From Where do the RCC and the EOC get the Authority they claim for themselves?

[chestertonrules]

No I am not joking. As is typical of Catholic apologists you have quoted the first edition of "The Unity of the Catholic Church". Cyprian later revised this work, presumably because Rome began to interpret his work in a manner which he had not intended it to be understood. Below is his revised text.

It is on the one man that He builds the Church; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, when He says, 'As the Father has sent me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy Spirit: If you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man's sins, they shall be retained" (John 20: 21-23) Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6). Let no one mislead the brotherhood with a lie, let no one corrupt the faith by a faithless perversion of the truth. The episcopate is one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided structure. The Church also is one, however widely she has spread among the multitude through her fruitful increase. . . . The Church is bathed in the light of the Lord , and pours her rays over the whole world; but it is one light that is spread everywhere , and the unity of her structure is undivided.
​

This is completely Orthodox ecclesiology and is precisely what the Orthodox Church teaches today.

John

It's as if you aren't even reading what you post.

How can there be unity without foundational rock?

What if two bishops disagree? What if three disagree?

Cyprian understands. This is why he never left the Church even though he disagreed with a ruling of Pope Stephen.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

True.

Queens often go both ways.

Matt 12:42 `A Queen of the south shall be being aroused/egerqhsetai <1453> (5701) in the judging with the generation/geneaV <1074>, this, and shall be condemning it/her. That she came out of the ends of the land to hear the wisdom of Solomon and behold! more of Solomon here!

Revelation 18:7 As much as she glorifies herself and indulges, be giving to Her tormenting and mourning, that in Her heart she is saying 'I am sitting a Queen and Widow not I am and mourning not I shall be seeing'.

 

[prodromos]

It's as if you aren't even reading what you post.

Ad hominem. Apparently you fail to notice that much of what you had highlighted in your quote of the 1st revision is missing in the 2nd revision. St Cyprian speaks of Peter being the centre of unity, not the papacy. The trouble with Catholic apologists is that they automatically read "papacy" whenever they see "Peter"

How can there be unity without foundational rock?

You mean the foundation of the Apostles and the Prophets, with Christ as the cornerstone?

What if two bishops disagree? What if three disagree?

It has happened many times throughout the history of the Church which is why the 7 ecumenical councils were held. The Church has weathered every storm just as Christ had promised

Cyprian understands. This is why he never left the Church even though he disagreed with a ruling of Pope Stephen.

???

 

[chestertonrules]

Which ecumenical council was not overseen by a pope?(Not counting the council at Ephesus, with St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I.)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Which ecumenical council was not overseen by a pope?(Not counting the council at Ephesus, with St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I.)

Do you think he got this message?

Reve 2:1 To the Messenger of the in efesw Outcalled write!....[16 times....8 times in Acts, 2 in 1 Corin, 1 in Ephesians 1 in 1 Timo, 2 in 2 Timo]

 

[prodromos]

Cyprian understands. This is why he never left the Church even though he disagreed with a ruling of Pope Stephen.

You seem to imply that bishops went into schism at the slightest provocation. It certainly may have been true of some popes of Rome (who were prone to declaring other bishops excommunicated at the drop of a hat, for which they were severely reprimanded at times) but schism was considered a very serious matter and was not something ever considered lightly.

Which ecumenical council was not overseen by a pope?(Not counting the council at Ephesus, with St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I.)

A more relevant question is which ecumenical was overseen by a pope? The answer being none.

John

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

It's as if you aren't even reading what you post.

How can there be unity without foundational rock?

What if two bishops disagree? What if three disagree?

Cyprian understands. This is why he never left the Church even though he disagreed with a ruling of Pope Stephen.

Please allow me to interject:

Firstly, I think if you've read me, you'll know that I have no axe to grind with Catholics- far fom it. But let's briefly explore your stated concern regarding unity...

The council at Jerusalem was overseen by its Episkopos, James. He spoke for those seated- as did Peter- yet it was clear in the reading that it was consensus.

Collegiate leadership works. Yes, it can be a bumpy ride at times, but we Orthodox get by just fine. Having a "first among equals" has worked in my family. That first is my Grandmother. She 'rules' without ruling, does not attempt to rule. She 'over-rules' no one: but the respect that we have for her God-ordained position of spiritul authority allows her gifting, calling, and experience to persuade us, but not rule.

This is true unity, the unity of mutual submission. This is also the model of the Christian nuclear family: Yes, husband is 'head,' but does he have the 'final say?' If he does, he sows seeds of discord. His authority is demonstrated in his submission.

Orthodox ecclesiology has allowed Rome's bishop to be first among equals, and a fair reading of history shows Rome's bishop to have acted this way in the primitive Church.

If 2 or 3 bishops disagreed, the argument went one until most, if not all, agreed. 316 of 318 at Nicea, for example. The foundational rock, as you say, is based in spiritual, not temporal, authority.

Again, if there is a "ruling" of one, eventually there will be schism. If there is a ruling of a simple majority, eventually, there will be schism. If "it seems good to US and the Holy Spirit," there still can be schism- but on a much smaller scale.

That's my two cents worth.
ereni/peace
Iakovos

 

[chestertonrules]

Please allow me to interject:

Firstly, I think if you've read me, you'll know that I have no axe to grind with Catholics- far fom it. But let's briefly explore your stated concern regarding unity...

The council at Jerusalem was overseen by its Episkopos, James. He spoke for those seated- as did Peter- yet it was clear in the reading that it was consensus.

Collegiate leadership works. Yes, it can be a bumpy ride at times, but we Orthodox get by just fine. Having a "first among equals" has worked in my family. That first is my Grandmother. She 'rules' without ruling, does not attempt to rule. She 'over-rules' no one: but the respect that we have for her God-ordained position of spiritul authority allows her gifting, calling, and experience to persuade us, but not rule.

This is true unity, the unity of mutual submission. This is also the model of the Christian nuclear family: Yes, husband is 'head,' but does he have the 'final say?' If he does, he sows seeds of discord. His authority is demonstrated in his submission.

Orthodox ecclesiology has allowed Rome's bishop to be first among equals, and a fair reading of history shows Rome's bishop to have acted this way in the primitive Church.

If 2 or 3 bishops disagreed, the argument went one until most, if not all, agreed. 316 of 318 at Nicea, for example. The foundational rock, as you say, is based in spiritual, not temporal, authority.

Again, if there is a "ruling" of one, eventually there will be schism. If there is a ruling of a simple majority, eventually, there will be schism. If "it seems good to US and the Holy Spirit," there still can be schism- but on a much smaller scale.

That's my two cents worth.
ereni/peace
Iakovos

Thank you for your thoughts.

I have a couple of questions for you, however.

God revealed the truth about gentile convert circumcision and Jewish dietary laws to Peter in a vision. This was a direct communication.


What if a majority of the elders of the Church had wanted to maintain circumcision? Would that have made it true?


The fact that the majority, probably a unanimous majority, agreed with Peter doesn't change the method God chose to deliver the truth.

I believe unity is impossible without a single source of truth. Multiple voices lead to schisms.



One More Question:


Do you think unity between the RC and EO could be achieved with an Orthodox Patriarch chosen to fill the see of Peter?

 

[Rick Otto]

Do you think unity between the RC and EO could be achieved with an Orthodox Patriarch chosen to fill the see of Peter?

Do you think unity between the RC and EO could be achieved with a college of bishops from both chosen to fill the see of Peter?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Do you think unity between the RC and EO could be achieved with an Orthodox Patriarch chosen to fill the see of Peter?

Do you think unity between the RC and EO could be achieved with a college of bishops from both chosen to fill the see of Peter?

Not without Divine intervention and a miracle

 

[Albion]

Do you think unity between the RC and EO could be achieved with an Orthodox Patriarch chosen to fill the see of Peter?

Not if he were to claim the powers claimed by the bishop of Rome currently.

 

[Thekla]

I came across an interesting verse this last week. Of course there are various thoughts concerning which books/scrolls of Paul was speaking. But, I had not noticed this verse before:

II Tim 4:13; The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring [with thee], and the books, [but] especially the parchments.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=7&contentID=3048&commInfo=6&topic=2%20Timothy

13. cloak . . . I left--probably obliged to leave it in a hurried departure from Troas.
Carpus--a faithful friend to have been entrusted with so precious deposits. The mention of his "cloak," so far from being unworthy of inspiration, is one of those graphic touches which sheds a flood of light on the last scene of Paul's life, on the confines of two worlds; in this wanting a cloak to cover him from the winter cold, in that covered with the righteousness of saints, "clothed upon with his house from heaven" [GAUSSEN]. So the inner vesture and outer garment of Jesus, Paul's master, are suggestive of most instructive thought ( Jhn 19:2 ).
books--He was anxious respecting these that he might transmit them to the faithful, so that they might have the teaching of his writings when he should be gone.
especially the parchments--containing perhaps some of his inspired Epistles themselves.
​

Of course, other commentaries speculate that these were some of the OT parchments. It's definitely something to consider. Hmmm?

long past the point, and aside from the turn the thread has taken - sorry

The word "good news/gospel/euaggelion" is sometimes left in lower case and sometimes translated Gospel (indicating a specific good news as opposed to, for example, of the euaggelion the angel spoke). In its upper case sense, the specific euaggelion is the announced/lived Christ. It is this that is preached by the apostles prior to its recording. It is, if you will, "event" as revelation of what is, and is then recorded. It is recorded that Paul saw the face of Christ and heard Him (as did Stephen and John) after the reusurrection. It is also recorded by Paul that it was Christ who revealed the message to Paul, and not man; likewise Paul was taken up into the heavens.

The Gospel left on the page is record, the Gospel lived is "event".

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

The word "good news/gospel/euaggelion" is sometimes left in lower case and sometimes translated Gospel (indicating a specific good news as opposed to, for example, of the euaggelion the angel spoke).

1 Corin 9:16 For ifever I may be well-messagizing/euaggelizwmai <2097> (5735) not it is to me a boast, for necessity of me is lying on. For woe! to me it is ifever no I should well-messagizing/euaggelizwmai <2097> (5735).

Reve 14:6 And I saw another Messenger flying in mid-heaven having well-message/euaggelion <2098> age-abiding to well-messagize/euaggelisai <2097> (5658) the ones sitting/*dwelling upon the land and *upon every nation and tribe and tongue and people.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Thank you for your thoughts.

I have a couple of questions for you, however.

God revealed the truth about gentile convert circumcision and Jewish dietary laws to Peter in a vision. This was a direct communication.

Don't forget the one "untimely born," Paul.

What if a majority of the elders of the Church had wanted to maintain circumcision? Would that have made it true?

That was Paul's fear, as he outlines in Galatians. But you see, the Holy Spirit guides the Church. At times, it has been down to just a few who clung to the truth- Athanasius, for example, or Gregory Palamas and the Hesychasts in the East. But these won the day without having some singularity of power or position.

The fact that the majority, probably a unanimous majority, agreed with Peter doesn't change the method God chose to deliver the truth.

But again, He did not reveal this truth only to Peter, as I have stated.

I believe unity is impossible without a single source of truth. Multiple voices lead to schisms.

I think schism is inevitable- we're human, after all.
That being said, we EO are doing just fine without a singular voice- in spite of the overtures that P. Bartholomew has on being an Eastern Pope.

One More Question:


Do you think unity between the RC and EO could be achieved with an Orthodox Patriarch chosen to fill the see of Peter?

I think that if Patriarch Bartholomew was to seek such power, he would be run into the sea with shouts of "anaxios! anaxios!"

My answer to that is a resounding "no."
Which seat should we fill, BTW? Peter was first bishop at Antioch.

 

[Rdr Iakovos]

Not if he were to claim the powers claimed by the bishop of Rome currently.

Absolutely right- that wouldn't fly with either East or West. Our Patriarch is already on somewhat shaky ground IRT to his overtures outside of his jurisdiction.

 

[chestertonrules]

Do you think unity between the RC and EO could be achieved with a college of bishops from both chosen to fill the see of Peter?

That is not unity.

It could make for a bigger and more inclusive Church, but divisions would persist.

 

[chestertonrules]

Which seat should we fill, BTW? Peter was first bishop at Antioch.

[/QUOTE]


It doesn't matter where the seat is located, it matters that it represents the authority given to Peter and that all Christians abide by the truth proclaimed.

One flock with one shepherd. That is the only way to unity.

Jesus understood this.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It doesn't matter where the seat is located, it matters that it represents the authority given to Peter and that all Christians abide by the truth proclaimed.

One flock with one shepherd. That is the only way to unity.

Jesus understood this.

It might matter to those reading Revelation

Reve 2:13 I am aware of the works of thee and where thou are dwelling, the-where the Throne/qronoV <2362> of the Satan and thou are holding the Name of Me and not disown the faith of Me even in the days in which of Antipas the witness of Me the faithful who was killed beside ye the-where the Satan is dwelling.

Reve 16:10 And the fifth messenger pours out the bowl of him upon the Throne/qronon <2362> of the Beast and became the Kingdom of it having been Darkened and they gnawed the tongues of them out of the misery.

 

[Uphill Battle]

That is not unity.

It could make for a bigger and more inclusive Church, but divisions would persist.

divisions DO exist. you call them "rites." (even if you DON'T count the Sedevacanists.)




what I find really amusing about what I've been reading over the last few pages, is the "singular authority" is being preached by an adherent to an organization that claims validation of it's dogma according to councicular means.

 

[prodromos]

It doesn't matter where the seat is located

True, the seat is located in every region where the bishop sits.

it matters that it represents the authority given to Peter

which all the apostles, and subsequently all bishops have.

and that all Christians abide by the truth proclaimed.

Proclaimed by the Apostles and defended by the Ecumenical Councils. Thus all Christians are to abide by the faith which was handed down by the Apostles through their successors the bishops.

One flock with one shepherd. That is the only way to unity.

Not in the sense that you are suggesting though. Christ is the one shepherd.

Jesus understood this.

I am not a humble man, still I would not presume to append such a claim to one of my posts.

John