|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/29/2010 3:23:24 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
Protestants have a way to full communion right now in either of the Orthodox faiths - RCIA...and a profession of faith in the authority and instruction of either of these Churches. The only full communion Protestants want is with God and believe this is best done outside the two denominations mentioned.
Kelman,
Are you speaking for all Protestants, really? My husband has been a Protestant Evangelical for over 30 years and is now seriously considering being received into the Orthodox Church. I know of many other such cases. Nope, who could speak for "all" of any population segment?
However, obviously, Protestants don't believe they can find communion with God in your churches, otherwise, that's where they'd be. That certainly is the case with me.
Your husbands experience, notwithstandking, the percentage of RC's who have left to become Protestants is very very great.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/29/2010 3:32:01 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Everytime man sins, it is the Word of God which judges him.
John 12:48 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
Rom 2:16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.
Does God judge and condemn man?....the height of folly to think not!
Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.
Kelman,
We Orthodox do not deny that there will be a great Judgment. In fact, at every Divine Liturgy we pray that we will have an acceptable defense at the dread judgment seat of Christ. We continually cast ourselves upon the love and mercy of Christ. And we profess before partaking of the Eucharist, "I believe, O Lord, and I confess that Thou art truly the Christ, the Son of the Living God, who camest into the world to save sinners, of whom I am first." and "Have mercy upon me and forgive my transgressions both voluntary and involuntary, of word and deed, committed in knowledge or in ignorance."
We are very aware that it is a sobering matter to stand before the holy God of the Universe, Creator of all flesh.
Glory to God for all things!
Glad to hear that. However, the impression I got was that judgment was somehow "therapeutic". Scripture demonstrates judgments to be punitive, i.e., Noah's Flood, Sodom and Gomorrha. The judgments pronounced upon Israel were always in the form of punishment for their disobedience. These are all examples unto us.
What certainly can be considered therapeutic is God's chastisements. They are clearly different from that of judgments and, in fact, believers should welcome them.
Heb 12:8 But if you are without chastening, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate and not sons.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/29/2010 3:59:10 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
Christ is the Great Physician. It also says, by His stripes we are healed. And now that I am thinking about it, in the New Testament, Jesus went out healing people. That was His ministry, to heal us. His ministry was therapeutic, not juridical.
When the Lord came the first time, He says He did not come to judge but to save.
John 12:47 And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world.
But just as clearly He will come the second time to judge the living and the dead....
Acts 10:42 And he commanded us to preach unto the people, and to testify that it is he which was ordained of God to be the Judge of quick and dead.
2Tim 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;
John 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:
It is the Word of God which judges man.
John 12:28 He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/29/2010 5:08:00 PM
|
|
|
Dred
Posts: 282
Joined: 10/11/2007
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
As has been pointed out, if reading in the original language of scripture with minimal preconceptions, there is very little juridical imagery. When there is some, we should consider whether we look at it as a reflection of our flawed human legal systems or as a reflection of what they should be. We punish, often with feelings of revenge involved, because we can't do what would really be best. Surely, real justice would be to heal all the harm done by the offenders and to make the offenders see what they did as they should see it. Yes, let's raise the dead, comfort those who suffered from it, and make the murderers into new men. Hopefully, most of us would prefer that to our current systems if only we had the power to do it. God does have the power to do it and He's working on it right now; be patient.
"I mean God in Christ, reconciling the world to Himself (2 Cor. 5:19), not the pagan notion of Christ in God reconciling Him to the world."--George MacDonald
_____________________________
"He was born among us for the cure of the disease of sin." --Gregory of Nyssa
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/29/2010 7:50:41 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Very well said, Dred. Although, there is a good amount of legal language in the N.T. and in the Prophets and Psalms.
"God sent His only Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit"
Historic Christian doctrine, under those that have succeeded from the Apostles, teaches that God's highest attribute is Compassion, which is the cause of the Incarnation. Thus, the highest expression of divine law is infinite mercy in Christ.
So when Scripture says that
"sin is lawlesness",
the Spirit means that sin is loveless and merciless.
Lastly, I think that in both the East and West, the point of emphasizing the law or the horror of sin is to help us understand and glorify the eternal generosity of the Savior come in the flesh
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 8/30/2010 11:37:14 AM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/30/2010 12:23:21 AM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Your husbands experience, notwithstandking, the percentage of RC's who have left to become Protestants is very very great.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the RCC. This is an Orthodox thread, remember? If Protestants, such as yourself, and other Roman Catholics want to discuss differences, I think it best you do that elsewhere than here. This is not the place for disputes/differences between Protestants and Catholics.
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/30/2010 2:39:37 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
As has been pointed out, if reading in the original language of scripture with minimal preconceptions, there is very little juridical imagery. Where do you get that from? A great portion of the OT is almost totally consumed with the judgment of man.
quote:
When there is some, we should consider whether we look at it as a reflection of our flawed human legal systems or as a reflection of what they should be. Seems to me we look at, or at least should, the way God explains it....little to do with our legal system, although, I guess there is some correlation.
quote:
We punish, often with feelings of revenge involved, because we can't do what would really be best. Surely, real justice would be to heal all the harm done by the offenders and to make the offenders see what they did as they should see it. It appears from Scripture that God had both in mind at least as concerns Israel. He punished their wrongdoing and as a result they usually repented and turned from their evil ways - at least for a while. Not so, however, with God's other judgments, they were strictly punitive, i.e.,the Flood, Sodom.
Now, unless you can show something different from Scripture, then it appears "very little juridical imagery" is actually the preconception.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/30/2010 2:40:53 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 6107
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendweller
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Your husbands experience, notwithstandking, the percentage of RC's who have left to become Protestants is very very great.
No doubt. But I'm not talking about the RCC. This is an Orthodox thread, remember? If Protestants, such as yourself, and other Roman Catholics want to discuss differences, I think it best you do that elsewhere than here. This is not the place for disputes/differences between Protestants and Catholics.
Where do you get the idea that this is an "Orthodox thread"? I don't see that anywhere. In fact, the title is "The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession".
Besides, I don't think you get to say what this "place" is for, or to tell someone where it is "best" for them to go.
You're the one who posted to me and asked if I was speaking for "all Protestants". I answered you using RC statistics....sorry, I don't have the statistics on how many EOs have become Protestants.
_____________________________
.... for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. Psalm 138:2
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/30/2010 12:28:45 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Well, I agree that we need to stay on track. I also think this thread is about which Church has Apostolic Succession, and I think and the Catholic Church , with the Papacy, has this full Succession of authority from the Apostles, as indicated by the early documents and Church history.
I pray--based upon God's compassion and His power to destroy legalism in those on both sides--for the full unity of Catholics with the Orthodox, who share the same beliefs, historically.
Peace in Jesus Christ,
Pat
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 8/30/2010 9:52:27 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/30/2010 6:42:06 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1742
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelmanquote:
ORIGINAL: Heavendwellerquote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Your husbands experience, notwithstandking, the percentage of RC's who have left to become Protestants is very very great. No doubt. But I'm not talking about the RCC. This is an Orthodox thread, remember? If Protestants, such as yourself, and other Roman Catholics want to discuss differences, I think it best you do that elsewhere than here. This is not the place for disputes/differences between Protestants and Catholics. Where do you get the idea that this is an "Orthodox thread"? I don't see that anywhere. In fact, the title is "The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession".
Besides, I don't think you get to say what this "place" is for, or to tell someone where it is "best" for them to go.
You're the one who posted to me and asked if I was speaking for "all Protestants". I answered you using RC statistics....sorry, I don't have the statistics on how many EOs have become Protestants. She is not entirely wrong. I was the one who started this thread, and I am Orthodox. Also, since the moderators have put this thread in the One Stop Catholic thread, she is kinda right. The Orthodox is Catholic, or more rightly; the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The Church has Apostolic succession, because, unlike most others, it is a religion of witnesses. Most others have no witnesses, or only go back to a few decades or a few hundred years. And this is been generous, because it is not linear, but of thousands of loose branches.
If you can prove your group has an unbroken line of witnesses that began with Jesus, then Heavendweller is wrong; but, I doubt it.
_____________________________
St. Athanasios the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 8:48:39 AM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Hi Walterquez and everyone,
I thought this might be a good place to discuss what is in fact--as the Joint Consultation repeatedly affirms--the chief and root point of disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox, both of which have succeeded the Apostles
I say "disagreement" but I think that much of it may be miscommunication., as is certainly the case with teh Filioque, which would have to be the chief point of disagreement if it was truly a difference in belief. (the Consultation testifies that the West does not affirm two causes of the Spirit's hypostatic existence, also says we are not to call each other heretics over the Filioque issue).
This "chief" issue is of course the question of the role of Simon Rock's Successor in Church governance.
So the main question seems to be: did the early Church believe that the Primacy of Peter's Successor was only one of honor? Or did they believe that the Bishop of Rome, like a Bishop in relation to the priests--or like an Ecumenical Council in relations to individual bishops--has a superior authority?
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 8/31/2010 12:15:41 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 12:30:37 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
Hi Walterquez and everyone,
I thought this might be a good place to discuss what is in fact--as the Joint Consultation repeatedly affirms--the chief and root point of disagreement between Catholics and Orthodox, both of which have succeeded the Apostles
I say "disagreement" but I think that much of it may be miscommunication., as is certainly the case with teh Filioque, which would have to be the chief point of disagreement if it was truly a difference in belief. (the Consultation testifies that the West does not affirm two causes of the Spirit's hypostatic existence, also says we are not to call each other heretics over the Filioque issue).
This "chief" issue is of course the question of the role of Simon Rock's Successor in Church governance.
So the main question seems to be: did the early Church believe that the Primacy of Peter's Successor was only one of honor? Or did they believe that the Bishop of Rome, like a Bishop in relation to the priests--or like an Ecumenical Council in relations to individual bishops--has a superior authority?
Good afternoon patricius79,
I found this quote from this other site that kinda ask's the same question's you've been asking here under (The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession) and which you have been making an effort to explain this under this Walterquez topic of interest. Here is a short quote from this other person from this other site...who is looking for...
quote:
who is looking for good essays,quotes,studies and threads to put my mind at ease about "Crossing the Great Schism" on the doctrinal issues.
I would also like to know alittle more about the Post-Schism Councils of the west that the Eastern Orthodox took part in such as the Council of Florence, Pope Leo I's claims to supremacy as sucessor of St.Peter,Significance of the Filioque: Heresy or violation?
I've heard that the filioque is correctly understood to mean "From the Father (As Cause) Through the son" although in the CCC #246 The catechism quotes the council of Florence expounding the "From Father and Son "As" by one spiration" I found this a little odd even while Roman. Either this is Co-cause heresy or the heresy of Modalism since it seems to confuse the persons of the Holy Trinity (Saying what the Father did,so did the son)
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?7487-Essays-and-threads-on-crossing-the-schism
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 12:47:02 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
This "chief" issue is of course the question of the role of Simon Rock's Successor in Church governance.
Pat,
Yes, truly the Pope of Rome is a main bone of contention between the East and West, that is, the Orthodox Church and the Church of Rome. It seems if one looks at the role/nature, etc. of the Papacy, from an objective point of view, there would be no question that his role/nature has evolved/changed. The popes of old held an altogether inordinate amount of power, which led to abuse of power...ie. Inquisition, Crusades. This is a stain in the history of the Papacy that has been a stumbling block for many.
The most recent popes since Vat. II have little resemblance to the popes of fomer times, per my example above. They have shed the dominant role, one that permitted them to carry out excommunications, persecutions, and death sentences with little to no checks and balances. The popes of the last several centures lost such power as monarchies crumbled. However, for a good 7 centuries (approx.) the Roman Catholic Church existed within a theocratic environment. I'm especially putting this in the context os the Great Schism, of which many have attributed to the year 1054 A. D. The tension between the monarchy and the papacy was a reality, one that challenged the role of the pope and the legitimacy of his power. The Reformation was the beginning of the downfall of that power, which the formation of a Democratic Republic in the newly formed United States further cemented, which is evident in that today we have no Roman Catholic theocracy.
In addressing the role of the Papacy in the Wsst, one is forced to look at its history. Such history is laced with inequities, violence, abuse of power, debauchery, and contradiction. While the most recent popes since Vat. II diverge exponentially from their predecessors of old in their demeanor, and in their ability to influence and wield their authority, they nonetheless hold to some of the foundational teachings of their office, even though that office has waned significantly as regards its former control. Today we have the benefit of hindsite, and looking back upon the landscapte of the role of the Papacy, one would have to say that this office has gone through an evolution in which a new function of that role has slowly emerged, one more amicable than in former times.
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 12:51:04 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Sorry for the typos. That's what happens when one sends a post without spell checking. 
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 1:10:59 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
one would have to say that this office has gone through an evolution in which a new function of that role has slowly emerged, one more amicable than in former times.
Hello Heavendweller,
From your words quoted above, they have moved me so I am stirred to ask and to understand this, why such a change in his role and what is the direction to be in, through and for relating to the Orthodox Church and her members?
This question is not solely for Heavendweller alone, so again, if you are inclined to speak then speak and always in proper order of these forum rules in order to keep harmony.
So if I may ask a simple yet difficult question, how would this action of being "more amicable" of his function, then to be in the best interest for the Orthodox Church today?
Personally, in who's name, through who's name and for who's name sake
is this going to be in the best interest of?
Peter
< Message edited by PeterD -- 8/31/2010 1:32:01 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 1:38:37 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 931
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
I may ask many questions but I may not always have your answers back as quickly as you may answer that question. So, it has been brought up and not that I'm anything important but that question has been to long in the making yet not very long in the making...I don't want to be writing anymore today.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 1:38:53 PM
|
|
|
walterquez
Posts: 1742
Status: offline
|
Dear patricius79, why did the Bishop of Rome have one vote in the Ecumenical Councils? Why did he even have a vote to begin with? If he is truly whom you say he is, then the votes of all the other Bishops have no value if the Bishop of Rome votes. There is no sense in counting the votes; all you need to look at is what the Bishop of Rome voted for and that would be the final decision of that Council.
I understand the Bishop of Rome was not present physically, so his representative voted on behalf of the Bishop of Rome and also for himself; thus, two votes.
Or, why even have an Ecumenical Council when the Bishop of Rome could make a final decision? I know there were many local councils, and that it would not be possible for the Bishop of Rome to participate in. So, I am referring only to the Ecumenical Councils. Something of this great magnitude should go to the Bishop of Rome. I don't see how it makes sense to even have an Ecumenical Council.
_____________________________
St. Athanasios the Great
For our Canons and our forms were not given to the Churches at the present day, but were wisely and safely transmitted to us from our forefathers.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 1:48:52 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: PeterD
quote:
one would have to say that this office has gone through an evolution in which a new function of that role has slowly emerged, one more amicable than in former times.
Hello Heavendweller,
If I may ask, how would this action of being "more amicable" of his function, then to be in the best interest for the Orthodox Church today?
Peter
Peter,
Well, for starters, the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church are actually having dialogue, something that Paul VI began during his reign. Also, the relics (bodies) of St. Gregory the Theologian and St. John Chrysostom were returned to the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew of the Orthodox Church during JP II's reign in 2004, in an effort toward reconciliation. These were relics that had been stolen during the sacking of Constantinople in the year 1204 and kept in St. Peter's Basilica.
However, when one talks about reunion from an Orthodox perspective, such intentions cannot be viewed as monolithic. There are Orthodox who are very cautious, some who are hopeful, some who are skeptical, some mistrusting, etc. etc. etc. And I am not speaking here of only the laity, but rather, the hierarchy as well.
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 4:04:55 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Okay, so a lot has been brought up. First I want to say that I think the Papacy should treat the EO Churches differently that the other Churches. I have no fundamental with the Ratzinger proposal or the Popes treating the EO Churches differently, should they come to an agreeement.
As a preliminary, I want to say that my only goal is the deeper unity among Christians. I would gladly drop this and become Eastern Orthodox if I thought God wanted me to, since I have a great deal of respect for the Eastern fathers and writers that I've read.
First, I would observe that the histories of both the Eastern and Western Hierarchies involve much scandal, because they involve human beings. Catholic doctrine has never held that the Popes are sinless, and about 10 out of 250 plus have been really terrible.
E.g., Heavendweller brought up the influence of Western Kings on the Papacy. And htis likewise can be said of the Eastern Bishops, and specifically Constantinople, e.g.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Eastern_Orthodoxy.asp
Secondly, as I understand it the Papacy played and I think unique role in the destruction of the heresies which caused scandal, such as Monophysitism, Arianism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm, etc.
For one example, St. Theodore the Studite (of Constantinople) writes this after the time of the Photian crisis:
In truth we have seen that a manifest successor of the prince of the Apostles presides over the Roman Church. We truly believe that Christ has not deserted the Church here (Constantinople), for assistance from you has been our one and only aid from of old and from the beginning by the providence of God in the critical times. You are, indeed the untroubled and pure fount of orthodoxy from the beginning.
http://www.fisheaters.com/easternfathers.html
In the same way, the fathers referred specifically to the Primacy of Peter in terms of being the Key-Bearer, Chief of the Apostles, ruler of the Apostles, head of the Apostles, etc. And the early Church saw the Bishop of Rome uniquely as peter's successor.
Eastern Orthodox scholarship confirms the strong evidence for the Papacy in the 100s.
Both the Eastern fathers and/or the Eastern Liturgy bear witness to the way the Papacy has been crucial in the early doctrinal crsies, and the fact that any Council's ruling is inadequate without Papal approval.
Meyendorf or Afanassief or Schmeman, EO scholars ,indeed confirms much of this--and the fact that the Orthodox historically have not fairly evaluated early Chruch history as to the Papacy-- and I would like to discuss his testimony if peopel are interested.
E.G. Alexander Schmeman writes:
Neither can we quote here all the testimonies of the Fathers and the Councils unanimously acknowledging Rome as the senior church and the center of ecumenical agreement.
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/num12.htm
Lastly, as to the queston of why we would need ecumenical councils. This is rather like saying "why do we need local priests if we have bishops who can overrule them?". And indeed, the Orthodox theologians have put forth a theory of Church government called "Eucharist Ecclesiology" which does logically remove the priest from under the Bishop's authority.
And indeed, it is impossible to define what an "Ecumenical Council" is, historically, without the papacy. "Ecumenical" has never meant that all the Bishops agreed with it, or even that all the Patriarchs agreed with it. It has always meant that the Popes recognize it as such.
As to development, of course doctrinal and ecclesiological development happened in the whole Church. E.g, in the first 250 plus years nobody referred to "Ecumenical Councils" or the doctrine of the Hypostatic Union as explicitly defined at Chalcedon, which recognized the headship of Pope St. Leo, celebrated in the Byzantine Liturgy as "head of the Orthodox Church". (Likewise the Sixth Ecumenical Council, e.g, called the letter of Pope St. Agatho as being written by "the chiefest head of the Apostles.).
Morever, during these early centuries, when the Papal claims of supremacy, were loudly made, the early Fathers and Councils did not repudiate such claims or teach that idea that the Pope is simply the first among equals or holds a honorary primacy.
Lastly, I observe that the point here has nothign to do with moral or personal superiority. I am not in the least suggesting that Catholics are smarter of better than the Orthodox. If they do think that, they are clearly inferior.
Peace,
pat
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 8/31/2010 6:09:57 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 6:18:28 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
Pat,
If you have the time and inclination, I suggest you go over to the Orthodox site, "Energetic Procession." The most recent post titled, 'Life in a Windowless Monad" is on the very topic of the Petrine Primacy. I think you might find it a good read. Perry Robinson, the author of this blog, has a good grasp of the differences between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism. The comments section futher elaborates on this subject, with participants from various faith traditions.
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 6:37:45 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Hi Darlene. I looked at the article.
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/life-in-a-windowless-monad/#more-1098
Will respond later. Peace of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Unity, Pat
Okay, a few things I observed from the article:
1)it doesn't address the historical facts that before the schism the fathers and councils did not disagree with Papal supremacy (e.g. at Ephesus, where it was openly stated) and that Eastern fathers did teach that Peter and the Pope have headship in the Church over the others
2)it seems to imply that we do not have to submit to the decisions either of our bishops or of Councils of any kind, nor to the view of this article for that matter. So it seems to be accidentally prescribing that we be windowless monads, not needing to accepting authority of any kind, even familial headship.
3)it assumes an intrinsic conflict between the idea of the authority of the Bishop by Succession and that of the Pope by Petrine Succession. But Catholics accept their Bishop's authority--and that of Eastern Orthodox Successors--for the same reason that they accept the Papacy. Similarly, we do not assume a conflict between a parish priest's authority and that of his bishop.
4)it does not seem to have in view the fact that myriad bishops rebelled against Ecumenical decisions. E.g., Chalcedon was rejected for over 50 years in the East, until the Eastern hierarchy affirmed Papal Supremacy and the Council of Chalcedon. (cf. the Formula of Hormisdas)
5)so it seems to have the same problems I mentioned in post 2894 just above.
6)by comparing the heresy of Subordinationism with Papism, the essay seems to confuse the issue, since Popes are not held to be by nature superior to anybody--but simply to have a charism of superior authority based on God's own superior nature and His free decision, as in regard to Bishops having servant authority over priests. It is in some sense similar that the Son and the Spirit are entirely dependent on the Father, the Sole Cause of the Trinity, while being by Nature Co-Equal.
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 9/1/2010 1:19:36 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 9:14:27 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
PeterD, as to the argument you quoted in your post 2887, the problem with it is that I think the Council of Florence--which was confirmed by the EO Patriarchs, as I recall--had to define the one Spiration as being "one Spiration" from the Father and the Son, because otherwise they would have recognized two causes in the Trinity, which--as the Joint Declarations says--has never been teh Western (or Eastern) teaching, which has always believed that the Father is the sole cause from which the Spirit proceeds though the Son; or in other words that, as Damascene says, "the Father produces the Spirit through the Son".
however I am not expert on these issues. I simply submit what the Joint Declaration confirms and that the Western fathers and three of the Greek taught the Filioque, as observed St. Maximus of Constantinople also, who defended the Filioque.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 9:16:23 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 430
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: patricius79
Hi Darlene. I looked at the article.
http://energeticprocession.wordpress.com/2010/08/28/life-in-a-windowless-monad/#more-1098
Will respond later. Peace of Jesus Christ, our Savior and Unity, Pat
Okay, a few things I observed from the article:
1)it doesn't address the historical facts that before the schism the fathers and councils did not disagree with Papal supremacy (e.g. at Ephesus, where it was openly stated) and that Eastern fathers did teach that Peter and the Pope have headship in the Church over the others
2)it seems to imply that we do not have to submit to the decisions either of our bishops or of Councils of any kind, nor to the view of this article for that matter. So it seems to be accidentally prescribing that we be windowless monads, not needing to accepting authority of any kind, even familial headship.
3)it assumes an intrinsic conflict between the idea of the authority of the Bishop by Succession and that of the Pope by Petrine Succession. But Catholics accept their Bishop's authority--and that of Eastern Orthodox Successors--for the same reason that they accept the Papacy.
4)it does not seem to have in view the fact that myriad bishops rebelled against Ecumenical decisions. E.g., Chalcedon was rejected for over 50 years in the East, until the Eastern hierarchy affirmed Papal Supremacy and the Council of Chalcedon. (cf. the Formula of Hormisdas)
5)so it seems to have the same problems I mentioned in post 2894 just above.
Wow, you read the whole article and absorbed all the content along with the comments in a little over 15 minutes?
First of all, I suggest that you make your comments regarding the article to the the writer himself. But, with that said, I will make a few comments.
As regards the thrust of the article, its intentions aren't to address all the problems with Petrine Primacy. That would be an article of magnanimous proportions.
As regards #1, you as well as I know that the views of the early church of the first millenium regarding the pope and his office were not monolithic. The fact that you come from a staunch Roman Catholic defense of the Papacy in and of itself does not mean you are right.
As regards #2, you are waaaay off. I've been reading that blog for quite some time and Perry is saying no such thing. No fatithful Orthodox Christian would say that we should not submit to councils or bishops. Perhaps, though, you had better ask him. If he is suggesting such a thing then he is not really an Orthodox Christian in the truest sense.
As regards #3, huh? I have no idea what you are saying here.
As regards #4, where do you get your information? Also, the author of this blog is very astute and learned as regards church history and the church fathers.
Pat, honestly, I don't think you took the time to understand the article at all. How could you in such a short amount of time? There was quite a bit to process there, and to do it in such a short amount of time you could not have grasped all that was said. However, I don't want to discuss the article here. Rather I pointed you to it so that you get could a better idea of the Orthodox viewpoint on this subject of Papal primacy, infallibility, etc. The author there is far more learned than myself on these matters.
_____________________________
See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and so we are. I John 3:1
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 9:48:14 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
Hi Heavendweller,
I would need you to give me content from the article which shows that I have misunderstood it or have gotten the history wrong. BTW, obviously I am not claiming that the article deliberately rejects all definitive ecclesial authority. However, that is clearly the logical outcome of his argument against Papal Primacy of authority. (The author clearly implies that such an idea is intrinsically contrary to the nature of the Trinity. Then so likewise would be the case with other definitive authorities which rejected the teachings of other Bishops, such as the Arian Bishops). This is similar to the problems of the theory of "Eucharistic Ecclesiology" of EO theologians, which is also related to a rejection of the Papacy, and in the process logically undercuts the authority of the Bishop over diocesan priests.
Peace,
pat
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 8/31/2010 10:25:02 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: The New Testament Church and Apostolic Succession - 8/31/2010 9:50:48 PM
|
|
|
patricius79
Posts: 3420
Joined: 9/10/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
As regards #4, where do you get your information? Also, the author of this blog is very astute and learned as regards church history and the church fathers
well, what I said was:
4)it does not seem to have in view the fact that myriad bishops rebelled against Ecumenical decisions. E.g., Chalcedon was rejected for over 50 years in the East, until the Eastern hierarchy affirmed Papal Supremacy and the Council of Chalcedon. (cf. the Formula of Hormisdas)
Well, the first part is basic early Church fact. The main heretics were bishops and priests that held the Arian or other heresies. At various times all the Patriarchates fell into heresies. But as St. Theodore of Constantiniople and others said, Rome was like an unfailing light. The Second part I read from 2lungs.com and possibly other sources.
I can give the Formula Hormisdae if you like:
http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/has_the_orthodox_changed_any_teaching_or_doctrine.htm
< Message edited by patricius79 -- 8/31/2010 10:26:51 PM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
