Universal Jursidiction

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11213114:

Appears non-applicable as one is not a member of the Orthodox Faith?

You are not even trying to understand the Eastern POV. If you were you would not have posted that.

Seems your response does not apparently realize understanding the [Eastern] Orthodox worldview (vis-à-vis φρόνημα= phrónēma) is rather separate from uncritically accepting its underlying premises?

Unequivocal? Objectively verifiable? This is not a court of law…

Shame, that . . .

SanctusPeccator;11213114:

As has been amply demonstrated [with Cavardossi], any personal claims can only be universally accepted if they are conclusively substantiated by an objectively verifiable body of evidence, e.g., categorical statements unequivocally presenting the precise meaning in a theological point of contention

. Looks hardly unreasonable given legal advocates regularly present their cases along similar procedures in a court of law?
Is an unreasonable standard, given that there is no “conclusively substantiated and verifiable body of evidence” on either the Roman Catholic or Orthodox side. These terms do not fit in with the discussion we are having. Precise meaning? Do you believe that the Trinity can be sifted with the eye of Perry Mason? My point is that there is no “Magic Bullet” and you are asking for exactly that.

Appears it would be more accurate to state “These terms do not fit in with the discussion some of us are having . . . ” unless your statements are officially speaking on everyone’s behalf? Further, seems the precise canonical connotation of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs (which is the particular topic of contention) is far different than vainly seeking a comprehensive apprehension for the fundamental mystery of Christianity?

This tangent demonstrates how wide the chasm is between Latin and Orthodox when it comes to approaches to the Faith.

While undoubtedly your perception, does this necessarily reflect the belief of all within the [Eastern] Orthodox Faith?

The Scholastic model was rejected by the East,

Gennadios II Scholarios would likely differ with this generalization?

and we certainly don’t approach the Faith using the language of “logic.”

As eschewing “logic” would precariously border on fideism, perhaps this remark ought to be better rephrased?

 

[benjohnson]

But that itself is a faith claim of enormous magnitude. It assumes that God has made some promise to you that he will speak directly to you.

God speaks to us all directly though His word. I have never been blessed to knowingly hear His voice, but I have a life-time of His word in my hand.

The issue is that you are trusting on something that is already devious i.e. the idea that God should guide you. That itself is a faith statement and not something intuitively self-evident or attainable through reason.

Again, we have His word.

For myself, how I came to be a Christian is a long story, but reason did pay a large part of it, though in the end is was His faith given to me.

So what exactly are the Lutherans doing following him?

We follow God, not Luther. We have respect for the man, but blot his name from history and our church would remain unchanged.

A necessity? How can it be a “necessity” for a student to rebel against the professors and start his own university? If the Professors seemed to be straying, the right thing to do is stay in the Church and object. Not start your own gig.

This is not university or a “gig.”

Luther and other Catholics like Erasmus and Eck took these issues very seriously, and while I can be flippant to the point of annoyance, I do take the issue of schism very seriously.

But what I am asking here is for you to consider what justification your forefathers (or the ones who preached Lutheranism to you) had to leave the Church and follow Luther.

No Lutheran has preached Lutheranism to me. They have preached the Law and the Gospel.

We didn’t leave the church - we are a valid continuation of the western church and I pray for the day when our profession of the belief in the OHCAC becomes visible.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

I am asking to describe how the Apostolic Tradition refutes Papal claims. Is it that “Doctrine X that existed prior to definition contradicts definition of Papal office”? What doctrine is that?

Because if it is “Canon Law is contradicted” or “there was an absence of such an office”, that is not a refutation.

As for whether Scripture supports the claims, that is a Catch 22 situation. If one accepts the Catholic interpretation of the passages, Scripture supports it. There is no actual way to reject the Catholic interpretation as certainly false. You can at best show an alternate interpretation. So the argument from Scripture on the part of the Orthodox for justification of their rejection cannot apply unless the Roman Catholic one is completely absurd. But as some Protestant theologians will attest, its not far out there at all even though they do not personally like that particular interpretation.

On the perspective of the “innovator”, Rome can always point out many cases where Rome stepped in to correct the Orthodox while the Orthodox have none. That is a problem and does support for the idea that Rome seems to be the superior (just from an observer stand point).

I am not referring to the canons. I am referring to how the Church operated with respect to the various Sees. Rome was shown a great deal of respect, its primacy of honor was never questioned. What is questioned is whether that translates into the powers Rome claimed for itself later. It is a gross oversimplification to say Rome “bailed us out.”

It cannot apply? You say so, but we assert it does apply.

Pope Honorius was condemned as a Heretic, and then there is the Filoque…not exactly a shining example as Rome was against it before she was for it…

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Was the Immaculate Conception foreign to the first millenium church?

How about the Assumption?

Thanks in advance.

The Dormition of the Theotokos is a Teaching but we have not made it a “dogma” as the Latins have.

The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine that is uniquely Western. The East rejects the teaching of Inherited Guilt…None of us bear any guilt for Adam’s Sin so there was no stain to purify the Theotokos from…the dogma is viewed as superfluous at best.

 

[Misplaced_Book]

Seems your response does not apparently realize understanding the [Eastern] Orthodox worldview (vis-à-vis φρόνημα= phrónēma) is rather separate from uncritically accepting its underlying premises?

Shame, that . . .

Appears it would be more accurate to state “These terms do not fit in with the discussion some of us are having . . . ” unless your statements are officially speaking on everyone’s behalf? Further, seems the precise canonical connotation of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs (which is the particular topic of contention) is far different than vainly seeking a comprehensive apprehension for the fundamental mystery of Christianity?

While undoubtedly your perception, does this necessarily reflect the belief of all within the [Eastern] Orthodox Faith?

Gennadios II Scholarios would likely differ with this generalization?

As eschewing “logic” would precariously border on fideism, perhaps this remark ought to be better rephrased?

I was speaking in general terms but for you, here is something specific:

We are done here.

It isn’t a question of you swallowing our claims. Now it is about courtesy.

Cavaradossi (who is smarter than I) ended the dialogue and I am doing the same. You remind me of the guy in the bar in the movie Good Will Hunting. You use big words and flowery language to try and make people look stupid who disagree with you. I understand what you are saying, but find your tone offensive. You can have the last word as I will not respond to you again.

 

[SanctusPeccator]

I was speaking in general terms but for you, here is something specific:

We are done here.

It isn’t a question of you swallowing our claims. Now it is about courtesy.

Cavaradossi (who is smarter than I) ended the dialogue and I am doing the same. You remind me of the guy in the bar in the movie Good Will Hunting. You use big words and flowery language to try and make people look stupid who disagree with you. I understand what you are saying, but find your tone offensive. You can have the last word as I will not respond to you again.

As clarity of thought and precision of language are one of the touchstones of critical reasoning, should I supposedly misconstrue non-existent ad hominem slights – à la psychological projection – from (admittedly) meticulous ad rem scrutiny too? Ought the character of Detective Sergeant Joe Friday [from *Dragnet] be treated likewise for adamantly insisting “All we want are the facts…” in solving his cases?

 

[LionHeart777]

The Dormition of the Theotokos is a Teaching but we have not made it a “dogma” as the Latins have.

The Immaculate Conception is a doctrine that is uniquely Western. The East rejects the teaching of Inherited Guilt…None of us bear any guilt for Adam’s Sin so there was no stain to purify the Theotokos from…the dogma is viewed as superfluous at best.

Not to derail, but I think there are some misconceptions about what the West means when talking about “guilt.” I think Fr. Alvin Kimel does a good job explaining in this blog post.

 

[KnitNut]

This thread has so many big words flying, I’m hesitant to join in (though I thank you all for a few “triple word scores”…I won BIG at Scrabble last night!! ).

Because if it is “Canon Law is contradicted” or “there was an absence of such an office”, that is not a refutation.

The point is to teach the Apostolic Faith as revealed (by Christ, not by Rome) with nothing added, nothing changed, nothing removed. The office didn’t exist, it was later added. It is refuted specifically because it was created/innovated/imagined. Because as you say:

As for whether Scripture supports the claims, that is a Catch 22 situation.** If one accepts the Catholic interpretation of the passages**, Scripture supports it. There is no actual way to reject the Catholic interpretation as certainly false. You can at best show an alternate interpretation. So the argument from Scripture on the part of the Orthodox for justification of their rejection cannot apply unless the Roman Catholic one is completely absurd. But as some Protestant theologians will attest, its not far out there at all even though they do not personally like that particular interpretation.

I agree with a few points here. First, that (contrary to SanctusPeccator’s insistence) Scripture wasn’t written to be a codified and fully annotated legal manual to the faith. It’s open to interpretation. It’s possible to arrive at various conclusions. You assert that all must accept Rome’s interpretation because “it’s not far out there at all”. You assert that none may reject it “unless the Roman Catholic one is absurd”. Yet you state, “There is no actual way to reject the Catholic interpretation as certainly false”…likewise there is no actual way to accept the Catholic interpretation as certainly true. (My teen son would call this the “Because I’m the Mom and I Said So” defense…it works from a position of absolute power, but from a position of logic, not so much.) Orthodoxy rejects the Catholic interpretation (and the resulting innovations of the Papacy/Universal Jurisdiction). We Orthodox believe that the councils, the writings of the Fathers, the Traditions given us all confirm the Orthodox interpretation. You believe differently. Life is like that. Lord, have mercy on us all!

It boils down to a matter of faith. As someone else (Misplaced Book?) said, there’s no magic bullet, no smoking gun, no “Perry Mason moment”. We don’t have the YouTube videos of the councils, not even that many blog posts. I would like to think we’re all posting in charity, seeking to understand those who believe differently, seeking to explain our beliefs in love for our Christian brothers and sisters. I’ve been wrong before.

 

[JonNC]

What are your thoughts on Iconoclasm being condemned close to A.D. 800?

Lutherans, myself included, have always been opposed to iconoclasm.

Jon

 

[SanctusPeccator]

First, that (contrary to SanctusPeccator’s insistence) Scripture wasn’t written to be a codified and fully annotated legal manual to the faith. It’s open to interpretation. It’s possible to arrive at various conclusions.

Hmm . . . looks rather unlikely as Sacred Scripture was never raised for discussion, KnitNut? Perhaps your response is inadvertently conflating this with having reasonably requested explicit statements specifying the precise canonical nature of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs?

 

[JonNC]

Here’s my question,

Since I brought up Iconoclasm (as Nicaea II was fresh on my mined), are the veneration of images more specific to the Gospel in your opinion than the the Immaculate Conception and the Bodily Assumption of Mary?

Also, do Catholic or Orthodox Theologians even grade things on how specific they are to the Gospel or not, or is this a Lutheran thing? Or more broadly, a Protestant thing?

Thanks.

I don’t know about protestants, but Lutheranism tends to be very Christocentric. So, for example, the doctrine of the Holy Theotokos is an article of faith for Lutherans because it is so closely tied to the Incarnation. The Assumption of Mary is not. Nor is there specific evidence in scripture regarding her assumption. So, for Lutherans, her assumption is not an article of faith, but adiaphora. This Lutheran takes an approach similar to Luther: she is in Heaven with her son, though it is not known how this happened. Same thing with the IC.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

So, they were known?

Thank you.

I don’t know about the idea of the assumption, in the first millennium, but I would assume so. I do know that Luther believed it, and to one degree or another, the IC (there are differing opinions regarding how firmly he held to the IC as he grew older). But even then there was no anathema attached to either, requiring belief in them.

Jon

 

[KnitNut]

Hmm . . . looks rather unlikely as Sacred Scripture was never raised for discussion, KnitNut? Perhaps your response is inadvertently conflating this with having reasonably requested explicit statements specifying the precise canonical nature of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs?

Forgive my lack of precision. I was making reference to your insistence that ancient texts must reveal completely codified details…which of course, they do not. Sorry to disappoint…my brain cells get dehydrated at those lofty intellectual heights

I’m not particularly well read - would you mind citing the source that details completely the nature of canonical penalty, notably what “struck from diptychs” entails, also deposition and excommunication? It seems there’s a lot of reading between the lines going on, while at the same time the clarion call for PRECISION. Thanks

 

[SanctusPeccator]

SanctusPeccator;11216007:

Hmm . . . looks rather unlikely as Sacred Scripture was never raised for discussion, KnitNut? Perhaps your response is inadvertently conflating this with having reasonably requested explicit statements specifying the precise canonical nature of Vigilius’ name being struck from the diptychs?

Forgive my lack of precision. I was making reference to your insistence that ancient texts must reveal completely codified details…which of course, they do not. Sorry to disappoint…my brain cells get dehydrated at those lofty intellectual heights

As no faux pas was committed, no forgiveness is required . . .

I’m not particularly well read - would you mind citing the source that details completely the nature of canonical penalty, notably what “struck from diptychs” entails, also deposition and excommunication? It seems there’s a lot of reading between the lines going on, while at the same time the clarion call for PRECISION. Thanks

Sans an explicit statement specifying the precise nature of this ecclesiastical censure, being struck from the diptychs is rather susceptible to multiple interpretations (i.e., anathematization, excommunication, deposition). Cavaradossi’s earlier allusion to an article [from a Catholic perspective] by Abbot René Maere provides a sufficient introduction to the subject: newadvent.org/cathen/05022a.htm ] (courtesy of the 1909 edition of The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. V, pp. 22-24).

 

[LionHeart777]

I don’t know about protestants, but Lutheranism tends to be very Christocentric. So, for example, the doctrine of the Holy Theotokos is an article of faith for Lutherans because it is so closely tied to the Incarnation. The Assumption of Mary is not. Nor is there specific evidence in scripture regarding her assumption. So, for Lutherans, her assumption is not an article of faith, but adiaphora. This Lutheran takes an approach similar to Luther: she is in Heaven with her son, though it is not known how this happened. Same thing with the IC.

Jon

My point in bringing up Iconoclasm, I think, was to show that this was condemned closer towards the second millennium (since you had mentioned no anathemas being attached to denial of Marian Dogmas in the first millennium.)

But, as you have said, Lutherans, yourself included, are not Iconoclasts (that was what I was guessing.) Where does the veneration of images fit in with Lutheran articles of faith? Are the veneration of images too considered adiaphora by Lutherans, including yourself?

Thanks.

–Nick

 

[rinnie]

That is his opinion, and there are plenty of scholars who hold the opposite opinion but he does not answer for why there is an anachronous interpolation within a text attributed to Pope St. Damasus. If the text has been tampered with, and we cannot find any version without the interpolation, how can we be sure what if any part of it is genuine?

Besides all of this. Lets go back to the beginning. The Apostles accepted that the Pope was the leader of the sheep. Peter himself claimed God made his choice among us.

I have been away from this thread for awhile so I apologize if this was answered. But I am asking you personally.

Do you believe the Apostles got it wrong? I mean you must agree history does prove Peter has been replaced by another Pope from the beginning.

And what choice do you believe Peter was speaking about. Did he not say from MY MOUTH I shall teach the gentiles?? What do you think that meant?

 

[Per_Crucem]

Let me try to simplify…

You were saying that the things I brought up (Resurrection of Christians, etc.) could be defended without attaching anathemas to denial of Marian Dogmas. I agree.

Likewise, the Incarnation of Christ could be defended without attaching anathemas to Iconoclasm. I agree.

I also agree with the decision to attach anathemas were they were attached by the Catholic Church.

I think I am being consistent. I was pointing out that I don’t believe you were… If you don’t agree, then so be it.

I understand what you’re saying. I would just argue they do not rise to the level of warranting an anathema. I don’t have an issue with people who hold the IC or assumption to be true, even though I strongly disagree with them. That is an issue of their conscience/piety. Neither should those who do not hold to them have their consciences violated.

When it comes to iconoclasm, the idea that images are absolutely forbidden and a violation of the 2nd commandment is serious error, and thus warrants condemnation. Not venerating images is a matter of choice but forbidding Christians from having images is the error.

 

[rinnie]

I don’t know about protestants, but Lutheranism tends to be very Christocentric. So, for example, the doctrine of the Holy Theotokos is an article of faith for Lutherans because it is so closely tied to the Incarnation. The Assumption of Mary is not. Nor is there specific evidence in scripture regarding her assumption. So, for Lutherans, her assumption is not an article of faith, but adiaphora. This Lutheran takes an approach similar to Luther: she is in Heaven with her son, though it is not known how this happened. Same thing with the IC.

Jon

Why not what about Sacred Tradition.

Not to mention the bible is full of proof.

The Bible says consequences of Satans infulence is sin and death. The bible says Mary shared her sons victory over Satan, God put enmity towards the devil.

Luke says she sustained fullness of Grace. Again scriptual proof Grace given to her by God. And Rev. proves it, showing her body assumed into heaven. I mean come on, like the song says Who’s that Lady?

What about Psalm? Arise O lord into your resting place you and the ARK into which you have sancified!

I mean no offese but there is scripture all over the place proving the Assumption body and Soul of our Mother Mary.

 

[benjohnson]

I mean no offese but there is scripture all over the place proving the Assumption body and Soul of our Mother Mary.

Lutherans are supposed to be conservative in the reading of the Bible, only proclaiming what we’re told.

This gets us into all sorts of uncomfortable situations when subjects like un-baptized babies comes up - we can’t look people in the eye and say “They are with God!” We have to show the poor grieving mother all the biblical passages and let her make the correct conclusion - even though that conclusion is almost obvious. Oddly enough - in the long term, this is more comforting as the mother sees and hears God’s word through the Bible and understands. She isn’t dependent on someone else’s instructions.

That said, No Lutheran would strenuously object to what you’re saying and your interpretation is good comforting Gospel.

The rub for us is making that good interpretation a dogma - subjecting the doubter to potential ruination.

 

[Robert_Joseph60]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:

"882 The Pope, Bishop of Rome and Peter’s successor, “is the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.” “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”

The goal of this thread is to examine the scriptural and historical basis for the Church’s view of the universal jurisdiction of the pope as well as to consider the views of groups that reject this position.

To begin, I will present scriptural evidence of Peter as vicar of Christ, shepherd of the Church, and Royal Steward of Jesus the King.

Be nice. :yup:

Wrong! The job has been taken in eternity past, Yeshua the rock the Chief corner stone is the head of the church, which is the body of Christ, not a building with stained glass windows.

Eph_1:22 And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church,
Eph_5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
Col_1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.