J
jam070406
Guest
Wow, this was very charitable of you.
- Status
T
trophybearer
Guest
Don’t you mean very charitable of Pope John VIII ???
O
oberyn3
Guest
I think the argument is that this (the papacy governing the church) had not been going on for the previous 1000 years.
That is, there was a tradition of the Eastern bishops not being accepting of the idea of universal authority emanating from Rome, viewing it as a primacy of honor only.
Look at Cyprian’s statement that no one, including the bishop of Rome should set himself up as a bishop of bishops.
I’m not arguing one side or the other, just stating that the papacy as we understand it today was not a 1000 year-old-tradition against which the Eastern bishops were rebelling.
L
Louie1983
Guest
Hi Oberyn,
Yes i understand that the papacy wasn’t as it was today, it did develop over time. But there was a papacy nonetheless, there was a pope and leader of the church here on earth who taught infallibly and was recognised as the leader of the church in the first 1000 years, the next 1000 years and it will be known for the next 1000 years!
Yes the eastern churches rebelled but they obviously fell into error, Your quote you mentioned above is refuted by thousands of early church afther quotes supporting the papacy.
We have discussed this repeatedly on this thread. I think maybe everything has been that needed to be.
Grace be with you.
O
oberyn3
Guest
Again, not taking one “side” over the other, but I don’t think the issue can be boiled down to simple rebellion on the part of the eastern churches. There were conflicting and differing views within the early church re: Rome’s authority.
Grace be with you, as well.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
What I keep seeing here is something of a cat chasing its tail. The Orthodox folks in here present historical developments, historical disagreements and actual events as well as rationale. What I see from the Roman Catholic parties here is nothing but a bunch of quotations from people in the first thousand years who made pro-papacy-sounding comments. They keep saying, “because he has always been infallible, because he’s always been the leader of all the Church,” etc. Orthodox see this as an anachronism. To honestly analyze this, the Roman Catholics should try and seek out saints and great men of the Church in the first thousand years who felt that the “rock” was not Peter but rather his confession or Christ Himself. Catholic Answers and some Catholic websites are laced with individuals (sometimes in context, sometimes out) in early times who made comments about the Bishop of Rome linking him to Peter or making his jurisdiction sound superior. I think it is more effective to actually show the Bishop of Rome’s actions and actual historical cases where he exercised infallibility and where other bishops claimed he was infallible. Show cases where he was not just a primacy of honor or respected for the special heritage that the See of Rome had due to its petrine pedigree, but rather exercised fully the modern sense of what the Vatican teaches about the papacy. Quotations are not true evidence in the fullest sense but rather the interpretations of individuals and not always in context. Most Orthodox scholars do recognize the Bishop of Rome as a primus inter pares and having a special origin. Many believe him the descendent of Peter’s episcopacy. Many would be happy to have him sitting at the head of the table in a new reconciled truly unified Church. Where Orthodox seem to part company is infallibility and universal jurisdiction, that his office is somehow superior to the others of the episcopacy.
L
Louie1983
Guest
It seems here you are looking for answers here yourself but your asking others to do it, i guarantee you if you keep reading orthodox sources you won’t find it! Quotations are not true evidence?? then let’s ignore the bible quotes also? let’s ignore the early church afther quotes? let’s ignore tradition? there will be nthing left!
O
oberyn3
Guest
That’s very well said. It also wasn’t just a matter of east vs. west. Look at the manner in which the matter of Apiarius was handled in the Fifth Century.
Bishop Urban of Sicca deposed a priest named Apiarius. Apirarius appealed to Bishop Zosimus of Rome. Zosimus reinstated Apiarius. The General Council of Africa met in 418 and passed a canon forbidding any cleric below the rank of bishop to appeal to another see. Zosimus sent Bishop Faustinus of Potentina and two priests to protest against this decision and to demand that the Church of Africa should allow bishops condemned by their provincial councils to appeal to Rome. Faustinus and the other legates claimed that this was already canon law passed by the Council of Nicaea. The African bishops didn’t think these supposed canons were genuine. The Council of Carthage of 419 applied to the Churches of Constantinopel, Alexandria, and Antioch for authentic versions of the Nicaean decrees. As it turned out, Carthage was right and Rome was wrong. The canons cited by Faustinus were taken from the Council of Sardica, not the Council of Nicaea. In 424, another Council of Carthage declared that appeals to Rome were an attack on the rights of the African Church.
Paraphrased from L.R. Holme’s The Extinction of the Christian Churches in North Africa, pp. 42-44.
The argument can certainly be made that, while the Bishop of Rome was afforded great respect, other sees certainly asserted their rights to manage their affairs as they wished. And arguments from Rome were not always based upon the doctrine of papal infallibility.
I’ll add my disclaimer that, in saying this, I’m not claiming that the schism can be blamed solely on the west, just that I think it’s inaccurate to paint the picture of the eastern church suddenly deciding to reject a clearly established tradition of papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction.
J
JMJ_coder
Guest
The Patriarchate has always been more honorific than authoritative – and the Muslims had Jerusalem under there control. Of course the Muslims recognized Jerusalem as the greatest See in Christianity. The impious and heretical Muslims thought that if Jerusalem was the head of the Christian Church and they controlled it then they could control and ultimately destroy God’s Church. The reason why Jerusalem maintained relations with Constantinople had everything to due with politics and imperial (Constantinople) control over that region.
D
dvdjs
Guest
The so-called history quoted here is wrong, as has been pointed out in several posts.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Oh come on, Louie, I’m looking for answers and expecting others here to do it for me? That’s a bit presumptuous and nasty to say! You keep trying to feed me the answers from your papal point of view trying to do my thinking for me as well as think for these Orthodox folks so where do you come off saying that? You’re producing a bunch of quotes from either ECF’s or saints that sound pro-papacy. Quotes are not necessarily arguments in favor of a historical development or a truth. I could quote early Church fathers that made statements about the Eucharist that, in that context, make it sound more symbolic than substantial, if I wanted. I could quote some early fathers that taught if a man shaved his beard he lost his manhood and stood as a sinner before Christ in shame. I can produce quotes from early saints and Fathers like Tertullian that made orthodox, mainstream statements but then became Montanists! Quotes are only useful to a point.
The Orthodox in here have been giving historical documentation of disagreements and actual actions taken that led to alienation, hard feelings, and splits. The RCC apologists mostly cite Catholic Answers or give quotes. Some men, like St. Cyprian, at different points in his life made statements in favor of a powerful papacy and jurisdiction, but there was also a time in his life where he felt quite differently and fought the papacy in a big way where I could summon up quotations in isolation that could counter yours. That’s my point.
I’m not suggesting we “ignore Bible quotes,” Louie. That’s absurd. Anyone who suggests ignoring Holy Scripture could scarcely even be a Christian! I’m merely suggesting, and you disagree in a huge way (which I of course respect) that just because you cite Matthew 16 doesn’t mean that your interpretation of “the rock” is the only possible view. There were ECF’s and saints and great men in history have not concured with your understanding of it. Ignore Matt.16? No. Disagree with interpretations? Sure.
The broad powers, infallibility, universal jurisdiction, and sheer aura of a superiority over the other bishops is an anachronism it seems if one reads history. As one poster pointed out, the word “ecumenical” meant imperial really and it was Constantine and other emperors that summoned councils and presided over them. Citing unilaterial direct decisions by the papacy that supercede or totally swayed emperors are skant if non-existent. The lack of a papal presence in many of these councils only proves the point. And when Constantius (a horrible emperor) uninstalled Liberius and placed Felix (the antipope) in his place, it’s fascinating how an emperor (even though he was clearly wrong!) had power over the bishop of Rome. In the Middle Ages when the papacy was defined as the position and theology that you believe, this would NEVER have happened.
You make this sound like a slam-dunk debate, Louie, that’s my only beef. It’s not a no-brainer. I think the Orthodox here make better historical, holistic arguments while using scripture and quotes.
J
jam070406
Guest
Bingo! Now can you see the necessity of VI? So the secular powers to be or heretics can’t dictate or force erroneous opinions on matters of Faith and morals on the Faithful. Truth is protected by the See of Peter and the Faithful can look to that light in the darkness.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
I do indeed agree with the pope over the emperor here. I made no attempt to hide that! You’re right about that. I’m merely saying that it’s fascinating that emperors had jurisdictions over the papacy, whether each was right or wrong (in this case the pope was right on!).
What I don’t like is how the papacy has done dastardly things in Europe and elsewhere and yet the usual defense is, “hey the guy isn’t impeccable, he’s a sinner and often is a horrible sinner but he’s never wrong on faith and morals!” Things like Pope Pius V excommunicating Elizabeth then supporting anyone who deposed her or killed her and then sitting idly by and condoning a papal nuncio’s letter that declared if Elizabeth were assassinated, her assassin would not only be forgiven but considered blessed for this great work, that’s a load of boloney to me! The papacy backing the Spanish Armada against the British navy trying to conquer England and re-establish the cause of the Catholic recusants, that’s also insane. I think the papacy overstepped its bounds in a blurry political-religious office that can always be defended by “hey, he’s not perfect, just infallible.” These lines can blur and as an American I would have real trouble if he had backed one of our enemies against us…there is a politically moral side to this position. I can indeed understand the reluctance of Protestant Americans to accept the papacy in the early colonies through the 19th Century. The papacy has a history of overstepping its bounds politically in this blur.
Politically and religiously it seems that the papacy was below the imperial court for centuries but upon the fall of the Roman Empire we see a power vacuum and the pope fills that void.
J
josie_L
Guest
To some people it is a slam dunk because we can see a lot of scriptural support for the papacy throughout the Bible. We can also see the support for it through much of history and tradition. In Matthew 16:13 it was Peter (who’s name meant “rock”) who recognized Jesus has the Son of the living God (here we hint at his infallibility), who was the rock which the Church would be built (otherwise why change his name at this particular point), and who was given the keys of the kingdom to loose and bind (like Eliakim in Isaiah 22). In this we see echoes of the OT wherein the right hand man of the King of Israel, the Prime Minister (Pope) was also given a set of keys which the other ministers did not possess):
Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister’s position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it’s the key of David; it’s the House of David."
Now what power does having the keys to the House of David hold:
“I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.”
Here’s an excerpt taken from an article from Scott Hahn on the papacy:
He goes on to say some other things. “It is of considerable importance,” Albright says, “that in other contexts, when the disciplinary affairs of the community are discussed, the symbol of the keys is absent, since the saying applies in these instances to a wider circle. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.”
**Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king’s cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this. **
catholic-pages.com/pope/hahn.asp
In just this one scripture we have loads of support for the papacy. .
J
josie_L
Guest
And you do not see in this the hand of God? Furthermore for much of its history (before the fall of Rome) the Church was being persecuted, moreover, even after the edict of Milan was issued the Church was only tolerated by the imperial court. It would take some time for the Church to gain the upper hand so to speak. But the situation in the West (after the edict of Milan) was far better than what was happening in the east with the Bishops of Constantinople and the Byzantine emperors. So I’m a little confused here in that you seem to disregard the evidence, and I say this because I have posted examples of these political machinations.
J
josie_L
Guest
I’m curious but what would you have done if you were Pope if Catholics were being killed and perniciously persecuted simply because those who gained from the Reformation (mostly the nobility) were unwilling to separate from their loot and countless treasures that were derived from stripping monasteries and the Church?
J
jam070406
Guest
What does this have to do with the doctrine of infallibility? Which is what you said you initially had a problem with. Digging up dirt on members of the Catholic Church, through history, doesn’t disprove it’s claim to being the true Church and it doesn’t negate it’s doctrines or the office of the Papacy.
There were plenty of examples of pius individuals that were Faithful to the Church and it’s teachings. We had a canonized Saint as Pope a century ago.
Pope John Paul II went to frequent confession.
Pope Benedict asked that we pray he be saved from the wolves! Yes, they are sinners and can fall to worldly temptation too.
Not to mention, I’m sure you could dig through history and find some Orthodox bishops that did some horrible things, like those that cooperated with communist regimes to steal churches and persecute Greek Catholics.
Perhaps some of the Orthodox patriarchs could follow the example of the one that has been taking the problems of the world head on like condemning condom use as a solution to aids in Africa or the financial crisis. Ooops…that’s right, it wasn’t an Orthodox patriarch, it was Pope Benedict!!
Before the Orthodox judge and condemn the Pope maybe they should take their light out from under their basket and start emulating the job that the Pope actually does to witness the Truth to the world.
Do you wanna refute the doctrine of infallibilty or do you want to attack the character of individual Popes that did bad things through history? Please pick one. Because they are two completely different topics. But I feel I must warn you, As a Catholic you should be careful how you judge the Pope. He is a consecrated leader called by Almighty God.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
So you are endorsing the role/power of the papacy to attack sovereign nations who make decisions religiously that you don’t like? Wowzers. There was plenty of carnage on BOTH sides during the reformation. And of course when anyone calls the Church to the carpet for their role in the inquisitions, the convenient answer for the RCC apologist is, “hey that was the Spanish gov’t, not the Church!”
By your definition of the papal role, can you think of a HORRIBLE person in history, let’s say recent history, who was far worse than Elizabeth I of England? I can, how about Adolf Hitler? I don’t remember the pope issuing a bull of excommunication on the Fuhrer! Oddly enough Mussolini wanted Hitler excommunicated. It never happened. And yet Elizabeth was excommunicated and the Vatican issued a communique stating that her death would win the assassin merit? How you can defend this is beyond me, Josie, but after a while I think some apologists will apologize for anything and never stand up and say something was a serious mistake or poor judgment or was downright wrong. I like John Paul II because he was willing to apologize for the Church’s misdeeds from persecuting Jews to wrongs against the Orthodox. He is the example of an amazing Catholic, honest and willing to not defend every papal action for all time.
I also find it curious how you leave out the Mary Tudor side of the Reformation days? She was ok with the papacy yet the carnage was ample. But it depends on who is getting slaughtered. It was protestants like Ridley and Cranmer, not Catholics. History has some ugly stains and we can’t pick and choose.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
It is inevitable that when the character and actions of the office are called into question, this ensues. I have indeed made plenty of statements and debate along with these Orthodox in here about my doubts about infallibility. I struggle with it and don’t see the slamdunk you and Josie see, etc. Good for you guys. I’m happy for you. But unlike you I will analyze history and look at the interactions the papacy has had with governments and nations throughout the last two thousand years. I am allowed to do that, right? And I find the actions of some popes cross the line of their power. The actions against Elizabeth and heaven knows there are many more examples, that I could give, are not to say he’s not infallible. I’m merely pointing out that the papacy has done some dastardly things that seem unethical to me. Instead of just calling a spade a spade, you point out the misdeeds of others and deflect the fact. It’s like the kids in my classroom. I catch a kid hitting another kid on yard duty and kid A says, “Oh yeah, I may have hit kid B but he called my mom a __________ and that kid over there kid C cussed at kid D!” What’s the point? Point out the errors of others and never clean your own house.
I am merely stating that many people who doubt the papacy feel it has had way too much power throughout the last 1,000 years or so and that, at times, it has behaved inexcusably. OF COURSE John Paul II was a treasure! That’s a no-brainer. The man should be a saint. Benedict is a decent pope. He’s made some misteps to me but overall he’s a moral, focused, bright shepherd of the RCC. I’m not demonizing every pope for all time. That would be intellectually dishonest and stupid. But I am pointing out that the idea that a bishop of Rome may do whatever he wants politically, start wars, permit assassinations, and turn a blind eye to evils BUT as long as his doctrine is sound, it’s ok, that’s not ok with me. The papacy has left a sour taste in the mouths of many people, including our Founding Fathers and that led to an inherent distrust of Catholics in early U.S. history that was indeed distasteful. Popes in the last 100 years have been wonderful, usually glowing examples of how the Church should be run and have done much to improve the image and respect of the office of the Pope. No one did a better job at defining the perfect pope than JPII. I respect these popes and try to follow the teachings of the Church. I don’t always do the greatest job and fall short like anyone else. But I would be dishonest with you if I said that I’m completely sold on infallibility. Historically I’m torn on it and the behavior of popes has given me pause and I see why the Orthodox and Protestants at times throughout history have distrusted the Holy See. I’m by no means bashing the papacy, just being honest about what I see historically.
I’ve said before that many folks in here make a great case for the Roman Catholic position but Orthodox state their case well also.
And “digging up dirt” is not the intention, just reporting historical facts accurately matters to me. If a pope did something evil, he did something evil. It’s not dirt-digging, it’s history. Sorry you view it that way. Are we forbidden from reporting anything negative that the papacy has done? Also I fail to see what your condom reference had to do with this discussion? Talk about getting off topic! The pope condemns condoms in Africa and all Orthodox bishops of the world are supposed to jump on board and take on that issue with him? Orthodox don’t feel that they have to follow the pope everywhere and echo his sentiments. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don’t. If they didn’t jump on that issue with him it doesn’t mean they condone it? I’m not sure what pertinence this has. I guess we’re both guilty of getting a little off the beaten path.
In any case, Jam, God bless you. Have a great evening.
J
josie_L
Guest
Did I say I agree with it? I asked you what you would have done as you attempted to show only one side of the issue. And it really bothers me when people do that.
- Status