M
Margaret_Ann
Guest
Great post.
- Status
M
Michael16
Guest
I heartily concur, @steve-b.
You’re a good son of the Church.
You’re a good son of the Church.
M
mcq72
Guest
Well the elephant in the room asks can Peter split from people?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
This from correspondence from Pope Gregory to emperor and John the Faster, bishop of Constantinople.
The pope criticized John for taking on name " universal bishop" or ecumenical bishop".
The pope may have been misunderstanding the greek term, and thought John was saying he was the only bishop, or that bishops had no authority but from himself, instead of independantly from Christ.
The pope although believing he had full jurisdiction over all bishops, still referred to himself as “servant of the servants of God” , deriving authority from Peter.
The pope understood every priest, every bishop, as vicars in Christ equally. Each had keys ( power to loose and bind) so to speak coming from Christ.
So it seems the pope perceived the term " universal" as pyramidal heirarchy, to which he objected. It seems the pope would disagree if one were to say Peter shared or gave his “powers/ keys” to other apostles by saying Christ gave powers to the other apostles.
Again this is while the pope perceived himself as the shepherd of shepherds, stating so in many writings.
I did find one justification for his authority structure weak, where he states that a church (metropolitan/ patriarchal ) founded by Peter or Peter thru Mark to be more authoritative than if not (so Antioch and Alexandria were ok but not Constantinople). Very biased in my opinion.
Still find it an interesting and though sincere, a power play in the end. He definitely helped solidify or maintain Rome as she sees herself. Unfortunately, may have also helped solidify , or at lead to or show friction between east and west.
PS…enjoyed seeing your dialogue with ziapueblo…it only reaffirms my belief that Protestantism sought nothing new but relished in the old, as far as attitude towards papacy. If words were sharper between reformers and her popes, perhaps it was because too many popes were not more like Gregory.
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
@mcq72,
There’s several misunderstandings in your assertion.
In the early Church, Rome was the unquestioned protos of the Church with primacy of honor above all other bishops.
Honor just isn’t a social distinction without any effective power and authority. With honor, is responsibility and authority.
All of the other sees of the Church recognized Rome’s primacy.
Pope Saint Gregory the Great rebuked John IV for usurping the primatial powers from Rome; his Primate. As Rome was the recognized and unquestioned Primate of the whole Church.
Later on, Pope Saint Gregory the Great had to elevate Rome as the basis, upon this rock; on which Western Christianity would survive by encouraging the Western churches to look to Rome rather than Constantinople.
You see, the Pope is the Archbishop of the Holy Synod of the Church and the Orthodox don’t deny this. In fact, I learned this from an Orthodox writer. An Archbishop has the full authority to adjudicate disputes and rule his synod.
Another point of fact is that the bishop is the vicar of Christ. He’s a successor to the Apostles with the full authority to teach the Faith. Once Scripture was canonized in the Council of Rome in 382, the bishop had the full authority to interpret Scripture for his priests and laity.
What you see in the early Church was a hierarchical structure of authority vested in the bishops and those above them: Archbishops, Metropolitans and Patriarchs with Rome as Primate.
What the reformers did was two fold:
1: Taught faith alone, per Luther’s misunderstanding of the term; that’s no where found in the historical record. That means it’s an innovation. Something new.
2: In Luther’s Address to the German Nobility, Luther took the authority to interpret Scripture away from the Holy Father and the bishops and placed it firmly with the individual. For 1,500 years, it was Church authority from the very beginning that did the interpretation. Luther introduced an innovation. Something new.
With point 2, the reformers essentially gutted the Church and reorganized it in ways that it never was before.
I’ll even lay out a third point:
3: Latent in Luther’s shifting of interpretive authority is the practical consequences of that shift. This means that authority itself is questioned. Once that firm rock is removed, all bets are off as each man interprets for himself and no one can speak authoritatively.
Thus, you have theological and ecclesiological anarchy until new structures arise. Upon the premise that no authority is unquestioned. Dangerous and unsure ground, my friend.
So, to say the reformers never sought anything new and only affirmed the old, just doesn’t bear out when you examine the historical record.
There’s several misunderstandings in your assertion.
In the early Church, Rome was the unquestioned protos of the Church with primacy of honor above all other bishops.
Honor just isn’t a social distinction without any effective power and authority. With honor, is responsibility and authority.
All of the other sees of the Church recognized Rome’s primacy.
Pope Saint Gregory the Great rebuked John IV for usurping the primatial powers from Rome; his Primate. As Rome was the recognized and unquestioned Primate of the whole Church.
Later on, Pope Saint Gregory the Great had to elevate Rome as the basis, upon this rock; on which Western Christianity would survive by encouraging the Western churches to look to Rome rather than Constantinople.
You see, the Pope is the Archbishop of the Holy Synod of the Church and the Orthodox don’t deny this. In fact, I learned this from an Orthodox writer. An Archbishop has the full authority to adjudicate disputes and rule his synod.
Another point of fact is that the bishop is the vicar of Christ. He’s a successor to the Apostles with the full authority to teach the Faith. Once Scripture was canonized in the Council of Rome in 382, the bishop had the full authority to interpret Scripture for his priests and laity.
What you see in the early Church was a hierarchical structure of authority vested in the bishops and those above them: Archbishops, Metropolitans and Patriarchs with Rome as Primate.
What the reformers did was two fold:
1: Taught faith alone, per Luther’s misunderstanding of the term; that’s no where found in the historical record. That means it’s an innovation. Something new.
2: In Luther’s Address to the German Nobility, Luther took the authority to interpret Scripture away from the Holy Father and the bishops and placed it firmly with the individual. For 1,500 years, it was Church authority from the very beginning that did the interpretation. Luther introduced an innovation. Something new.
With point 2, the reformers essentially gutted the Church and reorganized it in ways that it never was before.
I’ll even lay out a third point:
3: Latent in Luther’s shifting of interpretive authority is the practical consequences of that shift. This means that authority itself is questioned. Once that firm rock is removed, all bets are off as each man interprets for himself and no one can speak authoritatively.
Thus, you have theological and ecclesiological anarchy until new structures arise. Upon the premise that no authority is unquestioned. Dangerous and unsure ground, my friend.
So, to say the reformers never sought anything new and only affirmed the old, just doesn’t bear out when you examine the historical record.
Last edited:
Sheesh!
S
steve-b
Guest
Z
ziapueblo
Guest
I apologize for my frustration.
ZP
ZP
S
steve-b
Guest
M
Michael16
Guest
Same here, @steve-b. Same here. Mother Mary, pray for us!
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
S
steve-b
Guest
One word used in scripture discussing Peter is to… lead, rule ἡγέομαι .steve-b:
Well the elephant in the room asks can Peter split from people?
That said
Peter doesn’t force anyone to follow him anymore than Jesus forces anyone to follow HIM. All we know is, the consequences for NOT following Jesus or His plan… But no one is forced. Free will is always to be used freely. It’s what makes us culpable for what we choose… good or bad. WE don’t live in a consequence free existence
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Agree, but doesn’t address the elephant.
M
mcq72
Guest
ok, when did it begin to be questioned, if not at the beginning?
Disagree…the term distinction in honor then is meaningless…if Rome is top dog authoritatively, of course you obey and honor, but the very fact that folks began to distinguish honor , it was precisely to say that was perception , and not one of jurisdictional supremacy.
again, when was this understood and when was it not…not too mention primacy of what ?..of course you mean jurisdiction, but others do not with just the word primacy alone.
perhaps, but was much more…he supposed John to think he was only vicar of Christ, and all bishops and priests derived power form John…the pope thought he was prime, but that all bishops and priests were also vicars of Christ…the pope may have misunderstood Greek …that Rome was recognized as the Pope saw it by other patriarchs and emperor is questionable.
understand and did not dispute this
Again the Rome as primate meaning what? Honor, jurisdiction? It is clear the east and west struggled over this beginning at least during this period (Gregory).
This does not deal with my post . I commented on Roman papal jurisdiction over entire church or just her see.
otherwise , you mean per your misunderstanding of the term.
Again, whatever may seem new to Luther view was to counter what was new with church by her
developing reliance on tradition at the expense of normative verity of scripture during middle ages.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
too either/ or answer.
What Luther did was elevate Christs disciples, indwelt by the Holy Ghost, a tabernacle and monstrance of Christ, to also interpret and understand Scripture. No where does he state that a bishop or pope or council , made up of disciples, can’t do the same. That would be ludicrous.
Partly agree, that it is not hierarchical structure of West , nor of the East, but definitely has many same offices and partial structures, …I would not say gutted, and did first century have archbishops, metropolitan, sees, synods, ecumenical councils, beyond what we saw at Jerusalem?.
all three forms of Christian hierarchy have plenty of consequential headaches and ugly moments of their own. Pope Gregory thought the patriarch of Constantinople John was weak in not dealing with two of his priests , which Gregory did…he was critical of his shepherding.
At the other end is when no one can question decreed authoritative teachings…where disciples say, “That is above my pay grade”
well, i only posted that nothing new as far as not seeing pope as supreme ruler of church and only vicar of Christ…that it would disingenuous to say everything was fine in the universal church as far as papacy goes for 1500 years until Luther and reformers came.
Last edited:
S
steve-b
Guest
I’d just say in this case, the elephant in the room, is the consequence that is there, at judgement, for EVERYONE, based on the decisions one makes on this side of eternitysteve-b:
Agree, but doesn’t address the elephant.
Last edited:
M
Michael16
Guest
@mcq72,
We can go into Sacred Scripture if you like, my friend. I’ll show you where Luther went wrong.
Luther got faith alone wrong from the very start in Romans 3:28. He misunderstood faith apart from works of the law to mean apart from works.
Saint Paul, and all of his readers for 1,500 years until Luther’s mistake in reading comprehension; understood it to mean that faith replaces works of the Old Law as the basis of justification. Faith and the obedience to that faith results in good works.
That’s the proper understanding of justification by faith.
If Saint Paul taught Luther’s faith alone in the 50s AD, then we wouldn’t have theology developing as it did historically; as native Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles would’ve understood it from the word go.
History and common sense shows Luther’s misunderstanding.
As for Rome’s supremacy:
Rome was understood as the highest ranking See in the Church.
To answer your question, Roman primacy was understood from the beginning with the Scriptural basis that Saint Peter is the Prince and Chief of the Apostles as declared by Jesus Himself.
As for honor: Honor isn’t meaningless. It has prerogatives. Meaning Rome’s opinion held weight as the Successor of Saint Peter; since every faithful Christian accepted from the very beginning of the Church that Saint Peter was Chief and Prince of the Apostles.
Roman supremacy was latent and implicit in the authority derived from being the Apostolic See. It just wasn’t explicitly defined until after the 1054 schism.
Essentially, everyone recognized Roman primacy in principle and theory; just the canon law definition didn’t arrive until later.
Now, for all of Church history; all bishops are recognized as vicars of Christ. Not vicars of the Pope.
As for Tradition, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are synergistic; none can stand without the other. In fact: Prior to 382, there wasn’t a canon for Scripture. The Church relied on Tradition that was faithfully and fastidiously handed down from the Apostles.
When you look at Church documents all across the centuries, you’ll find COPIOUS Scripture references by men who lived and breathed Scripture all day, every day for the entirety of their lives.
Just read the Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas alone and you’ll see the truth of my words.
As for Luther’s elevation of disciples: Just look at what he did.
He placed interpretive authority and gave it to the individual; regardless of his piety, training and personal holiness. He also gave power over his church to the state. Something the Church fought centuries against.
As for Church structure: What you’re denying is that structures evolve over time as the Church grew. Sees founded daughter churches from the original churches and they were subordinate to the original bishop; then often elevated to an Archbishop, Metropolitan or a Patriarch is the See was founded by an Apostle; or in Constantinople’s case; because it was the imperial capital after Constantine the Great.
You raising the possibility of abuse of authority doesn’t excuse the revolution against authority vested in the vicars of Christ; the Holy Father and the bishops.
We can go into Sacred Scripture if you like, my friend. I’ll show you where Luther went wrong.
Luther got faith alone wrong from the very start in Romans 3:28. He misunderstood faith apart from works of the law to mean apart from works.
Saint Paul, and all of his readers for 1,500 years until Luther’s mistake in reading comprehension; understood it to mean that faith replaces works of the Old Law as the basis of justification. Faith and the obedience to that faith results in good works.
That’s the proper understanding of justification by faith.
If Saint Paul taught Luther’s faith alone in the 50s AD, then we wouldn’t have theology developing as it did historically; as native Greek speaking Jews and Gentiles would’ve understood it from the word go.
History and common sense shows Luther’s misunderstanding.
As for Rome’s supremacy:
Rome was understood as the highest ranking See in the Church.
To answer your question, Roman primacy was understood from the beginning with the Scriptural basis that Saint Peter is the Prince and Chief of the Apostles as declared by Jesus Himself.
As for honor: Honor isn’t meaningless. It has prerogatives. Meaning Rome’s opinion held weight as the Successor of Saint Peter; since every faithful Christian accepted from the very beginning of the Church that Saint Peter was Chief and Prince of the Apostles.
Roman supremacy was latent and implicit in the authority derived from being the Apostolic See. It just wasn’t explicitly defined until after the 1054 schism.
Essentially, everyone recognized Roman primacy in principle and theory; just the canon law definition didn’t arrive until later.
Now, for all of Church history; all bishops are recognized as vicars of Christ. Not vicars of the Pope.
As for Tradition, Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition are synergistic; none can stand without the other. In fact: Prior to 382, there wasn’t a canon for Scripture. The Church relied on Tradition that was faithfully and fastidiously handed down from the Apostles.
When you look at Church documents all across the centuries, you’ll find COPIOUS Scripture references by men who lived and breathed Scripture all day, every day for the entirety of their lives.
Just read the Summa Theologica by Saint Thomas Aquinas alone and you’ll see the truth of my words.
As for Luther’s elevation of disciples: Just look at what he did.
He placed interpretive authority and gave it to the individual; regardless of his piety, training and personal holiness. He also gave power over his church to the state. Something the Church fought centuries against.
As for Church structure: What you’re denying is that structures evolve over time as the Church grew. Sees founded daughter churches from the original churches and they were subordinate to the original bishop; then often elevated to an Archbishop, Metropolitan or a Patriarch is the See was founded by an Apostle; or in Constantinople’s case; because it was the imperial capital after Constantine the Great.
You raising the possibility of abuse of authority doesn’t excuse the revolution against authority vested in the vicars of Christ; the Holy Father and the bishops.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
again, agree and you are preaching to the choir…but again does not address the papal issue.
M
mcq72
Guest
and who took it away?
M
Michael16
Guest
@mcq72,
Nobody took anything away from anyone. That’s a misconception taught by the the reformers.
Here’s my question to you:
If you need a medical opinion, would you go to a medical doctor or another layman?
If you need a legal opinion, would you go to a lawyer or your bartender?
Going to a priest or a bishop for a theological opinion is the same thing.
Another misconception is that Catholics either don’t read the Bible or aren’t allowed to read the Bible for themselves.
Neither is true. Nowhere in Church history, do you see such dictums. In Dei Verbum, issued in 1965; laity are encouraged to read Sacred Scripture for themselves. In fact: In my RSV-CE Bible, there’s a copy of Dei Verbum.
Also: You’ve spoken with Catholics here. You’ve seen how deeply read into Sacred Scripture we are. Orthodox too.
Neither are we mindless robots that don’t think for ourselves in understanding and interpreting Sacred Scripture. We just study and interpret Sacred Scripture for ourselves and double check ourselves by asking questions of our priests and learned lay theologians and referencing theology texts to ensure that we’re not going off the rails.
In fact, when you examine the historical record; you see that laity have been interpreting Sacred Scripture for themselves all across Church history. Saint Francis of Assisi was never a priest and began his Order AS a layman based on impressions made upon him hearing Gospel readings in Mass. That’s just one example.
In fact, on my way into the Church, I did independent Scripture study and theological and historical research; comparing the differences between the various Protestant communities, Anglicanism, the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy.
All this led to the Catholic Church because:
1: In my Scripture study, I saw that the Church was right. Verse by verse; time after time. Everything the Church teaches can either be found in Sacred Scripture or lines up with Sacred Scripture. The ding moment was learning that Luther altered the text of Romans 3:28 in his 1529 translation of the Latin Vulgate into German. And removed 7 books from the OT.
I can’t trust someone who’d alter Sacred Scripture. That alone destroys Luther’s credibility as both a translator and exegete.
2: I compared the Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox doctrines together for consistency. Protestants lost because there’s so many wildly divergent interpretations and no unity. The only things that they can agree on is Solas Fide, Scriptura and somehow the Catholic Church is wrong. They can’t be right. Anglicans can’t be right as their doctrine is a via media that tries to accommodate everybody and the Royal Supremacy. Orthodox are cool; the problem being that Sacred Scripture clearly states Saint Peter’s headship of the Church and that Orthodoxy placed the Byzantine Emperor at the head of the Church. As well as so much disunity among the Orthodox Churches.
The Catholic Church has remained united and whole; teaching a internally self consistent doctrine that remained faithful to it’s Apostolic roots for 2,000 years. That made a deep impression on me as no one else can claim that.
That’s why I’m Catholic.
Nobody took anything away from anyone. That’s a misconception taught by the the reformers.
Here’s my question to you:
If you need a medical opinion, would you go to a medical doctor or another layman?
If you need a legal opinion, would you go to a lawyer or your bartender?
Going to a priest or a bishop for a theological opinion is the same thing.
Another misconception is that Catholics either don’t read the Bible or aren’t allowed to read the Bible for themselves.
Neither is true. Nowhere in Church history, do you see such dictums. In Dei Verbum, issued in 1965; laity are encouraged to read Sacred Scripture for themselves. In fact: In my RSV-CE Bible, there’s a copy of Dei Verbum.
Also: You’ve spoken with Catholics here. You’ve seen how deeply read into Sacred Scripture we are. Orthodox too.
Neither are we mindless robots that don’t think for ourselves in understanding and interpreting Sacred Scripture. We just study and interpret Sacred Scripture for ourselves and double check ourselves by asking questions of our priests and learned lay theologians and referencing theology texts to ensure that we’re not going off the rails.
In fact, when you examine the historical record; you see that laity have been interpreting Sacred Scripture for themselves all across Church history. Saint Francis of Assisi was never a priest and began his Order AS a layman based on impressions made upon him hearing Gospel readings in Mass. That’s just one example.
In fact, on my way into the Church, I did independent Scripture study and theological and historical research; comparing the differences between the various Protestant communities, Anglicanism, the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy.
All this led to the Catholic Church because:
1: In my Scripture study, I saw that the Church was right. Verse by verse; time after time. Everything the Church teaches can either be found in Sacred Scripture or lines up with Sacred Scripture. The ding moment was learning that Luther altered the text of Romans 3:28 in his 1529 translation of the Latin Vulgate into German. And removed 7 books from the OT.
I can’t trust someone who’d alter Sacred Scripture. That alone destroys Luther’s credibility as both a translator and exegete.
2: I compared the Protestants, Anglicans, Catholics and Orthodox doctrines together for consistency. Protestants lost because there’s so many wildly divergent interpretations and no unity. The only things that they can agree on is Solas Fide, Scriptura and somehow the Catholic Church is wrong. They can’t be right. Anglicans can’t be right as their doctrine is a via media that tries to accommodate everybody and the Royal Supremacy. Orthodox are cool; the problem being that Sacred Scripture clearly states Saint Peter’s headship of the Church and that Orthodoxy placed the Byzantine Emperor at the head of the Church. As well as so much disunity among the Orthodox Churches.
The Catholic Church has remained united and whole; teaching a internally self consistent doctrine that remained faithful to it’s Apostolic roots for 2,000 years. That made a deep impression on me as no one else can claim that.
That’s why I’m Catholic.
Last edited:
- Status