostles. But you say, Matthew 16:18 the Church was founded upon Peter: although elsewhere the same is attributed to all the Apostles, and they all receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike, yet one among the twelve is chosen so that when a head has been appointed, there may be no occasion for schism. But why was not John chosen, who was a virgin? Deference was paid to age, because Peter was the elder: one who was a youth, I may say almost a boy, could not be set over men of advanced age; and a good master who was bound to remove every occasion of strife among his disciples, and who had said to them, John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you, and, He that is the greater among you, let him be the least of all, would not be thought to afford cause of envy against the youth whom he had loved.

Randy’s attempt to read his royal steward theory into this passage too seems untenable. St. Jerome does not seem to be conveying the idea that Peter was greater than the apostles (which would be a necessary precondition for having an unique royal steward), but rather that he, as one possessing the same common authority of the keys, lead them for the sake of unity (a role which sounds much more like an arbitrator than a royal steward).

 

[Cavaradossi]

You like the blue (though Jerome has no scripture to support his contention).

I like the red (and have lots of verses to support it)

That’s not how reading the Fathers works, Randy. You’re not supposed to measure the Fathers against your own private interpretation of scripture (as Luther and Calvin did), you’re supposed to measure your interpretation of the scriptures against how the Fathers interpreted them.

I can easily accept what St. Jerome wrote in red, because I believe that primacy is a useful arrangement which operates in all levels of the Church. Evidently though, you cannot accept what he wrote in blue, because it would destroy your royal steward theory, which necessitates that Peter alone received the keys.

 

[tdgesq]

St. Jerome states more than once that the keys of the kingdom have been given to all the Apostles, so I’m sure why there is still argument about that.

 

[rcwitness]

St. Jerome states more than once that the keys of the kingdom have been given to all the Apostles, so I’m sure why there is still argument about that.

We have to recognize that the Keys are only given to Peter by Jesus (individually). The others receive the same powers of ministry that Peter received, though not singularly.

This is not to be discarded. The others must work with Peter, yet not for him. All must work for Jesus who is the locksmith.

The question is could the Apostles use the keys seperately from one another, or more importantly Peter? Peter seemed to be the definite holder of the Keys, while the others held them as a group.

It becomes the question of whether the EO are right that even Peter (and his successors) could not use them without the rest consenting, or is it more like Catholicism which says that the Peter (and his successors) can individually use them and/or all of them, so long as Peter (and his successors) Confirms?

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s not how reading the Fathers works, Randy. You’re not supposed to measure the Fathers against your own private interpretation of scripture (as Luther and Calvin did), you’re supposed to measure your interpretation of the scriptures against how the Fathers interpreted them.

No problem.

I can easily accept what St. Jerome wrote in red, because I believe that primacy is a useful arrangement which operates in all levels of the Church. Evidently though, you cannot accept what he wrote in blue, because it would destroy your royal steward theory, which necessitates that Peter alone received the keys.

What is destroyed is the idea that *modern Roman apologists invented the argument. *

That was the previous line of argument advanced by you, Seraphim73, Isaiah9_45, A_Lurker, Novocastrian and others, right?

The FIRST attack on my presentation (it’s not really MY argument, is it?) was: “Which Father saw the connection?”

Answer: Ephraim. In the fourth century.

The SECOND attack was: “Who else?”

Answer: Just about everybody, apparently. Protestants saw it (documented as early as 1738, so far), and there are boatloads of quotes from non-Catholic scholars who say things like, “In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying” (Albright & Mann)

And you can bet that I will not rest until I have turned over every stone, every rock, so to speak, in my search for a second quote. (Actually, I have two, but I want more to end this once and for all.)

Your THIRD attack was: “Why hasn’t the Catholic Church used this argument before?”

Answer: Pope Benedict explicitly referenced Peter as steward in his book, Called to Communion. Moreover, EVERY reference by the Church to the keys is an implicit reference to the steward who wields them and the king who owns them.

The FOURTH attack was: What is the proper interpretation of Ephraim, and how does his connection between Mt. 16:18-19 and Is. 22:20-22 square with the sayings of other fathers?

Answer: Ah…now we come to the keep of the castle, the ultimate defense of Orthodoxy: disagreement and disputation about what each Father has said, what he meant, what he wrote when he was older, who disagreed with who, what councils referenced his work, which canons support what doctrines, etc., etc. in an endless stream words designed to bury any argument with uncertainty and thus to enable the one employing such tactics to justify his unwillingness to admit error.

This tactic was evident when questions about what Ephraim actually meant were raised (despite the plain words of the text itself) followed immediately by a flurry of quotes concerning who has the keys, which fathers said what about the keys, what about Mt. 18:18, etc.

I’ve seen this before, and I’m not going there again. The truth of a matter is not established by whether two or more Fathers saw it 1500 years ago for they were not infallible interpreters of the Word. In the present case, it was settled the day that Jesus quoted Isaiah and later confirmed by Matthew under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.

Do what the Fathers did. Study the Word of God. Turn off your computer. Close your Orthodox commentaries *about *the Bible. Read the Bible itself.

You have two passages of scripture before you: Isaiah 22:20-22 and Matthew 16:18-19.

What do they say? How are they connected?

My take is that the office of Royal Steward is:

a. re-established by Jesus,
b. conveyed by the awarding of literal or symbolic keys,
c. second in authority only to the king,
d. universal in jurisdiction throughout the kingdom (by virtue of c above), and
e. perpetual.

Thus, the Bishop of Rome is everything that Catholics say that he is.

The implications of this are HUGE, and you know it.

Just for a moment, forget what the Fathers said. Do what they *did *instead.

Pick up the Word of God and read.

 

[Randy_Carson]

St. Jerome states more than once that the keys of the kingdom have been given to all the Apostles, so I’m sure why there is still argument about that.

Because Matthew says otherwise?

As do a host of other scholars just as brilliant as Jerome?

 

[tdgesq]

We have to recognize that the Keys are only given to Peter by Jesus (individually). The others receive the same powers of ministry that Peter received, though not singularly.

True. Just trying to settle a factual dispute as to what St. Jerome wrote. I am really interested in the content of St. Leo’s Sermon IV, as I’ve never been able to find it.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Forget the Fathers for a moment. Do what they actually did instead.

Pick up the Word of God and read.

That’s is precisely the argument I presented in the Primacy thread.

The Fathers and the Whole Church when confronted with a Church defining issue would call an Ecumenical Council where there was not one single Bishop over any other Bishop in term of determining doctrine/dogma. The Whole Church would declare Canons and the rules of the road.

It is not until after the schism that Rome claimed all these titles and powers to herself. A la Protestant - using Scriptures apart from Sacred Tradition. So the Western Magisterium used Sacred Scriptures to determine new doctrines and dogmas. And left behind the Whole Church and Sacred Tradition. Now, after the fact - it is asked of the Eastern Church to submit to doctrines and dogmas that were non-existent for more than 1,000 years.

http://addins.whig.com/blogs/stevie...ective-uncle-si-thats-a-fact-jack-300x300.png

 

[Randy_Carson]

Just in case any doubt remains about Ephraim’s meaning, perusing His Broken Body by Laurent Cleenewerck brought my attention to this passage:

Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

And by the way, Cleeneweerck also notes:

Let us make a few final remarks on the “keys of the kingdom.” Are these keys the same as the “key of the kingdom of David” mentioned in Isaiah 22? This is possible, but speculative for several reasons (Cleenewerck, His Broken Body, p. 266).

Naturally, Cleenweerck’s Orthodoxy will not permit him to go further than “possible”, and he has several reasons why he cannot.

However, isn’t it sufficient for the position of this insignificant Catholic apologist to hear that even Cleenewerck admits of the possibility that Peter is the Steward?

Yeah, buddy. :dancing:

 

[Randy_Carson]

Now, to be fair, Cleenewerck is not appreciated by all Orthodox. Surprised?

Sergey Trostyanskiy reviews His Broken Body here, and concludes:

There are many unsubstantiated claims made by the author of
this book. For instance, statements such as: “Eastern Orthodoxy is
plagued by excessive nationalism, liturgical decay, and doctrinal
fluctuations,” are negative stereotypes and offensive to the Orthodox
mind. The quest for reestablishing communion between the Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches is included in the same
discussion as the forthcoming break of communion between the
patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople. This section raises some
questions about the author’s purpose in juxtaposing these events. Is
Cleenwewerck attempting to portray the Eastern Church in a negative,
schismatic light? This book should be read with caution and its
statements should not be taken for granted.

Negative stereotypes? Ya think?

And yet, and yet, aren’t these the same charges made by Soloviev in the last century?

Yeppers.

 

[Seraphim73]

Just in case any doubt remains about Ephraim’s meaning, perusing His Broken Body by Laurent Cleenewerck brought my attention to this passage:

Ephraim the Syrian

“[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures” (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

And by the way, Cleeneweerck also notes:

Let us make a few final remarks on the “keys of the kingdom.” Are these keys the same as the “key of the kingdom of David” mentioned in Isaiah 22? This is possible, but speculative for several reasons (Cleenewerck, His Broken Body, p. 266).

Naturally, Cleenweerck’s Orthodoxy will not permit him to go further than “possible”, and he has several reasons why he cannot.

However, isn’t it sufficient for the position of this insignificant Catholic apologist to hear that even Cleenewerck admits of the possibility that Peter is the Steward?

Yeah, buddy. :dancing:

I’ve never heard of the man. Either way the quote in question does not admit what you say it admits.

 

[Seraphim73]

Now, to be fair, Cleenewerck is not appreciated by all Orthodox. Surprised?

Sergey Trostyanskiy reviews His Broken Body here, and concludes:

There are many unsubstantiated claims made by the author of
this book. For instance, statements such as: “Eastern Orthodoxy is
plagued by excessive nationalism, liturgical decay, and doctrinal
fluctuations,” are negative stereotypes and offensive to the Orthodox
mind. The quest for reestablishing communion between the Roman
Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches is included in the same
discussion as the forthcoming break of communion between the
patriarchates of Moscow and Constantinople. This section raises some
questions about the author’s purpose in juxtaposing these events. Is
Cleenwewerck attempting to portray the Eastern Church in a negative,
schismatic light? This book should be read with caution and its
statements should not be taken for granted.

Negative stereotypes? Ya think?

And yet, and yet, aren’t these the same charges made by Soloviev in the last century?

Yeppers.

I would think the progenitors of a brand new liturgy and new dogma barely 60 years ago would be slow to accuse anyone of doctrinal fluctuations and liturgical decay.