Formal Debate Peanut Gallery Thread -- Catholic/Orthodox Dialogue -- The Office of the Papacy

[Athanasias]

Don't faithful followers usually protest when their leaders teach something contrary to the faith they embraced? If your bishop starting teaching Arianism or something contrary to the Orthodox faith, would you change your beliefs and follow him or rise up and protest?

If Eastern Christians were taught that the Pope was the supreme ruler of all Christians and that is was necessary for salvation to submit to his authority and the bishop of Constantinople started teaching the opposite I think some people would have protested and continued to submit to the bishop of Rome. If there weren't any protests and everyone agreed with their bishops against the Pope of Rome then I'd consider that evidence the Eastern Christians weren't taught papal supremacy and that it was a later Western invention that eastern Christians never believed. I hope Athanasias will address that issue.

If we get to the historical evidence in this dialog I will be happy to address this issue and give what I think are good strong historical and logical/ theological and archeological reasons to believe in the authority of the Popes office. This all will be in addition to the biblical and Jewish historical fullfillment evidence so you can see the big picture. It is my hopes to be able to address this but we will see if my friend in Christ wants to continue to dialog prayerfully or not. If not then I would be happy to do it with another person as long as its truly dialog and prayerful and not angry debate.

 

[rakovsky]

That sounds a little protestant to me. I have no issue with prima scriptura nor did many of the fathers but what you just said sounds more like sola scriptura. It sound more Lutheran then EO. Maybe you do have more Lutheran leanings. I have never talked to a EO who made the connections you have. The Fathers of the Church from the apostolic age did not see tradition or its authoritative infallible magisterium in competition to sacred scripture. They all fit together like a puzzle. This is very historical and maybe if you want we can dialog on this in the one on one further is she does not want to further dialog But it has to prayerful and friendly.

So do you accept the fact that the bible is not explicit about the #1 dogma all Christians must hold to ie.. the Trinity? Do you also accept the fact that doctrines develop organically over time by the Holy Spirit. The Fathers of the Church like St. Athanasius and others and its councils had no problems with teaching the authority of the Catholic Church herself, its councils, and of apostolic tradition in addition to sacred scripture.

I didn't say use just the Bible necessarily. But neither the Bible nor tradition are unanimous on the topic. Don't throw the protestant card at me, because both are not clear. The ecumenical councils are clear on Trinity. Not on pope supremacy. The don't teach it. You and I both know that the fathers and tradition do not give explicit consensus so stop trying to force us into thinking what they don't have as consensus.

If I say what you know as fact about Tradition, don't make it that I am protestant, unless you want to say Tradition is protestant.

Orthodoxy says use Tradition to understand the bible. And that the result of study is that pope lacks supremacy.

 

[samir]

So do you accept the fact that the bible is not explicit about the #1 dogma all Christians must hold to ie.. the Trinity?

The Trinity is the belief that:

1. Father is God
2. Son is God
3. Holy Spirit is God
4. Father, Son, Holy Spirit are distinct
5. There is only one God

Which of the above beliefs do you think isn't explicitly taught in the bible?

The opposing heretical opinions were Arianism which denies #2 by saying the Son was a creature and Sabellianism/modalism which denies #4 by saying the Son and Holy Spirit are different manifestations of the Father. Both opposing views were refuted using scripture.

Do you also accept the fact that doctrines develop organically over time by the Holy Spirit.

Are you saying the earliest Christians didn't believe in papal supremacy or papal infallibility? How would someone who doesn't believe in those dogmas know whether it is a legitimate development or a false teaching?

 

[samir]

If we get to the historical evidence in this dialog I will be happy to address this issue and give what I think are good strong historical and logical/ theological and archeological reasons to believe in the authority of the Popes office. This all will be in addition to the biblical and Jewish historical fullfillment evidence so you can see the big picture.

I hope you have more than quotes showing Peter was the head of the apostles or that his successors were given a primacy of honor. After reading a debate on the papacy on the americancatholictruthsociety website I can say a few quotes that clearly teach papal supremacy will be more convincing than a long list of quotes that glorify Peter or show that one line of his successors (bishops of Rome) were honored as first bishop.

It is my hopes to be able to address this but we will see if my friend in Christ wants to continue to dialog prayerfully or not. If not then I would be happy to do it with another person as long as its truly dialog and prayerful and not angry debate.

I saw she was online when I logged in so hopefully you get a response soon.

 

[rakovsky]

The Trinity is the belief that:

1. Father is God
2. Son is God
3. Holy Spirit is God
4. Father, Son, Holy Spirit are distinct
5. There is only one God

Which of the above beliefs do you think isn't explicitly taught in the bible?

The opposing heretical opinions were Arianism which denies #2 by saying the Son was a creature and Sabellianism/modalism which denies #4 by saying the Son and Holy Spirit are different manifestations of the Father. Both opposing views were refuted using scripture.

Are you saying the earliest Christians didn't believe in papal supremacy or papal infallibility? How would someone who doesn't believe in those dogmas know whether it is a legitimate development or a false teaching?

Good point. It implies that just as the Church organically discovered the spiritual value of religious paintings, it also "organically" (but contested in the East) discovered that potentially heretical Popes seated in Rome (as opposed to, say, the Pope of Alexandria) had a unique personal infallible ability to speak flawlessly no matter what ex cathedra on faith questions.

 

[rakovsky]

I saw she was online when I logged in so hopefully you get a response soon.

I am not holding my breath.

 

[Athanasias]

I hope you have more than quotes showing Peter was the head of the apostles or that his successors were given a primacy of honor. After reading a debate on the papacy on the americancatholictruthsociety website I can say a few quotes that clearly teach papal supremacy will be more convincing than a long list of quotes that glorify Peter or show that one line of his successors (bishops of Rome) were honored as first bishop.



I saw she was online when I logged in so hopefully you get a response soon.

There will be much more then that. I guarantee it. I think you see a good solid historical and archeological, and jewish fulfillment reason why catholics hold to what they do. You will also see Eastern reasons from Eastern Churches in union with the Catholic Church on why the office of Pope is true. You will see this evidence by multiple scholars in and out of the Catholic faith so you can see its not just Catholics making this up but even protestant and Jewish scholars see some of this as well. You may not end up agreeing but I think it you at least keep an open mind and prayerful heart you will walk away surprised at the strengths of the reasons for Catholic belief.

 

[Athanasias]

The Trinity is the belief that:

1. Father is God
2. Son is God
3. Holy Spirit is God
4. Father, Son, Holy Spirit are distinct
5. There is only one God

Which of the above beliefs do you think isn't explicitly taught in the bible?

The opposing heretical opinions were Arianism which denies #2 by saying the Son was a creature and Sabellianism/modalism which denies #4 by saying the Son and Holy Spirit are different manifestations of the Father. Both opposing views were refuted using scripture.



Are you saying the earliest Christians didn't believe in papal supremacy or papal infallibility? How would someone who doesn't believe in those dogmas know whether it is a legitimate development or a false teaching?

I agree with you here. But notice you had to look at the whole and put the piece of the puzzle together to discover that because there is not a single verse in the bible that says "God is three persons in one God co-equal and Co-eternal consubstantial". So the evidence you and the early Church have to look at is the implicit evidence(your 1-5) putting the pieces of the puzzle together in the bible.

Remember it was not always easy to see as in the early Church this is evidence by the many many Trinitarian heresies that arose such as Patripassionism and tritheism etc. The Church took time and developed deeper understanding and explanations and that is why the Councils of the Church were called in the 4th(nicea and constantinople) century to hammer these issues out and bind on believers the infallible truth of the Blessed Trinity which is in the bible but not explicitly only rather implicitly. Likewise EO's baptize infants which is implied in the bible but never explicit. This is why even today the Baptist reject this doctrine. So he cannot get away with saying it all has to be explicit because there are a ton of things that are implied in the bible and not explicit that the Orthodox do (Praying to saints is one of them as well). These things in history developed over years of handing on the apostolic faith.

At any rate If he wants to dialog on this then we can but he has to be fair and ecumenical and honest with himself and not say everything has to be explicit in the bible. Its clear all Christians beleive doctrine develop organically by the Holy Spirit giving more understanding of it to the Church when she needs it or when its challenged. The Blessed Trinity, infant baptism, prayers to saints etc show this. Doctrines can also be implied.

 

[rakovsky]

At any rate If he wants to dialog on this then we can but he has to be fair and ecumenical and honest with himself and not say everything has to be explicit in the bible. Its clear all Christians beleive doctrine develop organically by the Holy Spirit giving more understanding of it to the Church when she needs it or when its challenged. The Blessed Trinity, infant baptism, prayers to saints etc show this. Doctrines can also be implied.

• Not everything has to be explicit in the bible.
  
• Doctrines can also be implied.
• Peter's lack of vertical imperial control over the whole Church is implied in Acts when James was in control of the Council, not Peter.
• Orthodox doctrine against the innovations of papal supremacy and infallibility developed organically by the Holy Spirit giving more understanding to the Church that it's challenged.

 

[Athanasias]

• Not everything has to be explicit in the bible.
  
• Doctrines can also be implied.
• Peter's lack of vertical imperial control over the whole Church is implied in Acts when James was in control of the Council, not Peter.
• Orthodox doctrine against the innovations of papal supremacy and infallibility developed organically by the Holy Spirit giving more understanding to the Church that it's challenged.

You see this is why we need to dialog prayerfully one on one. If she is not up for it. feel free to take her place and we can do so in a month or 2. But it has to be prayerful and respectful.

 

[rakovsky]

You see this is why we need to dialog prayerfully one on one. If she is not up for it. feel free to take her place and we can do so in a month or 2. But it has to be prayerful and respectful.

You and I have already talked a lot. I like you and talking with you.
But this would be mindnumbing. The Council of Toulouse issue was pretty straightforward and even that was hard to persuade you on and that took a couple exchanges.

We already agree that the Bible is at best implicit either way, and that the fathers at best for your case are divided on the issue. Therefore as a matter of theological approach that values the fullness of Tradition there are two acceptable or allowable answers.

But the problem in practice is that to make the Pope infallible and supreme makes his answer on this question supreme - or for that matter supreme on anything he wants. So in your scheme we are just talking about 200+ million Orthodox in the world in practice converting to Catholicism. I am not accepting this mass conversion of me, your past interlocutor, or other Orthodox to Catholicism.

I like talking with you, but I find such a debate mindnumbing in a way that would end up Anasthetizing Orthodoxy and then eating us. So there is nothing helpful to talk about, only harmful unless people are actually willing to sense the potential wreck this would make on us, instead of disdaining our concern over what is obviously our subjugation as "paranoia."

 

[Athanasias]

You and I have already talked a lot. I like you and talking with you.
But this would be mindnumbing. The Council of Toulouse issue was pretty straightforward and even that was hard to persuade you on and that took a couple exchanges.

We already agree that the Bible is at best implicit either way, and that the fathers at best for your case are divided on the issue. Therefore as a matter of theological approach that values the fullness of Tradition there are two acceptable or allowable answers.

But the problem in practice is that to make the Pope infallible and supreme makes his answer on this question supreme - or for that matter supreme on anything he wants. So in your scheme we are just talking about 200+ million Orthodox in the world in practice converting to Catholicism. I am not accepting this mass conversion of me, your past interlocutor, or other Orthodox to Catholicism.

I like talking with you, but I find such a debate mindnumbing in a way that would end up Anasthetizing Orthodoxy and then eating us. So there is nothing helpful to talk about, only harmful unless people are actually willing to sense the potential wreck this would make on us, instead of disdaining our concern over what is obviously our subjugation as "paranoia."

I never said the Fathers are all divided on this issue of the Bishop of Romes authority. I think the case historically is the opposite. St. Ireneaus(an apostolic father) said the Church all over speaks with one mind. I agree. But we need to dialog about this issue further to see my point and perhaps for me to see yours.

I do not think you understand what I want. Read the dialog I am having so far with this nice sister in Christ. Does it at all look like a debate? I am not trying to convert her or win points. Ecumenical dialog is not about converting you. Its about both sides prayerfully listening to each other to see if there are any misconceptions that can be dispelled and then both parties opening up to prayerfully consider what we agree and disagree on as we explain the reasons we have for our belief. We have been doing this for the past 50 years with the Lutherans and have discovered on both sides that we were not as far apart on some issues as we thought because often we misunderstood each others theology. This has even led to the Catholic Church lifting some of the excommunications from the Lutherans because of what we found out we were wrong about and had misconceptions about and vice versa. But neither of us converted to each others faith! That is truly why ecumenical dialog is great. I am not here to convince you 100% that you need to be Catholic. But we both can listen to each others reasons and dialog in the spiriti of charity and if nothing else come to a deeper appreciation for each other position and our own position and possibly be a good example of tearing down walls of pride and prejudice on both sides. This is a huge issue and there is alot but there is alot to be gained by dialog and discussion even if neither of us convert to each others side. Debate is more about proving a point. Dialog is more about friendly stating why we hold to what we do and answering any questions and giving reasons for why we hold to what we do. Then we pray.

 

[samir]

What's a more important issue, the idea that one of your fellow classmates in school is the supreme head of everyone in the whole school and can give you orders like an emperor, or the belief that said classmate who has known to be a heretic has a miraculous God-given ability to speak for the whole school without any possibility of heresy?

I see your point. I think Vatican I looked at previous papal statements and made sure to define papal infallibility narrowly enough so that none of the earlier pope's heretical statements would be considered infallible. As someone considering Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, papal supremacy is a bigger issue for me because I don't disagree with any of the few papal statements that are considered infallible. I'm sure the apostles believed some things that we would consider heretical since they weren't perfect but God still allowed them to write scripture without any possibility of heresy so I don't see why the Holy Spirit couldn't protect a heretical pope from teaching error to the whole church regarding faith and morals .

I guess Papal infallibility is worse because you can overthrow your emperor, but you can't stop a potential heretic's heresy when it is treated as personally "infallible" after confirmation by the bishops. It's nuts, IMO.

If the pope is the supreme authority, I don't think he can be overthrown. "If the Pope should become neglectful of his own salvation, and of that of other men, and so lost to all good that he draw down with himself innumerable people by heaps into hell, and plunge them with himself into eternal torments, yet no mortal may presume to reprehend him, forasmuch as he is judge of all, and is judged of no one." Catholic Canon Law, Decreti, pars i. distinct. xl.can.xi."

Papal supremacy seems worse because it extends far beyond papal infallibility so that Roman Catholics are bound to obey him even when he is wrong.

 

[rakovsky]

I see your point. I think Vatican I looked at previous papal statements and made sure to define papal infallibility narrowly enough so that none of the earlier pope's heretical statements would be considered infallible. As someone considering Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism, papal supremacy is a bigger issue for me because I don't disagree with any of the few papal statements that are considered infallible. I'm sure the apostles believed some things that we would consider heretical since they weren't perfect but God still allowed them to write scripture without any possibility of heresy so I don't see why the Holy Spirit couldn't protect a heretical pope from teaching error to the whole church regarding faith and morals .



If the pope is the supreme authority, I don't think he can be overthrown. "If the Pope should become neglectful of his own salvation, and of that of other men, and so lost to all good that he draw down with himself innumerable people by heaps into hell, and plunge them with himself into eternal torments, yet no mortal may presume to reprehend him, forasmuch as he is judge of all, and is judged of no one." Catholic Canon Law, Decreti, pars i. distinct. xl.can.xi."

Papal supremacy seems worse because it extends far beyond papal infallibility so that Roman Catholics are bound to obey him even when he is wrong.

I know. I think theyre both bad though.

"I don't see why the Holy Spirit couldn't protect a heretical pope from teaching error to the whole church regarding faith and morals ."
Yes, i think he could. But I dont think it's good to put absolute trust in the permanent ability of one fallible man whose predecessors have been shown sometimes heretics to make infallible statements on his own. It's not in the Bible and not clear from Tradition to say the least.
You are demanding that this one man will have a miraculous ability of permanent perfection in these kinds of statements. I think it'sbetter to limit more the people we trust with such abilities.

 

[samir]

I know. I think theyre both bad though.

"I don't see why the Holy Spirit couldn't protect a heretical pope from teaching error to the whole church regarding faith and morals ."
Yes, i think he could. But I dont think it's good to put absolute trust in the permanent ability of one fallible man whose predecessors have been shown sometimes heretics to make infallible statements on his own. It's not in the Bible and not clear from Tradition to say the least.
You are demanding that this one man will have a miraculous ability of permanent perfection in these kinds of statements. I think it'sbetter to limit more the people we trust with such abilities.

I mention it because a general discussion on the papacy can get long and hard to follow. Narrowing it to one aspect of it like papal supremacy or papal infallibility should make it easier to follow.

 

[Athanasias]

Since she has not responded I am now open to having someone take her place and continuing the dialog on the office of the papacy.

 

[rakovsky]

Since she has not responded I am now open to having someone take her place and continuing the dialog on the office of the papacy.

Do you think you might be able to find an ecumenical-minded Catholic who would be willing to argue that for practical considerations the Orthodox should be allowed to have sovereignty without being ruled by the Pope like he was their emperor?

The first debate is really what the RC side would be open to change. I have heard ecumenical minded RCs say that they recognize the problem for reunion with treating the Roman Pope as if he was the emperor over Orthodox.

I recommend you first exploring more how rigid and inflexible RCs are on this topic and whether someone among RCs can reason that Orthodox have a legitimate desire from the RC POV.

 

[tz620q]

Do you think you might be able to find an ecumenical-minded Catholic who would be willing to argue that for practical considerations the Orthodox should be allowed to have sovereignty without being ruled by the Pope like he was their emperor?

You are going to laugh but this has me thinking about horses and zebras. Man has been able to domesticate horses because they have a herd mentality with an alpha male that runs the herd. So Man has found that they can supplant the alpha and the herd will follow the new alpha (man). This isn't true of zebras. Their herd mentality is weaker with no firm alpha male and so far they have resisted efforts to domesticate them. I will leave it to you to make the connections to Catholics and Orthodox.

 

[All4Christ]

...

 

[All4Christ]

Since she has not responded I am now open to having someone take her place and continuing the dialog on the office of the papacy.

I'd be interested, but unfortunately I don't have the time right now to give it a thorough discussion, especially during Lent. I'll be keeping an eye on the discussion though!