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

reply: I reject anti-Catholic propaganda, and do not promote it. I have said nothing anti-Catholic or anti-papal for that matter. The Pope has asked the Eastern Churches for suggestions on his role in a united Church. What I am presenting is representitive of many of their views. What I have denounced are attitutdes of Papal domination expressed by adherents of Roman Catholicism and NOT by its official teachers. (This is why I remain in communion with Old Rome).

reply:
First of all, again, I don't read anti-Catholic material. Rather I attack it with the same vehemence I show towards those who are arrogant Latinizers. Now as for the correctness of my comment, are you saying that the definition of Papal Infallibillity teaches us that the Pope needs any agreement to exercise his power or make infallible pronouncements? If so, I'd love to learn where this is included in the pronouncement. I will be glad to repent of my mistake immediately. BTW what are you referring to by "Over the top" Latin mind-set.

reply: Sorry, I know there's a point here, but I'm missing it. I know you are implying that you are speaking to my "distortion" but, (playing right into your hand) what is the convergence you refer to?

Wm.

The problem with this discussion ("who is the 'rock'?"), like so many others, is that it keeps getting reduced to "either/or". Sometimes, Catholic apologists are just as guilty of this as their Orthodox counterparts.

The truth is, that it is not "either/or", but "both/and". Simon bar Jonah's re-naming (always symbolic in the Scriptures of a change in role/function in God's sight) was directly linked with his confession of Christ's Divinity (a confession which came from God, and not from his own understanding - since it is quite clear that up until the Ressurection, St.Peter was not at all sure of much). That much is certainly found in the Fathers.

Unfortunatly, many Orthodox apologists (and I notice it tends to be the apologists who do things like this, rarely the theologians and scholars) try and create a dichotomy between this and the "rock" also being St.Peter himself. Such a view requires a very strained reading of the text itself, and is simply ignorant of both early and medieval Byzantine thought. Though it's roots go way back, the anti-heirarchal/primacy bias in Eastern Orthodox thought only comes out in full force after the 19th century.

Where the Orthodox view (in the middle ages at least, though I think the seeds of this can be found earlier) differs from the Catholic one, is not so much that there is no primacy in the Church Universal, but rather that the Primacy is not Divinely fixed upon the Bishop of Rome. This is why there was no problem in the Byzantine mind, for Constantinople to enjoy primacy amongst the Churches of the east (and let us not lie; this primacy was not simply honorific - however to be fair, it is true that this imposition was not very welcomed all the time.) I think this tendency goes way back (before "the great schism") and is reflected in Constantinople's attempts to continually boast it's authority. This continues to the present day, with Constantinople portraying itself (whenever it has the chance to speak to the western media) as some sort of "Eastern Papacy". This is because the notion of primacy, never left the Byzantine Church - it was simply held Rome lost this primacy due to heresy.

It's interesting to note, that this notion (of primacy being lost due to heresy) is not absent from the west. St.Robert Bellarmine taught the view that if a Pope did subscribe to a heresy, and taught it, that he would cease to be Pope for the simple reason that a non-Catholic cannot be Pope. Of course, such a situation would simply mean someone else would have to be installed in his place, not that the primacy would move elsewhere. Of course all of the problems of such a situation have never been ironed out; for example, it's impossible in the Catholic Church for a Pope to be judged, thus his defection would have to be pretty clear cut and on his own terms (such as a clear denial of something taught by the Church.)

But back to the main point - the "rock" pertains both to "true faith" and to the person of St.Peter. St.Peter as the center, leader, and unity of the Apostles is a patristic idea, and that much is admitted by most modern Orthodox academics - and it is an admission that does not require a rejection of his "rockness" being connected to the faith he professes.

If only this non-issue were bypassed (and polemicists quit returning to it), the more meaty issue of whether this primacy amongst the Churches permanently resides in the Bishops of Rome could be addressed.

In the Sacred and Immaculate Hearts,

Augustine

Dear Wm:

Sorry I was so unclear. I certainly do not wish to suggest that I take the remarks that you make as anti-Catholic apologetics. Quite the contrary. I agree with much of your perspective in general, and in particular that "Papal domination" is not offical Catholic teaching. Those who hold that such a view is Catholic teaching have, IMO, a distorted perspective - whether they proceed from triumphalists (over-the-top Latin mindset) within the Catholic Church, or opponents of Catholic Church who misapprehend and sometimes misrepresent its teachings.

I am no expert on this subject. But I have a discussed my perspective, which is arguably consonant with the texts of Vatican I and II, in this forum in a number of threads. While Vatican I is, strictly speaking, does not prescribe any requirements for the formulation of an infallible proclamation, it certainly provides background that argues to the importance of counsel from other bishops, from Councils etc. (The declaration of the dogma itself is explictly stated as being made by consent of the Vatican I council). Moreover, as pointed out in another thread, since the idea of new revelation is directly proscribed in the text, an infallible proclamtion cannot be a de novo exercise of power but necessarily involve prior discussion and in all probability considerable agreement. And precedent show the weight given to counsel and consensus.

Overall, this proclamation simply says that the through the Pope, as spokeperson of the Church, a final statement on faith and morals binding upon the universal church can be made, and once made it is per se irreformable. And we believe that through the grace of the Holy Spirit such a statements are not in error.

It is far from a license for domination. A Pope cannot reform a reformable teaching. The subject matter is highly limited. It is difficult to read into the texts the idea that any discussion, in particular ecumenical discussions can be decided by Papal fiat, rather than by agreement; ongoing theological dialogues reinforce this point.

Not really. I might think that some of your comments on Infallibility exagerrate the "exercise of power", but I assumed you were speaking in the voice of the "papal domination, Latin mindset". The convergence idea just stuck me as interesting, and is not directly related to anything anyone has posted here. It just interesting, IMO, that you might find the same distorted view of some Catholic doctrine - e.g., infallibility - expressed both by opponents ("Catholics think the Pope can never err and receives new doctrine by direct revelation) who are building a straw man, and by the triumphalists who may in fact hold these ideas.

Dear Djs,

You have an interesting perspective. I have no real disagreement with what you have written. I hope you are correct in your understanding of Papal Infallibillity. More importantly, I hope Old Rome can succeed in over-powering the voices of her over-zealous defenders who are doing her a dis-service by ignoring her lead. How you have explained it would certainly be a lot more palatable to the East than what RC apologists usually present.

In Christ's Light,

Wm.

Enough, please. It's fairly obvious:
a�ban�don �� (�P�)��Pronunciation Key��(-bndn)
tr.v. a�ban�doned, a�ban�don�ing, a�ban�dons
To withdraw one's support or help from, especially in spite of duty, allegiance, or responsibility;

The pot calling the kettle black. Please stop putting words in my mouth. I would never be so presumptuous to "make a moral judgment of your conscience and motives."

Wisdom! Be attentive!

This is exactly what Our Lord Jesus Christ did. God has every right to dictate what is Truth and what the truth, and the Church, as His mouthpiece, body, and bride on Earth has the right, really the obligation, to imitate her Master.

Listen to yourself. If you truly feel this way, I apologize; it was certainly not my intention. But, frankly, I can't comprehend how you could draw this from my posts.

Um, thanks for the good will. Very Christ-like. God bless you too, Ghazar.

Wow, now I really love the East!

I had hoped we could have a mature discussion based on mutual acceptance, charity, and love.

Apparently we cannot.

ChristTeen287

Dear Brother Wm., once again you are casting pearls before swine. These Latins and Latin wannabes are not hearing what you are trying to say, rather they keep reading your posts blinded by their own extremist Latin agendas. They cannot and will not understand that our traditional Eastern point of view is just as valid and maybe even more valid than theirs. We are just doing what the Pope and the Second Vatican Council told us to do after all.

ChristTeen....I have tried to avoid responding to your posts lately for health reasons...both physical and spiritual. And I won't let myself go now for the same reasons. But I will say this: Wm. was being very restained in his responses to you. You are not even a Catholic yet, but you still persist in claiming to have all the answers to questions that theologians have discussed for centuries and still can't decide what is what. You really do need to stop and think about what you are about to post. Even when what you say is correct, you often have such a condescending manner in which you say it that is anything but Christian. That does not make friends and also loses any respect for what you are trying to say. Remember, many of the people you are responding to have had theological training, unlike you. As for dialog, in order to dialog one must be willing to listen to what the other person is saying with an open mind, I have yet to see you do with with our brother Wm. Personally, I think you owe him an apology.

anamchristi

Anam,

First of all, I sincerely apologize if my posts cause your physical or spiritual trouble. Of course this is the last thing I want to do to someone.

Secondly, I want to thank you for speaking politely and not "blowing up in my face", if you will. This is the reason I was very offended during our discussion around the New Years, not because of your opinions.

I have never said I "have all the right answers"; of course I do not. The last thing on my "agenda" is to try and feign that I have all the right answers and everyone who disagrees with me is wrong. That said, I have as valid opinions as everyone else, and they deserve to be stated. To ignore this fact is to do myself and others a disservice.

Truthfully, neither Wm. nor I have been polite in our recent posts, and this is something I regret. We have both acted childishly and have definitely fallen short of what it means to act as Christians.

As for the apology, see my post above in which I said: "If you truly feel this way, I apologize; it was certainly not my intention."

Anam and Wm.,

I sincerely apologize to you both, once again, if anything in my posts has offended you. The last thing I want to do is berate and condescend towards fellow Christians. I would like to say that all of this is not personal, but that would be a lie. Spirituality and religious beliefs are about as personal as one can get.

I look forward to brighter and happier days at which time we can all dialogue in respect and love.

ChristTeen287

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ's Light,

I really appreciate what Anamchristi and ChristTeen287 have wrote. I'm sorry for having offended anyone myself with childish or angry words. Perhaps I'm not the best one to dialogue with over this issue. I'll try to let others who are better able to communicate the Eastern Church's Tradition on Primacy, have the floor.

I do want to say, though, that this forum is a great blessing to my life and I have learned much from the members of it. I am very thankful for this spiritual family via the internet. Sometimes families fight amongst themselves (more often than we'd like to admit, right?). I hope no one thinks I am disgruntled or upset. No hard feelings towards anyone. I, like many of you, am a poor sinner trying to follow the call of Christ to die to myself and live unto Him.

Lets pray for one another that we all can grow closer to Him Who calls us. May you all have a meaningful encounter with Christ in tommorow's Divine Liturgy. On the Lord's Day, I will remember you all before the immortal Lamb of God. Please do the same for me.

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian Wolfe

Dear, in Christ!

Thank you for the thoughtful words, and challenging dicussions. The courtesy and respect shown among us makes this forum community noteworthy among its kind.

There is a danger that this thread might become a 'discussion' about a 'discussion'. It is certainly already very long.

Our Holy Father himself has invited active discussion on the role of the Bishop of Rome. We have answered his call here, and I hope we will continue to do so.

May I respectfully suggest that the all the questions cannot be dealt with in one thread only? Perhaps other threads can be started, which continue with suitable titles, that help us to stay focused on a particular aspect of the question/problem? That would help us at "East & West" to participate more easily.

Thank you!

Elias