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

Dear ChristTeen:

Excellent "defense of the hope that is in you"!

What has struck me about some of the anti-Peter-qua-Rock arguments in this thread is that they seem, well, a bit tired and dated. They are the same arguments that come up again and again in such discussions, and they have been answered many times over. But one more time can't hurt.

I hope to put my 2 cents' worth in sometime this weekend, God being my helper (and I need all the help I can get). But you are making a formidable case -- bravo. "Let no one despise your youth." You da man!

Blessings,

ZT

Er, why the hostility? Your responses to me on this thread have bordered on insulting, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. I don't think I've ever interacted with you before, message-boardishly speaking, and I don't believe we know each other from Adam. So I can't quite figure out why you're making all these accusations about my motivations, etc. etc.

Oh well. God bless you!

ZT

Mor,

I fail to see the "emotional bias" here. Incidentally, were you once Catholic?

Certainly, one cannot read the Council of Jerusalem like it was Vatican I or II. The text does plainly say that it was Peter's speech at the Council that turned the tide:

James, who proposes the solution, cites Peter!

Now, I wouldn't say this proves papal infallibility in this passage (which is still something I believe in, properly defined.) It does show clearly, I think, the impact St Peter had on the Council of Jerusalem. There really isn't that much information except what we read in Acts chapter 15 so we should be careful what we read into the situation. I think we are safe to say that St Peter's influence was such that it changed the tide of the Council and his view was then unanimously adopted.

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

I'm reposting this from the other thread:

No one disputes that the interpretation that Peter's faith is the "rock" of Matthew chapter 16 is a valid one. It certainly has patristic support. One cannot separate Peter's faith from Peter himself, however.

http://www.catholic-forum.com/communion/eng/library/54.shtml

Sts Peter and Paul were martyred the same day and are commemorated together on June 29th. The Menaion certainly speaks of Peter as "the rock of faith." It also plainly speaks of Peter himself as the "rock":

True, some Fathers speak of the Rock as Peter' faith. (In fact, John Paul has made such a reference himself.) And, some refer to Peter himself as the "Rock" (as for example Pope St Leo). As noted above, both views are correct. One cannot separate Peter's faith from Peter himself...the Lord said: "You are Rock and on this rock I will build my Church."

David Ignatius DTBrown@aol.com

Thanks for this excellent stuff, David Ignatius!

I just ran across this thread at Steve Ray's new forum. Talk about pertinent!

http://forums.catholic-convert.com/viewtopic.php?t=147

More later...family responsibilities are calling. (Oh, that pesky Real Life stuff. :p )

Love,

ZT

"Wm. Er, why the hostility? Your responses to me on this thread have bordered on insulting, and I can't for the life of me figure out why. I don't think I've ever interacted with you before, message-boardishly speaking, and I don't believe we know each other from Adam. So I can't quite figure out why you're making all these accusations about my motivations, etc. etc.

Oh well. God bless you!" -Zoe Theodora

Zoe,

I have replied to your posts before. Perhaps you didn't notice. If I have insulted you, I apologize. My "hositility," as you call it, is not directed at your person. It is not even directed against your beliefs (which I used to share). My hostility, if I have any, is directed towards an attitude. Since you've asked, I will repost what I've wrote before:

Dear Friends,

I agree with one point of Zoe's post. The East and West are closer than many want to admit. Yet I very much agree with Seeker of God and the others who abhor the treatment of such subjects by Latin Church apologists.

So on one hand I think the Orthodox who insist on vast differences are wrong and at the same time I think the Latins who try to force their theology down the throats of Easterners are equally wrong. And I think the two are DIRECTLY related.

Roman Catholics need to stop this practice. They need to quit attempting to force their developed doctrines on the East who simply never developed them that way. The Latins have been trying this for over a millenia now with very little success (as far as Church unity goes). This in turn has brought forth the repulsion of the East to the point of even denying the limited (yet substantial) agreement on these points we really do have.

No Eastern Church teaches the Roman Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception. James Loukadis and co. need to just accept and confess this. Then, if this ever happened, the East would begin to look at ways their authentic teaching is in some accord with Latin teaching regarding the Asdvadzadzeen (Arm. = God-bearer). When the Latins have showed this kind of respect, the East has most times responded.

*I have to say that I think it is one of the most arrogant things to take qoutes and liturgical prayers of a given Church and then interpret them for that Church and then dictate to that Church what is their faith. This is a tremendous arrogance and it profits nothing. This is exactly what Loukadis and RC Apologists do all the time.*

I say, if you want to know the faith of the Orthodox, then just ask them, not Latin Church Apologists. And, don't dictate to the Orthodox what they "really believe." His Holiness Pope John Paul II, with all of his Primacy and honor does not even have the audacity to do this! Rather, here is his attitude regarding the Tradition of the East:

"Pondering over the questions, aspirations and experiences I have mentioned, my thoughts turn to the Christian heritage of the East. I do not
intend to describe that heritage or to interpret it: I listen to the churches of the East, which I know are living interpreters of the treasure of
tradition they preserve. In contemplating it, before my eyes appear elements of great significance for a fuller and more thorough understanding of the Christian experience." (Orientale Lumen, #5)

I think this is the attitude Loukadis (and others like him) need to take. I know, because I used to practice the same thing they do. I did this until one day I woke up and began to read the Latin Church's own documents on ecumenism with the East.

taken from:
https://www.byzcath.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000753;p=2

-----------------------------------------

If you ever get the desire to have a little more "ecumenical" attitude in these ecumenical dialogues there are a few pertinent documents you may or may not be familiar with at:

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/EC_Links.html

Again, I don't pretend to know your heart. I don't know whether you are interested in true ecuemincal dialogue or just pontificating to Eastern Christians what they must believe. But I for one can tell you that I find such methods and attitudes of argumentation as a proof of the arrogance Rome herself once had towards the East. Such an approach is less than persuasive. The Popes have stopped treating the East this way, why doesn't his Church follow him?

With the right attitude we can have a true dialogue based on mutual respect and love. Witout respect of one another's beliefs, there's really no point in even discussing these things.

Trusting in Christ's Light,

May you also be blessed by Him,

William Der-Ghazarian

Brother Ghazar, Do not take their opinions as personal attacks,just different views. I am a Roman Catholic and expressed a ageement with Fr.Thomas and felt hostility myself.I can imagine what it was like when the early church had such discussions.

As I age and mature I see and interpret things alot differently then 30-40 years ago.

Be strong in your Spirit of Our Lord

James

William, I think you are very correct in your assessment. Once again the forum is being inundated with do-gooder Latins who have to convert we suspect Eastern Catholics to the True Faith. They don't listen to the Pope and allow us to have our own theology and traditions. We are expected to be Latins in eastern vestments...at least they are willing to allow us to keep our own Liturgy. And as for their feelings toward those schismatical Orthodox!!!
We won't even go there. So keep up your witness to authentic Eastern Catholicism brother, we need you on this forum to do just that. I don't have the patience to suffer fools or the charity I should have.
anamchristi

Ghazar,

You have very valid points. It is wrong for a Latin Catholic to try to convert Eastern Catholics, to try and turn them into Eastern Roman Catholics, to rob them of their valid Eastern Catholic traditions. I think most everyone agrees on this point.

However, I do not feel that Zoe or DTBrown (or myself) are doing this, and if they/we are, it is certainly not on purpose. Charity, understanding, and patience are needed on both sides of this fence. By the grace of God, this will come into play in this discussion as soon as possible.

ChristTeen287

Dear brother James,

Thank you for your thoughts. I really don't take it personal. This, to me, is not a personal issue but an ecumenical one. And I think it is an important and dire one; one which is addressing a wrong which is hurting ecumenism.

I'll tell Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics who exhibit this the same thing. This attitude is a scourge to everything pertaining to ecumenism and I don't think it should be tolerated as legitimate anymore. If our Church leaders don't talk to one another this way, then why should we?

Dear brother Anamchristi,

Thanks for your encouragement. I hope Zoe understands I'm not attacking her, just proposing a different approach.

Dear brother Christeen287,

I appreciate your thoughts and understanding but please take notice that I never said a word about you or Leo Ignatius (a.k.a. DTBrown).

As far as who's trying to do what, I can not judge anyone's hearts but only their actions and words.

I wonder how many on the Latin side can say with His Holiness John Paul II,

"I listen to the churches of the East, which I know are living interpreters of the treasure of tradition they preserve"???

Only to the point that one can do this would I say he is ready or seriously interested in contributing to honest ecumencial dialogue between the ancient Apostolic Churches. Anything short of this is simply proselytism and/or arrogance and disobedient to the call of JPII.

May we all follow the Latin Pontiff's Lead!

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

I am finding this debate very interesting, and would like to make my remarks "in bulk".

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.

Of course it's legalistic, I derived my interpretation from Roman documents. :p

In all seriousness, I think my reading of the actual definition of Vatican I is accurate (at least insofar as I'm using an English translation, and not the Latin original), and so I think I am theoretically correct. While it is true that there is really no precedent for such a unilateral declaration (although there was no formal council, the IC and the Assumption were defined after input from the world's bishops was received), it is not the lack of precedent that causes me to think, but the definition (as divinely revealed) that such is possible.

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

The perspective that speaking alone is allowed, even though the preferred/best-case-scenario way is that of the Pope and the bishops speaking together.

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

I fail to see the "emotional bias" here.

It may not have been "here", but I have seen quite a few RC apologists resort to the type of sentimental writing regarding the papacy that I'd classify as "emotional". They appeal more to a sense of "appropriateness" by taking patristic quotes affirming the primacy of Peter and blowing them up into full-fledged ultramontane papal affirmations, for example. Unfortunately, I cannot show you any examples (I am home, and not at school, thus different computers); I guess, also, that one could call this my opinion--I am sure others would disagree with me that it is "emotional", but it is how I (and other RC's I've talked to) see it.

Incidentally, were you once Catholic?

No, but I once believed as one, and considered myself on the way "home to Rome". It was only after a class in Church History that I began to rethink years of belief, and commenced a different path of private study.

Now, I wouldn't say this proves papal infallibility in this passage (which is still something I believe in, properly defined.) It does show clearly, I think, the impact St Peter had on the Council of Jerusalem.

I do not in any way try to downplay the importance of Peter, whether in this council or in the Church. But I am trying to see it as the undivided Church saw it. Clearly, in my opinion, it wasn't in the ultramontane way some RC's view it, even basing themselves on this very text from the Acts. Neither do I believe, however, in the simple "primacy of honour" that some Orthodox tout, as if the Pope of Rome was just the first guy to walk in a procession. I do think there is something more to the Petrine ministry than just being grand marshal of an ecclesiastical parade. The problem is that I don't see/cannot find any justification for the claims of Vatican I and other papal doctrines.

If they weren't dogmatised as part of divinely revealed faith, I would think that there was some wiggle room. Precisely because these things are dogmatised, I don't see any wiggle room for the believing Catholic. It is one thing to say that doctrine is always developing, and that "we haven't heard the last word on this", but I don't think doctrine can develop to be less than what it is, right? Everyone cites the argument that an acorn is the same as the tree it grows into, even though the tree is in a different form from the acorn. But the tree does not return to the state of a sapling or an acorn. It stays a tree, or grows larger. Can the doctrine of papal infallibility develop in such a way that it becomes less of what it is now? I don't think so, or else the entire belief structure of the RCC falls apart.

What has struck me about some of the anti-Peter-qua-Rock arguments in this thread is that they seem, well, a bit tired and dated. They are the same arguments that come up again and again in such discussions, and they have been answered many times over. But one more time can't hurt.

It seems to me that, with appropriate substitutions for "anti-Peter-qua-Rock", the Orthodox could say the same thing to the Roman Catholics. This kind of seemingly impatient rhetoric does neither side any good, no matter where it comes from.

Dear Jacomus,

After looking over the thread (and all of your posts) I come to the conclusion that you must have felt hostility from my post. I am sad to hear that. I gave a whimsical response to your remark about St. Peter's central role and leadership; I disagree with your remark (and would be happy to elaborate) but please don't take that as hostility. Moreover, any idea that my post was connected in any way whatsoever to your agreeing with Father Thomas is simply mistaken.

djs

Dear Ghazar:

You don't know my motives. You are misrepresenting them. I am NOT, repeat not, trying to impose a Latin understanding of anything on you or anyone else. Rather, I want to see what the Bible and the Fathers (both East and West) say about Petrine primacy and specifically about the "Rock" issue. I want to examine the evidence and see where it leads us. Period.

Could we kindly get back to this and leave personalities out of the equation?

Impugning people's motives is classic ad hominem. It turns the discussion from issues to personalities. I respectfully beg you to refrain from second-guessing my motives (or Mr. Likoudis's for that matter:)). Let's focus on the issue at hand. Thanks much! And God bless....

ZT

P.S. Tomorrow I hope to finally piece together a response to Father Thomas's initial statement at the head of this thread. It's been a crazy-busy weekend.

Dear Anam:

So if someone disagrees with you, s/he's a "fool"? :rolleyes:

I'm tempted to point out your bad grammar (it should be "us suspect Eastern Catholics," not "we..."), but that would be a tad too impish, especially coming from a "fool," wouldn't it?

I don't suppose we could possibly focus on the issue at hand (the Biblical and Patristic evidence for the Rock-qua-Peter) rather than getting into a spitting contest involving personalities...eh?

Blessings,

ZT

Zoe,
That is a little disingenuous. You have many times stated that you believe that Scripture and the Fathers lead to one place, the belief in the "DIvine" infalllibility and primacy of jurisdiction over the Whole Church of the Pope as stated by the First Vatican Council. So, It seems that your mind is made up and the claim that you or "we" are on this grand journey to find the Truth stretches credibility. I don't like the personality issues either but it just made me a little miffed to see you put it this way to Ghazar. It just came off a bit like "PollyAnna" or "these Orthodox just don't get it and if they would only look, they would see these "obvious" facts" Things don't work that easily, I'm sorry.