www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Will the Real Rock Please Stand Up?

Brethern, Although I am a "Old" Roman Catholic I tend to side with Fr.Thomas point of view,if anybody showed leadership in scripture it was St. Paul, of course its only a opinion.

Jacomus,

Other church leaders, both lay and ordained, are called to lead the Church besides the Supreme Vicar of Christ. Patriarchs and other hierarchs have a special obligation in this respect, I believe. Certainly in Church history there have been patriarchs, bishops, and oftentimes laypeople who have led the Church when the Pope has failed to do so. But, in my humble opinion, this doesn't invalidate the claim of Papal Primacy and Jurisdiction.

ChristTeen287

By "scripture" you are of course referring not to the Gospels, but to the Epistles. So I am reminded of Churchill's comment: "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."

I love Winston Churchill quotes. He also said, "We are all worms. I, however, am a glow worm!"

I love it.

ChristTeen287

I am far from a Scripture expert, but I believe one source showing Peter's "first among equals" would be the Book of Acts describing the first council held in Jerusalem (Chapter 15). Notice that Peter, in verse 7, takes the floor and gives the official teaching that the Gentiles are saved the same way as Jewish bretheren: "by the favor of the Lord Jesus..." (v.11). Then Paul and Barnabas shared the miracles that God had worked among the Gentiles they preached to (v.12). However, then James spoke up, declaring that God's Gentiles who have converted do NOT have to follow Jewish dietary laws. He initiates the writing of an encyclical (v.20), not Peter, to be distributed and read to the churches.

This does not appear to look as though Peter had or knew of any special primacy. James certainly would've bowed to Peter's decision concerning this letter if it were the case.

Next, ALL the apostles and presbyters chose delegates to go to Antioch (v.22) to deliver this letter (v.23).

It appears from Scripture that Peter was "first among equals" but not having sole primacy or infallibility.

Give me some friendly feedback, folks!

+ V

Can someone provide historical evidence of Peter ever being in Rome for any other reason than being executed? Thanks.

Development of Doctrine.......but anyways.

It seems to me that the Council of Jerusalem actually provides proof for Peter's primacy. As the Scriptures say, there was much debating and arguing, but when Peter took the floor and made his decision (or rather His decision, Christ speaking through Peter) the "entire congregation fell silent" demonstrating that "Peter...has spoken. The cause is finished."

ChristTeen287

ChristTeen287:

Good point. But looking hard at verse 6, I see where it states that the apostles and church elders got together to decide this question. And after a long discussion Peter spoke; after a lengthy discussion where Peter had to listen to the other Apostles' input, concerns, and suggestions.

There is no doubt as the Chair of Peter being the "first among equals" of the Catholic Orthodox Christian Church re: proclaiming faith and morals. However, does the Chair of Peter still have that Grace without the consultation of ALL Patriarchs and Bishops before proclaiming dogma?

Scripture seems to report that Peter didn't take it upon himself to just stand up and declare a teaching; it was after much deliberation, advice, and suggestions. And with ALL the apostles present. Correct?

+Talk to me,
V

I am just wanting to look at this Jerusalem Council from all angles. It is my prayer that no one is offended from what I am posting. I am seeking truth like the rest of us. Peace.

Dear Volodymyr,

Which if any of the first ecumenical councils enjoyed the participation of ALL of the bishops of the Church?

Is is certain that the council described in Acts had the particpiation of ALL of the Apostles?

Perhaps you have the idea that Papal Infallibility implies that the Pope can "take it upon himself to just stand up and declare a teaching". Such an inference is not supported by either the declaration of Vatican I or the historical background that accompanied the proclamation; moreover, it is certainly not established by the practice of the Papacy.

Why build this straw man?

Dear Zoe,

If after reading my last post, you honestly think this is what I am saying... then never mind.

Wm.

Enjoying the Christmas season has taken up the bulk of my time (I hope all of you are also enjoying this time), so I have not been the best at keeping up with this forum. But I do have some general comments I want to throw out.

1) Determine what the Catholic Church (starting as a whole, then moving down through the different traditions) dogmatically and infallibly teaches concerning the Papal Primacy and Jurisdiction.

2) Ditto for what the Orthodox Churches' stances are. Obviously this will change from Church to Church. I guess we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

I don't see why you say that this "will change from Church to Church" regarding the Orthodox. If you mean the Eastern Orthodox, I think their position on these matters is the same from Syosset (OCA headquarters, I think) to the Autonomous Orthodox Church of Japan. With the exception that the Oriental Orthodox Churches are, in some ways, more "open" to Rome, our views are the same as theirs. So I honestly do not know why the distinction is made, if not to give the appearance of disunity to one communion, while preserving the appearance of unity in the other, which I am not sure is quite fair.

It seems to me that the Council of Jerusalem actually provides proof for Peter's primacy. As the Scriptures say, there was much debating and arguing, but when Peter took the floor and made his decision (or rather His decision, Christ speaking through Peter) the "entire congregation fell silent" demonstrating that "Peter...has spoken. The cause is finished."

With all due respect, this seems to be more of the same "emotional" defence of Petrine supremacy that I have often seen from some RC apologists, usually converts from one of the Protestantisms. If you actually read the scriptural text objectively, and without that emotional bias (as I did when rethinking the papal ideas I once believed based, in part, on such emotional notions), you will see that Volodymyr's idea is more accurate (and I have in the past wrote something like this based on the same text in this forum (or if not here, elsewhere).

Perhaps you have the idea that Papal Infallibility implies that the Pope can "take it upon himself to just stand up and declare a teaching". Such an inference is not supported by either the declaration of Vatican I or the historical background that accompanied the proclamation; moreover, it is certainly not established by the practice of the Papacy.

Why build this straw man?

Who is building a straw man? I've read plenty of Catholics, mostly RC, but some EC's, theologians professionally or by their armchairs, who have said that the definitions of Vatican I allow the Pope to speak infallibly on his own, even if the preferred modes of operation for infallibility are through ecumenical councils and the like (and certainly, the actual definition, in my opinion, supports this perspective). Whether or not the Pope chooses to exercise this independence is not important; the fact that it is there and it is dogmatised as part of the divinely revealed faith is. It does seem to be the case that the Pope, as "Successor of Peter", can indeed "just stand up and declare a teaching", without reference to the rest of the Church.

Dear Mor Ephrem:

Your response to my remark is highly theoretical (and ISTM, legalistic). I suspect that your theoretical view (and those of other theologians) may indeed be correct, but it would be tough to affirm with certainty because there is no precedent, to my knowledge, for such a unilateral declaration, and, thanks be to God, no looming crisis that could be seen as possibly provoking such a novel and extreme action.

I disagree as to the relative importance of the actions of the Papacy versus a particular interpretation of the what might happen. But we perhaps start with different assumptions, regarding the Pope's presiding in love accompanied by the grace of the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, which perspective - speaking alone, or the preference for counsel?


djs

The Very declaration of Infallibility (Ineffabilis Deus) states exactly that, that the Roman Pontiff when speaking "ex cathedra" can pronounce infallibly outside of a Council of the Church. It is considered a "charism" reserved to himself. This is truly a distorted view of the Church from the perspective of the Orthodox Patriarchs as is evident in their response to this document and they upheld the principle of the Church being infallible in Council and that no Bishop or indeed, Patriarch however "exalted" can claim this outside of a Council guided by the Holy Spirit. It is the main "dogma" seperating the Orthodox Church from the Catholic Church.

But which are "glow worms for Jesus"?

VOLODYMYR:

I would agree with you. Others apparently think I do not agree on this point, but I have no problem believing it.

As others have stated afterward on this thread, consulting as many bishops and patriarhcs as possible before declaring a dogma is ideal for an act of Papal Infallibility (indeed this has been done both times); but it does not necessarily have to be so. If the Pope had to consult as many bishops as possible before stating a dogma, what would be the point of Papal Infallibility? I don't particularly see this as an obstacle.

Good question. I believe it does, but just in case this isn't so, consultation with the bishops is highly preferrabke and wise, IMHO.

We agree completely on this matter.

MOR EPHREM:

I said this because a) I meant all Orthodox Churches, both Oriental and Eastern, and, b) simply wasn't thinking clearly about the subject at hand at the time.

I can definitely see how you would infer that I was implying disunity among the Orthodox Churches when I stated this, but I assure you this was not the case nor my intention. To do so, I agree, would be unfair.

I am not sure of which "emotional defence" of which you speak. Would you clarify please?

I don't think there was anything in Volodymyr's post with which I disagreed. I must have read the text objectively because I came to the same conclusion (as far as I can see) as did Volodymyr.

ALL READERS:

I think that what is forgotten/ignored in this discussion is that the dogmas and doctrines concerning Papal Primacy and Jurisdiction are certainly not through developing. Obviously doctrine cannot and does not reverse itself, but the foundation on which these dogmas rest continues to grow to this very day. Further development may solve many objections, and possibly (and hopefully) bring about the reunion of the Eastern Orthodox, Catholic, and Oriental Orthodox Churches.

ChristTeen287