Vicar of Christ and Ecumenical Councils

[Ferde_Rombola]

He said He was going to His Kingdom, which He said is “at hand”. Does “at hand” mean it is in a distant, unreachable place? Or does it mean it is here within our midst?

That’s what I’m asking you. If he is here in a practical, literal sense, as you imply, I’d like to see Him. I’d like to fall on my knees at His sight and worship Him as I do at adoration. And I’d like to speak with him. If He is indeed here, there must be a way to contact Him. Do you have an address and/or a phone number?

On the other hand, if He is here in Spirit, but His person is in His kingdom, then I maintain He has put His servant in charge on this earth, to give His children food at the proper time.

Now let’s be serious, Constantine and drop the ideologies, which do not serve the family of God well. Unless Christ has an address and phone number, we must accept He has left us a means of communication with His creation beyond what is written, as it is written. In the early centuries of the Church it was the writings of the Fathers; in our time it is the councils and the papacy. Not the Pope – not a man – but an office designed to reveal truth and engender unity. We can talk all day about the flaws in the hierarchy of the Church, we can pretend she is divided and look to dissidents for support, but the truth is, the Catholic Church preaches the same doctrines now as in the beginning and her vicars still live in Rome, the last of the five great sees still in Christian hands. In other words, the Catholic Church is one as He and the Father are one.

A primacy that does not include the authority of primacy to guarantee the faithful are being taught the truth simply says the pope gets the drumstick on Thanksgiving Day and sits at the head of the table. In other words, he’s nothing but a well dressed nothing. I don’t think so.

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s what I’m asking you. If he is here in a practical, literal sense, as you imply, I’d like to see Him. I’d like to fall on my knees at His sight and worship Him as I do at adoration. And I’d like to speak with him. If He is indeed here, there must be a way to contact Him. Do you have an address and/or a phone number?

On the other hand, if He is here in Spirit, but His person is in His kingdom, then I maintain He has put His servant in charge on this earth, to give His children food at the proper time.

Now let’s be serious, Constantine and drop the ideologies, which do not serve the family of God well. Unless Christ has an address and phone number, we must accept He has left us a means of communication with His creation beyond what is written, as it is written. In the early centuries of the Church it was the writings of the Fathers; in our time it is the councils and the papacy. Not the Pope – not a man – but an office designed to reveal truth and engender unity. We can talk all day about the flaws in the hierarchy of the Church, we can pretend she is divided and look to dissidents for support, but the truth is, the Catholic Church preaches the same doctrines now as in the beginning and her vicars still live in Rome, the last of the five great sees still in Christian hands. In other words, the Catholic Church is one as He and the Father are one.

A primacy that does not include the authority of primacy to guarantee the faithful are being taught the truth simply says the pope gets the drumstick on Thanksgiving Day and sits at the head of the table. In other words, he’s nothing but a well dressed nothing. I don’t think so.

But the Pope is a man. No matter how you look at it. And as the Psalms say, put your trust in the Lord, not on man. If we believe that Christ is with us and the Holy Spirit works within us all, then we do not need to rely on one man. Rather we rely on everybody, since the Church is made up of all of us, not just one man.

Fact is, the authority of the Pope and the current understanding of the office is a modern invention that did not exist in the early Church. It is fine if we have it today and accept it as a development of ecclesiology. The problem is we are claiming that it was always there, which it was not (clear proof, ZERO ex cathedra declarations in the First Millennium and for the first half of the Second).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Ferde Rombola,

Please learn to use the quote function properly. Posting as you have makes it a bit of a headache to reply to you, as you’ve placed large amounts of your own reply under my name, which makes it impossible to quote you using the regular quote function, etc.

My apologies. I know how to set this up, but forgot to add the bracket to the end of one of the sections I cited. What I do is copy the beginning brackets containing your name and paste it in at the beginning of the citation and type in the ‘QUOTE’ bracket at the end. I’ll try to be more careful. Thanks for your patience.

The Church of Rome was an exemplar of the Orthodox faith. Nobody is joking about that. We venerate many Roman saints (including bishops) in the Orthodox Church. We were in communion for hundreds of years, after all.

If you’re using a lower case ‘o’ I can agree with you, but you used the upper case and in that case I disagree. There was no upper case Orthodox Church for centuries after the Church of Jesus Christ was first called The Catholic Church. The Churches of the East were not ‘in communion.’ They and all of Christianity were the Catholic Church and remained so until they were forced by Islamic secular powers (and other reasons) to break away from the Catholic Church and adopt the upper case ‘O.’

I’ll let some of your fellow Catholics answer this, if they wish, as several have gone through great pains in this very thread to argue that this is not the Catholic understanding of the term.

We are agreed on this thread that we are not entitled to our own definitions. Webster’s
7th Collegiate Dictionary defines ‘vicar’ thus: “One serving as a substitute or agent, specif: an administrative deputy.” We can’t use all of that definition because there is no substitute for Christ. There is an agent, however, which He put in place and whose office was established by Him. See Mt. 16:18-19.

No.

Yes. See Mt. 16:18-19.

Of course it does. We wouldn’t say otherwise. We love St. Peter.?QUOTE]

That is in reply to my statement that the Lord’s command to Peter to feed His sheep means something. If I may say so, “We love St. Peter.” does not in any way address “Feed my sheep” or any part of it.
dzheremi;10016489:

Hmm. In the Coptic Orthodox Church, one of the communion hymns we sing is called “Pi oik”

, which is Coptic meaning “bread of life”, because we consider Christ the Lord to be the one who sustains life.

Of course He is. You’re splitting hairs here. Christ is our sustenence; He is our food. The pastor is the one who distributes the food. Why else would the Lord tell Peter to feed His sheep? (To be continued.)

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Similarly, in the second canticle of the midnight praises, we sing “give thanks to He who gives food to all flesh”, in reference to God. I know that Catholics would agree with these things too, but I find your emphasis on the clerical role (i.e., it is the priest who sustains life) to be quite at odds with this
understanding.

All I’m doing is reading Scripture and following what it says. If I’ve made a mistake, I welcome correction. Food may be plentiful in the next pasture, but if the shepherd doesn’t lead the sheep to it, it won’t do them any good. Who feeds the Lord’s Body and Blood to you? Who puts Him in your mouth?

Peter is given the keys first,

Peter is given the keys period.

There is but one set of keys, my friend, not twelve. Nowhere in Scripture do we find twelve sets of keys being handed out to the twelve Apostles. Peter alone, and only Peter. That, too, means something.

indeed (as he indeed was the first to confess Jesus as the Christ, and it is upon this confession of faith that the majority of the fathers say that the Church is built), but the power to bind and loose which the keys represent is given to all of the apostles in turn in Matthew 18.

You share that interpretation with Protestants. Not the best company when searching for biblical truth. I disagree the majority of the Fathers held that position. Some did. Some were Nestorians and Arians, too.

As to ‘binding and loosing,’ Peter is first there, too, and for a reason. All Catholic bishops share infallibility in faith and morals with the pope, but only when they are together in council in communion with the pope. None of them has individual infallibility, else we would have the confusion we see in Protestantism. All binding decisions of a council must have the approval of the pope, in the exercise of his office, to be valid. Although the pope has infalllible authority, he never exercises it without consultation with the bishops of the world. All Catholic priests share the ‘binding and loosing’ charism in the forgiveness or retention of sins in the Name of Jesus.

This is a rather extreme position, don’t you think? So not only is Peter supreme in your idea of the Church, but by extension the Roman rite is as well? Which form, I must ask? I quite enjoy the Mozarabic liturgy, and would prefer that to be the be all and end all of Western Christian rites, if it has to be that one rite is superior to others. Luckily, this is not the case, just like it is not the case that any particular Church (and I suspect that this is in fact what you meant when you wrote ‘rite’) is superior to any other,

That wasn’t my reason for writing ‘rite.’ It was used to distinguish those who are in communion with the pope from those who are not. It wasn’t the best choice of words. There are, as you know, many liturgies within the Catholic Church. All are valid expressions of our worship of God through the Body and Blood of the Savior. That said, some are more elegant and lofty than others. The Novus Ordo of the Catholic Church was horrible and I thank God the Church finally junked it.

So what united all Roman Catholics before 1870, when Papal infallibility was defined?

Papal infallibility. The Church doesn’t define doctrine formally until it’s challenged. A papal declaration is considered infallible when the pope, “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”

The canon of Sacred Scripture was not challenged until Luther lopped off seven books. The authority of the pope was not challenged until Luther decided to break his vows to God and the Church. The doctrine of justification was not challenged untul Luther added ‘alone’ to ‘faith.’ Then it became necessary for the Fathers of Trent to set things right by formally defining the doctrines which were in place long before Luther came along. Vatican I narrowed the doctrine of papal authority and established the doctrine that ex cathedra declarations by a pope cannot be undone by subsequest popes. These matters took time to develop and there has almost always been opposition to papal authority within the Church. Had it not been established, there would have been no opposition. The Church ultimately relies on the Holy Spirit for guidance to the truth. See John 16:13.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

But the Pope is a man. No matter how you look at it. And as the Psalms say, put your trust in the Lord, not on man. If we believe that Christ is with us and the Holy Spirit works within us all, then we do not need to rely on one man. Rather we rely on everybody, since the Church is made up of all of us, not just
one man.

That’s how Protestants think. They believe the Holy Spirit speaks to each of them and each of them has the authority to interpret Scripture for himself. There are thousands of sects in Protestantism, and if you incude the lone wolves as a one-man sect, tens of thousands. Do you believe the Spirit speaks to all of them? Jesus prayed that His followers would be one. Are they one? Do you believe there are thousands of versions of the truth?

The Church relies on the Holy Spirit, not one man. When Joseph Ratzinger sneezes it’s not an infallible statement. Papal infallibility simply means when the pope, whoever he is, speaks definitively on faith and morals ex cathedra, from the Chair of Peter, he is prevented from error by the Holy Spirit. He has no infallibility of his own, nor do the bishops. All power and authority has been given to Christ, who has chosen some men to exercise it on earth in His stead and as given to them by the Spirit.

Fact is, the authority of the Pope and the current understanding of the office is a modern invention that did not exist in the early
Church.

That is not true. Read Pope St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians in the 2nd Century. The doctrine had yet to be written down, but it was certainly present in the Church, exercised by the popes of the time and recognized by Eastern and Western patriarchs and bishops alike. Their writings are on line in abundance.

It is fine if we have it today and accept it as a development of ecclesiology. The problem is we are claiming that it was always there, which it was not (clear proof, ZERO ex cathedra declarations in the First Millennium and for the first half of the Second).

As I said, the doctrine was not written and ex cathedra had yet to be identified, but it was there and was used regularly in the life of the Church. See St. Clement above.

If you read the history of the Nestorian controversy you will find both Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, his chief opponent, appealed to Pope Celestine for support. The Pope ignored Nestorius and wrote to Cyril telling him to go to Constantinople with his (the Pope’s) authority behind him and tell Nestorius and the Fathers of the Council that Nestorius is to disavow his teaching that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God or hit the road. Cyril would not move from Alexandria until he heard from the Pope. That’s just one example of the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff present in the early Church.

 

[dzheremi]

If you’re using a lower case ‘o’ I can agree with you, but you used the upper case and in that case I disagree. There was no upper case Orthodox Church for centuries after the Church of Jesus Christ was first called The Catholic Church.

This is a silly argument. Many, many languages do not make such a distinction at all, including languages used in the worship of the Christian church for centuries. More importantly, early references to the Church being “catholic” are all adjectival, talking about accepted doctrine (that’s what the original Greek means: kath’ holou ‘throughout the whole’). This is why we of course still use the term in the Creed without any confusion. We know we’re talking about the type of Church we are, not a particular church. It wasn’t applied to the Church of Rome in a nominal sense (i.e., as a name) until after the Reformation. The same type of thing happened with “Orthodox”, which originally meant (and still means) “right worship”, as opposed to “heterodoxy” (“other worship”), but was applied to specific churches later on in a nominal sense.

The Churches of the East were not ‘in communion.’

What do you mean by this? Of course they were. Just as all were at one time in communion with Rome, too. The division into an “Eastern” and “Western” church in the first place followed the imperial division into the Western (Roman) and Eastern (Byzantine) empires, which happened before any of the major schisms that later affected the Church. The Byzantine Empire was founded in 330, but the East Syrians (who were subjects of the Sassanid Persian Empire, anyway) did not break away until after the Council of Ephesus in 431, and the the subsequent Chalcedonian schism and East-West (‘Great’) schism happened after that. So this is a nonsense statement. All were in communion up to a point (usually conventionalized 431, 451, or 1054).

They and all of Christianity were the Catholic Church and remained so until they were forced by Islamic secular powers (and other reasons) to break away from the Catholic Church and adopt the upper case ‘O.’

Do you know any history of the places and people that you are referring to? Because none of this makes any sense at all. The term “Orthodox”, in fact, first appears in the Latin text of the Codex Iustianus (the law code of the Eastern Roman Emperor Justinian) written 529-534, slightly before the Byzantine Empire would officially adopt the use of Greek under Heraclius (610-641). This was well before even the creation of Islam (to put it in perspective, Muhammad wasn’t born until circa 570, and the first decisive Islamic victory against the Byzantines, in Syria, didn’t happen until well into Heraclius’ rule, in 634 at the Battle of Ajnadayn). What’s more, the language of the conquerors, Arabic, does not have a distinction between lower and uppercase letters – all Arabic script is cursive, of the same size. So I hardly think the Muslims would’ve been forcing any particular church to adopt any name, nor to adopt any orthographic standard which they themselves likely would not have seen as important (after all, their language doesn’t make it, and Arabic is the language of God, don’tcha know).

That is in reply to my statement that the Lord’s command to Peter to feed His sheep means something. If I may say so, “We love St. Peter.” does not in any way address “Feed my sheep” or any part of it.

No, this was in reply to your statement that we are not to brush aside the great responsibility entrusted to St. Peter or pretend that it doesn’t mean anything (or something like that). And we wouldn’t, and we don’t. But just the same, we do not see this as applying to St. Peter alone or the successors of St. Peter alone (and this is another thing we’d like disagree on, too, as St. Peter also established the See of Antioch, so Rome does not have exclusive claim over him anyway), but to all bishops. Just as the power to bind and loose was given to St. Peter first on account of his good confession, all who have confessed similarly (i.e., the other apostles) were given the same power only two chapters later. And all who confess similarly today in the Orthodox Church of God, the bishops and the priests who are in the Apostolic line (whether through St. Mark in Egypt, St. James in Jerusalem, St. Peter in Antioch, etc.), have that same power and responsibility to feed the sheep of Christ. This is not something that can be literally possessed by any one Apostolic See, because it is a dynamic reality. Every time a bishop or a priest is consecrated, they take on the responsibility first given to St. Peter to feed Christ’s sheep.

Of course He is. You’re splitting hairs here. Christ is our sustenence; He is our food. The pastor is the one who distributes the food. Why else would the Lord tell Peter to feed His sheep? (To be continued.)

Indeed. :compcoff:

 

[ConstantineTG]

That’s how Protestants think. They believe the Holy Spirit speaks to each of them and each of them has the authority to interpret Scripture for himself. There are thousands of sects in Protestantism, and if you incude the lone wolves as a one-man sect, tens of thousands. Do you believe the Spirit speaks to all of them? Jesus prayed that His followers would be one. Are they one? Do you believe there are thousands of versions of the truth?

And you seem to have the mistaken idea that everything about Protestantism is false. That is wrong. Like most heretics much of their faith is based on Truth, but there are deviations. The difference between Protestants and the Truth is not about the denial of the authority of one man, but that the works of the Holy Spirit within us happens in an eklesia, a Church, a gathering. Protestants claim that the Holy Spirit works within each person individually. The Truth of conciliarity is that the truth is revealed to us who gather as a whole. As the Epistle of St. Peter says, each one of us is a stone. Christ is the corner stone, and each one of us is a a stone that is put together to build up the entire Church. The Holy Spirit works in us all and we can only discern the Truth through working together, not individually. So your claim is really a false conclusion of the reality. Orthodoxy does not think the same way Protestants think, but the way Protestants think, at least on the surface, is closer to Orthodoxy than the claims that one man possesses the infallability of the entire Church. In fact, the conciliarity of the Church transcends time. We cannot interpret the Bible much differently than how the Church Fathers have or how saints have at different times of the Church. Counter that for example, with the fact that St. Francis of Assisi or St. Dominic or St. Thomas Aquinas could have rejected Papal Infallibility and not be a heretic, but St. Maximilian Kolbe or Mother Theresa or St. Faustina couldn’t have been a saint if they rejected Papal Infallibility. Is that the Truth? Changing from the past to the present?

The Church relies on the Holy Spirit, not one man. When Joseph Ratzinger sneezes it’s not an infallible statement. Papal infallibility simply means when the pope, whoever he is, speaks definitively on faith and morals ex cathedra, from the Chair of Peter, he is prevented from error by the Holy Spirit. He has no infallibility of his own, nor do the bishops. All power and authority has been given to Christ, who has chosen some men to exercise it on earth in His stead and as given to them by the Spirit.

It is fine if the Pope is the chosen speaker in behalf of the entire Church, which is the role of Peter. But if you read Pastor Aeternus, there is that issue that the Pope when speaking ex cathedra, is set apart from everyone else and is irreformable by anyone. So the authority is his alone, not the entire Church. He has taken the entire Church unto himself. Something that is only for Christ.

That is not true. Read Pope St. Clement’s letter to the Corinthians in the 2nd Century. The doctrine had yet to be written down, but it was certainly present in the Church, exercised by the popes of the time and recognized by Eastern and Western patriarchs and bishops alike. Their writings are on line in abundance.

There is a different of something that exists and isn’t written down, to something that is completely missing from the hearts and minds from people of the time. Ex Cathedra is something that absolutely did not exist back then, no one had a concept of it, not even the Popes. St. Clement’s letter isn’t ex cathedra teaching as much as St. Ignatius of Antioch or St. Athanasius of Alexandria, both of whom neither are Popes of Rome but both have written something that is doctrine.

As I said, the doctrine was not written and ex cathedra had yet to be identified, but it was there and was used regularly in the life of the Church. See St. Clement above.

If you read the history of the Nestorian controversy you will find both Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople and Cyril of Alexandria, his chief opponent, appealed to Pope Celestine for support. The Pope ignored Nestorius and wrote to Cyril telling him to go to Constantinople with his (the Pope’s) authority behind him and tell Nestorius and the Fathers of the Council that Nestorius is to disavow his teaching that Mary is the mother of Jesus, but not the Mother of God or hit the road. Cyril would not move from Alexandria until he heard from the Pope. That’s just one example of the supreme authority of the Roman pontiff present in the early Church.

Nope, you only think it is supreme authority because you are already looking at the events with the eyes of what you believe today. Bishops work with one another, Rome certainly has a Primacy but not Supremacy. For every letter to the Bishop of Rome written in the First Millennium is a letter to another Bishop from another city. It is commonly disregarded as nothing more than another letter because we don’t wear the goggles of “infallibility”. But the fact is, they are all of the same nature. This speaks more to the orthodoxy of the person on the throne than any inherent authority they have by virtue of being on that throne. Remember, Honorius was declared a heretic by council, something the Popes would later teach (and only later) that no one on earth can judge the Pope. Again, doctrinal development, which is heterodoxy.

 

[dzheremi]

All I’m doing is reading Scripture and following what it says. If I’ve made a mistake, I welcome correction. Food may be plentiful in the next pasture, but if the shepherd doesn’t lead the sheep to it, it won’t do them any good. Who feeds the Lord’s Body and Blood to you? Who puts Him in your mouth?

Again, I don’t think we’re actually in disagreement on this, but it is a matter of emphasis. Earlier heresies such as Donatism made the same mistake, saying that the priest may cut you off from God. That is not the case. The clergy are the servants of the sacraments, not their masters. If I were being denied the sacraments without reason (which, for all intents and purposes, does not happen in either the Orthodox or the Roman Catholic Church), I would certainly go to the bishop and alert him of what is going on, as that is an abuse. Just because a priest is entrusted with the feeding of Christ’s faithful does not mean that he is allowed to starve them. In fact, that’s exactly the opposite of what it means, but the way you wrote your previous post seemed to grant the priest wide powers to do that sort of thing, so I had to point out that, no, the priest does not have such power. (Apologies if I’ve misread you.)

Peter is given the keys period.

There is but one set of keys, my friend, not twelve. Nowhere in Scripture do we find twelve sets of keys being handed out to the twelve Apostles. Peter alone, and only Peter. That, too, means something.

Do you think the keys are literal keys? Because that’s a little silly. If that’s the kind of reasoning you’re basing your posts on, I think we’re done with this conversation. The keys are not literal at all, but rather symbolic of the power entrusted to all of the apostles (again, read Matthew 18) to bind and loose. Hence you can find them represented in the seal of the Syriac Orthodox Church, for instance:



Does that mean that HH Mor Ignatius Zakka I Iwas holds literal keys, to the exclusion of Rome? Of course not. It is a power given, not a possession coveted.

You share that interpretation with Protestants. Not the best company when searching for biblical truth. I disagree the majority of the Fathers held that position. Some did. Some were Nestorians and Arians, too.

Some of the Early Church Fathers were Nestorians and Arians? No. Just no.

And unfortunately for you, as the Early Church Fathers were not Protestants, it does not matter what later Protestants did with their words (any more than what it matters what later Roman Catholic apologists did with their words). The truth of the matter is that the apologetic habit of picking and choosing quotes from the Fathers that completely ignore their wider context and then saying that this supports or denies the modern Roman position is equally deplorable. This is why when we read, for instance, in RCC sources that St. Cyprian promoted the modern Roman Catholic view, we dig deeper and also find in context that the saint’s elevation of St. Peter is as one who is the first among equals, which is exactly our position today:

*Certainly the other Apostles also were what Peter was, endued with an equal fellowship both of honour and power; but a commencement is made from unity, that the Church may be set before as one; which one Church, in the Song of Songs, doth the Holy Spirit design and name in the Person of our Lord: My dove, My spotless one, is but one; she is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her (Cant. 9:6) * (A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1844), Cyprian, On The Unity of the Church 3, p. 133)

As to ‘binding and loosing,’ Peter is first there, too, and for a reason. All Catholic bishops share infallibility in faith and morals with the pope, but only when they are together in council in communion with the pope. None of them has individual infallibility, else we would have the confusion we see in Protestantism. All binding decisions of a council must have the approval of the pope, in the exercise of his office, to be valid. Although the pope has infalllible authority, he never exercises it without consultation with the bishops of the world. All Catholic priests share the ‘binding and loosing’ charism in the forgiveness or retention of sins in the Name of Jesus.

Yes, I am well aware of the Roman Catholic view on such things. But in Orthodoxy, we do not deal in concepts of “validity” which are the stamp of one man, preferring instead to act in council, as is the ancient model dating back to Biblical times (cf. the Council of Jerusalem).

That wasn’t my reason for writing ‘rite.’ It was used to distinguish those who are in communion with the pope from those who are not. It wasn’t the best choice of words. There are, as you know, many liturgies within the Catholic Church. All are valid expressions of our worship of God through the Body and Blood of the Savior. That said, some are more elegant and lofty than others. The Novus Ordo of the Catholic Church was horrible and I thank God the Church finally junked it.

Alright. Thanks for clarifying.

(cont’d.)

 

[dzheremi]

Papal infallibility. The Church doesn’t define doctrine formally until it’s challenged. A papal declaration is considered infallible when the pope, “in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole Church.”

That sounds good and all (I once believed that too), until you reach the point where you actually have to show when that has happened. Experience tells me that there is no agreement among Roman Catholics when that criteria has been fulfilled, so I’m at a loss as to how this even means anything. Given that, I have asked Roman Catholics on this very board to show me some sort of list of infallible statements and been met only with accusations that I am fomenting some kind of rebellion against Rome and basically being a jerk. That’s silly, but I guess understandable in the face of the reality that any such system is only as good as you can argue it to be. By contrast, and without any lack of respect for Rome’s inherent right to define doctrine as binding upon her own faithful, the conciliar model followed in the East has shown demonstrable results, e.g., the Alexandrian Synod of Timothy II deposed the Chalcedonian usurper Proterius who was placed upon the Papal throne in the wake of Chalcedon by its partisans. Or, more recently, Pope Yusab II (1946-1956) was deposed by the Synod following charges of corruption and weak leadership. These are definitive decisions taken within a Church in which no man, though we call him Pope, is infallible, and thereby showing that infallibility is not needed (strictly speaking) in order to guide the Church from error. We see a problem, we fix it together. Even without reference to how the Romans do things, I like this system. It seems to produce results without anyone having to get extra powers.

Vatican I narrowed the doctrine of papal authority and established the doctrine that ex cathedra declarations by a pope cannot be undone by subsequest popes.

Again, this begs the question of which statements qualify as ex cathedra. So long as that’s unclear, this standard means everything and nothing, depending. Pope Boniface VIII wrote in Unam Sanctam (1302) that “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Is this an ex cathedra statement? If it is, then it makes some subsequent documents on religious liberty (particularly some of those issued during the second Vatican Council in the 1960s) seem suspect. If it isn’t, then what exactly was Pope Boniface VIII doing when writing out this statement? I do not think that the Pope of Rome ever delivers a speech just to hear himself talk, or writes up a document just to practice his calligraphy. Of course there must be some way of reconciling apparently contradictory statements so that they appear to be in harmony (and I have read many such defenses on this board and elsewhere), but looking at it from the outside it seems clear that there is much more to this Papal infallibility stuff than the simple definition that every Roman Catholic knows.

 

[suissemissed]

Again, this begs the question of which statements qualify as ex cathedra. So long as that’s unclear, this standard means everything and nothing, depending. Pope Boniface VIII wrote in Unam Sanctam (1302) that “we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” Is this an ex cathedra statement? If it is, then it makes some subsequent documents on religious liberty (particularly some of those issued during the second Vatican Council in the 1960s) seem suspect. If it isn’t, then what exactly was Pope Boniface VIII doing when writing out this statement? I do not think that the Pope of Rome ever delivers a speech just to hear himself talk, or writes up a document just to practice his calligraphy. Of course there must be some way of reconciling apparently contradictory statements so that they appear to be in harmony (and I have read many such defenses on this board and elsewhere), but looking at it from the outside it seems clear that there is much more to this Papal infallibility stuff than the simple definition that every Roman Catholic knows.

I think Unam Sanctam was an exercise of papal infallibility, and all it means is that being subject to the Roman Pope is required for salvation. But there are exceptions… just like Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation, unless it is impossible to receive it or we are excused through invincible ignorance. The Church reserves the right to clarify her doctrinal statements when necessary, but she doesn’t contradict them.

Oddly enough, I hold Pope JPII’s statement at the end of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be infallible too, though the Vatican and JP himself disagree with me But hey, the pope doesn’t have to intend to speak infallibly in order to do it.

But really, though, we’re not supposed to obey the pope only when he speaks ex cathedra. We should accord great weight to anything he says, and not disobey it unless we’re ABSOLUTELY sure he’s wrong (in other words, I could very well be wrong about JPII’s OS above ). All papal infallibility means to Catholics is that we can trust that the true Church is with St. Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome, and Christ will never allow it to fall into complete doctrinal error.

 

[dzheremi]

Oddly enough, I hold Pope JPII’s statement at the end of Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be infallible too, though the Vatican and JP himself disagree with me But hey, the pope doesn’t have to intend to speak infallibly in order to do it.

So the Pope doesn’t need to intend to do so? And you can decide for yourself what you’ll take as infallible? I’m sorry, but this is making the whole thing seem even more murky than it already did.

All papal infallibility means to Catholics is that we can trust that the true Church is with St. Peter’s successor, the Bishop of Rome, and Christ will never allow it to fall into complete doctrinal error.

Is that how the doctrine is understood, however? I quote now from Vatican I, which defined the dogma: “Indeed, their apostolic teaching was embraced by all the venerable fathers and reverenced and followed by all the holy orthodox doctors, for they knew very well that this See of St. Peter always remains unblemished by any error, in accordance with the divine promise of our Lord and Savior to the prince of his disciples.” (source: EWTN Library; emphasis added)

It appears to say that the See of St. Peter remains free from any error…in fact, that’s exactly what it says, not just that it will be saved from falling into “complete doctrinal error” (I don’t know any non-RC Christian who would say that everything that Rome teaches is completely false anyway, so that’s a rather low standard).

 

[Peter_J]

Ferde Rombola,

Please learn to use the quote function properly. Posting as you have makes it a bit of a headache to reply to you, as you’ve placed large amounts of your own reply under my name, which makes it impossible to quote you using the regular quote function (since all the stuff that is under my name won’t appear on the “reply to thread” screen).

Plus it will causes some readers to miss some of the post. (I myself I thought I had read Ferde’s entire post, but now I see that I only read a fraction of it.)

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

The keys are not literal at all, but rather symbolic of the power entrusted to all of the apostles (again, read Matthew 18) to bind and
loose

St. John Chrystostom

“Rightly therefore, did Christ say, ‘Who is that faithful servant and prudent, whom the Lord will set over His house?’ The words are again as of one who knows not; but He Who spoke them did not speak
St. John in ignorance. But, as when He asked Peter whether he loved Him, He questioned His disciple’s love, not because He did not know it, but because He desired to show the excess of His own love, so now when He says: ‘Who is that faithful servant and prudent?’ He says it not because He knew not that faithful and prudent servant, but because He wished to show the rarity of the thing and the greatness of the rule [Greek]. See how great is the reward: ‘I will set him,’ saith He, ‘over all My goods.’ Will you, then, still complain that I have deceived you, when you are to be set over all the goods of God, and when you are doing those things in doing which Christ said that Peter would be able to surpass [Greek] the other apostles? For He said: ‘Peter, lovest thou Me more than these? Feed My sheep.’” (De Sacerdotio, 2, I, 632[371-2])

CONCLUSION ON “KEYS” OF ISAIAH 22 AS PARALLEL TO MATTHEW 16

Thus the prime minister or chief steward of the house of David had successors. He is described as being “over the household” and “in charge of the palace” (Isa 22:15; 36:3; 1 Kings 4:6; 18:3; 2 Kings 10:5; 15:5; 18:18); as for his authority “what he shall open, no one shall shut…and what he shall shut, no one shall open” (Isa 22:22; Matt 16:19; Rev 3:7). The prime minister had an incredible amount of authority, what can only be called a supreme or plenary authority beside that of the King. This is the language of the “keys,” “binding,” and “loosing” that Jesus was using in Matthew 16:19. Peter was given the “keys” just as the prime minister had the “key to the house of David” (Isa 22:22). And this is important in seeing the parallel to Matthew 16:19 – the prime minister was an office of dynastic succession (Isa 22:19,22). In other words, when the prime minister or chief steward died, another one would be selected to fill the office and take his place. Jesus recognizes the office of prime minister or chief steward (“manager” NIV) in his parables, as one who has been placed in charge and set over the household (Matt 24:45ff; 20:8; Luke 12:42; 16:1ff; cf. Gen 41:40ff; 43:19; 44:4; 45:8ff).

Just as the prime minister or chief steward (other terms include major domo, grand vizier, royal chamberlain, or palace administrator) had the “keys” and the other ministers did not, the Lord made Peter the prime minister in His visible Church, making him the visible head of the apostles over the Church, giving him the “keys of the kingdom” with a special and unique authority in Matthew 16:18-19. The office of prime minister was one of dynastic succession, and this is the language Jesus borrows from Isaiah 22:15ff. While Protestant scholars (such as those I have cited) typically would try to deny the full Catholic conclusions from the passage, it is clear St. Peter did have successors in the Bishops of Rome. That is how the Catholic Church of the earliest centuries came to understand the ongoing ministry and authority of Peter in the Church (the Bishop of Rome was the “Chair [or See] of Peter” or simply “the Apostolic See”).

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Peter is given the keys first, indeed (as he indeed was the first to confess Jesus as the Christ, and it is upon this confession of faith that the majority of the fathers say that the Church is built), but the power to bind and loose which the keys represent is given to all of the apostles in turn in Matthew 18.

Before the Sanhedrin: They brought Peter and John before them and began the interrogation in this fashoin: “By what power or in whose name have men of your stripe done this?”

Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, spoke up. “Leaders of the people! Elders! If we must answer today for a good deed done to a cripple and explain how he was restored to health, then you and all the people of Israel must realize that it was done in the name of Jesus Christ, the Naxorean whom you crucified and whom God raised from the dead… In the power of that name this man stands before you perfectly sound. This Jesus is ‘the stone rejected by you, the builders which has become the cornerstone.’ There is no salvation in anyone else, for three is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved.” Acts 4:7-12.

This is the first proclamation of the Gospel before an earthly authority and, like the first proclamation ever, it was spoken by Peter, who clearly was the leader of the Apostles ***and they knew it, since it was they who recorded the events of Peter’s leadership. ***

In a Letter to his people, Bishop Mar Bawai Soho, the present Assyrian Bishop of San Jose, California, has expressed his determination to do what he can to further the union of Christian Churches, noting that the “sacred objective of the unity of Christ’s Church must however be developed from an ecclesiological mentality not political, but from an apostolic way of thinking, not secular.” He went on to note the genuine tradition of his ancient Eastern Church concerning the Petrine Primacy in the Church:

“The Church of the East attributes a prominent role to Saint Peter and a significant place for the Church of Rome in her liturgical, canonical and Patristic thoughts. There are more than 50 liturgical, canonical and Patristic citations that explicitly express such a conviction. The question before us therefore is, why there must be a primacy attributed to Saint Peter in the Church? If there is no primacy in the Universal Church, we shall not be able to legitimize a primacy of all the patriarchs in the other apostolic churches. If the patriarchs of the apostolic churches have legitimate authority over their own respective bishops, it is so because there is a principle of primacy in the Universal Church. If the principle of primacy is valid for a local Church (for example, the Assyrian Church of the East), it is so because it is already valid for the Universal Church. If there is no Peter for the Universal Church, there could not be Peter for the local Church. If all the apostles are equal in authority by virtue of the gift of the Spirit, and if the bishops are the successors of the Apostles, based on what, then, can one of these bishops (i.e., [our own] Catholicos-Patriarchs) have authority over the other bishops?

The Church of the East possesses a theological, liturgical and canonical tradition in which she clearly values the primacy of Peter among the rest of the Apostles and their churches and the relationship Peter has with his successors in the Church of Rome. The official organ of our Church of the East, Mar Abdisho of Soba, the last theologian in our Church before its fall [the 14th century canonist who was the last prominent theologian before the Mongol invasion], based himself on such an understanding when he collected his famous Nomocanon in which he clearly states the following: “To the great Rome [authority] was given because the two pillars are laid in the grave there, Peter, I say, the head of the Apostles, and Paul, the teacher of the nations. [Rome] is the first see and the head of the patriarchs” (Memra; Risha 1). Futhermore, Abdisho asserts “…And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra 9; Risha 8). I would like to ask here the following: who among us would dare to think that he or she is more learned than Abdisho of Soba, or that they are more sincere to the Church of our forefathers than Mar Abdisho himself?”

 

[dzheremi]

I’m at a loss as to how to reply to such a great wall of text that does not address anything that I have written. Where did I write that St. Peter was not first among the apostles? Indeed, it was from him that our father St. Mark, the enlightner of Egypt and the destroyer of idols, learned Christian doctrine. All I have written is that the much-vaunted keys, which symbolize the power to bind and loose, were given to all in turn, as that power was given to all in turn.

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

I’m at a loss as to how to reply to such a great wall of text that does not address anything that I have written. Where did I write that St. Peter was not first among the apostles? Indeed, it was from him that our father St. Mark, the enlightner of Egypt and the destroyer of idols, learned Christian doctrine. All I have written is that the much-vaunted keys, which symbolize the power to bind and loose, were given to all in turn, as that power was given to all in turn.

The keys do not symbolize the power to bind and loose. They are two completely different signs of authroity. Did you read any of the ‘wall of text?’ The passage from Isaiah explains the meaning of the keys. They are given to one person only, who has the absolute authority of the lord of the house. “What he opens, no one shall shut; what he shuts, no one shall open.” It’s clear as a bell.

Did you read St. John Chryostom’s commentary on the singular authority given to Peter, “that faithful servant and prudent, whom the Lord will set over His house?”

We’re coming to the end of the road here, my friend. I have written what I have written and stand on every word of it. Argue with Isaiah and St. John. Argue with the sacred text. It says what it says and what is says is not complicated or obscure.

God bless you.

 

[yawsep1569]

In a Letter to his people, Bishop Mar Bawai Soho, the present Assyrian Bishop of San Jose, California, has expressed his determination to do what he can to further the union of Christian Churches, noting that the “sacred objective of the unity of Christ’s Church must however be developed from an ecclesiological mentality not political, but from an apostolic way of thinking, not secular.” He went on to note the genuine tradition of his ancient Eastern Church concerning the Petrine Primacy in the Church:

Mar Bawai Soro is a Chaldean Catholic and has been one for some four or five years now. His opinion is not to be taken as representative of the entire tradition of the Assyrian Church (as is obvious from the lack of communion). The issue is not so simple as to state some texts and think they end the matter. Every text must be interpreted within a tradition, and obviously you interpret them through the lens of Roman Catholicism. That is fine and God bless you for it. But why should everyone else see things as you do?

Is it your position that all Orthodox Christians are ignorant of St. John Chrysostom or the Prophet Isaiah, or that they willfully disregard their teachings? If not, then please explain why you think quoting some words from them settles this issue, which has produced centuries of thought. Curiously, you did not address the quote from St. Cyprian produced by dzheremi.

On the question of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, please elaborate on why they are so important. Are you saying that the keys are handed from Roman Pope to Roman Pope? I do not believe that has ever been dogmatized- would you show me some history of this belief. I do not think that is the only Roman Catholic position on this matter.

 

[Peter_J]

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/image.php?u=178525&type=sigpic&dateline=1279586346

Hi suissemissed. I love your signature-image. At the risk of being a nerd, may I point out for the record that Latin is a church, whereas Byzantine is a rite. (In fact, the Byzantine Rite is used by several churches (the UGCC, the Melkites, etc.) while the Latin Church uses several rites (the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, etc).)

 

[twf]

Hi suissemissed. I love your signature-image. At the risk of being a nerd, may I point out for the record that Latin is a church, whereas Byzantine is a rite. (In fact, the Byzantine Rite is used by several churches (the UGCC, the Melkites, etc.) while the Latin Church uses several rites (the Roman Rite, the Ambrosian Rite, the Mozarabic Rite, etc).)

This is true. I dislike references to the Roman Church or the Latin rite. It would be nice if we could have some consistent terminology. The Church herself hasn’t always been consistent, but I think in official documents the following is basically followed at present:

-Roman Church = the Diocese of Rome

-Latin Church = the Western Church sui iuris comprised of the 2000ish local particular churches (dioceses and equivalent) around the world that use one of the Western Rites - typically the Roman

-Roman Rite = the liturgical rite of the Diocese of Rome which is also the primary rite of the vast majority of jurisdictions within the Latin Church

-Latin Rites = generic description for all of the Western Rites, including Roman, Dominican, Ambrosian, etc

 

[Ferde_Rombola]

Mar Bawai Soro is a Chaldean Catholic and has been one for some four or five years now. His opinion is not to be taken as representative of the entire tradition of the Assyrian Church (as is obvious from the lack of communion). The issue is not so simple as to state some texts and think they end the matter. Every text must be interpreted within a tradition, and obviously you interpret them through the lens of Roman Catholicism. That is fine and God bless you for it. But why should everyone else see things as you do?

They shouldn’t. They should, however, see things as the Catholic Church does. The Catholic Church is the one Church Jesus came to build. She is the mother Church of Christianity, as history tells us.

Is it your position that all Orthodox Christians are ignorant of St. John Chrysostom or the Prophet Isaiah, or that they willfully disregard their teachings? If not, then please explain why you think quoting some words from them settles this issue, which has produced centuries of thought. Curiously, you did not address the quote from St. Cyprian produced by dzheremi.

I quoted St. John and Isaiah because they support my arguments. Why else would I quote them? I don’t recall dzheremi’s quote so I can’t respond to your statement.

On the question of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, please elaborate on why they are so important.

Why are the keys to Heaven important? A very revealing question. Read the citation from Isaiah. It’s explained there. That’s why I cited it.

Are you saying that the keys are handed from Roman Pope to Roman Pope? I do not believe that has ever been dogmatized- would you show me some history of this belief. I do not think that is the only Roman Catholic position on this matter.

Apostolic succession has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church for a very long time. You will find a ‘history’ for this belief in Paul’s letters to Timothy and in other places in Scripture.