Why do you reject the pope?

[Philothei]

gave them new, fuller, terms, that's all.

that is the danger.....

 

[Philothei]

I said the supporters of the Papacy talk about Peter's role among the Apostles.

that is theological justification....not theology... Let us not confuse the two... Nowhere in the bible or the fathers you will find infallabity supported....thus it is a political issue justified by theology that is build by the magisterium...

 

[MoNiCa4316]

no where is said that the Pope's succesor is to lead his Church

This is from the Old Testament.. the idea of the Prime Minister, who was given the "keys to the kingdom". These keys were later passed to the next prime minister, to the successor. Christ was referencing these Scriptures when He gave Peter the keys.

Optatus

"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).

see they talk about a "chair".. like an "office".. that's passed on from Peter to his successors..

 

[MoNiCa4316]

here is what I mean about the whole argument for the Papacy being theological not political:

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 

[MoNiCa4316]

that is the danger.....

but they're just terms.

For example.. we always believed that Mary is without sin... so the dogma was later called, the Immaculate Conception. we also believe that Mary appeared to St Bernadette and called herself by this title as well.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

that is theological justification....not theology... Let us not confuse the two... Nowhere in the bible or the fathers you will find infallabity supported....thus it is a political issue justified by theology that is build by the magisterium...

"..and the gates of hades will not prevail against it".. this is linked to Peter being the rock.. that's where the idea of infallibility comes from.

btw, we also believe the whole Church is infallible as well. Not just the Pope alone. Few know this, for some reason. But we do teach this as well.

 

[MoNiCa4316]

Sorry guys, I really can't talk anymore. I have to go study. Nice talking to you all

Peace.

 

[Mikeb85]

I don't know.. the way I understood it, he was saying that if anyone has apostolic succession ..back to the Apostles.. that shows they're in the Church, not part of the heretical group. Cause I think he was speaking to the Gnostics in particular. They didn't have apostolic succession, they just claimed to have some 'hidden knowledge' of the Bible.

No, he was speaking to the Donatists. Some background about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatist

Nowhere does he mention Gnostics.

Here's an interesting passage:

For this reason you determined to occupy yourself with the Endowments alone, which you have denied to Catholics, vainly striving to claim them for yourselves exclusively, having clutched them, as it were in your hand, or shut them up in a box. Although the question is about regeneration, and man's renovation, you have made no mention either of Faith or of its profession by the Faithful. You determined rather to speak of the Endowments alone, and have passed over in silence all these things without which spiritual faith and reparation cannot exist. And although the Endowments belong to the Spouse, not the Spouse to the Endowments, you dealt with the Endowments as if life were given by them, not by the inward organs, which we understand to be rather in the Sacraments than in the Ornaments.

Optatus is stating that succession and valid orders are about more than simply having 'mechanical' apostolic succession, that a proper confession of faith and belonging to the church are also necessary.

but we don't think we've CHANGED the faith. Simply made things more defined that before were more in the background. Brought them more into focus, gave them new, fuller, terms, that's all. Not changed.

The fact is, no matter Rome's claims, purgatory was never defined by a council prior to the schism, the immaculate conception of Mary was never defined by a council prior to the schism, etc... Simple as that.

 

[Philothei]

here is what I mean about the whole argument for the Papacy being theological not political:

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Yeah a "interpretation" of the Biblical passage "ex cathedra" for the RC church just like any other Protestant would do with the Predestination.... Everything becomes an interpretation.... sadly... Are we teachign RC 101 now in here? No one asked you where in YOUR Dogma it is stated if we needed we knew were to find it...

 

[Philothei]

but they're just terms.

For example.. we always believed that Mary is without sin... so the dogma was later called, the Immaculate Conception. we also believe that Mary appeared to St Bernadette and called herself by this title as well.

circular we go again with ST. Bernadette...lol... Hardly anyone EOwould believe a saint would have a vision bout dogma...

 

[E.C.]

the Pope and his supporters didn't talk about his political power, but about Christ's words to Peter - You are the rock and upon this rock I will build My Church. The argument for the Papacy was theological, not just politics.

From the Orthodox Study Bible's nice footnote concerning Matthew 16:18...

"Peter/Rock is a play on the word for 'rock' in both Aramaic and Greek (petros/petra). This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to 'the faith of his confession' (John Chrysostom). The true Rock is Christ Himself (1Co 10:4), and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ".

There is more concerning 'Gates of Hades' and the like, but the Gates of Hades do not appear to be relevent to the thread.

So there we have it. It is not on Peter whom the Church is to be built, but on the faith of the confession that Peter makes a few verses up "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" which is the confession that all Christians make.

but then why was Peter mentioned in support of the primacy of Rome? It was said that Peter wa the head of the Apostles, the rock upon which the church is built, and that his successors share his office.. and this was linked to the unity in the Church.

Until Rome wished for secular authority, that's when the "Papal States" came into play. In fact, they exist today because of Mussolini's Lateran dealings that allowed the present day "Vatican City" to be its own state.

Monica, you also posted Optatus' writings in full, which is appreciated. In arguing against the Donatists, Optatus put forward a view of Apostolic succession which basically asserts that schismatics and heretics don't have apostolic succession. Basically saying that to have true succession, they must be a part of the church and not merely have 'mechanical' apostolic succession (his constant references to Rome are also due in great part to the location where Optatus was based - North Africa was completely dominated by Rome, and had little to no contact with the East - this is why his writings, as well as those of St. Augustine and others were never translated into Greek until well after the schism).

Anyhow, his writings can even be used against the Roman church today - no matter what Rome's authority once was, if she indeed changed the faith (as Orthodox believe), according to the principles Optatus speaks about, she wouldn't have true apostolic succession, and would be outside the church.

I truly think the whole Catholic/Orthodox argument boils down to this. Does anyone have the authority to change the faith? The RCC would say that the Pope indeed does have that authority, and the Orthodox would say that no one has that authority. Because, like it or not, the RCC believes things that weren't spoken of prior to the schism, and that were not defined in the ecumenical councils prior to the schism.

QFT!

[QUOTE"MoNiCa4316"]but we don't think we've CHANGED the faith. Simply made things more defined that before were more in the background. Brought them more into focus, gave them new, fuller, terms, that's all. Not changed.[/quote]
My father grew up in pre-Vatican II Catholicism. I grew up in post-Vatican II Catholicism. Having heard tales from those that have seen both, Catholicism pre and post Vatican II are not the same. That was only in the 1960s, not more than fourty years ago. If Catholicism changed that dramatically in less than half a century, than if I were a Roman Catholic I would shudder at how much Catholicism has changed in the last 1,000 years.

 

[Philothei]

this is linked to Peter being the rock

linked by the Pope himeslf.... ex cathedra again...

 

[Picklenickels]

"who is he?" well.. someone from the early Church and Christ did say, "you are Peter and upon this rock I will build My Church". Everything points to the "rock" being Peter. Both the linguistics and the early church fathers.



I think he's just talking about Apostolic Succession here. That a "church" apart from the bishops is not a church. But he's not talking against the Pope.



actually, there is one visible head, the Pope. Each local parish is a representation of the entire Church. A "symbol" of it. It's sort of mystical. The Pope and the local bishop are not in competition with each other.



the quotes I provided say some important points which have not yet been addressed... the quote by St Cyprian doesn't even mention the Pope, just talks about the importance of Apostolic Succession, IMO. In the early Church, many heretics claimed to teach the truth yet they were not supported by the Bishops. So maybe St Cyprian was trying to counter them. Just an idea.



There have been bad things done on BOTH sides.



Well I am here because this is the St Justin Martyr corner, the only place to present both the Orthodox and the Catholic views and COMPARE them.

This section is for DEBATE, not to try and convert us!:o

 

[Musa80]

Yeah a "interpretation" of the Biblical passage "ex cathedra" for the RC church just like any other Protestant would do with the Predestination.... Everything becomes an interpretation.... sadly... Are we teachign RC 101 now in here? No one asked you where in YOUR Dogma it is stated if we needed we knew were to find it...

RC Church? Did you happen to notice the date of that quote? There was no Roman Catholic Church nor Orthodox Church...just the Church

 

[MoNiCa4316]

No, he was speaking to the Donatists. Some background about them: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatist

Nowhere does he mention Gnostics.

I thought we were talking about Ireneaus sorry. It's Optatus? wow I'm tired..

Here's an interesting passage:



Optatus is stating that succession and valid orders are about more than simply having 'mechanical' apostolic succession, that a proper confession of faith and belonging to the church are also necessary.

oki.

The fact is, no matter Rome's claims, purgatory was never defined by a council prior to the schism, the immaculate conception of Mary was never defined by a council prior to the schism, etc... Simple as that.

we have an explanation of why this is but I guess if I say it I'd be accused of "teaching RC 101" again.

 

[E.C.]

I said the supporters of the Papacy talk about Peter's role among the Apostles. That is theology, not politics.

Any time the word "supporters" is mentioned in a sentence, than it is about politics.

The fact is, no matter Rome's claims, purgatory was never defined by a council prior to the schism, the immaculate conception of Mary was never defined by a council prior to the schism, etc... Simple as that.

In fact, wasn't there even a bit of uproar after both were decided?

Yeah a "interpretation" of the Biblical passage "ex cathedra" for the RC church just like any other Protestant would do with the Predestination.... Everything becomes an interpretation.... sadly... Are we teachign RC 101 now in here? No one asked you where in YOUR Dogma it is stated if we needed we knew were to find it...

"Ex Cathedra", yet another good topic!

Question for the curious by the curios here:

If the Bishop of Rome was 'infallible' and could call 'ex cathedra' on everything, than why didn't he merely do so at Nicea in 325? At Ephesus 431? At Chalcedon 451? At Constantinople in 553? At Constantinople again in 681? And last but not least, at Nicea in 787?

 

[Philothei]

RC Church? Did you happen to notice the date of that quote? There was no Roman Catholic Church nor Orthodox Church...just the Church

did you notice anything in the quote about the Pope? no... It talks about Peter...not his succesor... The pope uses this quote ex cathedra to talk about himself ...

 

[Philothei]

If the Bishop of Rome was 'infallible' and could call 'ex cathedra' on everything, than why didn't he merely do so at Nicea in 325? At Ephesus 431? At Chalcedon 451? At Constantinople in 553? At Constantinople again in 681? And last but not least, at Nicea in 787?

cause he has not realize that he was a the head of the state yet..

 

[MoNiCa4316]

circular we go again with ST. Bernadette...lol... Hardly anyone EOwould believe a saint would have a vision bout dogma...

I just mentioned her for interest. The story of her life is pretty cool.

From the Orthodox Study Bible's nice footnote concerning Matthew 16:18...

"Peter/Rock is a play on the word for 'rock' in both Aramaic and Greek (petros/petra). This rock refers not to Peter per se, but to 'the faith of his confession' (John Chrysostom). The true Rock is Christ Himself (1Co 10:4), and the Church is built on the faithful confession of Christ".

There is more concerning 'Gates of Hades' and the like, but that is what is relevent to the thread.

So there we have it. It is not on Peter whom the Church is to be built, but on the faith of the confession that Peter makes a few verses up "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" which is the confession that all Christians make.

I don't think this is supported by the ECFs though..

Tertullian

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Origen

"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

also, in the Bible whenever anyone's name was changed, it always had a deep significance. think of Abraham.

as for the linguistics..originally it was in Aramaic.. and then when they translated to Greek, they couldn't use the word "rock" cause it was a feminine word so they made it masculine for Peter's name. But in the original language, Christ said.. you are the rock and on this rock I'll build My Church. The early Church really seems to agree here.

My father grew up in pre-Vatican II Catholicism. I grew up in post-Vatican II Catholicism. Having heard tales from those that have seen both, Catholicism pre and post Vatican II are not the same. That was only in the 1960s, not more than fourty years ago. If Catholicism changed that dramatically in less than half a century, than if I were a Roman Catholic I would shudder at how much Catholicism has changed in the last 1,000 years.

that's liturgical style, not dogma.

This section is for DEBATE, not to try and convert us!:o

yea and I'm DEBATING.

 

[Mikeb85]

we have an explanation of why this is but I guess if I say it I'd be accused of "teaching RC 101" again.

We all know what Rome says. In defining purgatory it mentions prayers for the dead and whatnot (which is based off a faulty understanding of life after death - we pray for the dead but not for any sort of release from 'purgatory'), and the immaculate conception is based off a faulty understanding of Original Sin...

Here's a nice little explanation by Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew concerning the Immaculate conception: http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/2005/03/08/patriach-bartholomew-on-the-immaculate-conception/