How This Really Works?

[reyb]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299441' date='Jun 21 2007, 10:24 AM']They are the pre-schism Church, definately. That's what I'd been saying the whole time.[/quote]
[indent]And since orthodox churches comes from pre-schism church, do you consider Peter as the first leader of your (orthodox) church?[/indent]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1299649' date='Jun 21 2007, 07:42 PM']Not true.
Peter's primacy is asserted in the Gospels (Peter was the only Patriarch to receive the Keys of the Kingdom directly from Christ, as recounted in Matthew 16:18-19) and is confirmed by the words of the Early Church Fathers (pre-schism).
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp"]Peter's Primacy According to the Church Fathers[/url][/quote] No it's not found in the Early Church documents, infact it's highly refuted, as I'd posted regarding the Council of Constantinople.

What's interesting is that you say that the Pope isn't infallible but that his "office is", then you go on to say that St. Peter was infallible, thou he didn't have "an office".

[/quote]


[quote name='reyb' post='1299654' date='Jun 21 2007, 08:02 PM'][indent]And since orthodox churches comes from pre-schism church, do you consider Peter as the first leader of your (orthodox) church?[/indent][/quote]

No, because that doctrine came later.

Edited June 22, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[abercius24]

[quote name='reyb' post='1299395' date='Jun 21 2007, 08:09 AM'][indent]What happen to 'Apostolic Succession' if this is true?[/indent][/quote]

First of all, Apostolic Succession doesn't apply only to Popes. Bishops have Apostolic Succession, too. As long as there are Bishops who carry a pedigree back to the Apostles and who are alive to choose a new Pope, the Papacy will always exist. Judas didn't appoint a successor, yet his seat as Episcopate (Bishop) was vacant until the other Apostles were able to choose Matthias in Acts 1. It's not the man that make the Papacy, but the place of authority that man holds as Christ's Prime Minister of the Heavenly Kingdom.

--Abercius24 - Steve S.

[abercius24]

There is a lot of confusion here about the Papacy, no doubt. :-)

The best place to start is with the Bishops. Each Bishop of a Diocese is recognized as that region's Ordinary -- the Big coagulated milk. He holds full authority over His diocese. Given this, the Pope and the other Bishops cannot interfere with another Bishop's leadership without good reason. Each Bishop holds the same authority as one of the Apostles held (less the authority to write books of the Bible, which was given only to a few -- including some non-Apostles -- by virtue of Divine Inspiration). Each is seen as a Prince of the Church with Christ as our King. How are Bishops held accountable to each other and to the Pope, you ask? Because we have one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, we must have a tangible focal point that reflects that unity. This focal point is the Papacy, the foundation stone -- The Rock of Peter. Though a Bishop of the Church may do what he wills in his Diocese, he may no longer be a member of Christ's Church if he does not remain in union with the Pope and the other Bishops through teaching and ministry. So does that mean the Pope can't pull rank? Yes, he has such a rank to pull, but only when it is necessary to secure or significantly proliferate unity in the Church. He must protect the sovereignty each Bishop has over their own Diocese.

This also calls into question what infallibiliy means and where it is applied. The Church holds two cases for infallible teaching: "The Universal and Ordinary Magesterium"; and "The Solemn and Extraordinary Magisterium." Infallibility through "The Universal and Ordinary Magesterium" means that the Church will always secure the infallible teachings of Christ and the Apostles through the general everyday teachings of the Pope and the Bishops in union with him. Whether a teaching has been directly recognized as doctrine or not, no element of faith that is necessary for salvation will be lost nor relegated by the faithful. Infallibility through "The Solemn and Extraordinary Magisterium" means that when the Pope and the Bishops in Union with him declare a teaching as solemn doctrine that must be held by all the faithful, these teachings will be infallible. The Pope may do this of himself "ex-cathedra", or the Bishops may do this together as part of an Ecumenical Council. And in fact, the bulk of all infallible doctrines proclaimed by the Church come from Ecumenical Council.

Here's another perspective to consider, as well. The Scriptures refer to both Christ as His teachings as The Word of God, because Christ's teachings are inherently part of His being. Christ Himself said that He would always be with the Church, even until the end of time. It makes sense that His teachings would always be with us in their entirety, as well. And not only His teachings, but also His authority to clarify anything some of us may have misunderstood. This is where the Church's teachings gain their infallibility -- they are the teachings of Christ and must be nothing less than the Word of God. Without infallability we are like the man who built his house on sand, blown about by the winds. With infallibility, we are like Christ who built His house upon solid foundation -- upon Rock.

--Abercius24 - Steve S.

[reyb]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299737' date='Jun 22 2007, 02:00 AM']No it's not found in the Early Church documents, infact it's highly refuted, as I'd posted regarding the Council of Constantinople.

What's interesting is that you say that the Pope isn't infallible but that his "office is", then you go on to say that St. Peter was infallible, thou he didn't have "an office".
No, because that doctrine came later.[/quote]
[indent]Who is then the leader of orthodox churches other than Jesus? ( I mean the first leader of orthodox churche/s).[/indent]

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='reyb' post='1299758' date='Jun 22 2007, 04:52 AM'][indent]Who is then the leader of orthodox churches other than Jesus? ( I mean the first leader of orthodox churche/s).[/indent][/quote]

The Holy Spirit, God himself leads the church, no questions asked. We have different patriarches for different rites [just as Roman Catholics] but we don't consider a man to be infallible, or have the Authority that the Roman Catholics give to a mere man or his establishment. We follow what has been the tradition since the beginning, which was confirmed at Constantinople I, which is that the Holy Spirit affirms the truth of Jesus Christ, not a man or a series of men.

Reza

Edited June 22, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[reyb]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299788' date='Jun 22 2007, 09:46 AM']The Holy Spirit, God himself leads the church, no questions asked. We have different patriarches for different rites [just as Roman Catholics] but we don't consider a man to be infallible, or have the Authority that the Roman Catholics give to a mere man or his establishment. We follow what has been the tradition since the beginning, which was confirmed at Constantinople I, which is that the Holy Spirit affirms the truth of Jesus Christ, not a man or a series of men.

Reza[/quote]
[indent]Therefore, you just consider the Roman Catholic Church as one of the different rites. [/indent]

[abercius24]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1299788' date='Jun 22 2007, 09:46 AM']The Holy Spirit, God himself leads the church, no questions asked. We have different patriarches for different rites [just as Roman Catholics] but we don't consider a man to be infallible, or have the Authority that the Roman Catholics give to a mere man or his establishment. We follow what has been the tradition since the beginning, which was confirmed at Constantinople I, which is that the Holy Spirit affirms the truth of Jesus Christ, not a man or a series of men.

Reza[/quote]

The Orthodox do recognize infallibility at the level of the Bishop the same as Catholics do, they simply refuse to recognize that the Papacy is the focal point of Christian unity for all Church leadership. If you ask any Orthodox Bishop if they may deny any of the Canons proclaimed at the first 7 ecumenical councils, they would state that only a heretic would do so. That's a recognition of Infalliblity through Solemn Magisterium, just under a different name.

And by the way, though Pope Sylvester I was not present at the Council of Nicea, two of his prelates were and voted on his behalf. Furthermore, St. Athanasius was unofficially present on his behalf (having just had his exile rescinded by the Pope) to defend the doctrine of Christ's divinity. And anyone who knows Church history knows that it was the arguments of St. Athanasius that convicted many of the Arianist Bishops to change their positions and vote in favor of the doctrine, and against Arias.

--Abercius24 - Steve S.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1300105' date='Jun 23 2007, 12:08 AM']The Orthodox do recognize infallibility at the level of the Bishop the same as Catholics do, they simply refuse to recognize that the Papacy is the focal point of Christian unity for all Church leadership. If you ask any Orthodox Bishop if they may deny any of the Canons proclaimed at the first 7 ecumenical councils, they would state that only a heretic would do so. That's a recognition of Infalliblity through Solemn Magisterium, just under a different name.[/quote] Actually orthodox don't believe in the infalliblity of anybody. We believe they are mere men that can make mistakes.

[quote]And by the way, though Pope Sylvester I was not present at the Council of Nicea, two of his prelates were and voted on his behalf. Furthermore, St. Athanasius was unofficially present on his behalf (having just had his exile rescinded by the Pope) to defend the doctrine of Christ's divinity. And anyone who knows Church history knows that it was the arguments of St. Athanasius that convicted many of the Arianist Bishops to change their positions and vote in favor of the doctrine, and against Arias.

--Abercius24 - Steve S.[/quote]

Actually St. Athanasius was Coptic [alexandria] not a Roman Bishop and at the Council of Constantinople I, no Roman Bishops were present.

Reza

Edited June 23, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[abercius24]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1300109' date='Jun 23 2007, 02:25 AM']Actually orthodox don't believe in the infalliblity of anybody. We believe they are mere men that can make mistakes.
Actually St. Athanasius was Coptic [alexandria] not a Roman Bishop and at the Council of Constantinople I, no Roman Bishops were present.

Reza[/quote]

You misunderstand infallibility (and apparently did not read my previous post). The core of the doctrine of infallibility is that the Church as a whole (and likely as a majority) may never teach contrary to the teachings of Christ. You try to break the case for infallibility to pointing out any weakness men may have, yet the whole need for infalliblity is due to the weakness of individual men. If you believe the Orthodox Church can teach error as a whole, my friend, you should consider just how well the Holy Spirit is guiding your Church.

My point is that a faithful Orthodox Bishop would never dare teach contrary to the Canons of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils. They would consider anyone who did so to be a heretic and deserving of damnation (as the Canons themselves declare -- "anathema"). Hence they believe those Canons are in fact reiterations of the Word of God, and therefore infallible by nature. Otherwise you are saying that the Word of God is not infallible, and/or that the Orthodox Church believes in recognizing others as heretics on the basis of Council "opinion" -- yet God alone can declare what is and what is not sin. Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. If any tenent of the faith could be lost from the Church's teachings, then the devil would have prevailed against the Church on that level, and Christ's words could not be true. This is the what we Catholics essentially mean when speaking of infallibility. Christ's words are always with us for all time.

I also know the Orthodox are big on believing the faith without overapplying logic to it, which they accuse the Latin Church of doing. That fear is understandable to a point. But without applying logic to their own tenants of faith, how can they know that our Latin perspectives on the faith are so wrong. But in my experience speaking with Orthodox leaders, our differences are more based on symantics on the surface, and harsh feelings of betrayal for historical abuses at the core. With the right perspective in mind, we Catholics see a good majority of our beliefs in the teachings of the Orthodox Church (less the issue of the Papacy and a few moral issues). The bad feelings are what hold us apart. . .even 1000 year later. But shouldn't a millenium be long enough to resolve those feelings? Or is it about time that we let go?

I must also warn you not to focus so much on the separation of Churches (Rites). Even if Athanius was Coptic, and if no Latin Bishops attended Constantinople I (which I highly debate, but will further research), the reality is that we were One Church at that time. The pride I sense in your responses seems to blind you from that beautiful truth. We were brothers then, and both have claim to ecclesial fellowship with St. Athanasius. And you may forget that we are brothers still on a lesser level; that we fight the same enemy on the same battleground. We can still be in the same trench and depend upon each other despite our disagreements, can we not? Try not to draw the line deeper between us when we are truly stand on the same side of a greater divide.

--Abercius24 - Steve S.

[RezaMikhaeil]

[quote name='abercius24' post='1300309' date='Jun 23 2007, 07:14 PM']You misunderstand infallibility (and apparently did not read my previous post). The core of the doctrine of infallibility is that the Church as a whole (and likely as a majority) may never teach contrary to the teachings of Christ. You try to break the case for infallibility to pointing out any weakness men may have, yet the whole need for infalliblity is due to the weakness of individual men. If you believe the Orthodox Church can teach error as a whole, my friend, you should consider just how well the Holy Spirit is guiding your Church.[/quote] No see, I don't believe that the Orthodox Church can teach error as a whole, I believe that men can do so, but that the Holy Spirit will always guide the pre-schism Church. You're pretending to present an argument that says that Orthodox and Roman Catholics don't disagree on infalliblity, but the truth remains, we significantly disagree.

[quote]My point is that a faithful Orthodox Bishop would never dare teach contrary to the Canons of the First Seven Ecumenical Councils.[/quote]First seven? Sorry but I'm Oriental Orthodox, so that isn't going to work. I accept every council till Chalcedon, but even my Eastern Orthodox Brethren that do follow the first sevel faithfully don't accept the Roman Definition of Infalliblitity.

[quote] They would consider anyone who did so to be a heretic and deserving of damnation (as the Canons themselves declare -- "anathema"). Hence they believe those Canons are in fact reiterations of the Word of God, and therefore infallible by nature. Otherwise you are saying that the Word of God is not infallible, and/or that the Orthodox Church believes in recognizing others as heretics on the basis of Council "opinion" -- yet God alone can declare what is and what is not sin. Christ said the gates of hell shall not prevail against the Church. If any tenent of the faith could be lost from the Church's teachings, then the devil would have prevailed against the Church on that level, and Christ's words could not be true. This is the what we Catholics essentially mean when speaking of infallibility. Christ's words are always with us for all time.[/quote] No because Roman Catholics accept infalliblity of a man, they believe that St. Peter was infallible amongst the other Apostles, and that their patriarch is superior to the others. This is completely different then what Orthodox believe.

[quote]I also know the Orthodox are big on believing the faith without overapplying logic to it, which they accuse the Latin Church of doing. That fear is understandable to a point. But without applying logic to their own tenants of faith, how can they know that our Latin perspectives on the faith are so wrong. [/quote]Simple, they judge the Roman Church partly by their own standards. IE: Orthodox don't define at what point the bread during communion becomes Jesus's body, while Romans have came up with a "logic" that says specifically at what point it becomes the body of Christ. Orthodox reject this because there is no way of possibly knowning and it's best left to "mystery".

[quote]But in my experience speaking with Orthodox leaders, our differences are more based on symantics on the surface, and harsh feelings of betrayal for historical abuses at the core. With the right perspective in mind, we Catholics see a good majority of our beliefs in the teachings of the Orthodox Church (less the issue of the Papacy and a few moral issues). The bad feelings are what hold us apart. . .even 1000 year later. But shouldn't a millenium be long enough to resolve those feelings? Or is it about time that we let go?[/quote] I definately agree that a great majority of differences are "phraselogy" particularly amongst Eastern and Oriental Orthodox Christians, and thou this is largely the case amongst Orthodox and Roman Catholic [as His Holiness Pope John Paul II had pointed out along with His Holiness Pope Shenouda III], there are still major differences such as the Immaculate Conception [Orthodox don't accept the Roman Catholic's view of this and the Roman Catholics don't accept the Orthodox view of this].

[quote]I must also warn you not to focus so much on the separation of Churches (Rites). Even if Athanius was Coptic, and if no Latin Bishops attended Constantinople I (which I highly debate, but will further research), the reality is that we were One Church at that time. [/quote]I agree that we were one church, this is why I mention it, because I don't consider a particular rite to be superior to the others. The whole purpose of mentioning it was to say that contrary to what alot of Roman Catholics believe, it wasn't the Roman Pope's "stamp of approval" that validated these councils, but the Holy Spirit that guided everyone of the Bishops that attended. I'm the one saying [and ultimately reiterating what Cyril Maker wrote in his book] that the Pre-schism church is the true church and that is what should be promoted but also that the Roman Patriarch is no better or worse then the other Patriarches.

[quote]The pride I sense in your responses seems to blind you from that beautiful truth.[/quote] I think you greatly misunderstand me, if you were to go and read my other posts on this issue, you'd see that I'd always promoted the Pre-Schism Church, which is why I don't accept Papal infalliblity and the theology of the Roman Church being more significant then the other rites.

[quote]We were brothers then, and both have claim to ecclesial fellowship with St. Athanasius. And you may forget that we are brothers still on a lesser level; that we fight the same enemy on the same battleground. We can still be in the same trench and depend upon each other despite our disagreements, can we not? Try not to draw the line deeper between us when we are truly stand on the same side of a greater divide.[/quote] I didn't draw the line, the lines have been drawn by those that came before me. St. Athanasius was a great and wonderful individual, that united everyone but even he wasn't considered to be infallible [which is why the council was at one time willing to hear the testimony of Arias]. If would stress the pre-schism church to everyone, suggesting that the seperation was everyone's fault, but the atttude that I hear amongst most Roman Catholics on this particular message board is that their rite is infallible and that "it's all the orthodox fault". So in short, I like your approach and world-view, I'm just not sure that many Roman Catholics take the same view, as you're the first on this message board that I'd seen admit, what you've admited [which is that the schism was everyone's fault].

Reza

Edited June 24, 2007 by RezaLemmyng

[reyb]

Please excuse me - I just want to know this.....
[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1295188' date='Jun 14 2007, 11:18 AM']The Church is more than just roman, She is universal which is what catholic means. Which makes the saying "Roman Catholic" an oxymoron, somewhat. Roman universal? Rome itself is not universal, it would be like American Catholic Church, America is not universal.

Anyway I hope I make sense perhaps another will explain better. Point is the right terms would be Catholic Church or Holy Catholic Church since she is not limited to Rome alone.

[url="http://%5burl=http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm%5dhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm%5b/url%5d"]List of Popes - apostolic succession[/url]
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm[/url][/quote]


[quote name='reyb' post='1295991' date='Jun 15 2007, 12:36 PM'][indent]Pope St. Linus
(Reigned about A.D. 64 or 67 to 76 or 79). [/indent]
[indent][color="#0000FF"]All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius[/color], also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". [b]As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv[/b]). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his II Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:
After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.[/indent]-----------------------------------[/quote]


[indent]What is the reason behind Tertullian and Jerome to go against the 'testimony' of Irenaeus, Africanus, Hippolytus and Eusebius being Pope Linus as the successor of Peter?[/indent]

[abercius24]

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1300319' date='Jun 23 2007, 09:34 PM']No see, I don't believe that the Orthodox Church can teach error as a whole, I believe that men can do so, but that the Holy Spirit will always guide the pre-schism Church. You're pretending to present an argument that says that Orthodox and Roman Catholics don't disagree on infalliblity, but the truth remains, we significantly disagree.[/quote]

My point is that we do agree to some level, particularly at a level that the Orthodox Church has not yet defined, and much more than I think you may previously have thought.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1300319' date='Jun 23 2007, 09:34 PM']No because Roman Catholics accept infalliblity of a man, they believe that St. Peter was infallible amongst the other Apostles, and that their patriarch is superior to the others. This is completely different then what Orthodox believe.[/quote]

Well, the most populated Rite is likely to have some pretty proud members, no doubt, but I do not think those folks represent the official teachings of the Latin Rite. It would not be correct to say that the Latin Church teaches our Patriarch (the Pope) is essentially superior to any other Bishop. All Bishops are recognized as equals, as the Apostles recognized with each other. They are Princes of the Church, in a sense, with Christ as our King. It would be more correct to say other Bishops are accountable to each other, but particularly to the Pope since He is given the duty to confirm his brethren (as Peter was ordered to do by the Lord prior to the Crucifixion). A Kingdom of Princes cannot be united unless they are accountable to each other.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1300319' date='Jun 23 2007, 09:34 PM']I agree that we were one church, this is why I mention it, because I don't consider a particular rite to be superior to the others. The whole purpose of mentioning it was to say that contrary to what alot of Roman Catholics believe, it wasn't the Roman Pope's "stamp of approval" that validated these councils, but the Holy Spirit that guided everyone of the Bishops that attended. I'm the one saying [and ultimately reiterating what Cyril Maker wrote in his book] that the Pre-schism church is the true church and that is what should be promoted but also that the Roman Patriarch is no better or worse then the other Patriarches.[/quote]

As far as better or worse Patricharchs, we Roman Catholics have had some pretty terrible Popes in our history (including some womanizers), so the claim that ours is better than yours would be pretty foolish. I would say as far as men are concerned, John Paul II was a jewel, but I think there are few who would disagree, Catholic or not. But the infallibility of the Papacy is not dependant upon the man's individual behavior except in his inability to officially proclaim false doctrine. And I say "officially proclaim", which has very rarely been exercised by Popes. If the Pope told you personally that the Book of John had 23 chapters, he would not be invalidating the doctrine of infallibility. Such a statement would not be an official declaration binding upon the conscience of all believers, which is required for infallibility to exist. You see, a Pope can live his whole term without ever needing to exercise infallibility apart from that shared with other Bishops as a whole. And no ecumenical council needs the stamp of approval from a Pope, it merely needs his recognition as having been attended by other Bishops who are in union with him, which he may not deny without substantial reason.

[quote name='RezaLemmyng' post='1300319' date='Jun 23 2007, 09:34 PM']I didn't draw the line, the lines have been drawn by those that came before me. St. Athanasius was a great and wonderful individual, that united everyone but even he wasn't considered to be infallible (which is why the council was at one time willing to hear the testimony of Arias). If would stress the pre-schism church to everyone, suggesting that the seperation was everyone's fault, but the atttude that I hear amongst most Roman Catholics on this particular message board is that their rite is infallible and that "it's all the orthodox fault". So in short, I like your approach and world-view, I'm just not sure that many Roman Catholics take the same view, as you're the first on this message board that I'd seen admit, what you've admited ([which is that the schism was everyone's fault).[/quote]

I would be one of the first to admit that the sacking of Constantinople clearly demonstrated a distasteful disrespect of Eastern Rites by Latin Church members and their leaders. Seeing the past from our perspective, the Eastern Churches were unfairly abused by the Latin Church leadership, including many of the Popes. Politics has been and always will be the main reason the wheat must live amidst the weeds. I say the Latin Church failed to recognize the beauty and richness the Eastern Churches provided to the world in their expression of the faith. I will always remember how inspired I felt after receiving confession from an Eastern Rite Catholic priest. The symbols and liturgy used drew me deep into the reality I was experiencing with God. Our Latin fathers did not bother to understand this and persecuted the Eastern Churches for their differences. Shame on them. I should point out, though, that this does not invalidate the doctrine of infallibility, though. No false tenant of the faith was officially pronounced by the Pope or Latin Bishops, nor did the Church as a whole fail to teach the faith as handed down by Christ and the Apostles. What they did was fail to practice the faith as God intended for them. They did not lack infallibility in their teachings, but they definitely lacked impeccability in their actions. I should also point out that the Eastern Church failed their calling given the situation. Despite the injustices they suffered throughout the centuries, they ultimately did not suffer with humility. It may be hard to hear it, but their harsh response to the Latin Rite's abuse set off a powder keg that ripped a family apart. Their inability to suffer patiently in the short term lead to spiritual confusion and alienation for billions of Christians in the long term. The West dared to slap the East, and the East refused to turn the cheek. This is the schism in a nutshell, as shameful as it is. I believe our Latin Rite Bishops recognize this shame, along with their duty to repair the damage. I support them in their work to reunite the Rites, particularly in their support of our Eastern Catholic brethren.

-- Abercius24 - Steve S.

Edited June 24, 2007 by abercius24