C
crazzeto
Guest
EXCELLENT ANSWER GMCBROOM! 
- Status
D
diggerdomer
Guest
I recognize that in many ways, Eastern Catholics are closer to Eastern Orthodox.
The opinions of those who are ignorant aren’t really relevant.
My point was, Eastern Catholics are Catholics. And so, not “Orthodox” (as a distinct Church from the Catholic Church)
What exactly would Catholics or Orthodox vehemently disagree with that I posted? I’d appreciate the chance to clarify anything I said that might have come across in a way I didn’t intend.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
To my knowledge, nothing the Pope teaches here on earth binds those in heaven. Can you show us where this is taught in the Catholic faith?Here is my personal opinion of the matter. Some may like it and some may not. The Pope is the head of the church. Now, that makes what he says binding on heaven and on earth. However, all the Catholic churches ie the 22 suri iriuses have legitament apostolic lines thus valid sacraments so a Roman Catholic can get 7 sacraments at those churches and vice versa. The Pope is ultimately the head of those churches too, even though the Patriarchs are the heads as well. Think of it like this the Pope is the first among equals. He doesn’t like to interfer in the governance of the other suri iriuses, but he can when he is asked or when he sees a problem. Can this be abused yes and sadly has been in the past ie the Latinizations of various churches. However, if you are Catholic then he is the first among equals and the head of the Catholic Church. Now, the interesting thing is that Eastern catholics should accept the dogmas of the Catholic Church , however, they view those dogmas through the lens of their distinct Patrimony. The Roman Patrimony is diferent than the others in various ways and vice versa. Thus, a Roman Catholic will see the Eastern churches through a Roman Lens. I hope that makes sense.
However, to answer the question. To be Catholic is to accept the Pope. Some may not like his decisions or actions but they should accept them in charity.
I am now a full member in the Maronite Catholic Church. I was baptized, confirmed, and received the Eucharist on Pentacost. I still feel so clean! I always thought my friend was being dramatic when she would say that but now, I understand.I yearn for the day that the schism is healed and, even the acceptance of the reformation churches. Christs’ church shouldn’t be so fractured.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Well, I can’t be the judge between Catholics. You guys will have to slug it out among yourselves.
One Catholic says this …
Another Catholic says that …
Another Catholic says "For good or for ill, the one thing that can always be said about Catholic pronouncements, especially Council pronouncements, is that they are invariably nuanced.
Anyone who claims otherwise invariably has an axe to grind. "
Whatever that is supposed to mean.
The Truth certainly isn’t, but dogma sometimes is.
Mark Miravalle:
“… great numbers of petitions have continued to flood the Holy See for the papal definition of Our Lady’s universal mediation. Petitions for a new Marian dogma from only the last ten years (approx. 1994-2004) number over six million from over 165 countries, and include over 550 bishops and 45 cardinals. (12) Although these numbers do not include the hundreds of bishop petitions, along with the multitudinous number of clergy and lay petitions submitted to the Holy See by Cardinals Mercier, (13) Gagnon, and others prelates from 1930 to 1994, the recent petition campaign of the last decade for this fifth Marian dogma represents the largest per annum petition drive in the history of the Church.”
In his Commonitory Saint Vincent of Lerins says:
Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality, antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.
According to Saint Vincent then (if I am reading him right), petitions for new dogmas should avail us nothing, and you would be correct “The Truth is NOT defined by a majority vote” but is instead a revelation from Christ through the Apostles to all of us and we would need no convincing of it.
A
Aramis
Guest
That Cathlics and Orthodox share the same faith.
Dear Diggerdomer,
You are correct I mispoke. I confused John 20 with John 21. I still believe its accurate. But you are correct that Pope is not in there, simply Peter. Though admittedly, Jesus was referencing all the disciples in John 20 and Peter in John 21. Thus, making Peter the first among equals, and well, the head of the church. Now, the Catholic church has the Pope as its head that is why I equate the Pope with Peter.
You are correct I mispoke. I confused John 20 with John 21. I still believe its accurate. But you are correct that Pope is not in there, simply Peter. Though admittedly, Jesus was referencing all the disciples in John 20 and Peter in John 21. Thus, making Peter the first among equals, and well, the head of the church. Now, the Catholic church has the Pope as its head that is why I equate the Pope with Peter.
M
mardukm
Guest
Dear brother Hesychios,
Dogmatization has the same relationship to Truth as Canonization has to Sainthood. Dogmatization does not make a certain teaching any more a Truth than Canonization makes one a Saint. Dogmatization and Canonization are both simply official and authoritative recognitions of an existing reality.
In other words, a Truth does not have to be dogmatized in order for it to be dogmatic (i.e., necessary to be believed). Accordingly, I find criticisms of the Latin tendency to dogmatize to be wholly illogical, even hypocritical. In truth, the EO (at least the polemic type) are just as dogmatic as the Latins. For example, the Essence/Energies distinction has never been dogmatized by the Church universal, but it is treated as dogma by the more polemic EO to the point that they believe that Latins are in heresy for not believing it, or at least is used as a reason for the separation between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. A more poignant example demonstrating the hypocrisy of the EO polemic is the matter of purgatorial fire. Even to the Latin Catholic Church, it is a local theologoumenon (as affirmed at the Council of Florence), but many EO have dogmatized the refusal to believe in it to the point that those Latins who do are considered heretics, or at least is used as a reason for the separation between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox…
I’m not promoting the tendency to dogmatize in Latin Catholicism. I’m just rejecting the hypocrisy behind the criticisms against it.
But to get back to the immediate topic at hand…The popular acclamation for a dogma, or St. Vincent of Lerins’ principle for ascertaining Truth, is not considered by the Catholic Church as meaning that Truth/dogma is determined by consensus or majority. Consensus is not the sine qua non of Truth/dogma. Consensus is merely an indicator of the Truth, but never determines nor necessitates it. Analogically, flight by an animal is an indicator that the animal is a bird, but flight by an animal does not necessitate that it is a bird.
Blessings
I do not understand this distinction. It seems artificial. To me, Truth is dogma, and dogma is Truth.
Dogmatization has the same relationship to Truth as Canonization has to Sainthood. Dogmatization does not make a certain teaching any more a Truth than Canonization makes one a Saint. Dogmatization and Canonization are both simply official and authoritative recognitions of an existing reality.
In other words, a Truth does not have to be dogmatized in order for it to be dogmatic (i.e., necessary to be believed). Accordingly, I find criticisms of the Latin tendency to dogmatize to be wholly illogical, even hypocritical. In truth, the EO (at least the polemic type) are just as dogmatic as the Latins. For example, the Essence/Energies distinction has never been dogmatized by the Church universal, but it is treated as dogma by the more polemic EO to the point that they believe that Latins are in heresy for not believing it, or at least is used as a reason for the separation between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. A more poignant example demonstrating the hypocrisy of the EO polemic is the matter of purgatorial fire. Even to the Latin Catholic Church, it is a local theologoumenon (as affirmed at the Council of Florence), but many EO have dogmatized the refusal to believe in it to the point that those Latins who do are considered heretics, or at least is used as a reason for the separation between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox…
I’m not promoting the tendency to dogmatize in Latin Catholicism. I’m just rejecting the hypocrisy behind the criticisms against it.
But to get back to the immediate topic at hand…The popular acclamation for a dogma, or St. Vincent of Lerins’ principle for ascertaining Truth, is not considered by the Catholic Church as meaning that Truth/dogma is determined by consensus or majority. Consensus is not the sine qua non of Truth/dogma. Consensus is merely an indicator of the Truth, but never determines nor necessitates it. Analogically, flight by an animal is an indicator that the animal is a bird, but flight by an animal does not necessitate that it is a bird.
Blessings
H
Hesychios
Guest
It was intended to be artificial
Dogma is supposed to be truth. Truth is dogma if it is known, otherwise it might be someone’s theological opinion, or a complete mystery to everyone.
Then there are those who want to make lies and dreams into dogma, if and when they succeed we have to redefine what dogma is, because we cannot redefine Truth …
Some people actually think that a dogma can be proclaimed on the strength of a petition. Apparently the bigger the response the better. I find that entire concept untenable, it nullifies the notion of received Apostolic teaching (and the theoretical notion of Apostolic succession which is based upon receiving the Apostolic Truth from predecessors and passing that on).
In a religion based upon revelation petitions have no place and regardless of how popular the sentiment should be rejected in no uncertain terms.
M
mardukm
Guest
It was intended to be artificial
Dogma is supposed to be truth. Truth is dogma if it is known, otherwise it might be someone’s theological opinion, or a complete mystery to everyone.
Then there are those who want to make lies and dreams into dogma, if and when they succeed we have to redefine what dogma is, because we cannot redefine Truth …
Some people actually think that a dogma can be proclaimed on the strength of a petition. Apparently the bigger the response the better. I find that entire concept untenable, it nullifies the notion of received Apostolic teaching (and the theoretical notion of Apostolic succession which is based upon receiving the Apostolic Truth from predecessors and passing that on).
In a religion based upon revelation petitions have no place and regardless of how popular the sentiment should be rejected in no uncertain terms.
Oh you witty guy you. I quite agree with your statements here…but
D) I think your comment on petitions should contain an exception for petitions to the Pope when it involves challenges to Christological/Apostolic Truth.Blessings,
Marduk
C
crazzeto
Guest
“What you bind on earth is bound in heaven, what you loose on earth is loosed in heaven”, kind of speaks directly to the authority of the Pope. This is why the church (and pope) can offer indulgences for doing the stations of the cross, for instance.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
This is an interpretation of Scripture based on much later developments in the Church. The technical term for such an approach is “eisegesis” - i.e. reading into Scripture something that Scripture isn’t necessarily affirming - proof texting. This is very common among apologetics throughout all of Christianity. It’s also why it is so important to understand such passages in light of the Universal Tradition of the Church, and not just the tradition of one particular church.
Eastern Christians see this passage as applying to all the Apostles and their successors, not just to Peter. It refers to the teaching, sacramental and administrative powers of the Apostles, which were handed on to their successors.
This doesn’t mean that Eastern Christians, even the Orthodox, do not recognize a special authority which rests in Peter and his successors in Rome. But the authority isn’t as absolute as many Roman Catholics like to think it is. Peter and his successors are not leaders over the other bishops, but leaders among the other bishops. In this sense, Peter and his successors are truly the “older brothers” (not in terms of superiority, but in terms of relation) of the college of bishops.
C
crazzeto
Guest
Doing what you say Eastern Christians do to this passage, then I wonder upon what would they base their understanding of any speacial authority granted Peter? The verse I quote comes directly from the same passage we find Christ directly addressing Peter, giving him (not all the Apostles) the keys of the Kingdom, nameing him Cephas (a name St. Paul uses almost exclusivly for Him), and telling him that it is upon this Cephas he will build his Church.
Again it was Christ directly addressing Peter when he said “feed my lambs, feed my sheep”. I get what you’re trying to say here, but at least from my own perspective (and hey, I’m not an infallible interpreiter of scripture) I just don’t see where Christ paused and started addressing everyone, certainly not in the space of 2 verses.
Edit
Note, as far as I know at least it is always improper to use “thou” as a plural you.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
My main argument here is utilizing this passage as a defense of papal infallibility. As I said, Eastern Christians, including Orthodoxy, do believe in papal primacy (albeit, not in the same way as that primacy has come to be expressed in the West - i.e. supremacy). These passages, on one level, are seen as indicating that primacy.
St. John Chrysostom, in his homily on this particular passage, says that the “rock” upon which Christ will build His Church is the rock of Peter’s confession of faith. In other words, the “rock” upon which Christ builds the Church is the confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God, and all that that confession implies. Chrysostom goes on to explain that binding and loosing refer to the ability to absolve sins. This is later confirmed and reaffirmed in the Gospel of John (20:23), when that same ability is given to the other Apostles.
In this sense, all bishops are the inheritors of Peter’s confession, i.e. the “rock” upon which the Church is built. It is their duty to preach this “rock,” which is ultimately the Good News, the Gospel, that Jesus is the Messiah/Christ, who, by His death and resurrection, has not only conquered sin, but gone to the root of the problem “trampling down death by death, and bestowing life to those who are in the tombs.”
Bishops also inherit the responsibility to absolve sins, a responsibility that they delegate to the presbyters/priests. This, however, is off the topic.
C
crazzeto
Guest
For my part, Christ said “thou art Cehaps, and upon this Cephas I will build my church”… The confession is certainly an important part of this, but I think that this is an incompletely analysis of the passage. The problem is it really doesn’t address “…thou art Cephas…” which Christ follows up with “…and upon this cephas I will build my Church”.
Edit
Haydock expounds upon the point I’m making rather more elegantly than I did. Your interpretation would, at least upon my reading, attempt to seperate the faith from Peter. That is it is the faith that Peter expressed which is the rock, owing very little or nothing at all to Peter.
I find this interpretation deficient, you really can’t seperate the faith expressed by Peter from the individual of Peter.
As for the Fathers, I’ll let them speak through the Reverend Haydock:
Edit
Haydock expounds upon the point I’m making rather more elegantly than I did. Your interpretation would, at least upon my reading, attempt to seperate the faith from Peter. That is it is the faith that Peter expressed which is the rock, owing very little or nothing at all to Peter.
I find this interpretation deficient, you really can’t seperate the faith expressed by Peter from the individual of Peter.
As for the Fathers, I’ll let them speak through the Reverend Haydock:
Mat 16:18 Greek: Kago. And I say to thee, and tell thee why I before declared, (John i. 42.) that thou shouldst be called Peter, for thou art constituted the rock upon which, as a foundation, I will build my Church, and that so firmly, as not to suffer the gates (i.e. the powers) of hell to prevail against its foundation; because if they overturn its foundation, (i.e. thee and thy successors) they will overturn also the Church that rests upon it. Christ therefore here promises to Peter, that he and his successors should be to the end, as long as the Church should last, its supreme pastors and princes. (Tirinus) — In the Syriac tongue, which is that which Jesus Christ spoke, there is no difference of genders, as there is in Latin, between patra, a rock, and Petrus, Peter; hence, in the original language, the allusion was both more natural and more simple. (Bible de Vence) --Thou art Peter;[2] and upon this (i.e. upon thee, according to the literal and general exposition of the ancient Fathers) I will build my church. It is true St. Augustine, in one or two places, thus expounds these words, and upon this rock, (i.e. upon myself
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
He’s basically saying the exact thing that I was saying. Once again, the issue is claiming that papal infallibility is affirmed by this passage. It doesn’t seem to be. The infallibility of the Universal Church and the Faith professed by Her, yes; but the infallibility of an individual in the Church… it’s quite a stretch.
P
Phillip_Rolfes
Guest
I take it back; the first couple of sentences aren’t necessarily what I was trying to say. When he starts quoting the Fathers, however, he basically shifts into the same argument I was making. Where is this from, by the way?
C
crazzeto
Guest
Not quite exactly, as your argument was intended to take binding and loseing and apply it very liberally at the point of this particular passage. The other Apostles would be given authority later on as well, but not the same authority exactly.
Dr. Hahn makes a very good piont in his discourse on the papucy regarding ministers and prime ministers, I think once you go ahead and add in later scriptures this fits very well. But at the point of this scripture we are discussing, only Peter is given the Authority to bind and lose and only Peter is ever given the kingdom of the Keys (a symbol of the office of the prime minister from the old kingdome).
Rev. Haydock’s commentary found in his Douay-Rhiems bible. I copied it from a digital version you get get with e-sword, a bible reading application. The only Catholic bible they provide is the DR, and unfortunetly they don’t offer the Haydock commentary off their main page for commentaries. It’s a protestant program, while he throws catholics and Orthodox a bone it’s not a very big one.He’s basically saying the exact thing that I was saying. Once again, the issue is claiming that papal infallibility is affirmed by this passage. It doesn’t seem to be. The infallibility of the Universal Church and the Faith professed by Her, yes; but the infallibility of an individual in the Church… it’s quite a stretch.
You can get the Haydock commentary however, from the esword-users forum. Just google it. One caveot is that the commentary is very difficult to work with in the Psalsm, as the DR is a literal translation of the Vulgate which does not use the Hebrew numbering scheme (the only one supported by e-sword).
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The faith as expressed by the Creed, yes. The same faith as celebrated in sacrament, yes. The same faith as visible Church governance, unfortunately, no. We are so close, and yet in some ways so far. Sigh.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
The Pope is the Vicar of Peter, or Peter’s successor. All Bishops are successors to the Apostles, and Vicars of Christ.
D
diggerdomer
Guest
Indulgences are completely distinct from teaching. You said what the Pope teaches binds those in heaven.
- Status