The Petrine views

[frjohnmorris]

Father John,

Respectfully,

This boils down to argumentum ad hominem; I would argue that what the evidence provided by both authors (from primary sources) refutes what you seemed to be implying by the words you wrote: “…St. Gregory wrote that there is no universal Bishop, something that is forgotten or ignored by advocates of universal papal jurisdiction…”
Also, it shows that this argument has been dealt with (it hasn’t been forgotten or ignored) and is a “non-issue” regarding the Catholic position.

Can I surmise from this that you have reversed what appears to have been the position implied by your words “…St. Gregory wrote that there is no universal Bishop…” ? Or did I misunderstand what you meant by writing that?

I disagree with your analysis here. The only comment I will make though is to say that to think that the other 4 Patriarchs were unaware of the Popes’ claims (Popes Sts. Leo and Gregory, Hormisdas and Adrian I come to mind) is wishful thinking.

One example that comes to mind is the following, from John, Patriarch of Jerusalem (A.D. 575-593), to the Catholicos of the Georgian monks in his See:

“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359

I agree that Union is possible, but one obstacle I see is that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians (at the very least some) do not agree on “the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church”.

Regards,

Nick

I did not personally write an ad hominem attack on anyone or any source such as the Catholic Encyclopedia. I merely stated the obvious. They are not unbiased sources. You will notice that every source that I cite is written by a bonified historian or theologian who have no ax to grind, a direct quote from the writings of one of the Fathers taken from the original document if I can find it to put it in its proper context, or the actual decrees and records from the Ecumenical Councils.
You have to put things in context. For example, the quote from Patriarch John of Jerusalem. In the East, as in St. Cyprian, all Bishops were considered successors of St. Peter not just the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, a recognition of the authority of St. Peter as the chief of the Apostles such as that expressed by Patriarch John cannot be equated with recognition of the Pope as possessing any special rights above a primacy of honor. That is one of the most difficult aspects of a discussion of this whole question. Whenever one reads an historical document, it is important to try to understand its historical context and what the person writing it really meant within that context. At that time within an Eastern context, even if a Patriarch or other person in authority agreed with the view that Our Lord meant to say that He would build His Church on the person of St. Peter, they did not understand it to mean what those who support the papal claims think they meant, because in the East all Bishops were considered successors to St. Peter.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

To. Fr. Morris: I agree that one of the major problems between the East and the West is that the West spoke Latin while the East spoke Greek. At one time as I understand it, most of the Roman empire spoke Greek while the lower classes in the West spoke Latin if you will. Once the Roman empire split into the Easterm Roman empire and Roman Western empire Latin became more common among the West. Also imo, because of invasions by barbarnians into the Western half of the Roman empire the Eastern half of the Roman empire did not come to its aid. Also cultural differences helped cause misunderstandings as well as travel becoming more and more difficult and more dangerious due to the invasions from the East into the West and no aid from the East helped to estrange each half of the empire. There is also the policial gulf between East and West in so far Roman emporors residing in the Eastern half of the empire negelted the Western half of the empire. Another reason is that the Pope had to assume a role of trying to maintain some order of the Western half of the Roman empire. With no one ( the Emperor) willing to rule the West, and concentrate only on the East, it is no wonder that the West and East had a widening gulf.

All of this is true and is one reason why Eastern Orthodox and Catholcs do not agree on the position of the Pope. It is obvious to anyone who has taken the time to read an unbiased account of the history of the papacy that the original Popes neither claimed nor had universal jurisdiction over the whole Church. Such claims cannot be supported by the history of the ancient undivided Church in which each Patriarchate administered its own affairs subject not to the Pope, but only to an Ecumenical Council.

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

I did not personally write an ad hominem attack on anyone or any source such as the Catholic Encyclopedia. I merely stated the obvious. They are not unbiased sources. You will notice that every source that I cite is written by a bonified historian or theologian who have no ax to grind, a direct quote from the writings of one of the Fathers taken from the original document if I can find it to put it in its proper context, or the actual decrees and records from the Ecumenical Councils.
You have to put things in context. For example, the quote from Patriarch John of Jerusalem. In the East, as in St. Cyprian, all Bishops were considered successors of St. Peter not just the Bishop of Rome. Therefore, a recognition of the authority of St. Peter as the chief of the Apostles such as that expressed by Patriarch John cannot be equated with recognition of the Pope as possessing any special rights above a primacy of honor. That is one of the most difficult aspects of a discussion of this whole question. Whenever one reads an historical document, it is important to try to understand its historical context and what the person writing it really meant within that context. At that time within an Eastern context, even if a Patriarch or other person in authority agreed with the view that Our Lord meant to say that He would build His Church on the person of St. Peter, they did not understand it to mean what those who support the papal claims think they meant, because in the East all Bishops were considered successors to St. Peter.

Fr. John

Father John,

I apologize for not being clear. I didn’t mean “an ad hominem attack” was what you were doing but, but more argumentum ad hominem in the sense of, to quote wikipedia, “Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[9]”

I disagree with you on the citation of Pat. John as I believe the Anglican S. Herbert Scott whom I cited does too (who would seem to be less likely of having an axe to grind.) I say this because if we look at what Pat. John says:

“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (Emphasis mine)

In the part I highlighted you will notice that there is a difference in the part I emphasized as pertains to Rome. Unless of course you think “infallible” here refers to all bishops as successors of St. Peter? I believe ‘according to the Word of the Lord, infallible’ is in reference to ‘those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter’.

Regards,

Nick

 

[LionHeart777]

… However, St. Gregory’s comments are important for this discussion because he also did not claim to be the Universal Bishop, but argued what we Eastern Orthodox are arguing on this subject. He would not have accepted the claims of the modern papacy either.

Fr. John

I believe St. Gregory’s comments, if they are being used to try and prove that he didn’t believe he had universal jurisdiction, are being taken out of context. So I totally disagree with all of this.

Here I will cite the Protestant scholar Schaff as a hostile witness:

On the other hand, it cannot be denied that Gregory, while he protested in the strongest terms against the assumption by the Eastern patriarchs of the antichristian and blasphemous title of universal bishop, claimed and exercised, as far as he had the opportunity and power, the authority and oversight over the whole church of Christ, even in the East. "With respect to the church of Constantinople,” he asks in one of his letters, “who doubts that it is subject to the apostolic see?” And in another letter: “I know not what bishop is not subject to it, if fault is found in him.” “To all who know the Gospels,” he writes to emperor Maurice, “it is plain that to Peter, as the prince of all the apostles, was committed by our Lord the care of the whole church (totius ecclesiae cura) … But although the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and to loose, were intrusted to him, and the care and principality of the whole church (totius ecclesiae cura et principatus), he is not called universal bishop; while my most holy fellow-priest (vir sanctissimus consacerdos meus) John dares to call himself universal bishop. I am compelled to exclaim: O tempora, O mores!”226
We have no right to impeach Gregory’s sincerity. But he was clearly inconsistent in disclaiming the name, and yet claiming the thing itself. The real objection is to the pretension of a universal episcopate, not to the title. If we concede the former, the latter is perfectly legitimate. And such universal power had already been claimed by Roman pontiffs before Gregory, such as Leo I., Felix, Gelasius, Hormisdas, in language and acts more haughty and self-sufficient than his.

Source: ccel.org/ccel/schaff/hcc4.i.iv.iv.html

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father John,

I apologize for not being clear. I didn’t mean “an ad hominem attack” was what you were doing but, but more argumentum ad hominem in the sense of, to quote wikipedia, “Ad hominem circumstantial constitutes an attack on the bias of a source. This is fallacious because a disposition to make a certain argument does not make the argument false; this overlaps with the genetic fallacy (an argument that a claim is incorrect due to its source).[9]”

I disagree with you on the citation of Pat. John as I believe the Anglican S. Herbert Scott whom I cited does too (who would seem to be less likely of having an axe to grind.) I say this because if we look at what Pat. John says:

“‘As for us, that is to say, the Holy Church, we have the word of the Lord, who said to Peter, chief of the apostles, when giving him the primacy of the Faith for the strengthening of the Churches, ‘Thou art Peter, etc. . . .’ 22 To this same Peter he has given the keys of heaven and earth; it is in following his faith that to this day his disciples and the doctors of the Catholic Church bind and loose; they bind the wicked and loose from their chains those who do penance. Such is, above all, the privilege of those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter, sound in the Faith, and according to the Word of the Lord, infallible.’”

Source: “The Eastern Churches and the Papacy”, S. Herbert Scott, London: Sheed & Ward, 1928. Pg. 359 (Emphasis mine)

In the part I highlighted you will notice that there is a difference in the part I emphasized as pertains to Rome. Unless of course you think “infallible” here refers to all bishops as successors of St. Peter? I don’t believe so.

Regards,

Nick

I wonder if even an Anglican writing in 1928 understood the teaching of the ancient Church in the East that all Bishops are successors to St. Peter. A much better source on this topic is The Primacy of Peter ed. Fr. John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992. Therein lies the problem of communication. Often a supporter takes a statement by someone from the East about the power and position of St. Peter and fails to understand that the original author considered all Bishops successors to St. Peter, and mistakenly assumes that he is applying what he wrote to the Bishop of Rome.
I think that the Bishops gathered in Ecumenical Council have been infallible, provided that their decisions were accepted by the Church and ratified as those of an Ecumenical Council by the Ecumenical Councils that took place after the council in question. Once again, I would have to see the quote in its proper context to try to understand what Patriarch John meant by infallibility.

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

I wonder if even an Anglican writing in 1928 understood the teaching of the ancient Church in the East that all Bishops are successors to St. Peter. A much better source on this topic is The Primacy of Peter ed. Fr. John Meyendorff, St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1992. Therein lies the problem of communication. Often a supporter takes a statement by someone from the East about the power and position of St. Peter and fails to understand that the original author considered all Bishops successors to St. Peter, and mistakenly assumes that he is applying what he wrote to the Bishop of Rome.
I think that the Bishops gathered in Ecumenical Council have been infallible, provided that their decisions were accepted by the Church and ratified as those of an Ecumenical Council by the Ecumenical Councils that took place after the council in question. Once again, I would have to see the quote in its proper context to try to understand what Patriarch John meant by infallibility.

Fr. John

Just wanted to note that I had edited my comment since:

I erased:

I don’t believe so.

And wrote:

I believe ‘according to the Word of the Lord, infallible’ is in reference to ‘those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter’.

 

[spina1953]

If all the Bishops are successors to St. Peter, then who are the successors to the rest of the Apostles? I would think one would be the successor to St. Peter and the all the other Bishops successors to the rest of the Apostles.

 

[LionHeart777]

Dear brother LionHeart777,

To prevent any further misunderstanding, I would like to offer a critique of the article from the old Catholic Encyclopedia.

I am not sure what the author is implying here, for the Vatican Council NEVER used the term “universal bishop.” I’ll explain this more below.

This is EXCELLENT. I doubt any Orthodox would disagree with this.

This is the whole problem with the article. It confuses because it first asserts (correctly) that the Pope has no authority to usurp the apostolically constituted power of the local bishop, but then goes on to claim what seems like the opposite. Again, though, this is based on the erroneous assumption that V1 even used the term “universal bishop.” Any literate person can see the obvious error of this claim if they take the time to read Pastor Aeternus. Concisely, Pastor Aeternus never states the Pope is “universal bishop.” Rather, it simply stated that as primate (i.e., head bishop) of the Church universal, his jurisdiction is “episcopal.” The intent of the Fathers for using that term to describe the papal prerogatives was to insist that the primatial office is a NATURAL feature of the episcopate. IOW, it does not make the Pope an ontologically different type of bishop as other bishops.

Further, the article is absolutely incorrect in its claim that the term “immediate” is applied to the Pope as bishop of the universal Church. Rather, the term “immediate” is applied to the Pope as “head bishop” or primate of the universal Church. The terms “bishop” and “head bishop”(primate) are two distinct terminologies employed by the Church, and they are not equivalent in their functions within the Church. I explained this thoroughly in thread a while ago, but don’t have the time right now to look for it. You might remember it. If not, and you would like an explanation, please indicate so.

It should be noted that this “universal authority” is not a “unilateral authority.” The matter at issue was brought to the Pope’s attention by appeal. The Pope does not go around micromanaging the affairs of the Church.

I agree with this. But it should always be remembered that the subjection is according to the Canons. The Pope does not have the power nor prerogative to subject anyone to arbitrary authority.

Do you have a link to these documents. I find it hard to believe that after two of our greatest Popes have denied the title “universal bishop,” some future Catholics had the audacity to assign the term to him.

Blessings,
Marduk

Marduk,

I don’t have anything other than the citations given in the article. Here’s the article again:

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

There are links to Pope St. Gregory’s epistles which were cited but not to the others apparently. However, I do believe that the term “Universal Bishop” can be used if it is understood in an orthodox sense, and is approved, according to Catholic Answers.

 

[frjohnmorris]

Just wanted to note that I had edited my comment since:

I erased:

I don’t believe so.

And wrote:

I believe ‘according to the Word of the Lord, infallible’ is in reference to ‘those who, on the first most holy and venerable see, are the successors of Peter’.

That is rather difficult to believe if one looks at the historical record. Before the schism, no Pope exercised such authority to make infallible declarations on doctrine. In every case of major doctrinal controversy, the matter was settled by an Ecumenical Council. The closest thing that once can cite as a papal declaration resolving a doctrinal dispute was the Tome of Leo. However, the Church did not accept the Tome of Leo without studying it to determine its fidelity to orthodox doctrine. At the first council called to deal with Eutyches and the heresy of Monophysitism, the Council of Ephesus of 449, later known of as the Robber Council, Dioscorus refused to allow it to be read. Pope St. Leo was only able to have the decrees of the Robber Council set aside because emperor and other Patriarchs called another council at Chalcedon in 451, to reconsider the matter. Thus, the Church did not recognize the right of the Pope to revoke the decrees of a general council on his own authority. However, the Holy Fathers meeting at Chalcedon did not accept the Tome just because it was written by Pope Leo. Instead they sent the document to a committee headed by Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. After Patriarch Anatolius and his committee determined that the Tome of Leo was orthodox, it was sent back to the Council for approval.
The same Council approved Canon IX which too away from Rome the authority to appoint neighboring Bishops to mediate disputes between a Bishop and his Metropolitan given to Rome by the Council of Sardica. Instead in the future the Patriarch of Constantinople was given the authority to hear all appeals from clergy involved in disputes with their Bishop or Metropoltian. Of course, we all know that the Council of Chalcedon passed canon 28, which recognized the equality of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope. Although Rome objected to this canon, the East ignored his objection and followed the canon. Thus it is obvious that the Council of Chalcedon did not recognize the infallibility of the Pope. Of course, it is also true that at that point in history, Pope Leo made no such claim. It was not until 1870 that the Catholic Church recognized the right of the Pope to infallibly and unilaterally make declarations on the doctrine of the Church speaking “ex cathedra.”
Lest there be any doubt, the next Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, removed Pope Vigilius from office and threatened to excommunicate him if he did not accept its condemnation of the Three Chapters. However, Pope Vigilius reconsidered and accepted the declaration of the council against the Three Chapters.
The next Council, Constantinople III, in 680 did not hesitate to condemn Pope Honorius I for teaching heresy. Thus, it is clear that the 7 Ecumenical Councils did not accept papal infallibility or the requirement of papal acceptance for the acts of a council to have validity.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

If all the Bishops are successors to St. Peter, then who are the successors to the rest of the Apostles? I would think one would be the successor to St. Peter and the all the other Bishops successors to the rest of the Apostles.

In a sense you are right, but the East taught that all Apostles shared in the authority of St. Peter because Our Lord gave all of them the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven following His Glorious Resurrection from the dead. St. John 20:21-23.
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
As St. Cyprian wrote, “The Episcopate is One.” Therefore all Bishops share in the authority of St.Peter.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

In a sense you are right, but the East taught that all Apostles shared in the authority of St. Peter because Our Lord gave all of them the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven following His Glorious Resurrection from the dead. St. John 20:21-23.
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.”
[22] And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit.
[23] If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
As St. Cyprian wrote, “The Episcopate is One.” Therefore all Bishops share in the authority of St.Peter.

Fr. John

In reading Johns Gospel 20:21-23 can you show me where it says that Jesus gave all the Apostles the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. I can only see what you quoted 22-23. The reason I ask is that if it does not say exactly that Jesus gave all the Apostles the keys to the Kingdom of heaven then you are reading something into the Gosples that is not there, at least it seems that way to me. I agree that Jesus gave all the Apostles authority to forgive sins or not, but do not see anything about keys in the verses you quote.

 

[mardukm]

Dear brother Lionheart,

I agree with the CA article insofar as it states that:
(1) there is no such thing as only one true bishop in the Church;
(2) the papacy has “universal jurisdiction.”

But anyone who tries to defend the term “universal bishop” in any sense runs into insurmountable problems, not least of which is its explicit denial by two of our greatest Popes. The fact is, there is no use trying to defend the term “universal bishop” because the way it was used by the Popes is exactly to mean that there is “only one true bishop” in the Church. By definition, the term is not orthodox.

Just as there is a <head bishop> with a true and proper jurisdiction for the entire Metropolitan Church (NOT that there is a with a true and proper jurisdiction for the entire Metropolitan See);
Just as there is a <head bishop> with a true and proper jurisdiction for the Patriarchal Church (NOT that there is a with a true and proper jurisdiction for the entire Patriarchal See);
Then there is a <head bishop> with a true and proper jurisdiction for the universal Church (NOT that there is a with a true and proper jurisdiction for the Church universal).

There is no justification whatsoever for defending the term “universal bishop,” and I daresay that CA is wrong for attempting to defend a “sense” rolleyes by which this term can be accepted.

Blessings,
Marduk

I don’t have anything other than the citations given in the article. Here’s the article again:

newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

There are links to Pope St. Gregory’s epistles which were cited but not to the others apparently. However, I do believe that the term “Universal Bishop” can be used if it is understood in an orthodox sense, and is approved, according to Catholic Answers.

 

[frjohnmorris]

In reading Johns Gospel 20:21-23 can you show me where it says that Jesus gave all the Apostles the keys to the Kingdom of heaven. I can only see what you quoted 22-23. The reason I ask is that if it does not say exactly that Jesus gave all the Apostles the keys to the Kingdom of heaven then you are reading something into the Gosples that is not there, at least it seems that way to me. I agree that Jesus gave all the Apostles authority to forgive sins or not, but do not see anything about keys in the verses you quote.

In historical theology and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the phrase “keys to the Kingdom” refers to the authority to pronounce absolution. It is repentance and forgiveness that open the doors of the Kingdom to believers.

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

That is rather difficult to believe if one looks at the historical record. Before the schism, no Pope exercised such authority to make infallible declarations on doctrine. In every case of major doctrinal controversy, the matter was settled by an Ecumenical Council. The closest thing that once can cite as a papal declaration resolving a doctrinal dispute was the Tome of Leo. However, the Church did not accept the Tome of Leo without studying it to determine its fidelity to orthodox doctrine. At the first council called to deal with Eutyches and the heresy of Monophysitism, the Council of Ephesus of 449, later known of as the Robber Council, Dioscorus refused to allow it to be read. Pope St. Leo was only able to have the decrees of the Robber Council set aside because emperor and other Patriarchs called another council at Chalcedon in 451, to reconsider the matter. Thus, the Church did not recognize the right of the Pope to revoke the decrees of a general council on his own authority. However, the Holy Fathers meeting at Chalcedon did not accept the Tome just because it was written by Pope Leo. Instead they sent the document to a committee headed by Anatolius, the Patriarch of Constantinople. After Patriarch Anatolius and his committee determined that the Tome of Leo was orthodox, it was sent back to the Council for approval.
The same Council approved Canon IX which too away from Rome the authority to appoint neighboring Bishops to mediate disputes between a Bishop and his Metropolitan given to Rome by the Council of Sardica. Instead in the future the Patriarch of Constantinople was given the authority to hear all appeals from clergy involved in disputes with their Bishop or Metropoltian. Of course, we all know that the Council of Chalcedon passed canon 28, which recognized the equality of the Patriarch of Constantinople with the Pope. Although Rome objected to this canon, the East ignored his objection and followed the canon. Thus it is obvious that the Council of Chalcedon did not recognize the infallibility of the Pope. Of course, it is also true that at that point in history, Pope Leo made no such claim. It was not until 1870 that the Catholic Church recognized the right of the Pope to infallibly and unilaterally make declarations on the doctrine of the Church speaking “ex cathedra.”
Lest there be any doubt, the next Ecumenical Council, Constantinople II in 553, removed Pope Vigilius from office and threatened to excommunicate him if he did not accept its condemnation of the Three Chapters. However, Pope Vigilius reconsidered and accepted the declaration of the council against the Three Chapters.
The next Council, Constantinople III, in 680 did not hesitate to condemn Pope Honorius I for teaching heresy. Thus, it is clear that the 7 Ecumenical Councils did not accept papal infallibility or the requirement of papal acceptance for the acts of a council to have validity.

Fr. John

Fr. John,

It comes back to, which I think we both would agree, that Catholics and Eastern Orthodox “don’t agree on what ‘the beliefs and practices of the ancient undivided Church’ were, at the very least on some specifics.” I didn’t mean to bring up the topic of infallibility per se but used that citation from the Patriarch John of Jerusalem to back up a point I was arguing which was that the other Patriarchs were aware of what the Popes were claiming about themselves. What is in your last post here is a lot of conclusions drawn from available data, which aren’t the only conclusions to be drawn from the data, nor are they drawn by all. Many of these matters you bring up (Popes Vigilius and Honorius, Canon 28, etc.) have been dealt with either in this thread or others (not to mention works by scholars.) Do you believe that the Fathers at Vatican I were not aware of these matters you bring up?

Regards,

Nick

 

[frjohnmorris]

Fr. John,

Do you believe that the Fathers at Vatican I were not aware of these matters you bring up?

Regards,

Nick

I have read accounts of the proceedings of Vatican I and believe that the members of the Council were under great pressure from Pope Pius IX to grant him a declaration of papal infallibility. I believe that the decision was made as a way to preserve papal authority as the Pope was losing his authority as the ruler of Rome and central Italy.
Just because a council meets and declares something does not make it true. One can cite the Robber Council of Ephesus as an example of this. I do not believe in the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council.
Does it not bother you that 4 out of 5 of the ancient Patriarchates of the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils do not recognize Vatican I as an Ecumenical Council. We are not a bunch of Protestants who went into schism and rejected the Faith of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. We are faithful to the teachings of the ancient Church. Modern Popes have referred to East and West as the two lungs of the Church. The Western Church by insisting on imposing its will on the East is preventing the reunion of the two lungs of the Church into one Body in Christ. The solution is very simple, go back to the way things were before the ill fated trip of Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople and we can be reunited.

Fr. John

 

[LionHeart777]

I have read accounts of the proceedings of Vatican I and believe that the members of the Council were under great pressure from Pope Pius IX to grant him a declaration of papal infallibility. I believe that the decision was made as a way to preserve papal authority as the Pope was losing his authority as the ruler of Rome and central Italy.
Just because a council meets and declares something does not make it true. One can cite the Robber Council of Ephesus as an example of this. I do not believe in the decrees of the 1st Vatican Council.
Does it not bother you that 4 out of 5 of the ancient Patriarchates of the age of the 7 Ecumenical Councils do not recognize Vatican I as an Ecumenical Council. We are not a bunch of Protestants who went into schism and rejected the Faith of the Fathers and the 7 Ecumenical Councils. We are faithful to the teachings of the ancient Church. Modern Popes have referred to East and West as the two lungs of the Church. The Western Church by insisting on imposing its will on the East is preventing the reunion of the two lungs of the Church into one Body in Christ. The solution is very simple, go back to the way things were before the ill fated trip of Cardinal Humbert to Constantinople and we can be reunited.

Fr. John

Father John,

I did not mean any disrespect with that question; I was merely posing it as a rhetorical question to which the answer would be “of course they were aware of these things”. It went along with my points that different conclusions are drawn from the same documents/facts, and that we don’t agree on all aspects of what constituted the beliefs and perhaps too the practices of the Church pre 1054. I apologize if I caused any offense.

-Nick

 

[frjohnmorris]

Father John,

I did not mean any disrespect with that question; I was merely posing it as a rhetorical question to which the answer would be “of course they were aware of these things”. It went along with my points that different conclusions are drawn from the same documents/facts, and that we don’t agree on all aspects of what constituted the beliefs and perhaps too the practices of the Church pre 1054. I apologize if I caused any offense.

-Nick

There is absolutely no apology necessary. You did not offend me. I am not that hyper sensitive. I hope that you understand that I strive with all my might to teach and live the Faith of the ancient undivided Church. That is why I spend so much time studying the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. I enjoy these discussions because they force me to rethink my ideas and take another look at the Fathers and the Ecumenical Councils. They are my guides.

Fr. John

 

[spina1953]

In historical theology and in the Catechism of the Catholic Church the phrase “keys to the Kingdom” refers to the authority to pronounce absolution. It is repentance and forgiveness that open the doors of the Kingdom to believers.

Fr. John

I understand what the catechism say’s about the power of the keys. That was not my question. My question was where did it say exactly keys in John 20:21-23, the verse did not mention keys at least in my Bible concerning John’s Gospel. To me the power of the keys and being given the keys as in Matthew 16 to Peter are two different things, in the sense that Peter was first to be given the keys to bind and loose which to me also means to decide, not just to forgive sins which Jesus did give to the Apostles in John 20. In Matthew 16, Jesus gives Peter the keys to bind and loose but did not say at least in my Bible anything about forgiving sins, only to bind and loose which seems to me to be more about what Peter decides would be bound or loosed in heaven. that God will be a wittness to what Peter decides. and if Jesus tells Peter to strenghten his fellow Apostles, it seems to me that Jesus is giving Peter authority as one is given a leadership role. In John 20 Jesus is giving the Apostles to forgive, which is different from whaat jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16. I would also like to point out that during the first three hundred years of Christainity there were persecutions and when Constantine stopped the persecutions there were still a great many pagans and not everyone in the empire went out and became Christain. also there were many who were calling themselves Christains but had many different doctrimes as to what Christains believed, which was why Constantine called for a council to determine what Christains believed so as to promote unity in the Roman empire. If as you say there was no head of the Church (Pope) over all the Churches, its a wonder that the Gospels were perserved at all, since since everyone was equal to decide as they will. It also seems to me to be a lot of politic’s behind the scenes of the councils besides determining doctrine. Even in companies and corparations there is someone who is the head who decides in union with those with the head, otherwise it seems to me to be majority rule which never works very well in the long run.

 

[frjohnmorris]

I understand what the catechism say’s about the power of the keys. That was not my question. My question was where did it say exactly keys in John 20:21-23, the verse did not mention keys at least in my Bible concerning John’s Gospel. To me the power of the keys and being given the keys as in Matthew 16 to Peter are two different things, in the sense that Peter was first to be given the keys to bind and loose which to me also means to decide, not just to forgive sins which Jesus did give to the Apostles in John 20. In Matthew 16, Jesus gives Peter the keys to bind and loose but did not say at least in my Bible anything about forgiving sins, only to bind and loose which seems to me to be more about what Peter decides would be bound or loosed in heaven. that God will be a wittness to what Peter decides. and if Jesus tells Peter to strenghten his fellow Apostles, it seems to me that Jesus is giving Peter authority as one is given a leadership role. In John 20 Jesus is giving the Apostles to forgive, which is different from whaat jesus said to Peter in Matthew 16. I would also like to point out that during the first three hundred years of Christainity there were persecutions and when Constantine stopped the persecutions there were still a great many pagans and not everyone in the empire went out and became Christain. also there were many who were calling themselves Christains but had many different doctrimes as to what Christains believed, which was why Constantine called for a council to determine what Christains believed so as to promote unity in the Roman empire. If as you say there was no head of the Church (Pope) over all the Churches, its a wonder that the Gospels were perserved at all, since since everyone was equal to decide as they will. It also seems to me to be a lot of politic’s behind the scenes of the councils besides determining doctrine. Even in companies and corparations there is someone who is the head who decides in union with those with the head, otherwise it seems to me to be majority rule which never works very well in the long run.

The authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins given to the Apostles by Christ after His Resurrection is the power to bind and to loose. It was given to all the Apostles, and through Apostolic succession to all Bishops, who in turn have given it to those Priests like myself who have the authority to hear Confessions and pronounce absolution or put a person under penance by denying them Communion for a time.
I think that the liberal Protestants have made far too much out of the importance of the various heretical groups that existed during the pre-Nicaean era, because it fits into their theology. I believe that there is a consistency of belief and practice that has been passed down to the present by Bishops in Apostolic Succession as St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote.
I also think that the popular view of a feud between Sts. Peter and Paul made up by liberal scholars who take one incident of a quarrel in Antioch. One disagreement does not mean that two people do not get along with each other. To emphasize the unity between Sts. Peter and Paul the ancient Church instituted the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on June 29. The Byzantine icon shows Peter and Paul embracing to show their unity.

Fr. John

 

[frjohnmorris]

The Holy Tradition was preserved by the Holy Spirit not just through St. Peter. It was shared by all the Apostles and passed down through their successors our Bishops.
The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that St. Peter was the head of the Apostles.
The authority to pronounce the forgiveness of sins given to the Apostles by Christ after His Resurrection is the power to bind and to loose. It was given to all the Apostles, and through Apostolic succession to all Bishops, who in turn have given it to those Priests like myself who have the authority to hear Confessions and pronounce absolution or put a person under penance by denying them Communion for a time.
I think that the liberal Protestants have made far too much out of the importance of the various heretical groups that existed during the pre-Nicaean era, because it fits into their theology. I believe that there is a consistency of belief and practice that has been passed down to the present by Bishops in Apostolic Succession as St. Irenaeus of Lyons wrote.
I also think that the popular view of a feud between Sts. Peter and Paul made up by liberal scholars who take one incident of a quarrel in Antioch. One disagreement does not mean that two people do not get along with each other. To emphasize the unity between Sts. Peter and Paul the ancient Church instituted the Feast of Sts. Peter and Paul on June 29. The Byzantine icon shows Peter and Paul embracing to show their unity.

Fr. John