Peter Is Not The Rock!

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Can you explain the red a little better? Are you saying every individual person who is Orthodox must agree? And what is meant by 'past and present'?

We work by consensus (general agreement or concord; harmony).

AXIOS mean "it is worthy", a statement of the laity, and speaks to the ideals that St. Vincent's canon lays out so well...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.html

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

And also this example...

Act 15:22 ¶Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Forgive me...

 

[narnia59]

We work by consensus (general agreement or concord; harmony).

AXIOS mean "it is worthy", a statement of the laity, and speaks to the ideals that St. Vincent's canon lays out so well...

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/434lerins-canon.html

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

And also this example...

Act 15:22 ¶Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

Forgive me...

So in your view, before any of the ecumenical councils were approved, each individual member of the church agreed with everything in the council?

 

[MoNiCa4316]

What is the RC position on the Unam Sanctam? That there is no salvation outside the Roman Pontiff?

Hi Beamishboy,

this doesn't mean what it first seems to mean... to understand this idea one must first do some research and read the relevant parts of the Catechism

I'll try to explain it the way I understand it. Catholics believe that there is only one Church. We believe it is the Catholic Church. But non Catholic Christians are still part of it, they are just not in communion with it. And the Orthodox also have the Sacraments and the Eucharist. So when we say that there is no salvation outside of the Church, we are not saying that non Catholics can't go to heaven, because we believe they are part of the Church too in a way although not fully - unless we all take Communion together. We do not believe that salvation comes from the Pope.
God bless

Dear Narnia, Dear Monica,

Thank you both for excellent and thoughtful posts. I take, entirely, Marnia's point about the timing of the change of name, and I do think that those of us arguing the other position on this need to address, in a manner more satisfactory than we have, the question of why Christ changed Peter's name. I am unimpressed by the arguments about the Aramaic, the NT we have is in Greek and the Greek is clear. In any case, if one is seriously arguing that Peter's name meant 'little pebble' why did Our Lord use the same word to refer to the rock and to Peter?

It seems more sensible to admit that the ECFs accord St. Peter a primacy of honour - but that there is much disagreement about whether that meant that an office was created, or that, if it was, that office devolved to the bishops of Rome.

That is probably the issue here..yes.. I believe that the office was created because this seems to be alluded to by some OT passages.. that the Pope is sort of like a "prime minister", and Jesus is of course the King. I'll try to research more of the ECFs to see what they said about this..

Over time, the differing traditions took two routes, and both can quote from the same ECFs and interpret the same verses in different ways. It seems equally sensible to admit that both readings have strong support, and positively obvious that neither party is going to admit the other one is correct - simply because there is no one 'correct' meaning in tradition or Scripture itself.

That means the question resolves itself into one of whether the reasons which led the West to accept Papal Primacy still obtain. At one level the answer is no, since the West itself is no longer united, and the Papacy has therefore ceased to be a unifying office

hmm I think the West is divided in terms of Catholicism/Protestantism, but the Catholic Church has perfect unity within itself.. there are many different rites, both Eastern and Western, yet they are all in communion with one another... of course socially and politically, it is true that the Papacy is no longer a unifying office. But I think that spiritually and doctrinally it still is.

At another level I am less sure of the answer. With people claiming to be Christians who deny the Nicene Creed and even the divinity of Our Lord, and with the forces of aggressive secularism and Islam rampant, the idea that there is no function for a bishop to act as an arbiter (alongside his fellows) to pronounce on what is an is not orthodox, and to act as a focus of unity, seems incorrect.

What needs to change is the attitude on both sides. Indeed, in what Pope Benedict writes there are clear signs of a Pope who sees himself as a kind of Christian CEO, working with his fellow bishops. But, such is the visceral distrust in some Protestant and Orthodox circles that I am not even sure they are listening.

What is certain is that whatever one thinks about orthodox teaching, there is only one Church with a truly catholic reach - and that is the Church at whose head is the bishop of Rome. Some response from other quarters to Pope Benedict's initiatives would be good - especially if it were positive.

peace,

Anglian

I like this about Pope Benedict too..

I really hope that someday all Christians will be united again, in whatever way God wants this to happen..

thanks for your post

 

[Anglian]

Dear OrthodoxyUSA,

I take your point here:

There is nobody on The Orthodox Christian side of the argument who can answer for all Orthodox Churches. That's not how we function.

Take for instance, HIS GRACE BP. BARTHOLOMEW... should he decide to join with Pope Benedict's efforts, he will have done nothing more than become a member of The Church of Rome and would no longer hold any position in The Orthodox Church, indeed he would no longer be Orthodox.

But this is one of those places where OO and EO divide. We do not hold that all Christians must agree to the decision of a Council before it can be received, because such a condition has never been met and never could be met. Even Nicaea itself was not accepted everywhere by all for a very long time.

For us, the bishop is indeed empowered to speak for his flock; of course, if his flock repudiates him, by definition he speaks for no one but himself. Under canon 6 of Nicaea, the bishop of Alexandria has authority over his Church, and so Pope Shenouda III speaks on behalf of us all. So, were he to go to the Holy Synod after consultations with Rome and make a recommendation, and should the Synod accept it, then we, the faithful, would be bound by it.

Anathemas approved by past Councils can be lifted by future ones, and since the OO recognise only three councils as having ecumenical status, the obstacles are not, perhaps, as difficult for us as for you.

After all, the early Church did accord the bishop of Rome a primacy of honour, and it is clear there were different interpretations of what that meant. For either ourselves or Rome to claim that only our interpretation is correct is part of the problem. Were Benedict XVI or his successors to move more in the direction of the collegial practice of the early Church, that would be something the OO would welcome.

The fact is that none of the great divisions in the early Church has ever been healed, and the more we go round claiming it wasn't our fault and we've changed nothing so you must be the one to change, the less like Christ we look; excessive concentration upon the mote in the eye of others was not His way - even if it is ours. My own Church owes its existence to its view that all the Chalcedonians departed from Nicaean decisions by adopting a new definition of the nature of the Incarnate Word. We can all 'out-conservative' each other, and miss the point that He commanded us to be one.

After all, our Protestant brothers and sisters claim that none of us has a Church just like that of the first century, and of course, neither do they. If we take the Ignatian view of the role of the bishop, then either he has authority and can speak for his people, or he is at the mercy of those laymen and women who will adopt the Protestant view that they owe allegiance to no authority beyond their conscience. I do occasionally wonder whether some of our converts to Orthodoxy do not bring something from their Protestant background with them on this one. Obedience is an important part of our Faith, and if the bishop is the successor of the Apostles, he speaks with their authority - and we should listen and heed him - surely?

Peace,

Anglian

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I like this about Pope Benedict too..

I really hope that someday all Christians will be united again, in whatever way God wants this to happen..

thanks for your post

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Matthew 12:25 Having known yet, the Jesus, their thoughts He said to them, "every kingdom being-divided against herself is desolated/erhmoutai <2049> (5743); and every City or House being-divided against herself not shall be standing":

Reve 18:17 That to one hour was desolated/hrhmwqh <2049> (5681) the so much riches. And every shipmaster and every the one on-place sailing, and mariners, and whoever the sea are working, from afar stand.

 

[beamishboy]

the Protestant view that they owe allegiance to no authority beyond their conscience.

Hi Anglian, I'm delighted to read your post again, after a period of my absence from this scene. Hehe.

You are wrong. The Protestant does not owe allegiance to his conscience alone. To the Protestant, God is the one we have to obey and to whom we owe our sole allegiance; we certainly owe no allegiance to any man, however tall his hat (our Anglican archbishops love to wear tall hats; hehe). The only way we can tell if we are obeying God is to read His word. Hence, we owe allegiance to the Word of God. If the Word of God tells us that the bishop should be a man of one wife, we are not going to make a rule that the bishop cannot have a wife. True, it means he is to be monogamous; it doesn't mean he can't be single. But to make an anti-biblical rule to deny him a wife is quite a different thing from allowing a single man to be a bishop.

Obedience is an important part of our Faith, and if the bishop is the successor of the Apostles, he speaks with their authority - and we should listen and heed him - surely?

Peace,

Anglian

I hold an entirely different view from many people here. I don't believe in apostolic succession. The Apostles have no successors. Paul, an Apostle, could chide Peter, another Apostle. Which "successor" of any of the Apostles has seen fit to chide any one of the real Apostles? The real danger of having a successor to an Apostle is that he may very well lead the flock astray. That is the danger of obedience to any man. But if the obedience is accorded to the word of God, there is a safeguard - you tend not to go too far wrong. Ultimately the Word beckons and coaxes you ever so gently to return to the apostolic faith. But if you obey a man, he isn't going to beckon you to no apostolic faith; he'll just lead you astray more and more.

Of course, allegiance to one man has the attraction of a very cohesive "unity". Basically, you will then be taking the views of that one man, based no doubt, on the views of other men before him including their past mistakes. But there is a very clearcut unity even if it's unity in error. To hold allegiance to the Word of God, one has to allow for some diversity because the Word of God is not really bothered about many aspects. It's only the core essentials that we will be unified in and in all appearance, we may seem very diversified. So, you either have the beauty of unity (even if it's in error) or diversity in everything but with unity in the core beliefs.

I would opt for God's truth and would rather not have allegiance to one man.

That's my personal view. I'm not saying it's the view everyone should take. Some people prefer unity in everything. An extreme case I read about (now, this has no bearing to any one of us because it's something that took place in the past and all the members of this group have died) is the Jonestown cult mass suicide. They were so unified in their allegiance to their Leader that they reportedly even took cyanide in unison. Of course, there's no way RCs or Orthodox Christians will do anything so ridiculous but I'm only hoping to illustrate that we should not place a premium on unity. It's pretty but it may not be right.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Anglian the Protestant view that they owe allegiance to no authority beyond their conscience.

Hebrew 11:10 For he waited the of the foundations having a City of which an Artisan/tecnithV <5079> and architect/dhmiourgoV <1217> the God.

Reve 18:22 and sound of lyre-singers and of entertainers and of flutists and of trumpeters not no shall be being heard in Thee further.And every Artisan/tecnithV <5079> of every craft/tecnhV <5078> not no may be being found in Thee further. And sound of a millstone not no should be being heard in Thee further.

 

[narnia59]

To hold allegiance to the Word of God, one has to allow for some diversity because the Word of God is not really bothered about many aspects. It's only the core essentials that we will be unified in and in all appearance, we may seem very diversified. So, you either have the beauty of unity (even if it's in error) or diversity in everything but with unity in the core beliefs.

Can you provide a list of these 'core beliefs' which are defined as 'essential' on which all Christians must be unified?

I have seen this term many times but I've never seen a list that is but a personal opinion of the person providing it, other than acceptance of the ecumenical church councils.

 

[beamishboy]

Can you provide a list of these 'core beliefs' which are defined as 'essential' on which all Christians must be unified?

I have seen this term many times but I've never seen a list that is but a personal opinion of the person providing it, other than acceptance of the ecumenical church councils.

1. The redemptive death of Jesus on the cross.
2. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

These are really the "corest" of the core principles.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

So in your view, before any of the ecumenical councils were approved, each individual member of the church agreed with everything in the council?

And it can take decades...

That is the meaning of Ecumenical. The Church of Rome views this differently.

Forgive me...

 

[beamishboy]

And it can take decades...

That is the meaning of Ecumenical. The Church of Rome views this differently.

Forgive me...

Why do you keep saying "Forgive me..." ad nauseam? Hehe, at the rate you go, you are verging on being unforgivably tedious. But if this is a cultural thing in your land, please forgive me.

I know in some parts of Asia, begging forgiveness is quite common. I read on News of the World (not a very reliable journal, I'm afraid) that a husband in India would beat up his wife after begging forgiveness. Sounds weird to me. It's a cultural thing. In ancient China, children would kneel to their parents and beg forgiveness daily. My source: News of the World. Hehe.

 

[Rhamiel]

Anglain

That means the question resolves itself into one of whether the reasons which led the West to accept Papal Primacy still obtain. At one level the answer is no, since the West itself is no longer united, and the Papacy has therefore ceased to be a unifying office

but the East is not united either, with the EO and the OO not in union from what i understand, although i do not know a lot about the East

 

[PreachersWife2004]

Beamish, OUSA always signs his post "Forgive me".

I dunno about you, but I don't think there is anything ad nauseam about saying "forgive me".

 

[beamishboy]

Beamish, OUSA always signs his post "Forgive me".

I dunno about you, but I don't think there is anything ad nauseam about saying "forgive me".

OK, at least we agree on one thing: I support McCain and Palin too. I used not to but since a lot of CF chaps have viewed my blog and my comments about Palin and Obama, they have sent me emails that have convinced me that Palin isn't really a book-burner and they have told me quite a bit about Obama, so he's off my favoured list, not that he needs to bother cos I'm neither American nor of the right age to vote. Hehe

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Anglain
but the East is not united either, with the EO and the OO not in union from what i understand, although i do not know a lot about the East

Unity only need go so far as being "in communion" with one another. The things that divide us are simple yet deep matters.

For instance, the filioque ("and the Son") clause that has been added to the creed. For the Orthodox this is an unacceptable change in the Trinitarian view.

The very simple answer is "remove it".

One down.

Forgive me... (an Eastern Orthodox thing, sorry if you are bothered)

 

[beamishboy]

Forgive me... (an Eastern Orthodox thing, sorry if you are bothered)

I'm sorry I even commented on it. But I did say that if it was cultural, please forgive me. I sort of suspected it was cultural anyway. I used to get very irritated with people in CF who seem unable to spell "God" and they would spell it as "G-d". But I was told that it was a Jewish spelling. I can't go round telling you guys to spell colour as "colour" and labour as "labour", can I? There is beauty in diversity.

 

[mehere]

I Want To See Him High And Lifted Up;
Standing In The Light Of His Glory

 

[narnia59]

And it can take decades...

That is the meaning of Ecumenical. The Church of Rome views this differently.

Forgive me...

Is there any evidence that historically this has been the way of the church?

You mentioned this verse:
Act 15:22 ¶Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; [namely], Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren:

First of all, the whole church here is that in Jerusalem, correct, as they were sending men to Antioch (also part of the church) to tell them the decision of the apostles and elders. There is nothing in Acts 15 that indicates any besides the apostles and elders were involved in the decision making, and they certainly weren't sending these men to Antioch to ask their 'okay' about what was decided. They firmly told them the decision and what they needed to do. Acts 15 -- 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things. 29 Farewell. 30 The men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message.

I must agree with Anglian on this when he says:
But this is one of those places where OO and EO divide. We do not hold that all Christians must agree to the decision of a Council before it can be received, because such a condition has never been met and never could be met. Even Nicaea itself was not accepted everywhere by all for a very long time.

So where in the historical church do you see this concept actually being enacted and nothing can change without the agreement of all?

 

[narnia59]

1. The redemptive death of Jesus on the cross.
2. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

These are really the "corest" of the core principles.

So it is not necessary to have the same belief in the nature of Christ, as in you don't have to believe he is God?

 

[beamishboy]

So it is not necessary to have the same belief in the nature of Christ, as in you don't have to believe he is God?

That would be incorporated in the second principle: We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.

Faith in Jesus would require some understanding of Jesus and his Godhead within the Holy Trinity.