first among equals

[Rhamiel]

I hear the phase “first among equals” used to describe the role of the Pope, what does that mean to the orthodox? What does it mean to you Catholics? What do think the proper role of the Pope is? This question is for both oriental and eastern orthodox and Catholics in communion with Rome.

[WarriorAngel]

I tried to find that in the ECF's.

Anyway, the Pope is the 'teacher' and 'counselor' and lead. I am Catholic of course.

[Secundulus]

To an Anglican it means he is the senior Bishop of Christendom to be accorded due honor.

It does not mean he is infallible.

[zhilan]

It means that the idea of "infallibility" is an invention of Vatican 1 and that while the Pope of Rome was certainly honored, he was not infallible.

[WarriorAngel]

It means that the idea of "infallibility" is an invention of Vatican 1 and that while the Pope of Rome was certainly honored, he was not infallible.


I guess inventions happen.
First among equals is an invention...so um...?

Just saying....

[zhilan]

I guess inventions happen.
First among equals is an invention...so um...?

Just saying....
Well I guess there we disagree. You say first among equals in an invention, I say infallibility is an invention. Thus you are Catholic and I am Orthodox. Although I am still waiting for you to show me where the early Church talks about infallibility, which I have asked for at least 5 times and you have yet to respond to. Should I keep asking in every thread that brings up the pope or are you never going to enlighten me with the early church father's speaking about the infallibility of the Pope?

[WarriorAngel]

Well I guess there we disagree. You say first among equals in an invention, I say infallibility is an invention. Thus you are Catholic and I am Orthodox. Although I am still waiting for you to show me where the early Church talks about infallibility, which I have asked for at least 5 times and you have yet to respond to. Should I keep asking in every thread that brings up the pope or are you never going to enlighten me with the early church father's speaking about the infallibility of the Pope?

I already explained it...BUT if you need to be technical, then I am still waiting for any references to the expression ...
'First among equals.'

SO, knowing I already explained infallibility and gave a link...I see nowhere anything about first among equals...

Therefore do not condemn an expression that is not fully and solely stated per fact in Tradition, until you can do the same.

Know what I mean?

[xristos.anesti]

It is amazing that Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans etc. consider Roman Pontiff to be the First Among Equals (of course when in-communion with him), all of three or howmany more groups have been out of communion for 1500 years or less between themselves and still think the same way about the bishop of Rome.

WA, you are clutching the straws again my dear sister.

First among equals might have not been a title of the Pope in the early days - I am quite sure that it wasn't - we know this and you know this - this is why you want reference.

We can not give it - for the actual title was not used until - whenever - I really do not know when it started being used for even the Ecumenical Patriarch.

However, the issue is not what the tile of the Pope was.

The title of the Pope IS NOT the reason for Great Schism.

We do not have to prove that title existed to prove that what is understood by the title existed.



As I said above - Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and Anglicans have been out of communion for a very long time - no contacts about the bishop of Rome, no negotiation about the bishop of Rome..

But, we still hold the same about him. Whether we all call him Primus inter pares or whatever else - the Pope of Rome was never what you hold him to be – at least not until Vatican I.

As I said in some of the other posts - we do not have to prove anything - it is you who have to prove where the infallibility came from. Not just to Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans.. the rest of Christendom - but especially to the OLD CATHOLICS.

The very existence of OLD CATHOLICS is the proof that the very idea of infallibility is as strange as the council that created it.

So, whether anyone used the word First Among Equals or not does not have anything to do with heresy of infallibility - nor the non use of the title First Among Equals can be used to prove infallibility - this is an logical fallacy.

Let us not use illogical fallacies on the forum.




So, where did infallibility come from?

Many years.

[WarriorAngel]

It is amazing that Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans etc. consider Roman Pontiff to be the First Among Equals (of course when in-communion with him), all of three or howmany more groups have been out of communion for 1500 years or less between themselves and still think the same way about the bishop of Rome.

WA, you are clutching the straws again my dear sister.

First among equals might have not been a title of the Pope in the early days - I am quite sure that it wasn't - we know this and you know this - this is why you want reference.

It is the very same argument you guys are giving.
You just cannot see it.

I already explained it....it might not have been 'concreted' in history but all Apostolic Churches can or should agree that the Church cannot be overcome by the gates of hell.

Why?
BECAUSE Christ said it could not.

Therefore, when the Pope defines the SAME ancient doctrines against errors or heresies he is not making them up, but by the Holy Spirit is affirming them through him.

SO what part exactly does the infallible thing merit such distaste?

It is Tradition to know and believe that the gates of hell cannot prevail...
WHICH makes the Church True and kept from teaching heresy.

IN order for the Church to do this, the leader cannot, by the Holy Spirit's help, allow heresies to permeate and lead the sheep astray.

You guys see the word infallible, and dont look close enough to what it is saying.

The Pope is just a guy who has his own opinions, but when it comes to doctrines, he stays with the ancient teachings to which he cannot just create them.

I said it before, I say it again...ppl do not understand what infallible means, but in truth, it was not spoken just like first among equals was not spoken...but it is understood.

SEE?


We can not give it - for the actual title was not used until - whenever - I really do not know when it started being used for even the Ecumenical Patriarch.

However, the issue is not what the tile of the Pope was.

The title of the Pope IS NOT the reason for Great Schism.

We do not have to prove that title existed to prove that what is understood by the title existed.

Why not?
You ask us to proove where infallibility came from.

WE could just stop the battle and know that what is understood agrees to what was always understood.



As I said above - Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox and Anglicans have been out of communion for a very long time - no contacts about the bishop of Rome, no negotiation about the bishop of Rome..

But, we still hold the same about him. Whether we all call him Primus inter pares or whatever else - the Pope of Rome was never what you hold him to be – at least not until Vatican I.


What exactly do you think we hold him to be?
I can disagree with him on matters that oblige opinions, but I cannot disagree with him in matters of moral doctrines.

I cannot say abortions are fine, or homosexual marriage is great....etc



As I said in some of the other posts - we do not have to prove anything - it is you who have to prove where the infallibility came from. Not just to Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans.. the rest of Christendom - but especially to the OLD CATHOLICS.

The very existence of OLD CATHOLICS is the proof that the very idea of infallibility is as strange as the council that created it.

So, whether anyone used the word First Among Equals or not does not have anything to do with heresy of infallibility - nor the non use of the title First Among Equals can be used to prove infallibility - this is an logical fallacy.

Let us not use illogical fallacies on the forum.




So, where did infallibility come from?

Many years.

So, the Church is prone to teaching errors?

Ok, :wave: Fine.

I disagree because Christ said it would not happen.
Therefore the Holy Spirit would not allow it in matters of teaching moral doctrines, as the Pope speaks.

And historically, we all know it is the Pope who was conferred with or to about matters of heresy or teachings.
That stems back even to St Ignatius...and Pope Clement l.

[zhilan]

WA, why did they have counsels rather than infallible statements to combat heresy in the early church? Why is it only after the schism that infallibility turns up as the tool for combating heresy?

[GratiaCorpusChristi]

To an Anglican it means he is the senior Bishop of Christendom to be accorded due honor.

It does not mean he is infallible.
Yup.

[xristos.anesti]

It is the very same argument you guys are giving.
You just cannot see it.

^_^ In that case you are arguing for the sake of argument.

Anyway,


I already explained it....it might not have been 'concreted' in history but all Apostolic Churches can or should agree that the Church cannot be overcome by the gates of hell.

Why?
BECAUSE Christ said it could not.

I think that you will have to agree that this sort of argument works in OBOB but not here - we, all of us - think of our churches to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic - therefore the fact that we (Orthodox) see church of Rome to be in heresy doesn't have anything to do with these words - the fact that Rome fell into heresy does not - in any way - have anything to do with these statements.


Therefore, when the Pope defines the SAME ancient doctrines against errors or heresies he is not making them up, but by the Holy Spirit is affirming them through him.

SO what part exactly does the infallible thing merit such distaste?

It is Tradition to know and believe that the gates of hell cannot prevail...
WHICH makes the Church True and kept from teaching heresy.

IN order for the Church to do this, the leader cannot, by the Holy Spirit's help, allow heresies to permeate and lead the sheep astray.

Obviously this is the way you (ONLY YOU) being the Latin Christians see it - unfortunately, the rest of us tend to disagree with this.


You guys see the word infallible, and dont look close enough to what it is saying.

I have read those canons for the Oriental Churches, I have read about the attitudes of some popes, I have read about the ideas, I have seen the action of the Roman see - I am sorry, from all I can gather - he is an absolute monarch, king of the castle, the man - seriously, we - Orthodox - do not suffer from lack of Apostolic sees - like the West - we have another four - there is no reason for us to kneel before the only Western Apostolic see in order to feel in some way fulfilled by it.



The Pope is just a guy who has his own opinions, but when it comes to doctrines, he stays with the ancient teachings to which he cannot just create them.

From those canons to the Oriental Churches - this does not seem to be the case.



I said it before, I say it again...ppl do not understand what infallible means, but in truth, it was not spoken just like first among equals was not spoken...but it is understood.

SEE?

Why not?
You ask us to proove where infallibility came from.

WE could just stop the battle and know that what is understood agrees to what was always understood.

I understand this - however, we have the canons of the Ecumenical Councils (all of which have been accepted by Rome) to prove that there was no primacy of power, but rather, of honour. We have canons of the Ecumenical Councils (all of which have been accepted by Rome) to prove that Constantinople and all other Apostolic Sees have the same prerogatives. We have canons of the Ecumenical Councils (all of which have been accepted by Rome) to prove that the only reason why Roma was what she was - was due to Rome being the capital city.

Unfortunately, you guys have nothing to prove infallibility - until Vatican I - the council that is not even accepted by the whole of the Latin Church - causing (yet another and yet again) schism in regard to Rome because of her heterodox teaching.


What exactly do you think we hold him to be?
I can disagree with him on matters that oblige opinions, but I cannot disagree with him in matters of moral doctrines.

I cannot say abortions are fine, or homosexual marriage is great....etc

I hold him to be a heretic - thus I can disagree with him on anything - not just because he is heterodox but because he is just a man - I can disagree with anyone - including any other (Orthodox) bishop - if they teach heresy - like, the bishop of Rome does. Therefore, homosexuals and abortionist aside - the bishop of Rome is teaching wrong things -



So, the Church is prone to teaching errors?

Ok, :wave: Fine.

I disagree because Christ said it would not happen.
Therefore the Holy Spirit would not allow it in matters of teaching moral doctrines, as the Pope speaks.

And historically, we all know it is the Pope who was conferred with or to about matters of heresy or teachings.
That stems back even to St Ignatius...and Pope Clement l.

Again, I am an Orthodox Christian - I think that it is obvious that I do not see church of Rome to be CATHOLIC CHURCH - therefore Church has not failed, nor gates prevailed - it only happen to Rome - remember - we have another 4 apostolic sees in the EAST - the fact that one fell away is a rather sad event that should be fixed as soon as possible - but it is not the end of the world.



I said it before and it seems to me that we are both on Auto right now.

The premise that what the early Church thought and taught about the Bishop of Rome is infallibility is not true.

We have no problem with Rome being what she was - not at all - but, we will not have "supreme authority" in Rome (see those canons of the Orientals). We will not become Latinised nor be in a situation that our priests (obviously before the mystery of the laying of the hands) can not be married (I.e. situation with Uniate priests in USA).

Historically the Pope of Rome did deal with some matters - Especially when confusion ran in the East - but that was not the rule - other Apostolic sees were also conferred.

On this point - since these early days of confusion and heresy in the East - Rome had her own rather fair share of confusion - she was the cause of no less than 4 schisms exactly due to her newly composed heterodox teachings -

Rome is not that fortress of Orthodoxy that she was - the corruption of times after the Great Schism - (I.e. the middle, dark ages) has clearly shown this - she gave birth to so many heterodox teachings that we can not trust her with any leadership nor any forms of primacy -

The only way - THE only way for us to re-commune is that she denounces her incorrect teachings.

If you look around - Eastern Orthodox are not the only ones who have the same message for Rome - some, who are much closer to you than us crazy mystics from the East are saying the very same.

Rome is not infallible - never was, never will be.
If she is - so is Antioch - and Antioch is in the East - we will listen to her.



Many years.

[WarriorAngel]

WA, why did they have counsels rather than infallible statements to combat heresy in the early church? Why is it only after the schism that infallibility turns up as the tool for combating heresy?

So you think 7 councils fulfill all of history?
You don't think the Arian heresies and Donatists and all the others were not fought too?

The councils were the combining of the Churches across the world to come together and acknowledge the problems and fix them.

Problems came, and if they would not go away, they needed a council. Obviously pride and contention led to heresies, so it took all of them combined to call them off if they wouldnt listen to reason.

AND also the councils were necessary when they finally decided...lets put together some sort of canon and put all our books in one place for all the Churches.

Those councils were not the authority but an agreement in statement of what needed done or held to believe.

A council is not a day to day counselor or leader or teacher.
Christ set up one among all to be leader, He didnt tell them to convene councils to become as a leader.

You cannot tell a president that because there is a Constitution that he is no longer necessary.
Even if he has a senate or congress to help him, he is still the main guy.

Although religion is not as simplistic as a democracy. Because if a democracy we would have opened the doors to heresies long ago.
But you get the point.

[xristos.anesti]

So you think 7 councils fulfill all of history?
You don't think the Arian heresies and Donatists and all the others were not fought too?

The councils were the combining of the Churches across the world to come together and acknowledge the problems and fix them.

Problems came, and if they would not go away, they needed a council. Obviously pride and contention led to heresies, so it took all of them combined to call them off if they wouldnt listen to reason.

AND also the councils were necessary when they finally decided...lets put together some sort of canon and put all our books in one place for all the Churches.

Those councils were not the authority but an agreement in statement of what needed done or held to believe.

A council is not a day to day counselor or leader or teacher.
Christ set up one among all to be leader, He didnt tell them to convene councils to become as a leader.

You cannot tell a president that because there is a Constitution that he is no longer necessary.
Even if he has a senate or congress to help him, he is still the main guy.

Although religion is not as simplistic as a democracy. Because if a democracy we would have opened the doors to heresies long ago.
But you get the point.


Councils are authority - it is obvious from the book of Acts what Apostles taught about the councils.

Also, we had many more than seven councils - according to Orthodox Church there are nine ecumenical councils (people just say that Orthodox Church is the Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils because they are used to it - it is incorrect though) - see this page (http://www.mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm) for some further information.

If Christ did not tell the Apostles about councils - why did they have the Jerusalem council - I mean they could've just sat St. Peter in the chair and asked "the king" to tell them what to do.

Yes, the problems arose - they always do - and we deal with them. We ask the ONLY KING, King of kings, our Only Infallible Ruler - The Supreme Authority for His guidance and leadership - through a council of the Church - this is the way it was always done.

Church is a democracy - actually, it is a Theocracy - but either way it is not Romanocracy - not here, not anywhere - maybe only in OBOB.

As we said before - the council of the Church is the way that we find the will of the Lord - it is not one man that decides it - in chair or in king size bed or on a stool - we have One who is seated at the right hand side of the Father - and - His Chair is the only one that matters.

Many years.

[Don5925]

Back to the original question, to me it is a term used to honor the Holy Father, perhaps a backhanded one from some groups. He is my spiritual leader, the pastor to the bishops, and leader of the church. And yes, as Catholic, I believe that he leads the original church founded by our Lord.

As for the side issues being discussed...I think my Aussie-Orthodox brother has a pretty good point. The very fact that there is a group known as Old Catholics speaks volumes as to the problem with infallibility, it does not appear traditional and it certainly is not Biblical.

WA is on the money when she brings up the idea of councils. The idea of a church conscientiousness does not compute. How will you ever get the entire body to agree? That is why there were councils of bishops to decide. And a pope to lead. But let us not forget there have been some shady popes in the last 2,000 years.

It makes me literally sick this bickering between EO and Catholic. We agree over so much, really all of the fundamental issues yet get hung up on stupid stuff. I am not trying to offend anyone, just offering my opinion and certainly not saying that the issues are unimportant and not saying the people with the differences are stupid. Just that they are silly, and my team is not immune from the stupidity. Then you add in a thousand years of being mean to each other and you got a real communication issue.

We both pray for the dead, but argue on the exact manner as to where the soul might be. The Catholic has to define everything and the Orthodox wish little defined. That's like two brothers arguing where the family dog is, in the basement or under the living room.

Neither side wants to blink and both sides say they already have. So we go to our ends of the couch and say he started it and pout. The problem is Mommy is not coming in to straighten it out.

So, if I have these opinions, why am I a Catholic, not an Orthodox or Old Catholic? I believe the Catholic Church is the catholic church and the Pope is the successor to Peter. I believe this is the church founded by Christ. I believe if there are errors they will, in time, be rectified. I believe the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

I believe the Orthodox are my brothers and sisters in faith, even if they don't agree or don't want to be. I don't wish them to become Catholic, I wish that the Church become both fully catholic and orthodox, not so much Orthodox and Catholic.

Again, I hope nothing I wrote offends anyone, it is not my intent.

Respectfully,

Don
:groupray:

[xristos.anesti]

Back to the original question, to me it is a term used to honor the Holy Father, perhaps a backhanded one from some groups. He is my spiritual leader, the pastor to the bishops, and leader of the church. And yes, as Catholic, I believe that he leads the original church founded by our Lord.

As for the side issues being discussed...I think my Aussie-Orthodox brother has a pretty good point. The very fact that there is a group known as Old Catholics speaks volumes as to the problem with infallibility, it does not appear traditional and it certainly is not Biblical.

WA is on the money when she brings up the idea of councils. The idea of a church conscientiousness does not compute. How will you ever get the entire body to agree? That is why there were councils of bishops to decide. And a pope to lead. But let us not forget there have been some shady popes in the last 2,000 years.

It makes me literally sick this bickering between EO and Catholic. We agree over so much, really all of the fundamental issues yet get hung up on stupid stuff. I am not trying to offend anyone, just offering my opinion and certainly not saying that the issues are unimportant and not saying the people with the differences are stupid. Just that they are silly, and my team is not immune from the stupidity. Then you add in a thousand years of being mean to each other and you got a real communication issue.

We both pray for the dead, but argue on the exact manner as to where the soul might be. The Catholic has to define everything and the Orthodox wish little defined. That's like two brothers arguing where the family dog is, in the basement or under the living room.

Neither side wants to blink and both sides say they already have. So we go to our ends of the couch and say he started it and pout. The problem is Mommy is not coming in to straighten it out.

So, if I have these opinions, why am I a Catholic, not an Orthodox or Old Catholic? I believe the Catholic Church is the catholic church and the Pope is the successor to Peter. I believe this is the church founded by Christ. I believe if there are errors they will, in time, be rectified. I believe the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

I believe the Orthodox are my brothers and sisters in faith, even if they don't agree or don't want to be. I don't wish them to become Catholic, I wish that the Church become both fully catholic and orthodox, not so much Orthodox and Catholic.

Again, I hope nothing I wrote offends anyone, it is not my intent.

Respectfully,

Don
:groupray:


No problems at all - I think that it is fair to realise that all of us here - are what we are - for the reasons that we are what we are.

That is to say - we are what we are and we will defend our positions - most of us know those positions - therefore as far as the debate is concerned there is nothing new under the sun.

It is just unfortunate that at this stage we do not see a way out - I am also not sure where the way would be.

Then again, there is nothing strange as if our pastors do not see it how we who know a lot less can.

I do agree (as usual) with Don -


Myself and WA have had some (mainly on my part) harsh words between us in the last 2 weeks or so - I wish to apologise for that - I type faster then I should - thus I write things that should be reconsidered and worded differently.


As far as the topic is concerned it is worthy discussion but whether we can offer anything new - or offer anything at all - is yet to be seen.

Many years.

[WarriorAngel]

Councils are authority - it is obvious from the book of Acts what Apostles taught about the councils.

Did the Apostles base their Epistles all on the council?
Did Peter base everything he taught on that council?
No.

So why would we call that an authority over a day to day leader?

It wouldnt solve much in the next generation of heresies would it?
Councils come according to the heresy of the day, and must be remembered...but they are not authority of the present and future if they are unlikely to meet today's or tomorrows heresy.


Yes, the problems arose - they always do - and we deal with them. .

Many years.

How do you propose to do that if you refuse to allow for heresies to be conquered as per the need?

Back to the original question, to me it is a term used to honor the Holy Father, perhaps a backhanded one from some groups. He is my spiritual leader, the pastor to the bishops, and leader of the church. And yes, as Catholic, I believe that he leads the original church founded by our Lord.

As for the side issues being discussed...I think my Aussie-Orthodox brother has a pretty good point. The very fact that there is a group known as Old Catholics speaks volumes as to the problem with infallibility, it does not appear traditional and it certainly is not Biblical.

WA is on the money when she brings up the idea of councils. The idea of a church conscientiousness does not compute. How will you ever get the entire body to agree? That is why there were councils of bishops to decide. And a pope to lead. But let us not forget there have been some shady popes in the last 2,000 years.

It makes me literally sick this bickering between EO and Catholic. We agree over so much, really all of the fundamental issues yet get hung up on stupid stuff. I am not trying to offend anyone, just offering my opinion and certainly not saying that the issues are unimportant and not saying the people with the differences are stupid. Just that they are silly, and my team is not immune from the stupidity. Then you add in a thousand years of being mean to each other and you got a real communication issue.

We both pray for the dead, but argue on the exact manner as to where the soul might be. The Catholic has to define everything and the Orthodox wish little defined. That's like two brothers arguing where the family dog is, in the basement or under the living room.

^_^ ^_^



Neither side wants to blink and both sides say they already have. So we go to our ends of the couch and say he started it and pout. The problem is Mommy is not coming in to straighten it out.

So, if I have these opinions, why am I a Catholic, not an Orthodox or Old Catholic? I believe the Catholic Church is the catholic church and the Pope is the successor to Peter. I believe this is the church founded by Christ. I believe if there are errors they will, in time, be rectified. I believe the gates of hell will not prevail against it.

I believe the Orthodox are my brothers and sisters in faith, even if they don't agree or don't want to be. I don't wish them to become Catholic, I wish that the Church become both fully catholic and orthodox, not so much Orthodox and Catholic.

Again, I hope nothing I wrote offends anyone, it is not my intent.

Respectfully,

Don
:groupray:

[Don5925]

WA...I love your dedication, truly, I do. You and XA provide a lot of interesting reading. If I believed in reincarnation I would think you two were married in a former life.
;)
As for how to solve the problems between the churches, I think that is a different thread, and I shall start it now.

[Yeznik]

The only reason why Rome had so much clout was due to the historical stand of its empire and not based on religious premise. Secondly, mostly all the churches that were established in Western Europe was due to evangelization of the RCC, in which the ideology of Peter being the head of the Church would make sense due to no other Apostle preached that far west.

In regards to Armenia, several apostles, including Saint Andrew (by Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus) Saint Simon (also known as Canaanite, or Cananean, or Zealot) and Saint John the Evangelist, helped preach Christianity and cultivated it Armenia. According to Armenian tradition, among the twelve the apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew have been attributed to bringing Gospel of Jesus to Armenia, therefore are called the "First Illuminators," by the Armenians. Now since Armenia was evangelized by 5 Apostles we would have the same teaching as the RCC does about Saint Peter but we don’t. Again Rome claims Saint Peter, which is one Apostle, in which the RCC teaching would make sense in Rome. Armenia was evangelized by 5 Apostles in which the same teaching of the RCC of Saint Peter does not exist. You would have to ask yourself, can almost half the Apostles be wrong regarding Saint Peter and Rome be right?

Secondly, (I am starting to feel like a broken record) Armenia embraced Christianity nearly a decade before Rome. Which would mean in the fields of Doctrine and Theology was better developed due to the non-persecution of Christians. Again, from a historical point of view the teaching regarding Saint Peter differs than what the RCC claims.

Saint Gregory the Illuminator was ordained by Leontius of Caesarea after his ordination he went back and preached to the Armenian nation. As I have made a point before, In the Armenian book of catechism, Saint Gregory taught the – “keys to the kingdom” were given to all Apostles. And if this teaching was incorrect then he would have been corrected by other bishops. Additionally, this teaching was taught before the Schism of Chalcedon, so it went on for about 150 years before the Schism.

[WarriorAngel]

WA...I love your dedication, truly, I do. You and XA provide a lot of interesting reading. If I believed in reincarnation I would think you two were married in a former life.
;)
As for how to solve the problems between the churches, I think that is a different thread, and I shall start it now.

^_^

Myself and WA have had some (mainly on my part) harsh words between us in the last 2 weeks or so - I wish to apologise for that - I type faster then I should - thus I write things that should be reconsidered and worded differently.


:hug: Thank you...
I apologise likewise.....
DID you snore in a former life?? ^_^

I am so just kidding. Laughing at Don.

[WarriorAngel]

The only reason why Rome had so much clout was due to the historical stand of its empire and not based on religious premise. Secondly, mostly all the churches that were established in Western Europe was due to evangelization of the RCC, in which the ideology of Peter being the head of the Church would make sense due to no other Apostle preached that far west.

First I disagree and I disagree. :) Respectfully.

St Paul also preached at the same time as Peter and with Peter.
So how come he is not mentioned as the Chair as Peter?
He also died in Rome a martyr...

AND Rome martyred the Saints and Bishops of the Church for the first 4 centuries or so, so that does not explain why the Pre Emancipation of the Church still spoke about Peter's Successors and Chair...and why this Chair was given honor and reverence.

Just saying...

In regards to Armenia, several apostles, including Saint Andrew (by Saint Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus) Saint Simon (also known as Canaanite, or Cananean, or Zealot) and Saint John the Evangelist, helped preach Christianity and cultivated it Armenia. According to Armenian tradition, among the twelve the apostles Thaddeus and Bartholomew have been attributed to bringing Gospel of Jesus to Armenia, therefore are called the "First Illuminators," by the Armenians. Now since Armenia was evangelized by 5 Apostles we would have the same teaching as the RCC does about Saint Peter but we don’t.

That should be a clue that the other Apostles deferred to Peter's leadership.
It is Tradition. None of them usurped what the Lord established.


Again Rome claims Saint Peter, which is one Apostle, in which the RCC teaching would make sense in Rome. Armenia was evangelized by 5 Apostles in which the same teaching of the RCC of Saint Peter does not exist. You would have to ask yourself, can almost half the Apostles be wrong regarding Saint Peter and Rome be right?

Secondly, (I am starting to feel like a broken record) Armenia embraced Christianity nearly a decade before Rome. Which would mean in the fields of Doctrine and Theology was better developed due to the non-persecution of Christians. Again, from a historical point of view the teaching regarding Saint Peter differs than what the RCC claims.

Saint Gregory the Illuminator was ordained by Leontius of Caesarea after his ordination he went back and preached to the Armenian nation. As I have made a point before, In the Armenian book of catechism, Saint Gregory taught the – “keys to the kingdom” were given to all Apostles. And if this teaching was incorrect then he would have been corrected by other bishops. Additionally, this teaching was taught before the Schism of Chalcedon, so it went on for about 150 years before the Schism.


http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

[WarriorAngel]

:holy:

Ok, this is nothing...I goofed. lol

[Yeznik]

[/color]

First I disagree and I disagree. :) Respectfully.

St Paul also preached at the same time as Peter and with Peter.
So how come he is not mentioned as the Chair as Peter?
He also died in Rome a martyr...

AND Rome martyred the Saints and Bishops of the Church for the first 4 centuries or so, so that does not explain why the Pre Emancipation of the Church still spoke about Peter's Successors and Chair...and why this Chair was given honor and reverence.

Just saying...



That should be a clue that the other Apostles deferred to Peter's leadership.
It is Tradition. None of them usurped what the Lord established.





http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

?? I don't understand the link for the Arians ?? :scratch:

[WarriorAngel]

Arians were a leading source of dissention by the 4th century...
I think the unrest from that era eventually led to the schism with the OO.

Correct me if I am wrong. :blush:

[redMountian]

WA, you're thinking of the nestorian heresy that (mostly due to cross-cultural semantics) caused the OO to split at the Councel of Chalcedon. The OO were called monophysites when they're actually miaphysites.

[Yeznik]

Arians were a leading source of dissention by the 4th century...
I think the unrest from that era eventually led to the schism with the OO.

Correct me if I am wrong. :blush:

The Schism had nothing to do with Arianism. The universal Saint and a defender of the Orthodox faith Saint Athanasius , who refuted the Arians, was from one of the Oriental Churches.

[prodromos]

St Paul also preached at the same time as Peter and with Peter.
So how come he is not mentioned as the Chair as Peter?
He also died in Rome a martyr...Irenaeus spoke of the Church in Rome having preeminent authority by virtue of being established by Peter AND Paul. Rome, however, has removed Paul from the picture because he does not fit in with they way they wish to interpret certain bible passages regarding Peter.

[WarriorAngel]

Irenaeus spoke of the Church in Rome having preeminent authority by virtue of being established by Peter AND Paul. Rome, however, has removed Paul from the picture because he does not fit in with they way they wish to interpret certain bible passages regarding Peter.


Rome didnt remove him...after Ireneuas, no one ever mentioned him nor was a chair ever mentioned.

WHICH was my point. ;)

[WarriorAngel]

WA, you're thinking of the nestorian heresy that (mostly due to cross-cultural semantics) caused the OO to split at the Councel of Chalcedon. The OO were called monophysites when they're actually miaphysites.

The Schism had nothing to do with Arianism. The universal Saint and a defender of the Orthodox faith Saint Athanasius , who refuted the Arians, was from one of the Oriental Churches.

:wave: Thank you.

[xristos.anesti]

Arianism is such an evil heresy - truly one of the best works of satan.

It is represented in many forms -

Islam and JW being some of the most obvious forms that developed through history that we can observe today.

[Albion]

[/color]

First I disagree and I disagree. :) Respectfully.

St Paul also preached at the same time as Peter and with Peter.
So how come he is not mentioned as the Chair as Peter?
He also died in Rome a martyr...

AND Rome martyred the Saints and Bishops of the Church for the first 4 centuries or so, so that does not explain why the Pre Emancipation of the Church still spoke about Peter's Successors and Chair...and why this Chair was given honor and reverence.

Just saying...

Well, actually he's right. The preeminence of the diocese of Rome (and therefore the bishop of Rome) owes more to the fame and wealth of the city than to Peter and Paul's presence there. That's what gave Rome's bishops the leverage to gradually begin claiming authority over others or at least to act as if she were entitled to it.

[WarriorAngel]

[/font]

Well, actually he's right. The preeminence of the diocese of Rome (and therefore the bishop of Rome) owes more to the fame and wealth of the city than to Peter and Paul's presence there. That's what gave Rome's bishops the leverage to gradually begin claiming authority over others or at least to act as if she were entitled to it.

I disagree again.

St Ignatius wrote to the Roman Church Link (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm).

St Ignatius even 'quotes' Jesus where Jesus tells Peter to confirm the others...

You have never envied any one; you have taught others. Now I desire that those things may be confirmed [by your conduct], which in your instructions you enjoin [on others].

St Ignatius is pretty clear when he writes to the Roman Chair of Peter.

I have not written to you according to the flesh, but according to the will (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm) of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). If I shall suffer, you have wished [well] to me; but if I am rejected, you have hated (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07149b.htm) me.

WOW...what is he saying?

For they are all worthy, both of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) and of you; and it is becoming that you should refresh them in all things.

Fascinating how St Ignatius addresses the Church of Rome aka the Chair of Peter...

Reread the quotes...that is proof of the authority of the Roman Church.



So, you are telling me that although St Ignatius was heading to Rome for his death that he was star struck?


Clement l was also appealed to... and I do not think it was because they were star struck.

Just saying...

[Albion]

I disagree again.

I was never in doubt.

St Ignatius wrote to the Roman Church Link (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm).
St Ignatius even 'quotes' Jesus where Jesus tells Peter to confirm the others...
St Ignatius is pretty clear when he writes to the Roman Chair of Peter.

Pretty clear that Peter was a leader. We all know this! We all have said so repeatedly. It has nothing to do with the Papacy.

WOW...what is he saying?

Well, you highlighted the words "will," "God," and "hate." He could as well have used the same turn of speech when writing to any church leader; it has nothing to do with the Papal claims one way or the other to point out, once again, that Rome was influential, did the work that it should have been doing for God, and that God might have been pleased at all this.


Reread the quotes...that is proof of the authority of the Roman Church.

But there's nothing there that amounts to a verification of any claim that Rome had worldwide authority. You just want to see it by reading between the lines, I'm afraid, because it's not there.

So, you are telling me that although St Ignatius was heading to Rome for his death that he was star struck?

No, but I'm also not saying that when he speaks approvingly of the Roman diocese that this makes him an advocate of the theory of Papal Supremacy...and even if he did, so what? One man's opinion is just one man's opinion.

Cllement l was also appealed to... and I do not think it was because they were star struck.
Just saying...

You're certainly entitled to guess at these things, but the quotes you have offered don't prove anything like what you are theorizing. They just don't say the first thing about Papacy established by Christ to rule over the other bishops, and that is all we are interested in, not the fame of the city, the presige that naturally comes from the diocese having been founded by Peter, a leader among the Apostles, etc.

Scripture doesn't support it. History doesn't support it. And the ECF's --what you said you base your convictions on--as a whole certainly don't support it. So all that can be said is that you or I or the next person can have a feeling or a hunch or something like that, but since this would be one of the most important ideas in all of the New Testament if it were true, I don't think we'd be left in doubt about it and trying to tease Matt 16:18 into saying more than it does.

If there were any intention on the part of Christ to make Rome the center of his church and some but not all of the bishops consecrated by one Apostle the leaders of the whole Christian world forever, we would know it and the first Christians would have known it for sure. Even the bishops of Rome themselves didn't know it in the sense that Clement never makes that claim, despite how you interpret a letter to other Christians, and no other bishop of Rome even cited Matt 16 until several centuries later. You are trying to do the work for them retroactively, but history is history.

[zhilan]

ooops. wrong thread. =)

[WarriorAngel]

I was never in doubt.



Pretty clear that Peter was a leader. We all know this! We all have said so repeatedly. It has nothing to do with the Papacy.

Albion, so we are on the same page, the writing was to the Pope. [Papacy] Peter had already died when St Ignatius was writing this before his death.
Nearly 50-60 years earlier.




Well, you highlighted the words "will," "God," and "hate." He could as well have used the same turn of speech when writing to any church leader; it has nothing to do with the Papal claims one way or the other to point out, once again, that Rome was influential, did the work that it should have been doing for God, and that God might have been pleased at all this.

I was asking what St Ignatius meant by that.
Why it was Rome who could determine his fate...:scratch:




But there's nothing there that amounts to a verification of any claim that Rome had worldwide authority. You just want to see it by reading between the lines, I'm afraid, because it's not there.



No, but I'm also not saying that when he speaks approvingly of the Roman diocese that this makes him an advocate of the theory of Papal Supremacy...and even if he did, so what? One man's opinion is just one man's opinion.



You're certainly entitled to guess at these things, but the quotes you have offered don't prove anything like what you are theorizing. They just don't say the first thing about Papacy established by Christ to rule over the other bishops, and that is all we are interested in, not the fame of the city, the presige that naturally comes from the diocese having been founded by Peter, a leader among the Apostles, etc.

Scripture doesn't support it. History doesn't support it. And the ECF's --what you said you base your convictions on--as a whole certainly don't support it. So all that can be said is that you or I or the next person can have a feeling or a hunch or something like that, but since this would be one of the most important ideas in all of the New Testament if it were true, I don't think we'd be left in doubt about it and trying to tease Matt 16:18 into saying more than it does.

If there were any intention on the part of Christ to make Rome the center of his church and some but not all of the bishops consecrated by one Apostle the leaders of the whole Christian world forever, we would know it and the first Christians would have known it for sure. Even the bishops of Rome themselves didn't know it in the sense that Clement never makes that claim, despite how you interpret a letter to other Christians, and no other bishop of Rome even cited Matt 16 until several centuries later. You are trying to do the work for them retroactively, but history is history.

It is not just St Ignatius's opinion...
Why is it so wrong to show proof that Peter's Chair was held in a high honor of the Church? Even the early Church.

Here is something else about St Ignatius...
He wrote 7 letters... and in those letters he is 'giving advice' to all the Churches, except to Rome..whom he refers to as the Teacher who enjoins his instructions on ALL.

Apparently St Ignatius was of the opinion he could teach his last lessons to the others, but not to Rome.
And that is just an opinion...?


Ignatius of Antioch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm) [SAINT]
- Epistle to the Ephesians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0104.htm)
- Epistle to the Magnesians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0105.htm)
- Epistle to the Trallians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0106.htm)
- Epistle to the Romans (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0107.htm)
- Epistle to the Philadelphians (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0108.htm)
- Epistle to the Smyraeans (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0109.htm)
- Epistle to Polycarp (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0110.htm)



Scripture supports the Papacy.
'I give YOU the keys to Heaven.....'

[Albion]

Albion, so we are on the same page, the writing was to the Pope. [Papacy] Peter had already died when St Ignatius was writing this before his death.
Nearly 50-60 years earlier.

Sure. We've all agreed that Rome had a certain fame and that Peter was admired throughout the early Church.

I was asking what St Ignatius meant by that.
Why it was Rome who could determine his fate...:scratch:

I guess we both can imagine any number of meanings to that.

It is not just St Ignatius's opinion...

No, it's not. That's so. Some of the ECFs seemed to have thought that the Diocese of Rome had some leadership role, but that doesn't mean a Papacy with Supremacy and Infallibility. But as that is true of those ECFs, we also have those who adamantly deny that Rome or Peter were the head of the Church in any sense. You banked on being able to establish Papal Supremacy by reference to the ECFs, but they do not establish it since they disagree among themselves. Importantly also, those who are closest to the critical first century are less likely to be fawning over the Bishop of Rome than those who come hundreds of years later and to some extent at least must be seen as reflecting what had already taken place, not what Christ intended or the earliest Church believed.


Why is it so wrong to show proof that Peter's Chair was held in a high honor of the Church? Even the early Church.

Not wrong in the least. We have already agreed that this chair had some prestige because of Peter, its wealth, Rome being the center of the political world, etc. But when you try to parlay that into Papal Supremacy, you have nothing but a non-sequitur.

Scripture supports the Papacy.
'I give YOU the keys to Heaven.....'

Well, THAT passage doesn't.

And you've already been told several times of the meaning, never once commenting, so I noticed, on what we explained. I don't give much credence to the discussion tactic that merely tries to make the other side blink by repeating and repeating a claim, hoping that if it's done enough, somehow this will make everyone believe it or that the speaker will "get the last word" as though something is won through being more persistent.

[WarriorAngel]

[/i]

Sure. We've all agreed that Rome had a certain fame and that Peter was admired throughout the early Church.



I guess we both can imagine any number of meanings to that.



No, it's not. That's so. Some of the ECFs seemed to have thought that the Diocese of Rome had some leadership role, but that doesn't mean a Papacy with Supremacy and Infallibility. But as that is true of those ECFs, we also have those who adamantly deny that Rome or Peter were the head of the Church in any sense. You banked on being able to establish Papal Supremacy by reference to the ECFs, but they do not establish it since they disagree among themselves. Importantly also, those who are closest to the critical first century are less likely to be fawning over the Bishop of Rome than those who come hundreds of years later and to some extent at least must be seen as reflecting what had already taken place, not what Christ intended or the earliest Church believed.



Not wrong in the least. We have already agreed that this chair had some prestige because of Peter, its wealth, Rome being the center of the political world, etc. But when you try to parlay that into Papal Supremacy, you have nothing but a non-sequitur.



Well, THAT passage doesn't.

And you've already been told several times of the meaning, never once commenting, so I noticed, on what we explained. I don't give much credence to the discussion tactic that merely tries to make the other side blink by repeating and repeating a claim, hoping that if it's done enough, somehow this will make everyone believe it or that the speaker will "get the last word" as though something is won through being more persistent.


The Chair of Peter was regarded, as authority from Christ, should be regarded.
Without pretense, envy, strife, or pride.
Thus the earliest Church had nothing but a natural flow of writing to one another unconcerned with that which the future would hold.

The Church shall not let evil prevail....
And as Teacher of the Church, which we know from St Ignatius, is to enjoin all to his instructions...which means he will not be teaching errors...lest evil would prevail, making Christ's words like hitting the air where it is meaningless.
THAT IS WHAT INFALLIBILITY is.

I have to repeat that many times, but no one gets it.
Its a preconceived notion borne of what [?] that doesnt allow us to communicate rightfully on what it is and is not.

Ok, I give up...the Church is riddled with errors and there is none who are able to obtain truth in it.
I mean if the man with the keys cannot do it, then who can?

One who wasnt given the keys?

You defined your argument against the keys, but they are hyberbole, so I havent replied.

Matt 16 when Jesus hands him the keys is fulfilling another prophecy.

Isaias 22
17 Behold the Lord will cause thee to be carried away, as a cock is carried away, and he will lift thee up as a garment. 18 He will crown thee with a crown of tribulation, he will toss thee like a ball into a large and spacious country: there shalt thou die, and there shall the chariot of thy glory be, the shame of the house of thy Lord. 19 And I will drive thee out From thy station, and depose thee from thy ministry. 20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,

*The Lord shall remove authority off the Pharisees and turn them away to His servants whom He will entrust.
Jesus dies and changes the seat of authority thru His death. All things shall be fulfilled, and the Jews no longer sit upon the Laws of God....and the Temple curtain rips.

21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda. 22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open. 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father. 24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father's house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music. 25 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.


The Jews who held the place of honor will be revoked of all authority, due to the fact that the Lord will set up His own servants for the house of the Lord.

And the former shall fall away.
And a new father to the house of God shall lead them...and He [Jesus] shall give the keys onto Peter.

That none shall open and none shall shut except him [Peter and HIS successors] with the keys.

And the Old shall pass away, and the New shall come from Christ, Who is given all authority from the Father to which He places the keys specifically to Peter.

You have to have the prophecy to really understand the importance of the keys.

NONE shall shut and NONE shall open, but the one holding the keys.

BUT let's go further...to a warning to those who do not hear....
Review Revelation


Apocalypse 3 (http://www.drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=73&ch=3&l=7&f=s#x)
5 He that shall overcome, shall thus be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, and I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.
............

7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth: 8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee. 10 Because thou hast kept the word of my patience, I will also keep thee from the hour of the temptation, which shall come upon the whole world to try them that dwell upon the earth.
11 Behold, I come quickly: hold fast that which thou hast, that no man take thy crown. 12 He that shall overcome, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God; and he shall go out no more; and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God, and my new name. 13 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches.

[Albion]

The Chair of Peter was regarded, as authority from Christ, should be regarded.
Without pretense, envy, strife, or pride.
Thus the earliest Church had nothing but a natural flow of writing to one another unconcerned with that which the future would hold.

One would hope that every bishop (and his chair) would also be expected to be exemplary in the performance of their calling.

I have to repeat that many times, but no one gets it.

Perhaps we get it fine and just don't read into the material what you want us to find there. Repeatiing yourself without responding to the information coming back at you will not, I assure, you lead to anything. And I'm saying that as a friend to a friend. You can't browbeat us into believing what we can see is not there.

Ok, I give up...the Church is riddled with errors and there is none who are able to obtain truth in it.

That's not exactly the opposite of no Papal Infallibility, is it?


You defined your argument against the keys, but they are hyberbole, so I havent replied.

OK, if that is your idea of discussion , continue talking to yourself. I won't interfere.

[WarriorAngel]

Perhaps hyberbole was a stretch...the 'hypothesis' of your argument would have been better.

Sorry for 'exaggeration'.

ANyway, Isaias, Matthew, and Revelation all have a common factor.
The keys and the one who holds the keys.

Interesting that the Lord is very protective of this position...see Revelation again.

[Mary of Bethany]

Ok, I give up...the Church is riddled with errors and there is none who are able to obtain truth in it.
I mean if the man with the keys cannot do it, then who can?

One who wasnt given the keys?



The Apostles - and thereby their successors - were given the keys. The Church is without error.



Mary

[xristos.anesti]

Oh the keys -

they were all given the keys -

I hope you give up - it would bring some peace here..

I doubt it but ( that you'll give up - that is).

[Albion]

Perhaps hyberbole was a stretch...the 'hypothesis' of your argument would have been better.

Sorry for 'exaggeration'.

ANyway, Isaias, Matthew, and Revelation all have a common factor.
The keys and the one who holds the keys.

Interesting that the Lord is very protective of this position...see Revelation again.

Well, I would have to point out that you assume something about the "keys" that is not established. You have a theory about what this symbol means, but merely saying "KEYS" proves nothing.

Non-RC Bible scholars contend that keys indicate that the recipient is to open something with them. You can hardly dismiss that as a possibility, eh?

Was there something about the Church on Earth that Peter went on to open--no theories, no speculation about passing powers on to someone Christ had not commissioned, just that Peter went out and did some opening with the "keys" that we know to be the case?

[WarriorAngel]

Well, I would have to point out that you assume something about the "keys" that is not established. You have a theory about what this symbol means, but merely saying "KEYS" proves nothing.

Non-RC Bible scholars contend that keys indicate that the recipient is to open something with them. You can hardly dismiss that as a possibility, eh?

Was there something about the Church on Earth that Peter went on to open--no theories, no speculation about passing powers on to someone Christ had not commissioned, just that Peter went out and did some opening with the "keys" that we know to be the case?

If a NON Catholic agreed to what the keys symbolized, they would not be divided from the key holder, would they? :scratch:
SO it is evident that those seperated have a different idea.

But the whole point of the keys in Isaias is pretty clear.
Jesus has the keys...
He will also remove the authority from the Jews.
Those two points are clear.

In Matthew, it is no mistake that He personally hands the 'keys' to Peter alone.
IF He was going to pass on equal authority, I believe He would have stated it to all at that moment, but He did not.
It was a specific structure of authority he handed to Peter. Which is not equal among them.
No where else does Christ hand keys to anyone else...ever.

Also, the fact Christ did that was to show Him handing over authority on earth as it is in Heaven. Meaning Peter was to be the one who would stand up in Christ's ministry keeping it 'through the Holy Spirit' from doctrinal error.

NOW we cannot compare how this was done in the Apostles time to ours, only because the Apostles were humble to Peter, and they had the Spirit of handing down the exact deposit of faith. Plus the Church was small and just starting out...compared to one billion members now.

Now we must rely on Tradition of the Apostles and scriptures to the best of our means. Which is why Christ kept the Advocate with His Church and gave a Chair of authority just as He did when Moses and henceforth had a Chair. That Chair's position was removed. The authority usurped and renewed in Peter and henceforth all the Apostles. Who were in union with Peter.

The keys mentioned are an important factor because it is the 'same' keys prophecied by Isaias, handed onwards by Christ, and mentioned again by Christ in Revelation.

:bow:

[WarriorAngel]

Matthew 19
26 And Jesus beholding, said to them: With men this is impossible: but with God all things are possible. 27 Then Peter answering, said to him: Behold we have left all things, and have followed thee: what therefore shall we have? 28 And Jesus said to them: Amen, I say to you, that you, who have followed me, in the regeneration, when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 29 And every one that hath left house, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall possess life everlasting. 30 And many that are first, shall be last: and the last shall be first.

Mark 9
33 But they held their peace, for in the way they had disputed among themselves, which of them should be the greatest. 34 And sitting down, he called the twelve, and saith to them: If any man desire to be first, he shall be the last of all, and the minister of all.

Luke 13
26 Then you shall begin to say: We have eaten and drunk in thy presence, and thou hast taught in our streets. 27 And he shall say to you: I know you not, whence you are: depart from me, all ye workers of iniquity. 28 There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when you shall see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out. 29 And there shall come from the east and the west, and the north and the south; and shall sit down in the kingdom of God. 30 And behold, they are last that shall be first; and they are first that shall be last.

[Albion]

If a NON Catholic agreed to what the keys symbolized, they would not be divided from the key holder, would they? :scratch:

I don't feel separated from Peter at all. He was a great Apostle and did with the keys what he was supposed to do. He was the first to open to the rest of the world the message of the Christ.

[WarriorAngel]

I don't feel separated from Peter at all. He was a great Apostle and did with the keys what he was supposed to do. He was the first to open to the rest of the world the message of the Christ.


AND....just as Moses passed on his chair, so did Peter.

What did Christ tell the ppl when they saw the Chair of Moses being rebuked?

He told them DO as they teach, but do not follow their sinning...
IE...the authority of that Chair was maintained in light of the presense of Christ...until He would die and the Chair passed onto Peter.
Hence Isaias' prophecy.

[Albion]

AND....just as Moses passed on his chair, so did Peter.

Every bishop ordinary passes on his chair.

[WarriorAngel]

Every bishop ordinary passes on his chair.

Yes, every Apostle has a chair.
But the Chair of Peter has the keys, and the teaching of doctrine.

As evidenced by the knowledge of the early Church pictorials in the catacombs.

[Albion]

Yes, every Apostle has a chair.

OK, then that means that all attempts to prove something on the basis of Peter's chair are off the mark.

But the Chair of Peter has the keys, and the teaching of doctrine.

I believe that it was to PETER that the keys were given, not to his chair. Is that right?

[prodromos]

In Matthew, it is no mistake that He personally hands the 'keys' to Peter alone.It is actually a grave mistake.

In Matt 16:18, Christ promises to give Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven. He does not give Peter the keys at this point, but in Matt 18:18 Christ fulfills His promise, giving the keys to all the Apostles.

[xristos.anesti]

The facts of the case are:

- keys were given to all of the Apostles - (Mt. 18, 18.)

- St. Peter was not autocratic leader, infallible supreme authority of the Church (Gal. 2,9.)

- Rome was not infallible, supreme authority of the Church until the time of Vatican I

- Rome was primate of the Church in honour because it was the Imperial City (Canons: 28th - IV EC (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P1W.HTM); 3rd - II EC (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_PQ.HTM))

- Rome did not have authority outside the borders of its bishopric (Canons: 6th - I EC (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P8.HTM); 2nd - II EC (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_PP.HTM); 8th - III EC (http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0835/_P13.HTM); etc)

- Rome is not the only Apostolic see (see prerogatives of bishops from canons of Ecumenical Councils).

- Rome is equal to all other great sees of the Holy Pentarchy in power but leads in honour - none are subordinated to her, nor is she the supreme authority of any kind).

- Constantinople being the New Rome has been accorded same privileges as the old Rome coming second after her in honour. (See canons of the Ecumenical Councils).

- If Rome was what the RCC says Rome was - then Antioch - by the same reasoning - should (also) be the infallible chair - for St. Peter founded this holy see.

Many years.

[Globalnomad]

Let me try to give this thread a new spin.

Suppose we reworded the dogma of infallibility in such a way that it would only apply when the Pope expresses a teaching that has been agreed by all the Patriarchs, or by an Ecumenical Council (thus basically emptying it of all real importance): would you still have problems with the Papacy?

[Albion]

Let me try to give this thread a new spin.

Suppose we reworded the dogma of infallibility in such a way that it would only apply when the Pope expresses a teaching that has been agreed by all the Patriarchs, or by an Ecumenical Council (thus basically emptying it of all real importance): would you still have problems with the Papacy?

I'm not sure if this is a toss-up question or intended only for one person. But I would not agree to the idea since the opinion of other bishops or even Ecumenical Councils is also open to error. But it would be a way of opening a dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox, I might suppose.

[Mary of Bethany]

I still don't think that would work, because we don't believe that any of our Bishops are infallible. Even Councils aren't considered infallible until they've been accepted as correct through the telescope of time. So then there is no reason for an "infallible" statement by any one person, since it would only be a re-statement of what was already proclaimed at the Council.

Does that make any sense?

Mary

[Globalnomad]

Yes, it does, thanks, and it was interesting to hear. I am not sure wht a "toss-up question" is, Albion, but this one was an open and quite sincere question - just to provoke some positive exchanges.

Glad to hear that you think it would open up dialogue. I wonder how we will be able to get on with it. For everybody's information (and to get our hopes up), I have it informally from Catholic authorities at the level of theology professors, bishops and Apostolic Delegates that there IS a lot of talk going on behind the scenes on how they could move on this point. The wording of the declaration on papal infallibility IS, apparently, seen as something of a blockage.

[prodromos]

Let me try to give this thread a new spin.

Suppose we reworded the dogma of infallibility in such a way that it would only apply when the Pope expresses a teaching that has been agreed by all the Patriarchs, or by an Ecumenical Council (thus basically emptying it of all real importance): would you still have problems with the Papacy?It would basically reduce it to the Pope only being infallible when he speaks the truth. This of course is true of anybody.

[Albion]

Yes, it does, thanks, and it was interesting to hear. I am not sure wht a "toss-up question" is, Albion, but this one was an open and quite sincere question - just to provoke some positive exchanges.

By "toss-up" I meant addressed to all readers. This is apparently what you meant as you explained here.

Glad to hear that you think it would open up dialogue. I wonder how we will be able to get on with it.

The reason that it is not likely to find approval from the Vatican is that it was confirmed by an (allegedly) Ecumenical Council, Vatican I. To modify the stand it took, for the sake of reunification, would be diplomatic but also would undermine the concept that the Council was infallible in itself.

However, there may be some wiggle room that I don't perceive. I think, for instance, that the RCC has agreed that the positions taken by Trent with regard to ministry and the Sacrament of the Altar were overemphasized. Also Transubstantiation, from the Fourth Lateran, has been described as only a strong way of asserting the Real Presence. So if these concessions can be made, maybe.

The wording of the declaration on papal infallibility IS, apparently, seen as something of a blockage.

Yeh, I do think that it has locked the Vatican in moreso than some other doctrinal pronouncements of the past.

[WarriorAngel]

I still don't think that would work, because we don't believe that any of our Bishops are infallible. Even Councils aren't considered infallible until they've been accepted as correct through the telescope of time. So then there is no reason for an "infallible" statement by any one person, since it would only be a re-statement of what was already proclaimed at the Council.

Does that make any sense?

Mary

What is most interesting to me is...if this is how the East feels, then the filioque should not even be an issue.

Because the telescope through time affirms that later years the Arians controversy surely needed that change.

Interesting aspect about that heresy is that it was infiltrated in the East for 40 years....
SO if the East resists the filioque, is it really a remnant of the prejudices of that era?

I mean....can we really honestly look at things objectively to see what underlying problems thwart our efforts for unity?

It would basically reduce it to the Pope only being infallible when he speaks the truth. This of course is true of anybody.

:wave: Ahem.

AS I have said, and have been overlooked or ignored, I do not know..
IS the Pope only speaks infallibly when he is defining and confirming the ancient teachings.

This has occurred rather infrequently.
And only in a reaffirmation of doctrines already taught....but doing so against heresies.

[Albion]

:wave: Ahem.

AS I have said, and have been overlooked or ignored, I do not know..
IS the Pope only speaks infallibly when he is defining and confirming the ancient teachings.

This has occurred rather infrequently.
And only in a reaffirmation of doctrines already taught....but doing so against heresies.

You may have missed his point. The Pope still claims to have the capability of being infallible. We can define when and under what circumstances, or we can say when he is NOT infallible and under what circumstances, but as long as he claims that he can judge what are ancient teachings, the barrier to reunification continues.

[WarriorAngel]

No, that is then a matter of interpretation of sola scriptura...
Tradition is clear on the Popes.

[Albion]

Tradition is clear on the Popes.

Do you have the idea that if you say it, it will become true?