Posted on 07/01/2005 2:22:18 AM PDT by kosta50
Kosta said "...+Paul went to see +Peter and +James.
You said "...No, the text only says that he went up "to see Peter". That he saw St. James incidentally doesn't mean that was the purpose of his visit.".
Well, Galatians 1:18 says Paul went up to Jerusalem to "confer" with Cephas and remained with him for 15 days. Most scholars believe this refers to the visit at the end of Acts 12. Considering this was his first visit to the mother Church since his conversion and Peter's position within the Church, I think it would be safe to say that "confer" probably means he went to ensure that he was teaching the same Gospel as the Apostles. Note in Galatians 1, Paul did not visit any other apostle except James, the brother of the Lord. I guess Peter's authority and knowledge of the Gospel was enough for Paul - he didn't have to seek out the other apostles.
As you note, he only went to see Cephas. I wonder why...
Regards
There is another possibility: that we classify our disagreements as "disputed and unresolved." This would allow both sides to maintain their positions as a matter of private judgment without having to call the other an heretic and would return us the the status quo ante, allowing us to admit to intercommunion. Although I fully accept the Catholic position I think that it is wrong to seek unanimity before reunion. There is too much thinking in a bipolar fashion: Catholic/Orthodox, Latin/Greek, Western/Eastern. Each side is afraid to come to an understanding, thinking that it must somehow be a surrender to the "other." These questions can be resolved with the help of the Holy Spirit but we first must start thinking in terms of resolving what is an internal dispute within a single Church rather that an external conflict between two separate churches in which one must cede to the other. This cannot happen overnight. We should put aside for the moment our disagreements and live as single Church united in Jesus Christ. After perhaps a century or more of living together then another generation can come together in an ecumenical council to resolve these disputed issues with the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
Nor would this be a false union. There has always been disagreements and ambiguities in Church Teaching. The Orthodox claim that they recognize the pope as the "first among equals," then start treating him like one: restore his name to the Mass, accept the validity of each others sacraments and allow intercommunion. Perhaps (and this is only a suggestion) some limited canonical authority could afford him without having to accept that this is of divine rather than ecclesial origin. Have the pope and other western bishops come to the East and celebrate the Mass with the eastern bishops.
This does not deny that we have real disagreements, but for the time being let it be between theologians and not between churches. Let us again start to think of ourselves as the western and eastern halves of one united Church and remember the prayer of our Lord: "that they may be one."
Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary - "Erastian,... adj:...advocating the doctrine of state supremacy in ecclesiastical affairs".
Caeseropapism is not found in this reference book, but Caesar modifies papism, thus Caeseropapism is a particular type of papism.
So, if the pontificate of popes Innocent III and Benedict VIII and the Medici popes was NOT Caeseropapist, what was it? Certainly not Erastian.
Now if you wish to allege that the policy of the Byzantine Emperors and the Russian Czars was Erastian, that's a seperate issue. It is, however, dealt with at an interesting website: http://www.geocities.com/kitezhgrad/monarchy/index.html You might want to visit it and take it up with the authorities there posted. In addition, there is an interesting historical study by Sir Steven Runciman based upon a series of lectures he gave at Hebrew Union College many years ago.
Your position Petrosius, in this post, is false ecumenism and it is flatly condemned in the "Synodicon of Orthodoxy". The anathema was issued in 1983. The Church is one. That's in the Nicene Creed. There is, as St. Paul said, "one body (the Church), and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism..." (Eph 4:4-5).
You're either in the Church or you are not in the Church. If I am in error as to doctrine, I am in heresy and I am therefore not in the Church and, again as St. Paul said, "most miserable"(ICor 15:19).
If that is the way that you want it, Graves, so be it:
You are in error as to doctrine. You are in heresy and you are therefore not in the Church and, again as St. Paul said, "most miserable."
As to the anathemas of the Orthodox: Little weight do I give to what are the opinions and decrees of what are only local synods.
Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia
At least you are now being consistent Petrosius, and for that I give you credit. But you cannot say what you said on your own authority as a Roman Catholic, unless you are yourself Pope Benedict XVI. So, if you are saying what you just said on your own authority, you are at odds with the Pope of Rome unless your position is consistent with his.
Is it?
My impression is that Pope Benedict XVI takes a far different view, as did also Pope John Paul II and Pope Paul VI. And my impression is that the College of Cardinals and the Roman episcopate follow the line of thinking on this of Pope Benedict XVI.
I know of none in the Roman camp who join you in your position, not even the societies of SSPX and SSPV. I do know of one the vagrant bishops (episcopi vagrantes) who might agree with you. He, of course, is not considered at all part of the mainstream. That would be Bishop Daniel Dolan. Are you a Dolanite?
This is basically a rationalization. The Church of the Seven Councils cannot accept the Pope of the Vatcian I and remain the Church of the Seven Councils. Likewise, we cannot accept your Filioque and remain true to that Church. And there is a laundry list of other issues that prevent us from communing with you and your Bishop of Rome -- the reason is very simple: we don't have the same faith we shared before you left.
The end to the dispute and unresolved issues can happen tomorrow. It's not likely, but Pope Benedict knows what that would entail -- return to the Church of the Seven Councils.
As for the Orthodox claim that the the eastern bishops can pass judgment unilaterally, historical inquiry will just not support it. At the time of Patriarch Michael's excommunication of the entire West, given that half of the bishops did not agree with him shows that there was no consensus within the Church. Thus, despite all the protestations of the Orthodox to the contrary, the judgment of the eastern bishops can rise no higher than that of private opinion and therefore all the charges that the Latins are heretics and outside the Church are vain and hollow.
Do you not realize that the argument that you posit can be stated as "I am right because I am right." Unless you can show me an ecumenical council that condemns filioque and declares that it in no way can be reconciled with past Teaching, you can quote the rulings of your local synods all you want to no effect. Why should I give more credence to their decrees than to the decrees of the councils and synods of the West?
It seems that the Orthodox have not learned from the Christological controversies (in which Rome never erred). At that time some were saying that Christ is true God therefore those who said that he is true man are heretics, and vice versa. The truth was that the statements that he is true God and that he is true man are both true and are reconcilable in the person of our Lord. In a similar way I maintain that the teachings of the Catholics and Orthodox on the Trinity are likewise reconcilable, and you have no authoritative statement from the whole Church to gainsay it.
In truth I suspect that you are uninterested in a reconciliation of the teaching because you are predisposed against reunion. In other words, the Schism causes the dispute rather than the dispute causing the Schism.
Not a rationalization but a return to the status of the Church before the split. A reading of the Greek Fathers showed that they often disagreed with one another. Should we consider those that held an opinion contrary to the Orthodox today as heretics and strike them from the list of Fathers and outside the Church?
Likewise, we cannot accept your Filioque
I am not asking you to accept the filioque or any other of the matter in dispute but rather to withhold judgment until it can be definitively settled by an ecumenical council under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
we don't have the same faith we shared before you left.
I know of no act of departure by the church in the West so your statement is without foundation. The division was caused by the actions of the Greeks, not the Latins.
The Church of the Seven Councils cannot accept the Pope of the Vatican I and remain the Church of the Seven Councils.
The Catholic Church is as much the Church of the Seven Councils as the Orthodox.
Much of this I'll not bother responding to as my previous responses offered you some suggestions which will, I believe, prove constructive should you elect to follow up on them. That, of course, is up to you.
As to "As for the Orthodox claim that the the eastern bishops can pass judgment unilaterally, historical inquiry will just not support it", here's an FYI: The anathema levelled against the Pope of Rome by the Ecumenical Patriarch in A.D. 1054 was concurred in by the other patriarchates (Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem). The Patriarchate of Carthage, as you know, had ceased to be operative by A.D. 1054, courtesy of the jihadists.
It is true that the anathema was lifted by EP Athenagoras of recent memory. To my knowledge, however, anathemas are not like excommunications, here today and gone tomorrow. They stick because they protect the Tradition. In this instance, the anathema protects the Tradition against specified Latin heresies, not just the filioque. The A.D. 1054 anathema was reconfirmed in a Sigillion issued in 1583 by a council called by EP Jeremias II the Illustrious and it was signed by the EP, Pope Sylvester of Alexandria and by Patriarch Sophronios of Jerusalem. This Sigillion was again reconfirmed by a Tome published in 1756 under the signatures of EP Cyril, Pope Matthew of Alexandria, and Patriarch Parthenios of Jerusalem. All of these documents are contained as appendices to the most recent edition of AGAINST FALSE UNION, q.v.
Er, not quite. It was a church of councils, without a pope.
Graves, do you not see that you are proving my point? All the anathemas that you mention are from only eastern sources. As a member of the Western Patriarchate, why should I give more credence to the decisions of the patriarchs in the East than to my own patriarch?
I was responding to just one point that you made, the one as to unilateral anathemas. My point was that the anathema of A.D. 1054 was not unilateral. It was quadrapartite (Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem). And the confirmations that followed were for the benefit of the Orthodox.
Now as to why all Roman Catholics should flee from Pope Benedict XVI to an Orthodox temple for admission as catechumens, let's say you were not a Roman Catholic but instead an Anglican under the Erastian spiritual guidance of Queen Elizabeth II. What do you think my answer should be to your own question? Or let's say you were a Lutheran under a Lutheran bishop. Same question. In all these instances, my answer is the same. Orthodoxy is preferable to heresy.
And Orthodoxy does not change. It does not suddenly become something else.
The West, by contrast has changed. It was one thing in 800 A.D. and by A.D. 1054 had become something else. Worse, yet, it has kept on changing through the years. Because of this a 16th century Roman Catholic would look at you guys today and would say, "Ya know what? You're nuts!" Why do you think so many RCs go to SSPV and SSPX chapels? For their health?
Back at you MarMema. Actually it had three hierarchs called "Pope": Alexandria, Carthage, and Rome.
As to the question of Anglicans or Lutherans in relation to the Catholic Church:
1) England and Germany are within the Patriarchate of the West, so even if you do not accept the authority of the Bishops of Rome as pope you must concede their right to act as Patriarch of the West. Michael I or the other eastern patriarchs, on the other had, never exercised jurisdiction over the western Church and therefore exceeded their authority as patriarchs.
2) Additionally, Pius III convened the Council of Trent to declare on the matter. (For the moment I will refrain from the discussion of whether this should be considered an ecumenical council [the Catholic POV] or a local synod of the Patriarchy of the West [the Orthodox POV I believe]). The point is that Pius wanted to remove all doubt about what the Church taught.
It is here that I would like to introduce the important difference between heresy and error. The (Roman Catholic) Code of Canon Law describes heresy as "the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith" [c.751] As I have pointed out before, even the Greek Fathers disagreed among themselves and some of them must have been in error. But at the time they were teaching with what they believed was the true mind of the Church and no one doubts that they would have changed their opinions if corrected by the Church. Therefore, although we might find error is some of their teachings we would not call them heretics.
This, I believe, should be the right attitude of the eastern bishops toward their western brothers. Patriarch Michael had every right to point out what he perceived as error in the pope and the western bishops. He erred, however, in unilaterally calling it heresy. In the past when there was a dispute within the Church a council was called to resolve the matter. This allowed two equally important things to happen: a) a final resolution of the orthodox position, and b) a declaration of the decision to the whole Church. Those who were then merely in error were then given a chance to either conform themselves to Church teaching or to be recognized as true heretics, obstinate in their refusal to submit to the authority of the Church.
Patriarch Michael, however, short-circuited the process. He presumed to make a ruling on his own authority and required the bishops in the West to submit to his decision. (Pretty much acting in a pontifical manner.) This is why I keep insisting that there is no declaration by the entire Church which can call the filioque and other disputed issues heretical. The western bishops have not obstinately rejected the teaching of the Church. They propose that their formulations are in keeping with what the Church has always taught.
Nor can you appeal to the fact that four out of the five patriarchs joined in the condemnation of the West. The Church has never relied on only the consensus of the patriarchs but on the consensus of the entire body of bishops. By your own admission, the Orthodox believe that all bishops are equal. As such the western bishops should have by right been consulted before the declaration of heresy. If after the declaration of an ecumenical council (and for the sake of argument I will grant that it decided in favor of the eastern bishops) the pope and the western bishops continued in their position and denied the declared teaching of the Church then they could rightly be called heretical, obstinate in their rejection of Church authority. As it stand today, all we have are the private judgments of the eastern patriarchs and bishops. Even if he were correct on the theological question, Patriarch Michael sinned against charity in not consulting the entire body of bishops and giving the western bishops an manifest declaration of the entire Church to which they, the western bishops, could accept or reject.
"Even if he were correct on the theological question, Patriarch Michael sinned against charity in not consulting the entire body of bishops and giving the western bishops an manifest declaration of the entire Church to which they, the western bishops, could accept or reject."
The Western bishops got their chance 384 years later at the Council of Ferrara-Florence. St. Mark of Ephesus gave them what you say they deserved and they responded. The Council of Florence is well described by Ivan Ostroumoff in his history of it, q.v. Actually, the Latins had another opportunity in 1274 at Lyons. But nobody of St. Mark's calliber took part, at least none that I am aware of. It did, however, generate another anathema from the East against the filioque heresy in the form of the "Chapters Against Barlaam & Acindynus" proclaimed by the Council of Constantinople (1347) and of Blachernae (1351) found in the Synodicon of Orthodoxy.
I guess that allows you to ignore Vatican 1 & 2!
They may have used the title but none claimed to be an infallible human who could command all of the others.
I think you misunderstand my call for a council. By your reply it seems that you view the only purpose for such a council would be for the Latin bishops to accept or reject what was already decided by the Greeks. Rather, as an ecumenical council composed of all the bishops of the Church, and guided by the Holy Spirit, it (and not the Greeks alone) would make the final declaration of the orthodox position and make that decision manifest to the entire Church. Only then would the bishops, both Greek and Latin, be compelled to accept its decision.
With all due respect to St. Mark of Ephesus (and notice that I have no problem with addressing him as such), he of himself was not an ecumenical council nor did his private opinions make manifest to all the true teaching of the entire Church. Despite his holiness and learning his private opinions hold no more weight on their own than those of St. Augustine.
We will disagree on the nature of the Council of Florence (I take it as a true ecumenical council while you will see it only as a local synod to the Western Patriarchate) but St. Mark of Ephesus only represent another local Greek authority. His opinions should be given due respect to be sure, but can in no way be considered definitive.
You mentioned the Council of Constantinople of 1347. Why should I give it more credence than you give to the Council of Florence? The best that you could say is that they are both local synods.
I take them both as true ecumenical councils but I could understand why the Orthodox would look on them as only local synods of the Western Patriarchate. If we were to follow my suggestion however their true status would be left to a future undisputed ecumenical council in which all the bishops, both east and west, would participate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.