www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West On Roman Primacy

It may be a caricature, not what the official
catechism says, but as different people have posted it is how REAL people feel.
Whether catholic, calvinist, what have you.
What about all the catholics (in one of the above posting) who left because of the hoops and rules?

Kids weren't taught out of the current catechism
with it's technicalities -- even though you guys understand it all. How many Catholics do you guys think actually own a copy of the CCC and read it????

Wouln't it be a great world if everyone had a copy of the catechism and understood it all?
Instead, we remember what our parents and the nuns taught us (I still luv 'em). What we learned in our childish minds.

Not everyone out there is an intellectual.
But hopefully they listen to the Sunday sermons,
especially Matthew 25... feed me, shelter me,...
denise

"Wouln't it be a great world if everyone had a copy of the catechism and understood it all?
Instead, we remember what our parents and the nuns taught us (I still luv 'em). What we learned in our childish minds."

But Denise, this was my exact point. I was echoing what Alex said about the need for proper catechesis. If our parents and the nuns are conveying erroneous views, this is a tragedy which needs to be corrected so that kids don't continue to be taught error. And this doesn't call for intellectuals just faithful catechesis.

I have some very strange impressions of Eastern Orthodoxy too from converts to Catholicism and Protestantism. They obviously never understood it or got a proper catechesis in it. And I try to point out the same things to them.

How much can we blame "the Church" for the errors of her children is debatable. Who really cares anyways? Because casting the blame isn't going to solve the problem. What needs to be done is to honestly look at what the Churches really teach and see to it this is getting to the people.

In reality, as far as what people are being taught goes, I think you've got nothing to worry about. Today the Roman Church has the exact opposite problem. Today many of their modern catechisms have become so radically liberal and modernist, that there is hardly any concept of sin being taught to the children at all (let alone anything about punishment).

I would say the idea of punishment of sins is an authentic part of the religion of Jesus Christ and anyone who denies this is denying a part of our faith. Obviously you can over-emphasize this as you can any authentic part of our faith. But the proper reaction is not to go to the opposite extreme (not meaning you have done this, but some have) but to find a balance.

To me it is obvious that the Scriptures teach that their is punishment of sins:

St. Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews states in chapter 12:

5. You have also forgotten the exhortation addressed to you as sons:
"My son, do not disdain the discipline of the Lord
or lose heart when reproved by him;
6. for whom the Lord loves, he disciplines;
he scourges every son he acknowledges."
7. Endure your trials as "discipline"; God treats you as sons. For what "son" is there whom his father does not discipline?
8. If you are without discipline, in which all have shared, you are not sons but bastards.
9. Besides this, we have had our earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them. Should we not [then] submit all the more to the Father of spirits and live?
10. They disciplined us for a short time as seemed right to them, but he does so for our benefit, in order that we may share his holiness.
11. At the time, all discipline seems a cause not for joy but for pain, yet later it brings the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who are trained by it.

and a classic example of this discipline or punishment is the example of St. David after he sinned with Bethsheba and repented:

"And David said to Nathan: 'I have sinnned against the Lord.' And Nathan said to David: 'The Lord also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the Lord, the child that is born to you shall die." 2 Sam 12:13-14 (LXX 2 Kings 12:13-14)

So, I think a balanced perspective does not deny the issue of punishment for sins. But it does not over-emphasize this either.

Let me know what you all think,

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Dear William:

"Let me know what you all think"

I think I should not try to read this forum and post a reply while gulping down a bowl of oatmeal and a cup of coffee before rushing off to work!
Rushing and thoughtful reading/responding don't go together (is there a gremlin for embarrassment?)

I agree that today not much mention of sin is heard. I am afraid I am one of those guilty (no pun intended!) Sunday school teachers that hasn't covered the sin-punishment topic thoroughly. We make our lesson plans from the books we're given.
We try to stick with Byzantine/Orthodox books and they usually cover catechism based on the Liturgical year or the patriarchs and prophets, etc. Not really just straight forward catechesis like we learned as kids (Balimore catechism --all the Catholic adults of my generation will know what that is).

I'm really embarrassed to relate the following:
My daughter's friends keep inviting her to their "Community church", probably fundamentalist.
Every week we say "No" you go to our church. This past Saturday, my husband, asked her "Don't you understand why you have to go to Catholic church on Sunday? Don't you know it's a sin not to go to Mass on Sunday? Haven't they taught you that in Sunday School?" ---- guess who her Sunday school teacher is! Me. I can see I have a bit of work to do when Sunday school starts back up next month.

In fact, the head of Sunday school was showing me the other week an outline for the year and he is trying to get more of the basics in: original sin, etc.

You can see in the fabric of society today that sin and punishment is not understood, especially on televsion and other popular culture outlets.
People just do what they want, at least on TV.
The balance has shifted too far to one extreme.

Guess I've better get some lesson plans together.
Will use your Hebrews chapter 12 and David's situation. The old testament is filled with many examples -- the nation of Israel was always being punished for something (not following God's Will).

[if you'd like to see some good examples of people not knowing their catechism, just read some of the postings on EWTN question/answer forum! Or problems with confession/punishment -- one poor lady wrote in she was given a year's penance to do but she forgot all the details the priest had given her -- she was worried whether she was forgiven, etc.]

Balance.
In my line of work we call it "moderation". I'm a dietitian and people always want to know some trick to dieting and losing weight. "what about the Adkins diet?" "what about the XYZ diet?"
etc etc So we tell them not to go to extremes, but to use moderation, to eat a 'balanced' diet
and use alot of common sense. If someone chronically overeats they'll be "punished" with extra pounds!

We often learn best when we have to teach others.
Hopefully I will learn my catechism better as I prepare lesson plans for Sunday school.

God bless you, William
denise

"We often learn best when we have to teach others.
Hopefully I will learn my catechism better as I prepare lesson plans for Sunday school."

God bless you, William
denise

Denise,

To me, you sound like a wonderful catechism teacher, and a very wise one at that! I'd be glad to have such a teacher for my children. You manifest and radiate the attitude I and many could learn from, one of openess, understanding and humility.

May the "Light of Light" fill your heart with His Radiance!

Wm.

Dear Friends,

I contend that Rome, in much of her teaching about the Papacy, is only being consistent with the traditional understanding of the Papacy in Latin Christianity. I could be wrong, I know.

Stuart has said we need to re-look at many of the qoutes about or from the Popes to understand if indeed the Latins are being faithful to at least their own tradition.

So far we have discussed the Formula of Pope Hormisdas and the statement by St. Irenaeus of Lyons. I'd like to continue on chronologically looking at the other statements by or about the Popes of Rome. What do you make of this powerful statement by Pope Damasus I:

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Here's a refernce to St. Matthew 16 in referrence to Roman Papal authority which I believe was denied to have taken place by OOD. I thought he said no Roman Pope appealed to this text as referring to Roman Primacy.

This statement by Pope Damasus shows me that Rome had a very different view of her authority than the one which is being advanced by some Eastern Catholics and Orthodox on this forum.

StuartK and friends: what is your understanding of this particular decree?

In Christ's Light,

Wm. Der-Ghazarian

Hi, Eric. Fancy meeting you here.

Still praying for you very hard.

Question: Have you ever considered that papal primacy may indeed be a blessing, not a threat?

That's the way many of us Catholics see it, you know. We don't see the Holy Father as some sort of tyrannical bogeyman, seeking to commandeer every aspect of our lives. Rather, we see him as a loving father...as the benevolent (visible, earthly) head of the Family of God.

And John Paul II certainly fills that bill to a tee. Just ask the 800,000 kids who thronged to World Youth Day recently. Just ask the Ukrainian Orthodox laypeople who greeted him, a few years back, with cries of "unity, unity!" (Apparently, many Cradle Orthodox aren't saddled with the anti-papal & anti-ecumenical prejudices that seem so prevalent among converts to Orthodoxy, especially in this country. )

But getting back to the father thing: Why do you see the Pope-as-Father as some sort of control freak? Why is that part and parcel of fatherhood?

That's not the way my husband functions as father in our family. And it's sure not the way the Holy Father is supposed to function in the Family of God.

IMHO, many of our Orthodox brethren are unduly scared of the papacy. They imagine all sorts of tyrannical horrors that bear no resemblance to reality. Not even the Borgias were as creepy as the EO mythology imagines the popes as being! And certainly modern popes are far removed from such lurid fantasies.

Papal primacy is necessary for true Christian unity. It is an immense gift, not a threat. I cannot imagine Christian life without it. Nor would I want to.

Nor could the early Fathers, either, including the eastern Fathers, as Anglican scholar Herbert Scott has convincingly shown. But ah, details, details.

God bless you!

ZoeTheodora

Zoe,
You make some good points especially about the tendency of some converts to Orthodoxy to be uncharitable about the Pope.

However it goes beyond the person of the Pope himself. It has to do with doctrines which did distort the nature of the Church like Infallibility which exaggerated the Pope's authority to a ridiculous degree not known in the first 1000 years. Yes, Pope John Paul II is a blessing but consider a Pope Pius IX, Leo X, or Innocent III. The Papal Office itself has been at least in the last centuries been associated with centralism in one person alone instead of the Communion of the Churches of God which I believe Orthodoxy has preserved.

Hi, Brian. Of course I disagree that papal infallibility "exaggerated the Pope's authority to a ridiculous degree not known in the first 1000 years." Au contraire, I would say (with Newman) that infallibility was always inherent in the papal office, as established by Christ Himself, and that its implications were drawn out as doctrine developed...as the Spirit-guided Church, like Mary, pondered the meaning of the original Depositum Fidei. As Frank Sheed put it, "you cannot stop people from drawing true inferences from true facts." Papal infallibility is one of those inferences, and it's drawn from Christ's words to Peter, particularly from Our Lord's designation of Peter as the Rock-Man and Key-Holder.

I also would suggest that perhaps y'all have an exaggerated conception of what papal infallibility means! It's really not as threatening as people think -- not by a long shot. It's not license for tyranny. Rather, it's a gift, a protection for the People of God. And it's exercised only in strictly defined (and rather rare) circumstances. The Pope isn't infallible every time he sneezes!

Moreover, as Lumen Gentium makes clear, papal infallibility works with episcopal collegiality, not against it. The Church isn't a one-man show! Never has been, never will be.

But this is a large topic...too large, perhaps, for the present discussion. I'd like to address your other concern -- about other popes (besides JPII) who you believe abused their power.

I would submit that many other popes have been unfairly maligned as power-mongers. Some have clearly abused their office -- infallibility doesn't mean impeccability; we are all sinners! But I don't think, for instance, that Blessed Pius IX was among them.

Moreover, as one who grew up during the pontificates of Pius XII, John XXIII, and Paul VI, I can honestly say that I have never experienced the papacy as an oppressive tyranny. Never!

And I would far rather be "under the Pope" (any pope!) than under the Tsar...or Stalin.

God bless,

Zoe

Dear Zoe,

Yes, I agree that "infallibility" is something that has always belonged to the Church and the Petrine Ministry - how can it not?

The way the papacy works is really open to discussion, as the current Pope has said on more than one occasion.

Brendan the Theologian has made a number of positive contributions to this debate from an Orthodox perspective and I think that this is all very encouraging.

The collegiality of the Churches is something that truly has to be addressed by Rome, even though the Pope has done a lot to empower the "local Church."

But the Vatican bureaucratic mind-set that sees greater central control as MORE EFFECTIVE control has been a flop.

It has created an adversarial context in which Churches and their bishops throughout the world find they must struggle with bureaucrats to bring their concerns and needs to light.

The idea also that if the local Churches had control over their own bishops and priests, their own local saint-making etc. that this would ruin the Church is just plain silly.

Certainly, Rome can intervene when a Particular Church asks it to come to its assistance or when a canon is broken. The Ecumenical Patriarch does that too.

To want to adapt the Petrine Ministry of the Roman Papacy is not to want to destroy it.

It is to want to make it more effective for the commission of building up the Church.

Alex

Dear Alex and Zoe Theodora:

Everytime I hear an Eastern Catholic heaps non-adversarial arguments for the need of the Petrine Ministry, I sigh with relief!

Thanks to you, ZoeTheodora, for eliciting Alex's enlightening reaction with your abbreviated, but informed, discourse on the Papacy and its wonderful role today and in the years past.

Now, if only an Orthodox would give it just a comradely whiff!

This Incorrigible Papist!

Wm. Writes:

>>>"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: 'You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven' [Matt. 16:18-19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382])." [by Pope Damasus I.]

Here's a refernce to St. Matthew 16 in referrence to Roman Papal authority... [snip]

This statement by Pope Damasus shows me that Rome had a very different view of her authority than the one which is being advanced by some Eastern Catholics and Orthodox on this forum.<<<

I tried to respond to this in a constructive way, and failed, so I will simply address one small issue in Mt 16 - That of the referent of "...upon this rock...", which the Decree above asserts belongs to Peter the Rock... The two 'rocks' are different, Peter's is a masculine case, and the foundational rock is in the feminine case. Had the foundational 'rock' been in the masculine case, it would have referred to Simon-Peter.

The tricky part is, to what does it refer? And the answer is what determines Orthodox understanding. The first understanding is that it refers to Peter's confession, and indeed, 'confession' is a feminine word, homologia... Yet homologia is not in the text of 16 as a possible antecedent. Yet it is obviously implied...

But the term that IS in the text is apekalupse*, which the main verb of 16:17, where we find our Lord saying: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood hath not revealed* it unto thee, but My Father who is in Heaven."

This is what is the essential of the faith, that it be revealed, and not by flesh and blood, not even the flesh and blood of our Lord speaking to Simon Bar-Johah, but by "My Father in the Heavens."

So that the main verb here refers to the revelation of God the Father, and not of flesh and blood. And this is what carries over into the next sentence, as our Lord continues: "And I say also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church;"

The 'also' is important, for Christ is adding His confirmation of the revelation which Peter has just received from God the Father, and that confirmation is Simon's new name, Peter. And then our Lord adds "upon this the rock" [literally], and are we going to say Peter? No... We are going to say what has founded the Church since the time of Peter who was the first to receive it: The -*revelation*- by God of Who Christ IS...

And this revelation, in the Greek, is apokalypsis, and apokalypsis is a feminine noun, and the building of the Church has as its basis this very revelation from God the Father that "Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God." [16:16]

Now Peter was the first to receive this confirmation by Christ Himself, and hence the first name Peter, for he signifies as a type the 'new man in Christ' that arises out of the confession of the faith that is a result of the revelation by the Father that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God... And this is the signifigance of the name Peter. And Rome became the primary see because it was, after all, the Roman Empire... And Rome moved east when Italy came apart...

As our Lord said, "...flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee." Not even the flesh and blood of Jesus, but of God the Father... This revelation is the very rock of the faith, and not the flesh and blood of the "petrine ministry"...

geo

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ZoeTheodora:
[QB]


I also would suggest that perhaps y'all have an exaggerated conception of what papal infallibility means! It's really not as threatening as people think -- not by a long shot. It's not license for tyranny. Rather, it's a gift, a protection for the People of God. And it's exercised only in strictly defined (and rather rare) circumstances. The Pope isn't infallible every time he sneezes!


Zoe As I was raised Roman Cath, I of course knew that Infallibility is not invoked every time the Pope sneezes but to me , it does distort that Infallibility that was given to the Entire Church especially the Church in Council that is not the charism of one Patriarch in the Church however high. Really the definition of 1870 came about through the ethos of Ultramontanism which did a number on the Roman Church to speak in a colloquial way.

Peace,
Brian

[ 08-29-2002: Message edited by: Brian ]

Well, I hope you meant that in another way then I took it the first time I read it!!! The Orthodox Faith was often oppressed by these figures you mention!!!!

Dear George,

The problem is, Sir, that those scriptural and other quotes have really been done to death by Catholic and Orthodox irenical writings.

Is there a single, unified Orthodox position on the Petrine scriptures? There is not, as Kallistos Ware shows in his "The Orthodox Church."

Ware himself says that Orthodox "love" to point to the scriptures that confirm Peter's and the Pope of Rome's primacy, even though later RC doctrines have added to the fundamental original understanding of this.

Meyendorff shows how Eastern Orthodox have no problem accepting the Pope's Primacy, but, as one Orthodox theologian he quotes in "Byzantine Theology" states, "Let the Latins show that the Pope's faith is the same as Peter's and then let him enjoy the privileges of the Primacy."

And not only the Popes of Rome had a very high understanding of their role in the Church - so did the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Constantinople and now Moscow.

The Pope of Alexandria was the FIRST to call himself "Pope" at a time when the Bishop of Rome didn't even have all of Italy under his jurisdiction and was referred to as "His Beatitude."

The Coptic Pope was also the first to declare he had immediate jurisdiction over every single parish and priest throughout Africa - something Rome later copied.

And Pope John Paul II's Petrine Ministry today is more applicable that anything Damasus, or Urban VIII or Gregory I could say about it.

Primacy in the Church is a living, ongoing thing that develops and restructures itself in every age, as does patriarchal ministry in the East.

It's not about quoting scripture and what other Popes have said at other times.

It's about how the Petrine Ministry can best serve the interests of the universal and local Church in the "now" or today.

Neither the Catholic nor the Orthodox Churches would agree with your approach, Sir.

Alex

Dear Brian and Zoe,

Yes, but there were Tsars who supported Orthodoxy to be sure - Blessed Tsar Paul I, St Alexander I and St Nicholas II are some dramatic examples.

The Eastern Churches have often opted for Muslim rule rather than that of the Crusaders.

At the time, it seemed like a natural decision.

But the Eastern Churches came to regret it later on as the Muslim rule took its toll on them.

Alex